Judging Music: Being there vs. historical perspective

General music discussion.
Post Reply
matedog
User avatar
Purveyor of Hoyistic Thought
Posts: 25797
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
Location: 1995

Judging Music: Being there vs. historical perspective

Post by matedog »

I remember occasionally CK would frustratingly pull out the "you had to be there" card during musical debates. On one hand, the initial impact and scene "of the times" are very important, on the other hand being able to take a step back and analyze something's true essence and after shocks seems like a potentially less biased way of judging music. Any thoughts?
Look, you have to establish context for these things. And I maintain that unless you appreciate the Fall of Constantinople, the Great Fire of London, and Mickey Mantle's fatalist alcoholism, live Freddy makes no sense. If you want to half-ass it, fine, go call Simon Schama to do the appendix.

Wolter
User avatar
Half Foghorn Leghorn, Half Albert Brooks
Posts: 55432
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 7:59pm
Location: ¡HOLIDAY RO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-OAD!

Re: Judging Music: Being there vs. historical perspective

Post by Wolter »

I think "you had to be there," works for understanding a scene and why a band seems important to people on an intangible level. But I also think distance and perspective are important if you want to judge long term potential. So I'm going to sit squarely in the middle and take no stand.[/Canada]
”INDER LOCK THE THE KISS THREAD IVE REALISED IM A PRZE IDOOT” - Thomas Jefferson

"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115975
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: Judging Music: Being there vs. historical perspective

Post by Dr. Medulla »

I'll continue Bea Stanley's point with an analogy. There is a thick crowd of people on the street. You are in the middle of it. Someone is high on a rooftop and can see the full scope of the crowd's size—its periphery, its approximate size, etc. Who has the best claim to describing the nature of the crowd? You can better gauge the emotions of the people around you, but the other guy can provide descriptions that you can't. You each have valuable but incomplete information for a full description. So "you had to be there" is a valid point to make inasmuch as it adds to the understanding, but not as some kind of trump that invalidates the long term view.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft

matedog
User avatar
Purveyor of Hoyistic Thought
Posts: 25797
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
Location: 1995

Re: Judging Music: Being there vs. historical perspective

Post by matedog »

Dr. Medulla wrote:I'll continue Bea Stanley's point with an analogy. There is a thick crowd of people on the street. You are in the middle of it. Someone is high on a rooftop and can see the full scope of the crowd's size—its periphery, its approximate size, etc. Who has the best claim to describing the nature of the crowd? You can better gauge the emotions of the people around you, but the other guy can provide descriptions that you can't. You each have valuable but incomplete information for a full description. So "you had to be there" is a valid point to make inasmuch as it adds to the understanding, but not as some kind of trump that invalidates the long term view.
I guess there isn't much to debate.
Image
Look, you have to establish context for these things. And I maintain that unless you appreciate the Fall of Constantinople, the Great Fire of London, and Mickey Mantle's fatalist alcoholism, live Freddy makes no sense. If you want to half-ass it, fine, go call Simon Schama to do the appendix.

Post Reply