Quote from: Goat93 on July 09, 2011, 12:40:21 PM
I think thats two different Things. To Criticsm something or to look at a Artwork has not really a Common Point in my eyes. Or better said, here you see better hows different between "own Personal Views" and Critism what should work over your Personal Views. I differ between Personal Views and Common Critism, since in Political Discussions the own View is irrelevant. If you Critisice a "Political" Work like this Music, its totaly OK if you say, that you dont like it or that its ooverused or that has no effect on You. But thats an other Theme than your say "The Politival Working don't work, since it must be challenging the Government" or anything like that. First one is YOUR Opinion about it, other is a Message about the Political (or Ideological) Matter.
I really don't see how criticizing an artwork or something else is really that different? When you're criticizing something you always do this based on your own personal knowledge - and in this case, if you're actually agreeing with the rhetoric that CR are using, then you won't be criticizing it in the first place. Political discussion will always be subjective, albeit perhaps grounded in objective fact, but the value you apply to certain political content will always be subjective. Politics are subjectivity, there is no such thing as "objective politics".
Again, I'm not criticizing CR's political views as WP supremacists or whatever, I'm criticizing their way of expressing these views - and this critique is obviously subjective as I'm applying certain value to modes of expression, but I'm also analyzing it in a political context that is based on observation. I've never at any point said that I wasn't expressing my own views on the topic. So trying to undermine my argument based on the fact that it's based on my own subjective analysis of objective things, themes or facts is hardly a knock-down argument - my points still hold just as fine.
But let's not get into a discussion about subjectivity vs. objectivity - it's a philosophical discussion that'll take this too far off course and doesn't hold that much relevance to the discussion at hand.
QuoteThis is a Political Speech of Walter Ubricht, since before the Building of the Wall in Germany. he says "Nobody have the Intention to buld a Wall". Very Famous Speech btw.
If you only look at the Speech and NOT to that, whats behind, the Speech is normal and not really important. Only the Fact, where he is, why he said that and whats happend afterwards makes it Important at all. So i think it IS Important to look after the Intention of the Artist, Speecher or whoever to Interpret his Intention to Critism him. Otherwise the Critism is Meaningless or maybe just Personal.
As I also said earlier, then there is no one way to analyze or critique. In some instances looking at motivation and intention can be favorable and lead to clarification of things, other times it's perfectly fine to just analyze a given thing based on the thing itself.
In this case I can't look at the intention of the artist, as I'm expecting most, if not everyone else, on this messageboard can't either - because we don't know it. It's therefore pointless to try to speculate what the intention is - and seeing as this track can easily be analyzed and criticized based on just the content itself, and as my criticism is based on the way the views are expressed in the video, then the intention behind it is really not important.
QuoteWhats a Bonehead Quality?
The Video i linked is from this Bonehead Scene and other Folk Musicicians like Frank Rennicke are there as well. There is no "W hate all 24/7" Music Scene in the WP Movement. For example the Singer one of the Biggest WP/RAC Music Group (Stahlgewitter) have had played in a Metal/Fun Band before and this Band went into Right Winged Music really fast. As Right Winged Metal/RAC Music Group they have songs about:
The "bonehead quality" is here a quality that was applied to CR's rhetoric & track, to point out a line between it and the aggressive, crude side of WP rock. This was done to try to "legitimize" the rhetoric in the track and try to apply this WP rock attitude to the suspected intention of CR.
Again, since the focus was on the aggressive, crude side of WP rock and it's hateful expressions, then it's fairly irrelevant that there's WP bands that have songs about fun stuff like crabs.
Also, again, since I'm not trying to analyze the intention of CR, then this doesn't matter too much to me.
QuoteYeah, but nothing more than a Personal View. Most ( Ideolocal )Music works about repeating. See in Chart Music at its best. So, on one Side you have Innovative and Intelligence Music, but to be true there won't be much people to reach with it. Otherwise you have Overused and Simple Music with Simple Lyrical Structure and thats the Point where you reach People. So, if someone want th reach much people, he have to use Simple Music. Thats a Fact. Otherwise since it is a P:e Act, i don't think, that the Artist really want to reach many People with it as a Political Doctrine. For that the Music is not Rythmic and Easy enought. Here is again important to check up the Intention of the Artist. Your Critism Points may be Aspects what the Artist actually himself want instead of avoid.
As Example, how much people would listen to John Zorn instead of Lady Gaga?
There's a couple of objections here. First off, most of the chart music isn't strongly political in the sense that for example CR or a lot punk or whatever groups are, it should therefore also be analyzed on a different basis - the critique is based on the fact that this CR track is of political nature with a political agenda. And just because you're choosing to work within a niche genre, I think you should be careful to conclude that the artist or political statements aren't made to express something bigger and reach a bigger group of people.
Take Crass for example: they chose to work within a very niche (at the time) genre, yet had strongly political views and expressed and advocated for political change - they were strongly activist and made strong use of intelligent information and propaganda. Would it be fair to say that because they chose to play punk, then they weren't trying to change the political climate of the time and weren't trying to reach out and reach as wide an audience as possible for them?
Also intelligent and innovative isn't something that exclusive to fringe genres, it can easily be applied to chart and pop music. For example a lot of Lady Gaga's success, just to use your example, is exactly because she makes innovative use of pop music. She incorporates intelligent and provocative/challenging dynamics, structures and visuals into an otherwise fairly generic mold of music. She still creates danceable, mainstream-suitable music, but she does so with an edge that challenges the common listener and has an image that causes discussion (and gossiping, obviously) ... mission accomplished. So actually she's a pretty good example of my above point.
