 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 21, 2010 - 2:44 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
Don't get me wrong; I think that both Kevin's and ahem's topic ideas are perfectly valid and interesting in themselves; both are meta-topics, which are sorely needed around here. No, the problem appears only when the replies roll in.
First of all, some of those annoying generalizations - invalid and narrowminded as they may seem to everyone else - are actually opinions HELD by some of the members. In fact, some wouldn't call them generalizations at all, so they feel an urge to DEFEND themselves against a marginalization of said opinions. This, in turn, causes the thread to steer away from the meta-perspective and instead succumb to YET ANOTHER discussion of whatever annoying generalization was being brought up, with people actually USING those selfsame generalizations as arguments once more!!! It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy or whatever it's called.
I find it a curious phenomenon, to say the least, but it just shows that although the intentions of such a topic are good, it's quite difficult to get them to work in praxis. Unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry Thor. I just thought you were in the "Generally Annoying" thread 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with "annoying generalizations" thread is that it is Meta-Crapolla. And so is this new one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 22, 2010 - 1:19 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Sarge
(Member)
|
Don't get me wrong; I think that both Kevin's and ahem's topic ideas are perfectly valid and interesting in themselves; both are meta-topics, which are sorely needed around here. No, the problem appears only when the replies roll in.
First of all, some of those annoying generalizations - invalid and narrowminded as they may seem to everyone else - are actually opinions HELD by some of the members. In fact, some wouldn't call them generalizations at all, so they feel an urge to DEFEND themselves against a marginalization of said opinions. This, in turn, causes the thread to steer away from the meta-perspective and instead succumb to YET ANOTHER discussion of whatever annoying generalization was being brought up, with people actually USING those selfsame generalizations as arguments once more!!! It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy or whatever it's called.
I find it a curious phenomenon, to say the least, but it just shows that although the intentions of such a topic are good, it's quite difficult to get them to work in praxis. Unfortunately.
Based on this ponderous, rambling, pathologically pretentious nonsense, I'm tempted to start a thread entitled, "The problem with threads that bore the living s**t out of you"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 22, 2010 - 3:29 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
Well, I'm pleased to see that so many takes the subject seriously (<-- that's sarcasm, by the way). Not that I really had expected anything else around here, I must admit. I'm just surprised it took so long before the first personal insult fell. 
This is something you will have to "know" through listening to hundreds of scores during those twenty years, yet there will always be hundreds of other scores you will never get the chance to hear. This will always be an opinion based on your longstanding experiences acquired by watching TV and going to the cinema
I think that is the most dangerous thing of all; extracting some sort of general truth based only on your own, often limited experiences. That's the foundation of destructive prejudice. It's fine if you base your own preference on that, but that's as far as it goes. It would be far better to say that "OK, I didn't like what I heard in that category, but my door is open in case something else pops up in the same category in the future". It's an ATTITUDE issue, first and foremost.
More importantly, though, I think it would be far more fruitful to FOCUS the discussion on specific things, whether it is the Remote Control action sound, Georges Delerue's romantic music, urban/gritty 70's jazz and so on - existing, tangible sizes that can form a common point-of-departure (and then perhaps be even MORE specific once the discussion gets going). If you start off with "film music nowadays...." or "all synth scores..." or other such sweeping generalizations that go WAY beyond your own experience, it will mean a thousand things to different people, so you have no common ground. Hence it becomes a pointless discussion.
I realize that I'm probably fighting a lost cause here (like the C&C thing), since many fans probably just want to go with their "gut response" on any given issue (which immediately means an annoying generalization) and don't really care about having an interesting, constructive discourse or debate. But it's a fight worth fighting for, I think, if messageboards like these are going to serve a purpose beyond an announcement board for film music labels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 22, 2010 - 3:43 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
tobid
(Member)
|
Don't get me wrong; I think that both Kevin's and ahem's topic ideas are perfectly valid and interesting in themselves; both are meta-topics, which are sorely needed around here. No, the problem appears only when the replies roll in.
First of all, some of those annoying generalizations - invalid and narrowminded as they may seem to everyone else - are actually opinions HELD by some of the members. In fact, some wouldn't call them generalizations at all, so they feel an urge to DEFEND themselves against a marginalization of said opinions. This, in turn, causes the thread to steer away from the meta-perspective and instead succumb to YET ANOTHER discussion of whatever annoying generalization was being brought up, with people actually USING those selfsame generalizations as arguments once more!!! It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy or whatever it's called.
I find it a curious phenomenon, to say the least, but it just shows that although the intentions of such a topic are good, it's quite difficult to get them to work in praxis. Unfortunately.
That's pretty much how most academic discussions work too, only that they use more scientific terms than the usual fan of movie music.
What interests me is that you see this as a "problem" with these generally valid threads, implying that they actually should be taking a different turn. But I don't really see where those topics are supposed to head. If we are supposed to just name the generalizations that annoy us, we never really reach any meta-level, we are just stating our oppinion. If we discuss the generalizations we don't agree on, you say we leave the meta-level. Where would you like these threads to lead to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 22, 2010 - 3:50 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
That's pretty much how most academic discussions work too, only that they use more scientific terms than the usual fan of movie music.
What interests me is that you see this as a "problem" with these generally valid threads, implying that they actually should be taking a different turn. But I don't really see where those topics are supposed to head. If we are supposed to just name the generalizations that annoy us, we never really reach any meta-level, we are just stating our oppinion. If we discuss the generalizations we don't agree on, you say we leave the meta-level. Where would you like these threads to lead to?
Ideally like where this one goes (had it been treated seriously). Those threads were - in addition to actually IDENTIFYING such annoying generalizations - an opportunity to ask WHY those generalizations appear in the first place. Also, perhaps, WHO uses them and so on. As it turned out, once a generalization was identified, say "film music was so much better back in the day", the discussion BECOMES that generalization with people actually using it as their argument all over again. And since we've had about a million other threads on that issue before, I find that LESS interesting than go BEHIND the question and ask WHY it is the way it is. But it seems like I'm probably alone in that curiousity. Many are just content going zombie-like in everlasting loop on the same pointless issue over and over again...never really talking TO each other, but PAST each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 22, 2010 - 4:19 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
follow me
(Member)
|
I think that is the most dangerous thing of all; extracting some sort of general truth based only on your own, often limited experiences. That's the foundation of destructive prejudice.
Yes and no. "Extracting some sort of general thruth" based on the experiences of many people (experts?) doesn´t necessarily make things any more accurate. You just get the opinion of a "crowd" instead of an individual which can be just as wrong.
(one time EVERYBODY (and all the experts) thought the earth was flat, they also thought travelling with the speed of a train will kill people because the human body would not sustain such a strain etc etc)
Well, my door IS still open in case something else pops up in the same category in the future - but my hope decreases year by year...
More importantly, though, I think it would be far more fruitful to FOCUS the discussion on specific things, whether it is the Remote Control action sound, Georges Delerue's romantic music, urban/gritty 70's jazz and so on - existing, tangible sizes that can form a common point-of-departure (and then perhaps be even MORE specific once the discussion gets going).
On the other hand this may turn out to be the method of politicians: talking, talking, talking about all kinds of "subordinate" things until you have forgotten the original topic.
If you start off with "film music nowadays...." or "all synth scores..." or other such sweeping generalizations that go WAY beyond your own experience, it will mean a thousand things to different people, so you have no common ground. Hence it becomes a pointless discussion.
I don´t think so. Firstly, I don´t think that those generalizations really go WAY beyond my own experience. Seeing films on TV/in the cinema more or less every day gives you quite a high level of experience. Not knowing the odd film from Bolivia or China or Uganda does not really make my statement invalid.
Secondly, this forum is proof that many people KNOW EXACTELY what one means when he says "filmmusic today...etc"! I think there is a lot of common ground here for many forum members.
I realize that I'm probably fighting a lost cause here (like the C&C thing), since many fans probably just want to go with their "gut response" on any given issue (which immediately means an annoying generalization) and don't really care about having an interesting, constructive discourse or debate. But it's a fight worth fighting for, I think, if messageboards like these are going to serve a purpose beyond an announcement board for film music labels.
You can, of course, have interesting discourses or debates by banning those "evil generalizations". I just don´t think that they will be any more valid or constructive in the end. They will remain interesting conversations without any real result or any valid conclusion - in other words: in the end you will get the same result as when using those eg´s (evil generalizations)...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 22, 2010 - 4:31 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
Yes and no. "Extracting some sort of general thruth" based on the experiences of many people (experts?) doesn´t necessarily make things any more accurate. You just get the opinion of a "crowd" instead of an individual which can be just as wrong.
Probably, yeah. Which is why one should steer clear of them altogether.
Well, my door IS still open in case something else pops up in the same category in the future - but my hope decreases year by year...
That's good to know, at least.
On the other hand this may turn out to be the method of politicians: talking, talking, talking about all kinds of "subordinate" things until you have forgotten the original topic.
A conversation goes wherever a conversation goes. The only important thing is to have a common ground, to use common terms and so on. If you start off with sweeping generalizations, it's difficult to have that. At least it would require immediate specification in order to move on in any kind of fruitful fashion.
I don´t think so. Firstly, I don´t think that those generalizations really go WAY beyond my own experience. Seeing films on TV/in the cinema more or less every day gives you quite a high level of experience. Not knowing the odd film from Bolivia or China or Uganda does not really make my statement invalid.
I'm sorry, follow me, but even if you were the greatest expert on film/TV/film music in the world, that still wouldn't give you the right to put everything in one large box and criticize it accordingly. As I said, it's not a question of what you've seen or not seen (you're free to say what you like or don't like of the things you've experienced), it's a question of perspective. If you say "film music today sucks!", how am I to know whether you're talking about Remote Control, Elliot Goldenthal, Polish composers, Bollywood or Quentin Tarantino? SPECIFICITY, that's the crucial thing. I didn't realize it was so controversial to ask for that?
Secondly, this forum is proof that many people KNOW EXACTELY what one means when he says "filmmusic today...etc"! I think there is a lot of common ground here for many forum members.
I don't agree with that assessment at all, and the only way to find out is to ASK people what they mean (those who use that generalization, anyway). And BOOM!, you're on the track, you're asking for specification.
You can, of course, have interesting discourses or debates by banning those "evil generalizations". I just don´t think that they will be any more valid or constructive in the end. They will remain interesting conversations without any real result or any valid conclusion - in other words: in the end you will get the same result as when using those eg´s (evil generalizations)...
I don't think so. You'll end up actually discussing SOME tangible thing rather than some abstract, non-existant generalization. So you may actually LEARN something new rather than just hurling aimless generalizations towards each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 22, 2010 - 5:11 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
follow me
(Member)
|
Probably, yeah. Which is why one should steer clear of them altogether.
That´s also very problematic. It smells a bit like Orwell ("no animal shall use generalizations"). 
I'm sorry, follow me, but even if you were the greatest expert on film/TV/film music in the world, that still wouldn't give you the right to put everything in one large box and criticize it accordingly. As I said, it's not a question of what you've seen or not seen (you're free to say what you like or don't like of the things you've experienced), it's a question of perspective. If you say "film music today sucks!", how am I to know whether you're talking about Remote Control, Elliot Goldenthal, Polish composers, Bollywood or Quentin Tarantino?
It certainly implies that I basically mean all of them AND THEN I can tell you - one by one - my exceptions to the rule. Exceptions are always inherent, even in "sweeping generalizations"! Therefore, I think, one has the right to put everything in one large box because normally people will understand that this means a purposefully calculated amount of exaggerations and that there will ALWAYS be exceptions to the rule.
I don't think so. You'll end up actually discussing SOME tangible thing rather than some abstract, non-existant generalization. So you may actually LEARN something new rather than just hurling aimless generalizations towards each other.
Tangible - yes. But miles away from the original topic, missing your point, running your ship aground on Great Barrier Reef.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 22, 2010 - 5:23 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
I must admit that this one of the first times I've found myself in the absurd situation of actually defending specification in debates (and vice versa having to point out the pitfalls of broad generalizations)!  Only on the FSM board....
That´s also very problematic. It smells a bit like Orwell ("no animal shall use generalizations").
Of course, I'm not talking about generalizations per se. Any discussion will have a certain amount of generalizations, and they are really crucial components in that regard (heck, even this sentence is one of them!). No, I'm only talking about BROAD ones, those that are so broad that they practically lose all meaning. Those are the ones we're talking about here.
It certainly implies that I basically mean all of them AND THEN I can tell you - one by one - my exceptions to the rule. Exceptions are always inherent, even in "sweeping generalizations"! Therefore, I think, one has the right to put everything in one large box because normally people will understand that this means a purposefully calculated amount of exaggerations and that there will ALWAYS be exceptions to the rule.
I still think it would be more fruitful and clear to everyone else to say WHAT it was you had a problem with, exactly. What may be clear in your head may not be so clear to everyone listening to you, so you need to communicate it well enough. You need to list the issues that bother you, rather than just assume we can read your mind.
Tangible - yes. But miles away from the original topic, missing your point, running your ship aground on Great Barrier Reef.
Uhm...no, not necessarily. I don't know why you say that, nor what it has to do with the topic in question. As I said earlier, a conversation has a natural flow and goes wherever it goes - sometimes staying on-topic, sometimes not. It is, however, more likely that it will stay on-topic if you discuss some specific issue rather than some broad, non-existant thing that no one but you know the meaning of. Other times, it's not so interesting staying on-topic anyway, as the original discussion may have lost its muster and the spin-off thing is more interesting. That's how it works in inter-human communication.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 22, 2010 - 6:07 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
follow me
(Member)
|
Only on the FSM board....
I seriously doubt that this is true!
I still think it would be more fruitful and clear to everyone else to say WHAT it was you had a problem with, exactly. What may be clear in your head may not be so clear to everyone listening to you, so you need to communicate it well enough. You need to list the issues that bother you, rather than just assume we can read your mind.
I think I have already done this a number of times here - but I may come back to you regarding this demand of yours if I have more time at hand (those things tend to become VERY time-consuming)...
Uhm...no, not necessarily. I don't know why you say that, nor what it has to do with the topic in question.
Because, as I already said, involving oneself in discussions of minute details very often leads to overlooking the "big picture" (or the original question) - you have to take a step back to see it, not unlike the chaotic, sporadic coloured dots of a digital image that become a "photo" of a human being only after you look at it from a distance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 22, 2010 - 6:20 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
I seriously doubt that this is true!
Certainly in my experience. I've never encountered anyone who favoured broad generalizations over specific, concrete issues in discussions - neither online nor in real life.
I think I have already done this a number of times here - but I may come back to you regarding this demand of yours if I have more time at hand (those things tend to become VERY time-consuming)...
Well, you don't have to do it all it once. If there's a thread on Remote Control, you write your views on that, if it's a thread on Tarantino's use of music, you write your views on that etc. It's even possible to widen your criticism somewhat, e.g. talking about the aesthetics of contemporary, mainstream Hollywood action films and why you don't like them. Although, in the next step, you would obviously be asked WHAT it was that you didn't like and if you had any examples. So then the specification comes in right there.
Because, as I already said, involving oneself in discussions of minute details very often leads to overlooking the "big picture" (or the original question) - you have to take a step back to see it, not unlike the chaotic, sporadic coloured dots of a digital image that become a "photo" of a human being only after you look at it from a distance.
Thing is, I don't see it as "details". I see it as CONCRETE ISSUES! The faulty legal system in Congo or the new Health Reform in the US or Jean-Paul Sartre's views on existentialism are CONCRETE ISSUES. You don't get many listeners if you just went out and said "hey, what about that wacky Congo, eh?" or "What's up with America, anyway?" or "Sartre sucks!". Once the discussion gets going, the details appear, of course, but you need to have something concrete to focus on that we all can understand and grasp - not some abstract worldview that only exists in your mind. Or if you do - you need to specify it and make it tangible for the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This probably could go in one of the other threads about generalizations, but this one is the most active. So...
What is it that makes people draw general conclusions? Why do people form generalizations about film scores, for example? This is my take on it. Please note that I'm only commenting on the views of non-fans, not those who enjoy scores. Although, some of the more universal points can be applied.
Aside from classical, I can't think of any other music genre that gets dismissed as quickly (in fact, you can probably apply most of this to classic as well). The majority of the music listening public are primarily fans of the mainstream. Even if it comes from a different era, many will cross generations and enjoy contemporary music in many forms, as well as 80's pop and 60's rock. However, when it comes to film music they can't be bothered. Have you ever asked a person what kind of music they like? Is the answer ever "oh, I like everything"? That always brings a chuckle, because it hardly ever includes film scores.
The average person considers music something to dance to, to sing with, or to enliven their surroundings. In effect, they use it as life's underscore. The lyrics give them something to interact with on some level, something they can sing along with as they do things. This may be a leftover aspect of childhood when our parents and teachers used sing-alongs as a teaching method. I use it with my granddaughter. Perhaps is goes deeper, back to when songs were used to convey information or relate historical or legendary events. Maybe it's a subconscious inherited cultural response. Whichever, we could be conditioned to expect words over the instruments and respond to that format. Or it may only be simply a sign of the times. Centuries ago, classical music was like pop music to us. Whatever the majority enjoys is considered the standard level of normal. Whether one looks beyond that to find something more is a personal choice.
All though my lifetime, the general listening audience has considered music without words to be boring. Generally songs tell a story or pass along some message, even of it's a goof. One person riding in my car as I played a score asked me, "what's the point of this music?" Other comments: "where are the words?", "oh, it's just an instrumental," "is this classical?" Even rock CDs containing instrumental tracks get dismissed. While playing the track "The Brazilian" on the Genesis album Invisible Touch, my girlfriend at the time asked: "Can we skip this?" If you played "Eye of the Tiger" in the 80's, everyone got energized. If you played the same song without the vocals, very few people outside of a karaoke bar would enjoy it.
You will very rarely find someone sitting in a chair listening to a pop music CD from beginning to end. However, film music specialists (Thor, I'm stealing this), and fans of classical, seem to appreciate music for what it is rather than what it does (even though emotional response factors into it). Of course, we can, and do, use scores the same way others use songs, but we also find much to appreciate beneath the surface, often finding deeper compositional layers. To us, music is an interest, a passion. To them, music is "nice." It eases boredom and motivates movement. However, there are people who enjoy scores like everyone enjoys Justin Timberlake, simply as a musical experience. There are exceptions to every rule.
All of that leads to film music generalizations. A lack of interest in the genre keeps people from exploring it. They only hear underscore if it's made obvious, or if a popular film has a memorable theme, such as Jaws, Star Wars, and Indiana Jones. Since the majority of the memorable themes in the last 30 years have been composed by John Williams, he is lumped into the generalization. If the only film music a person has noticed came from Star Wars, then any orchestral score will sound like Star Wars to him. As popular as the Indiana Jones theme is, very few people actually want to own a copy. Or, if they do. They only want that theme, not the "other incidental crap."
Consider this: say you hate rap music. If someone asked you to listen to three rap songs, would you honestly be able to tell the difference? In the 80's, I couldn't differentiate between The Beastie Boys and Run DMC. It doesn't matter what the genre is, if you don't have in interest, you won't dig deeper. This can lead you to making generalizations. We're human, it's what we do (see? I just did it). The only reason we get it more is because "film scores" is the least popular musical genre of all music. The less popular you are, the easier the dismissal.
An amusing thing happened a year or so ago. People I work with know I love sci-fi and are pretty used to my having film scores playing at my desk. I am blessed with a fairly private cubicle, so I can get away with it. One day, I was listening to a score and someone stopped and asked, "playing your sci-fi music?" "No," I replied patiently. "It's from Spartacus." I needn’t have bothered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
