QuickDrop said:
peak_reception:
I'm gonna keep this quick because I think we've both now expressed our point of views to the point where we understand the other sufficiently.
I agree.
First, I want you to know I didn't find, or thought you intended, your responses to me to be aggressive. I gave an opinion and you had every right to argue with it. In fact, I'm happy that you did. I'm not someone who thinks that just because a topic can be described as "subjective" it means I can completely hide behind a "Well, that just my opinion so you can't argue with it" approach. At some point, it does boil down to personal taste but we should at least try to make someone else see our point of view. That's what open forums should be all about. And otherwise, we would end up content in our insularity and never learn anything.
Agreed again except that even in art there are limits to subjectivity. For example, the Kellie Pickler performance on A.I. I recently mentioned. Anyone with a keyboard and access to dbstalk could wander in here and proclaim her to be an immensely talented musician on the basis of that show (thank goodness nobody did). Would that opinion be just as valid as any other? Even if he (most likely a he) just limited his praise to saying how much he personally enjoyed it I would think the same as you wrote before; Tall, blond, push-up bra, plus thin and likeable; nothing musical involved.
Of course the hypothetical poster I'm talking about is entitled to his opinion but it would have no musical merit. I got into trouble here before saying something like this and probably will again :sure: because it sounds arrogant. Not where I'm coming from. I agree that musical
taste is subjective, yes, but that evaluation of musical performance is surprisingly objective. Notes are hit or they are missed. Voices are bull-bodied or they are thin. Phrasing is fluid or clumsy. Interpretation is forced or natural. The list goes on and on. Not a cut and dry checklist for sure but consisting of objective standards in music which are met or not met. There is a lot which is subjective too, thank goodness. I'm not arguing that music and art is equivalent to mathematics and engineering in objective nature.
Also, if I somehow seemed aggressive in my most recent response to you, I apologize. You pretty much gave a line by line response to my post and, our of respect, I thought you deserved the same.
No problem at all. I enjoy a good give and take.
As for McPhee, I just didn't think over all she was up to snuff, vocally or as a performer. Some on this board seemed to already agree with me on this, so I assumed people just accepted the negative criticisms of her as common (as would be the case with any contestant on the show who has received any notoriety from the program.) I also believe it's widely accepted that Daughtry getting voted off in lieu of McPhee was one of the more shocking moments in the show's history. Even she seemed stunned by it.
We get into a bit of apples and oranges here. Daughtry is a rocker, McPhee is classically trained. More A.I. viewers are probably attuned to rock than classical so in that sense it probably was quite a surprise. In the context of American Idol (broadly based popular music) she probably should've gone home before Daughtry since she was somewhat out of her element in a lot of the musical "themes" (thank goodness there was no "Rap" night for her sake :lol
. But I won't take too much criticism of her lying down (ha ha, pun intended
).
The one thing I do want to make clear is that like you I agree that a woman's sexuality can be as strong as a man's. I could be completely wrong, but McPhee seemed to be the first female contestant who successfully used sex appeal to make her mark on the show in a real way. As for the Over the Rainbow performance, if you don't like the words passive or submissive, let's just say I felt she expressed her sexuality in a "nurturing" manner. (I originally used the word "Freudian" for a reason.) If you want to go further into the idea that passive sexually in women is actually a strength, there are numerous articles and books by "pro sex feminists," headed that ever annoying contrarian Camille Paglia, who will tell you that strippers and porn stars are the true feminist icons of the day. I personally believe that topic is about as complicated and nuanced as discussing the merits of universal health care and would be better left as it is.
I think the moderators will lock the thread if we start talking about Camille Paglia
If there is anything you really believe I need to say further on this specific topic, let me know and I'll try my best to be clearer. Otherwise, I'll save my breath for another argument I'll surely get myself involved in. (How about Adam Lambert: too gay or not gay enough?)
Nah, I think we pretty well covered things. I appreciate the exchange. I respect where you're coming from though initially I did have reservations about your academic jargon. My b.s. detector alerted while reading your post #82, particularly on words such as "subtextual" which to me reflect either pretention or academia. The reason I didn't give you a hard time on that one is because on closer inspection I couldn't find fault with the way you were using it to analyze the point you were making. So the B.S. alert turned out to be a false alarm
and I held off. But then later on you started in on Katharine McPhee, including some disparaging descriptions, and that my friend was going too far
so I decided to push back a bit and see where it led to. And now we're friends so I'm glad I did. :icon_hug: You must be in academia though, right?