EssentialTension

[quote name='GremlinAndy' post='394907' date='Jan 29 2009, 08:30 PM']Erm there just isn't. You agree that yourself, no?[/quote] Andy, I agree that there is no universally [i]accepted[/i] standard. I do not agree that it's necessarily clear that there [i]could not[/i] be an absolute standard which remains not universally accepted. However, what I think is most likely is that there are, in fact, several possible standards for what can be art. But I don't agree that one of those possible standards can be that something does become art or even can become art merely because any [i]one[/i] person says it is art - except in a particular sense and in a particular case: if a group of people, let's call them 'the artists/art critics/art galleries/art dealers/art buyers group', between themselves agree to institutionalise the production, critique, exhibiting, selling, buying, and collecting, etc., of works of art (which in fact they do) then, at least in practice, those works are art because the individuals involved have the social power to name what is to count as art in ways in which not everybody does. This is a kind of institutional theory of art. There could be at least several other [i]possible[/i] standards of what is to count as art, for example: imitation or represention; certain formal qualities; a family resemblance with objects already considered to be art; the expression of emotion or truth or beauty; etc. [quote name='GremlinAndy' post='394907' date='Jan 29 2009, 08:30 PM']Find a single piece of evidence which suggests there is [b]any[/b] sort of a standard for what *isn't* art and I will capitulate. (however, I have to add some kind of caveat here which suggests either "universally accepted", or at least "widely recognised" standard, or it will just come down to a single opinion, which just sidesteps the very point I was tying to make. See my "lights on" example later.)[/quote] Any standard for what is [i]not [/i]art must logically also be a standard for what is art by [i]inclusion of what is not art[/i] and [i]exclusion of what is art[/i]. Similarly, any standard for what is art must logically also be a standard for what is not art by [i]inclusion of what is art[/i] and [i]exclusion of what is not art[/i]. Such a standard, either way, must draw a line between what is and what is not art which is exactly what your claim that if 'someone says it's art then it is art', I think, fails to do. I would say this is a matter of the logic of setting up a standard and distinguishing between one thing and another. A standard must be able to distinguish between what is within the standard [i]and[/i] what is not within the standard. As such, it has nothing to do with any particular evidence. Nonetheless, as you asked, I will give an example of a 'sort of standard for what *isn't* art': anything the art institutions named above reject as not art (and also as art but as bad art) has been subjected to their standards of what is and isn't art etc. And I'd submit that this would count as a 'widely recognised' standard for what is and what isn't art. [quote name='GremlinAndy' post='394907' date='Jan 29 2009, 08:30 PM']The line "you can't establish that there isn't, merely by saying that not everyone accepts it" just misrepresents the statement I was making. I'm saying that there isn't a "universally accepted standard". It's a single sentence which says there isn't a 'universal standard' for people to agree or disagree with. I think thats just being pedantic about the way I wrote the point rather than actually forwarding your argument.[/quote] Saying, on the one hand, that there isn't a 'universally accepted standard' and saying, on the other hand, that there isn't a 'universal standard for people to agree or disagree with' are not the same thing. I don't think it is pedantry, I think they really mean different things. However, originally I had no intention to get into a discussion on the philosophy of art but merely intended what I thought was a humorous but friendly jest at your first post - hence the line about being a t****r. So, as this is a bass players site and not a philosophy of art site I am going to get out of this thread very soon. [quote name='GremlinAndy' post='394907' date='Jan 29 2009, 08:30 PM']Hmmmm I can see why you think I'm confused, but I'm really not. I possibly see it differently to you, you see. The way I see it is: Individuals DO decide if something *IS* art. But individuals (and even majorities) CAN'T decide something *ISN'T* art. To help explain this ask everyone in the world that has a lightswitch "Is a light on?" the answer, unless EVERYONE has their lights off is "Yes" The people with off lights don't get to decide. And I see it the same for art: "Is this object art?" If most people disagree, but just a few say "yeah, I think it's art" then who are the others to disagree. The others simply don't like the thing which some people consider art, and their opinions cant really change it.[/quote] Well, I guess you do see it differently to me but, really, I'm not trying to say how I see it so much as to establish what actually is the logic of the situation. I'm not clear how the lights analogy works because there is an easily understood and probably universally accepted standard for whether a light is on or not. I still cannot grasp why you think an individual can decide something is art but no-one can decide that it isn't art. [quote name='GremlinAndy' post='394907' date='Jan 29 2009, 08:30 PM']no I'm not. You just misrepresented my statement again. I have nothing to do with it. My light can be on or off. I'm just a lightswitch owner. I can make a thing art, as can you. A dictator would be someone who has the ability to turn his light off and everyone elses lights go off. And that's the reason I argue this point. I argue it for you, and I argue it for me. And even though no one else get it, and probably disagree with me, I STILL defend your right to use your switches as you wish, but DON'T SAY THE LIGHT IS OFF just because yours is off.[/quote] You said 'who reckons they're the king or nazi dictator, that has the right to decide what is art?' but your claim appears to be that if just one person says it is art then it is art whether I (or any other person) says it is not art; so that first person is now deciding what is to count as art for all the rest of us, dictating to us. Now, my complaint here is not that the dictation is taking place, as such, but that your position entails dictation but you don't see it. [quote name='GremlinAndy' post='394907' date='Jan 29 2009, 08:30 PM']Yes I realise this, which is why I wanted to head off the possibility of anyone still reading this, of suggesting daft examples, which my theory makes possible. I UNDERSTAND the unfortunate downside of my argument because it allows for silly examples of what can be called art, like pickled sharks and half cows... (except they ARE art) But please don't burn me alive for the "one person makes it art" standpoint. It's a theoretical minimum. 0 people = no light = not art. Anything above this leads to the "light on" response. And while it's hard to defend, I have to stand by it to be true to my argument. Call it a 'quantum defense of a statistically unlikely extreme'. erm I HOPE I answered this in an acceptible manner. Maybe you might even begrudgingly accept that I might have a point?[/quote] For me, gudge doesn't come into it, nor does winning or losing. I really like these kind of discussions and it's a sign of BC's maturity and tolerance that they can sometimes be had. But I am going to drop out of this and you can feel free to have the last word. I'm going to avoid the philosophy of art until the mods open up a special forum for it. (I have a feeling I may have said that before) By the way, the chainsaw bass which started this thread, I think there are many good reasons for calling it art, and I would call it art (comedy is an art isn't it?) but it's not as artful as either of my Fenders or my Lakland and I wouldn't have it in the house.

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='394568' date='Jan 29 2009, 02:06 PM']I deliberately haven't listened to it, but I still think it's the devil's work.[/quote] You could start a petition. Obviously it would have to be pen and paper and not on-line - so that us Luddites could sign it.

That was a bass ?

OK I picked on one post to respond to. I don't have time for more at present. [quote name='GremlinAndy' post='393324' date='Jan 28 2009, 12:43 AM']ULTIMATELY it boils down to this... Is there a universally accepted standard which dictates what is and is not art? No.[/quote] OK, I agree that there is no 'universally [i]accepted[/i] standard which dictates what is and is not art'. However, I'd be much more interested in whether there is a universal standard which dictates what is and is not art even if some people don't know what it is, or make a mistake about what it is, and so do not accept it. I'm not necessarily claiming that there is in fact such a universal standard but you can't establish that there isn't merely by saying that not everyone accepts it. [quote name='GremlinAndy' post='393324' date='Jan 28 2009, 12:43 AM']Do any one of us have the right to decide personally what is not art? No.[/quote] OK, I agree that no-one has 'the right to [i]decide personally[/i] what is not art'. However, first, this is because I don't recognise the existence of rights at all in the sense you put it. And, second, I don't accept that deciding whether there is a universal standard which dictates what is not art would be a personal matter anyway. And, third, I don't understand how you can say no-one has the right to decide what is not art without also thinking that no-one has the right to decide what is art - but in your next point you claim in effect that anyone has the 'the right to [i]decide personally[/i] what is art'. There's a lot of confusion here. [quote name='GremlinAndy' post='393324' date='Jan 28 2009, 12:43 AM']therefore if just ONE person says this is art.... It's hard to argue that it's not.[/quote] You said above that there was no 'universally [i]accepted[/i] standard which dictates what is and is not art'. Yet now you seem move towards a universal standard by saying 'if just ONE person says this is art.... It's hard to argue that it's not'. [quote name='GremlinAndy' post='393324' date='Jan 28 2009, 12:43 AM']I *know* this will lead to some *SILLY* example of art, but again... who reckons they're the king or nazi dictator, that has the right to decide what is art?[/quote] But you yourself are deciding what art is when you claim that art is whatever someone says is art. So you make yourself a king or dictator. Given your definition of art, I don't need any *SILLY* examples because according to you anything and everything can be art if someone says so. And if claiming something is art could make it art then couldn't claiming something is not art make it not art? You give no grounds (I believe because there aren't any) for accepting the first claim but rejecting the second.

[quote name='GremlinAndy' post='393214' date='Jan 27 2009, 09:50 PM']hah hah I think I won... I wasn't sure I'd even convinced myself. Maybe I bored everyone to death. I'll take it wherever I can get it though.... ....and that's ART![/quote] I've been busy. Response possibly forthcoming tomorrow. Mind you, I wouldn't want to bore everyone either. But, then again, they don't have to read it.

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='391732' date='Jan 26 2009, 01:42 PM']The study of music theory and the ability to sight read clearly is not sufficient in itself to bring on staleness and w*nkery. Other conditions include: "Bass Player" hats[/quote] Oh sh*t, I just bought one.

[quote name='GremlinAndy' post='391383' date='Jan 26 2009, 01:47 AM']We may not always understand, or like, some forms of art, but that doesn't define it. I don't like classical music, or punk, but are they any less music because of that? ...well no, obviously not.[/quote] Andy, I recognise as art many things that I don't like: for example, ABBA - definitely art, definitely good art, but I don't like it and would not normally listen to it. My comments weren't about liking or not, or value or not; it was with your definition of art that I was concerned. But, can I add that I thought the chainsawed bass was horrible. YMMV. [quote name='GremlinAndy' post='391383' date='Jan 26 2009, 01:47 AM']Hmmm, evidently not. I'm not talking about an eleven year olds notion of what I meant by debate. I'm going to assume you're being intentionally daft to make a fairly serious point about your take on what does or doesn't make art, rather than an actual viewpoint. [/quote] You correctly spotted my method of argument and it was, I hoped, amusing in its ridiculousness as well as intending a serious point. By 'an eleven year old's notion of ... debate' I guess you mean contradiction (e.g. 'oh, no it's not') as opposed to reasoned debate (e.g. 'I don't agree with that because...'). My problem is: if the aim of a lot of art is to start a debate and if attempting a reasoned debate about whether or not something is art necessarily validates it as art, then we seem to be in the world of contradiction not the world of reasoned argument. 'This is art' - 'No, it's not art because ...' - 'Oh yes it is' - 'No, it really can't be art because ...' - 'Yes, it is art, you just inadvertently validated it' - 'No, I didn't, it's not art because ...' - 'Ha ha, you can't win because I've got my fingers crossed' - etc. etc. So, while I'd accept that it may sometimes be an aim of a particular person to start a particular debate with a particular 'object', that alone cannot be enough to make something art. Also, some art does not aim to start a debate. So, in my view, aiming to start a debate is neither sufficient to warrant calling something art, nor would it be necessary to warrant calling something art. [quote name='GremlinAndy' post='391383' date='Jan 26 2009, 01:47 AM']Do I have to choose one of those two descriptions? [/quote] Yes

[quote name='thisnameistaken' post='390307' date='Jan 24 2009, 12:09 PM']I'd rather we just stop using the word "relic" as a verb. God missed the K off to show us that it wasn't a word that would naturally conjugate.[/quote] How do you like 'reliqued' from the archaic form [i]relique[/i] which has etymological basis in Old French [i]relique[/i] and Latin [i]reliquia[/i]? Or don't you like any form of reliquing?

[quote name='GremlinAndy' post='390254' date='Jan 24 2009, 10:42 AM']The aim of a lot of art is to start a debate. And if you enter a discussion about wether or not a thing is art, then you have probably and inadvertantly validated it as art.[/quote] So, if someone comes up to me in a pub and says: 'Are you looking at me Jimmy?' it means he's an artist. Have I understood correctly? And if I reply: 'You call that art, well you can f**k off', then I have proven that it is art. Have I understood correctly? Of course, I might say: 'OK, I accept that your statement is art but, frankly I've seen better art down my toilet pan'. If this forces him into continuing the debate, does it mean that I am an artist too? Or am I just a t****r.

Very nice indeed.

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='391094' date='Jan 25 2009, 05:58 PM']* Just realised I've left out the biggest offender of the lot - "Progressive" Metal. I'd rather go down on a tramp than listen to that nonsense. Music to paint Space Marines to.[/quote] Agreed on the progressive metal (or pretty much any other metal) but what is a space marine?

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='390866' date='Jan 25 2009, 12:08 PM']It's the fact that those of you who have the dicipline to learn theory don't have the dicipline to just play the root when required.[/quote] I know and value some theory and I'll often play a root note, sometimes eight times in one bar, and sometimes for many bars consecutively. When you call a note the 'root note' I'd say that is theory. You might not want to improve your knowledge of theory but don't pretend that you don't have any knowledge of theory at all.

[quote name='artisan' post='390256' date='Jan 24 2009, 10:45 AM']i'm with tBBC,it's all about fun for me & to be honest i can't be arsed to learn how to read music & in my 30 years of playing i've probably learnt all the theory i'm ever going to need,& i didn't have to read music for that. i'm mainly a blues/rock player & have written a fair few songs over the years,although i will admit it would sometimes have been handy to actually "write" the song down on papper correctly but hey who cares ? i'll just stick to playing for fun thanks.[/quote] I don't understand this distinction between 'fun' on the one hand and 'knowing some theory and being able to read notation' on the other hand. Several commentators here appear to think that music theory is not and could not be fun. That may well be their experience or their emotional response to it but it can't make it that it cannot be fun for anyone else. For me, music theory is fun and I wish I had more time to spend on it. In fact, where is my 'Levine', I think I'll do some now.

[quote name='dumelow' post='387845' date='Jan 21 2009, 06:32 PM']has anybody found a store website where you can do this over the website??? it seems to me like you can only go into a store and do this. im lazy, id love to do this from the comfort of my own couch[/quote] This [url="http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/takeitaway/questions.html"]page[/url] says 'Take it away loans are available on mail order purchases as well as those made in person at a participating store'.

[quote name='alexclaber' post='388652' date='Jan 22 2009, 03:55 PM']if I were playing jazz, even on bass guitar, I think it makes sense to stand on stage right because the ride is the main time keeping component of the kit[/quote] Despite what I said earlier about almost always on drummer's left, I think there might be something in what Alex says. In a new band I've been playing not exactly jazz but definitely jazzier stuff with a lot of timekeeping on the ride. The rehearsal studio is set up with the bass rig on the drummer's right and so that's where I am and it does seem to work.

Hi-hat side (drummer's left) almost without fail.

Is this my old Starfire still not with you?

[quote name='Rayman' post='388194' date='Jan 22 2009, 08:49 AM']I had one, it was brilliant. [b]In my opinion it never [i]quite[/i] sounded like a standard precision[/b], but was very versatile, and very easy to play. Great build quality too.[/quote] I agree never [i]quite[/i] like a standard P but close enough if you're not a thoroughgoing purist (and with lots of other sounds available too). I'm actually running mine tuned BEAD at the moment. Very happy.

I have an Amber/Rosewood American Deluxe. I love it. Great neck. Does P bass and J bass imitations and more sounds too. My only criticism is the lack of passive/active switching.

Does the book have a title?

[quote name='chris_b' post='384702' date='Jan 19 2009, 09:30 AM']He's playing the end section of the verse, running up to the chorus.[/quote] Agreed - and aimed at real beginners.

[quote name='Toasted' post='370689' date='Jan 5 2009, 10:30 AM']I find it strange that folks here say TB is too religious, considering religious discussion is 100% banned.[/quote] My feeling about that is that here you can have a discussion about religion (and most other things) but at TB you can go on about how great God is (for example in your signature) but that's all. The London bus would be banned at TB. Maybe I'm being too harsh.

[quote name='dlloyd' post='383678' date='Jan 18 2009, 12:35 AM']I'm only just getting into it properly now, and my experiences of Klezmer CDs have been pretty hit or miss. This looks like a decent list with some names I recognise.... [url="http://www.klezmershack.com/archives/007030.html"]http://www.klezmershack.com/archives/007030.html[/url][/quote] Thanks dll.

Slightly off topic I know but anyone recommmend some Klezmer to listen too - both of traditional and more contemporary varieties?