Jeff Tweedy talks about New Album to Spin

[Magnetized]

I know what you're trying to say. It is hard to articulate it, though.

 

Maybe it's easier to relate to what you're saying when you use two real extremes as examples, say, a black velvet Elvis painting vs. the Mona Lisa. There may be people who would prefer to look at velvet Elvises than the Mona Lisa, but nobody could possibly claim that the velvet Elvis is better art.

 

Does that help?

[Guest Speed Racer]

There may be people who would prefer to look at velvet Elvises than the Mona Lisa, but nobody could possibly claim that the velvet Elvis is better art.

 

I'm trying to look for an un-flippant way to say this, but I think the bigger point is "so what"? People might generally say the Mona Lisa is "better," museums might say they're "better," but what do people hang in their homes? As far as personal consumption is concerned, there's little value to being "better" or "best" from a critical or technical standpoint.

[JUDE]

Unless there have been some giant leaps in zombie technology that I haven’t heard of that can be applied to Jay Bennett(RIP) the odds of this album not sucking are approximately three thousand, seven hundred and twenty to one.

[Synthesizer Patel]

We are, but that's ok, I just disagree with the premise that art is only "good" if the so called artist uses proper technique and is critically acclaimed to be a genius.

 

nobody has said that. all we are saying is that some people are more capable of telling what is good and bad based on their knowledge. it's simply saying everyone is not equal to judge what is good or bad about a given thing.

 

can i just get this right, what you're saying is that art has no intrinsic value at all? which is the nihilistic view on all that stuff.

 

anyway, this is the future - wilco should take note....

 

[Guest Speed Racer]

nobody has said that. all we are saying is that some people are more capable of telling what is good and bad based on their knowledge. it's simply saying everyone is not equal to judge what is good or bad about a given thing.

 

"Oh man, I don't like that at all!"

"Awesome, dude, that rocks!"

"I'm so-so on that."

 

That is all anyone has to say, and all the knowledge they need is whatever it is that led them to those conclusions. So anyone with a pulse, plus or minus a coma.

[Synthesizer Patel]

"Oh man, I don't like that at all!"

"Awesome, dude, that rocks!"

"I'm so-so on that."

 

That is all anyone has to say, and all the knowledge they need is whatever it is that led them to those conclusions. So anyone with a pulse, plus or minus a coma.

 

and yet you reguarly ask why? . . . why?

[Guest Speed Racer]

Huh? ...Huh?

 

I don't know what you're getting at. You can ask people why they like what they like, or dislike what they dislike; that's not the same as...whatever you asked that isn't clear at all.

[Synthesizer Patel]

Huh? ...Huh?

 

I don't know what you're getting at. You can ask people why they like what they like, or dislike what they dislike; that's not the same as...whatever you asked that isn't clear at all.

 

my point is why ask them if it doesn't mean anything? there answer can't mean anything to you, surely? so why ask it? (that's 3 questions - fortunately i don't think that way, so i am interested in the answers)

[Guest Speed Racer]

Me: "I don't like Nels' Ashes solo at all."

You: "Why not?"

Me: "While it is technically proficient, it sounds completely void of the emotion that Jeff has played it with in the past, not to mention it sounds like something I would hear on a smooth jazz station."

You: "How very enlightening."

[Atticus]

Me: "I don't like Nels' Ashes solo at all."

You: "Why not?"

Me: "While it is technically proficient, it sounds completely void of the emotion that Jeff has played it with in the past, not to mention it sounds like something I would hear on a smooth jazz station."

You: "How very enlightening."

 

so Jeff is better than Nels. that's what you're saying.

[Guest Speed Racer]

To remove Wilco from the discussion:

 

Me: That was a delicious burrito.

You: Why is that?

Me: The ratio of beans, salsa, sour cream and guac were just perfect. The rice was fresh out of the pot, I added just enough lime to each bite.

You: It sounds as though the ingredients and their appropriate ratio allowed you to enjoy a fantastic lunch.

Me: You would be correct, good sir!

[Bosco]

nobody has said that. all we are saying is that some people are more capable of telling what is good and bad based on their knowledge. it's simply saying everyone is not equal to judge what is good or bad about a given thing.

 

can i just get this right, what you're saying is that art has no intrinsic value at all? which is the nihilistic view on all that stuff.

 

I'm saying you don't need to having any knowledge what so ever to call a piece of art good or bad, because it's in the eyes or ears of the listener or viewer, education may allow you to appreciate or understand the complexities involved, but in the end a piece of art is good only if you personally believe it to be good, and no one else's opinion (informed or not) has any relevance. The notion that some people are more capable of telling what is good or bad is absurd to me. Art isn't like math or science, there is no right or wrong, you either think it's good or not.

 

Look at it this way, I've done sound for some of what I would call the worst bands in the world, guitars not in tune, singers out of key, drummers that can't even keep time, and yet they had huge followings, hundreds (and even thousands) in the crowd for every show, I know the band was technically awful, but I would never call them "bad", or try and tell their fans the band sucked.

[Guest Speed Racer]

so Jeff is better than Nels. that's what you're saying.

 

To a point, yes. But asking "why," as the mock conversation illustrates, can be illuminating for interested parties.

[Synthesizer Patel]

so where does "well that's just your opinion" come in? i thought that's what you were in favour of

 

that person is incapable of having any more knowledge than you, in your world view. so you wouldn't ask, or you wouldn't be enlightened by the answer

[Guest Speed Racer]

so where does "well that's just your opinion" come in? i thought that's what you were in favour of

 

"That's just your opinion" is a feeling you find deep inside yourself, when you listen to Nels' solo and think, "I like this." If you don't like the solo, then "that's just your opinion" becomes, "that's an opinion we share," and then we smile and go grab some burritos.

[Bosco]

Me: "I don't like Nels' Ashes solo at all."

You: "Why not?"

Me: "While it is technically proficient, it sounds completely void of the emotion that Jeff has played it with in the past, not to mention it sounds like something I would hear on a smooth jazz station."

You: "How very enlightening."

 

While I may not agree with the assessment, that is nicely put, and pretty much my point.

[Guest Speed Racer]

that person is incapable of having any more knowledge than you, in your world view. so you wouldn't ask, or you wouldn't be enlightened by the answer

 

No one has more knowledge of your opinion than you do. That's why you enlighten someone else when you share your opinion with them. "I know more now; I know that Lauren does not care for Nels' Ashes solo."

 

While I may not agree with the assessment, that is nicely put, and pretty much my point.

 

Then we shall go grab a burrito. With all the Wilco/UT/Jay stuff they play at Chipotle, I imagine we wouldn't have a hard time hearing a song we could agree on.

[Bosco]

No one has more knowledge of your opinion than you do. That's why you enlighten someone else when you share your opinion with them. "I know more now; I know that Lauren does not care for Nels' Ashes solo."

 

 

 

Then we shall go grab a burrito. With all the Wilco/UT/Jay stuff they play at Chipotle, I imagine we wouldn't have a hard time hearing a song we could agree on.

 

 

Mmmmm, burritos, just don't let them be those veggie burritos they sold in the parking lot at Dead shows, they were really bad.

[Synthesizer Patel]

I'm saying you don't need to having any knowledge what so ever to call a piece of art good or bad, because it's in the eyes or ears of the listener or viewer, education may allow you to appreciate or understand the complexities involved, but in the end a piece of art is good only if you personally believe it to be good, and no one else's opinion (informed or not) has any relevance. The notion that some people are more capable of telling what is good or bad is absurd to me. Art isn't like math or science, there is no right or wrong, you either think it's good or not.

 

it is exactly like maths and science, it's not just like it, it is it. if it's possible to play a sound wave at a frequency that can make someone feel sick or give them a headache, which it is, it is therefore mathematically possible to put sound waves together to make people feel certain ways. therefore the ability to do that doesn't rely on the listener (well the listener with normal hearing - yet again you could say as some people have better hearing than other people they are therefore capable of hearing more in a piece of music than someone else)

 

what music do you listen to that break the rules of science and maths.

 

(this is a deja vue - i am sure last time i argued about this the idea that music is not maths was brought up - i don't think i changed the persons mind that time either)

[Guest Speed Racer]

therefore mathematically possible to put sound waves together to make people feel certain ways.

 

If that were the case then every single one of us would feel like ralphing when Nels solos during Ashes.

[Bosco]

it is exactly like maths and science, it's not just like it, it is it. if it's possible to play a sound wave at a frequency that can make someone feel sick or give them a headache, which it is, it is therefore mathematically possible to put sound waves together to make people feel certain ways. therefore the ability to do that doesn't rely on the listener (well the listener with normal hearing - yet again you could say as some people have better hearing than other people they are therefore capable of hearing more in a piece of music than someone else)

 

what music do you listen to that break the rules of science and maths.

 

(this is a deja vue - i am sure last time i argued about this the idea that music is not maths was brought up - i don't think i changed the persons mind that time either)

 

Obviously music is math, but with math there is only one answer, music isn't like that, lots of stuff sounds good in music that shouldn't based on theory.

 

We'll just have to aggree to disagree, you can go on thinking music can only be good because it's technically correct, I'll continue to believe music is good if the listener thinks it's good, and sometimes for no other reason then they sing "I really F***ed it up this time" in the chorus.

[mpolak21]

Unless there have been some giant leaps in zombie technology that I haven’t heard of that can be applied to Jay Bennett(RIP) the odds of this album not sucking are approximately three thousand, seven hundred and twenty to one.

 

So what you're saying is there's still hope.

[bleedorange]

I'm confused. Is everyone even talking about the same thing?

 

I think the people that say that art is only as good as the one perceiving it are usually trying to justify the fact that they like something pretty crappy.

 

Whether you like something actually has little bearing on the quality of the art. It just happens to be your preference. For instance, I can recognize that there are many talented jazz musicians who have made some very fine music. But I don't really like to listen to jazz. That doesn't mean that jazz music is not good art.

 

The converse of that is also true. I enjoy watching The Big Bang Theory. I find it entertaining and a pretty good sitcom. But I would never argue that I find it to be great art or a pinnacle of the medium.

[Synthesizer Patel]

"That's just your opinion" is a feeling you find deep inside yourself, when you listen to Nels' solo and think, "I like this." If you don't like the solo, then "that's just your opinion" becomes, "that's an opinion we share," and then we smile and go grab some burritos.

 

and when you don't like things and yet still see value in them, what happens then? or is that not possible?

 

also, so you put someone in front of some speakers and play them a Nels Cline solo once. they don't like it. you play it to them 50 times, and there opinion changes. having heard it 50 times, they love it now. there has been no other outside stimulous, therefore nothing else has changed besides the number of times they have heard the song. there first opinion is that they didn't like it (in your world view of things) - therefore it is acceptable for everyone to agree in some people's worlds the solo is crap - because this test person has said so. but, by the 50th time of listening to it this test person has suddenly changed there mind, having heard it 50 times and actually built up a knowledge of the piece of music. they may hate it even more, they may love it, or they may say - yes i can tolerate it now. so know we have to say that there opinion is still correct, eventhough it's different from their initial opinion. the problem is it's not possible to say that there opinion is correct EVER (if we take your view, i mean) because even in that controlled situation it is liable to fluctuate, and even if it doesn't, there is the notion that it could. the only thing you can say is that their opinion is inherently invalid, and therefore worthless.

[Atticus]

I'm confused. Is everyone even talking about the same thing?

 

I think the people that say that art is only as good as the one perceiving it are usually trying to justify the fact that they like something pretty crappy.

 

Whether you like something actually has little bearing on the quality of the art. It just happens to be your preference. For instance, I can recognize that there are many talented jazz musicians who have made some very fine music. But I don't really like to listen to jazz. That doesn't mean that jazz music is not good art.

 

The converse of that is also true. I enjoy watching The Big Bang Theory. I find it entertaining and a pretty good sitcom. But I would never argue that I find it to be great art or a pinnacle of the medium.

 

I think the fact that you think anyone needs to justify liking something that you or anyone else thinks is "crappy" (I realize in your world it IS crappy, not that you THINK it's crappy) conclusively answers your first question as "no"