[deep] true nature of art, sucking, & art that truly sucks?

[brinstar]

i had an e-discussion with my friend mat about a local band (link will be provided later in the thread). i told him that i think the singer of said band "sucks" at singing, and he said i was being pompous. he then said that art is 100% subjective and interpretive in nature, and that asserting that art can/does "suck" is akin to projecting my own opinions on others, a habit usually found in assholes.

i told him that normally i would agree (for example, i have argued the same point many a time on this very board), and would feel guilty and concede.

however, i countered with the fact that in a prior discussion, mat himself had told me that the guy can't sing very well. then i raised the argument that on the edges of the bell curve, couldn't it be said that there is a definitive line between "being artistic" and "actually sucking"? the analogy i used was this: what if Zanchief*, without any further training, wrote a symphony? Assuming he's not some magical idiot savant with a latent talent for composition, couldn't it be argued that the result would actually suck? mat said that it would be "very interesting, but probably not something [he'd] want to listen to for very long." i told him that this was my exact opinion on the local band that had spawned the discussion. he said "fair enough" and then had to go.

i'm interested to hear your opinions on this matter. what is art? is there something definitive that makes it good or bad? is there a line that can be drawn that separates "art you don't like" and "art that actually isn't good"? is it possible for us to separate our personal opinions from our objective rationales long enough to decide which side of that line something falls on?

for the record: by art, i mean any kind of art-- sculpture, music, theatre, cinema, oil painting, whatever



*nothing personal, Zan! i replaced the name of a very nonmusical friend of ours with yours simply because i remembered recently seeing you say something about not caring whatsoever about music, and that concept was necessary to my analogy

[Tuggan]

"art" is all a matter of opinion. i don't think it's "pompous" to think or say something sucks, you're only a dickface if you insist on trying to get others to agree with you.

[Tikker]

I dunno, i think there's definitely a line between what sucks and what doesn't, no matter how artistic the intention

I know that my singing voice sucks in no uncertain terms

[Harrison]

Singing is a skill. You can suck at it.

On the same note, you can be a terrible vocalist and still be a good performer. It's very subjective.

[Drem]

Singing is a skill. You can suck at it.

On the same note, you can be a terrible vocalist and still be a good performer. It's very subjective.

that doesn't make any sense. the best blues singer probably can't sing opera. the best opera singer probably can't sing rock. the best yodeler probably can't sing R&B. blah blah blah. you are right about one thing tho, it's very subjective, and you just demonstrated that. every time you guys do a thread about "best vocalist" it's funny because y'all seem to think singing has one set of standards that everyone should be compared against.

but, most people do, and they have those standards made up for everything in the world. that's why all great artists and musicians generally aren't appreciated during their lifetimes. they're usually the people everyone loves to hate. like mozart, or dali

but me personally? it just comes down to effort/conviction for me. if someone's putting their heart and soul into something and it's really obvious, i prolly like it more

[Eziekial]

Art is whatever your willing to pay for.

[brinstar]

as promised, let me present:

Ryan Head and the Bar Room Orchestra

things to know:

1. this guy knows he has a hard time hitting the right notes
2. this guy writes and arranges all the music
3. my good friend heather is the female singer (who owns, imho)

yes, he is heartfelt and passionate in his singing. yes, he is responsible for the music accompanying them, which is beautiful. but that voice!!!

[Nusk]

Les Claypool of Primus is not a great singer. he sounds remarkably like Elmer Fudd, but his style works very well in the confines of the music that he chooses to perform. if Les were to try to sing anything where you actually have to pay attention to his voice i would declare that he "sucks"


when you hear music that wants to emphasize the singer (such as your link seems to want to do) and the singer does not deliver the goods (his voice does not live up the the band) then i would agree that the word "suck" is appropriate

[mappatazee]

it sounded more like he was reciting something. i wouldn't say he has a bad voice (timbre & whatever) but, yeah, out of key. and it sounds kind of funny singing over the strings like that..
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/pt ... chunk=text

i don't think there's any sort of line but you could say that people almost universally have their own 'good-bad' scale in terms of what they like. 'art' can be used to serve a function too (design etc) and could go from good to bad just depending on the context. i think some factors are measurable but how this affects each person is different. like skill for example. if someone doesn't know what good skill looks like in a certain situation (singing) they might not have the same consensus with someone who maybe sings themselves or has had more experience and interaction with vocalists. now the person that doesn't know about singing can still pick up on things like being in key etc. and this is generally accepted to be a requirement for 'good' performance and is measurable. some things are be picked up on without even being aware of it. it will just seem 'better'. and if you ask why most people have can hear pitch or, for example, find the octave to be the most consonant interval it comes down to evolution and sociology. people's tastes are influenced by what people around them like, good music skillz=good brain/physiology/genes etc.

[Zanchief]

*nothing personal, Zan! i replaced the name of a very nonmusical friend of ours with yours simply because i remembered recently seeing you say something about not caring whatsoever about music, and that concept was necessary to my analogy

None taken. I would objectively suck at composing a symphony, since I'm not even sure what a symphony is. I think it involves puffy shirts and funny hats though, right?

I think there is a point were skill becomes a factor in all art, but ultimately it is always subjective. I've had similar discussions with my friends about movies all the time, but ultimately I think it's pretty much impossible to compare and rate something that is entirely subjective (even though I do it all the time). Having said that I think there are standards, even for things like music, movies, books, paintings, which society uses to interpret these things. Can anyone really say Citizen Kane is worse then Date Movie?

I suppose when discussing something like that you could just say "I think it sucks" rather then make a statement of fact "it sucks".

[Gaazy]

I think art is all a matter of opinion. Like me for example, I dont like when people call their music 'art', it just sounds retarded to me. A means of expression, yes, but for me, 'art' makes me think of paintings and sculptures and shit. /shrug maybe I am just an unclassy redneck, I dunno

[Jay]

Eh, different strokes I guess. I think any expression intended for an audience can be considered art. I'd rather call it music, but music itself is art.

[Gaazy]

yeah, I guess however someone wants to express themselves.