Harmony Korine + Selena Gomez

  On 8/14/2012 at 1:09 AM, compson said:

I will agree there is a point where music is a subjective experience... but there's objective qualities to it as well. It's not so black and white... but there are levels of experience. That's why we read cook books from experience chefs who know all types of foods etc... or we listen to musicians like WATMM artists because they explore different arenas and use different influences. There is objective value in that compared to say a bunch of executives deciding on which tracks to release, or how about movie studios using test audiences and then changing the film based on what some random 200 people said in a survey. Theres a point in this whole process where sincerity goes out the window because there is no longer a singular personal identity behind it.

Ok, my main issue with this is that even if there is a singular personality behind it, you can't accurately judge any sort of sincerity. Even if you talk to the musician you listen to, they could be lying through their teeth regarding their motives. I know I do. And as a devil's advocate point of view: I don't listen to most of the "WATMM artists" too regularly. I'm not really a big fan of them, save Vibert (and now Ceephax). Squarepusher barely affects me emotionally in any way. I certainly don't listen to these artists because they "explore different areas musically," I listen to them because I like what they have to say musically. If I wanted experiments to push boundaries, I'd go a lot further than ancient IDM. Music is a subjective experience, I still see no reason to abandon that argument.

Bangarang EP

More Monsters and Sprites, but I guess that's mostly remixes.

  On 8/14/2012 at 1:06 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

Look guys, I think that we can all at least agree that Harmony Korine's next masterpiece, which involves a quadriplegic with Asperger's butchering a thalidomide baby to a dubstep remix of "She'll Be Comin' Round the Mountain", is going to be fucking ACE.

flol

  On 8/14/2012 at 1:12 AM, compson said:

  On 8/14/2012 at 1:08 AM, luke viia said:

  On 8/14/2012 at 12:55 AM, compson said:

And anyone who only subjects themselves to that narrow of a palette is objectively less qualified to judge the spectrum. Saying there is no way to objectively qualify something is incorrect I think... throughout history there are artists that changed how we see or hear things... and that is objectively better for humanity than artists that only stick with the norms. We'd still be making cave drawings and shit.

 

Dude please stop writing entire paragraphs after I respond, lol. I really don't follow your argument here, btw. Of course there are artists that change how we see things, how is this related to objectively judging their output? As a stupid side question: If you saw two cave drawings, could you objectively decide which was better? You could critique it all you want, but you'd never be objective.

 

There's Kubrick and then there's Michael Bay.... if you can't say objectively Kubrick did more for film than Michael Bay, then I don't know what.

"doing more for film" is different than "being more sincere about it." Michael Bay might also just be a retard. If you can't see that, then I ... etc.

And of course I can say that Kubrick is better than Bay. It's a subjective statement though.

  On 8/14/2012 at 1:15 AM, luke viia said:

  On 8/14/2012 at 1:09 AM, compson said:

I will agree there is a point where music is a subjective experience... but there's objective qualities to it as well. It's not so black and white... but there are levels of experience. That's why we read cook books from experience chefs who know all types of foods etc... or we listen to musicians like WATMM artists because they explore different arenas and use different influences. There is objective value in that compared to say a bunch of executives deciding on which tracks to release, or how about movie studios using test audiences and then changing the film based on what some random 200 people said in a survey. Theres a point in this whole process where sincerity goes out the window because there is no longer a singular personal identity behind it.

 

Ok, my main issue with this is that even if there is a singular personality behind it, you can't accurately judge any sort of sincerity. Even if you talk to the musician you listen to, they could be lying through their teeth regarding their motives. I know I do. And as a devil's advocate point of view: I don't listen to most of the "WATMM artists" too regularly. I'm not really a big fan of them, save Vibert (and now Ceephax). Squarepusher barely affects me emotionally in any way. I certainly don't listen to these artists because they "explore different areas musically," I listen to them because I like what they have to say musically. If I wanted experiments to push boundaries, I'd go a lot further than ancient IDM. Music is a subjective experience, I still see no reason to abandon that argument.

I'm not saying that everyone should like the same stuff... just that there are aspects of creation you can judge objectively because I see their value. The end result of whatever it is, is subjective... but on the grand scheme of things you can tell when someone is fucking knee deep in their craft and do it out of love vs. someone who lets executives dictate their art.

I still disagree. I can't tell, and I contend that you can't either. You may think you can, but that's an intuition. It is subject to your personal history, ideas about the creator, etc. Not objective. Regardless, I gotta go grab some fucking groceries before I get any more stoned. Good day sir.

  On 8/14/2012 at 1:21 AM, luke viia said:

I still disagree. I can't tell, and I contend that you can't either. You may think you can, but that's an intuition. It is subject to your personal history, ideas about the creator, etc. Not objective. Regardless, I gotta go grab some fucking groceries before I get any more stoned. Good day sir.

I contend that art is a form of personal expression and if that is muddled through a process which includes other individuals who don't share the same personal background as the individual who created it then it is objectively less sincere. Someone like Stevie R. Moore has made some 400 albums over his 30 years of making music. Never has received any kind of spotlight from his creations, but I can tell he is sincere about it because he approached his work with a DIY philosophy. It's personal exploration, trying and failing... but trying! I'm not here to suggest that you can objectively compare two cave drawings and conclude one is better than another... because 1) thats under an entirely different context 2) there would be no monetary gain. But in today's climate where music and films are commercialized, playing it safe and going with the trends can be sincere but it can also be insincere. You can objectively qualify it based on the process in which it's made. Can you imagine if Beethoven for a cliche example was down with the idea of writing music then having business men (not musicians/artists) change things based on current trends?

Another point is censorship. Let's say you make an album, you are finished with and happy with it. It's exactly what you wanted, but it features curse words and the studio won't release your album until you get rid of them. Would you be okay with this or would you feel it make it less sincere? This can be extrapolated further with a multitude of things. Because you are entering a commercialized arena and money will be spent advertising it, it has to take less risks because no one wants risky investments. So if you try and make poppy music thats weird compared to the current trends you might not get anywhere with that because it doesn't conform with what is currently all over the radio and tv.

If some people are giving complete control without guidance real horrors can occur.

Like The Phantom Menace.

It's easy to be histrionic about both sides of the fence innit.

You are suggesting that certain types of music (primarily Pop) are made with the approval of hundreds of business men. Which artists, precisely, are you describing? From what I know, there are not multitudes - though there may be many dozens to hundreds (a tiny fraction in the scheme of things) of artists that undergo this sort of "scientific mass pleasure" utilitarian scheme. Many artists may get told "No" when they try to write a certain type of music on a major label, but that is not the same thing as "You will write exactly what we tell you and nothing else." Skrillex certainly didn't go through the sort of thing you describe. I hate the guy's music, but since this discussion was spawned on speculations of his "sincerity," let's use him as an example. He released "My Name is Skrillex" in 2010. He gave it away for free. He was then signed to deadmaus's label, and toured with him. This is what got him famous, not any sort of record executives playing his hands for him. I didn't read the Skrillex thread, btw, my information just comes from wikipedia. The argument was made that he is "insincere." I disagree with that thought, because who the hell can say who's sincere about what? It is impossible. Marriages would almost all fall apart if sincerity was worn on the sleeve of every individual (I know, that's cynical, but lies often keep the peace). You can conjecture about musical sincerity or objective value all you want, and suggest that executives are writing the world's pop music (which may be true in some instances, but certainly not all*), but ultimately the artists motives are not accessible to you unless you hear them talk about it personally, and believe their words.

I guess what I'm saying is, yes, in your scenario, those "artists" are more like social engineering scientists. But that is not the type of art we are talking about. That scenario is more like a thought experiment, one in which you make a convincing case. It is not, however, the reality of the situation. Executives do "muddle" the process, but so do indie record labels, or even the act of hoping to get on one. If I want to sign on with Warp, can I make whatever the fuck I want? No. I have to play by their rules if that is my goal. Is it insincere to create music with a goal besides "personal exploration"? You think it is, I think it can be, but the main difference is that I do not ever assume that I understand the motive of the artist.

Regarding censorship, that gets into a much larger ethical space and I have rather unorthodox views about being able to own ethereal things like 'intellectual property' in the first place, views that would stop me in my tracks if I ever attempted to sign to a major label. I would not allow myself to be censored. Others are free to get themselves into stupid quandries. Their focus on money may be their undoing. I do not focus on money for my output, and give it away for free. Always have. If people want to be free of censorship, I suggest they do the same. If they do not want to be free of censorship, then they can make money on their creations.

*I would never sign to a major record label because you are correct, they do impose rules on your creativity, which I do not like - but to suggest that all music made with the intention of profit is insincere is not right. People feel entitled to money for their labor, and I think this is also wrong, but that's a different argument. It is the idea that creating something automatically means that thing has value which drives these people to demand compensation for their art; it is not necessarily insincerity that drives monetary hope among artists

  On 8/14/2012 at 1:15 AM, Dan C said:

Bangarang EP

More Monsters and Sprites, but I guess that's mostly remixes.

Oh yeah but wasn't Bangarang mostly collabs anyways?

Whatevs - let's get back to Gummo-DonkeyBoy Humpers and Selena Gomez. Much more interesting.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/first-look-at-james-franco-in-harmony-korines-spring-breakers-plus-more-pics-of-vanessa-hudgens-selena-gomez-more

  On 8/14/2012 at 1:12 AM, compson said:

  On 8/14/2012 at 1:08 AM, luke viia said:

  On 8/14/2012 at 12:55 AM, compson said:

And anyone who only subjects themselves to that narrow of a palette is objectively less qualified to judge the spectrum. Saying there is no way to objectively qualify something is incorrect I think... throughout history there are artists that changed how we see or hear things... and that is objectively better for humanity than artists that only stick with the norms. We'd still be making cave drawings and shit.

 

Dude please stop writing entire paragraphs after I respond, lol. I really don't follow your argument here, btw. Of course there are artists that change how we see things, how is this related to objectively judging their output? As a stupid side question: If you saw two cave drawings, could you objectively decide which was better? You could critique it all you want, but you'd never be objective.

 

There's Kubrick and then there's Michael Bay.... if you can't say objectively Kubrick did more for film than Michael Bay, then I don't know what.

Michael Bay's movies generated more income, which guarantees the continued survival of the big movie industry. Kubrick was a hack.

im trolling.

but seriously, thalidomide babies? dubstep of old folk songs? c'mon you gotta give it up!

  On 8/14/2012 at 2:23 AM, luke viia said:

You are suggesting that certain types of music (primarily Pop) are made with the approval of hundreds of business men. Which artists, precisely, are you describing? From what I know, there are not multitudes - though there may be many dozens to hundreds (a tiny fraction in the scheme of things) of artists that undergo this sort of "scientific mass pleasure" utilitarian scheme. Many artists may get told "No" when they try to write a certain type of music on a major label, but that is not the same thing as "You will write exactly what we tell you and nothing else." Skrillex certainly didn't go through the sort of thing you describe. I hate the guy's music, but since this discussion was spawned on speculations of his "sincerity," let's use him as an example. He released "My Name is Skrillex" in 2010. He gave it away for free. He was then signed to deadmaus's label, and toured with him. This is what got him famous, not any sort of record executives playing his hands for him. I didn't read the Skrillex thread, btw, my information just comes from wikipedia. The argument was made that he is "insincere." I disagree with that thought, because who the hell can say who's sincere about what? It is impossible. Marriages would almost all fall apart if sincerity was worn on the sleeve of every individual (I know, that's cynical, but lies often keep the peace). You can conjecture about musical sincerity or objective value all you want, and suggest that executives are writing the world's pop music (which may be true in some instances, but certainly not all*), but ultimately the artists motives are not accessible to you unless you hear them talk about it personally, and believe their words.

 

I guess what I'm saying is, yes, in your scenario, those "artists" are more like social engineering scientists. But that is not the type of art we are talking about. That scenario is more like a thought experiment, one in which you make a convincing case. It is not, however, the reality of the situation. Executives do "muddle" the process, but so do indie record labels, or even the act of hoping to get on one. If I want to sign on with Warp, can I make whatever the fuck I want? No. I have to play by their rules if that is my goal. Is it insincere to create music with a goal besides "personal exploration"? You think it is, I think it can be, but the main difference is that I do not ever assume that I understand the motive of the artist.

 

Regarding censorship, that gets into a much larger ethical space and I have rather unorthodox views about being able to own ethereal things like 'intellectual property' in the first place, views that would stop me in my tracks if I ever attempted to sign to a major label. I would not allow myself to be censored. Others are free to get themselves into stupid quandries. Their focus on money may be their undoing. I do not focus on money for my output, and give it away for free. Always have. If people want to be free of censorship, I suggest they do the same. If they do not want to be free of censorship, then they can make money on their creations.

 

 

*I would never sign to a major record label because you are correct, they do impose rules on your creativity, which I do not like - but to suggest that all music made with the intention of profit is insincere is not right. People feel entitled to money for their labor, and I think this is also wrong, but that's a different argument. It is the idea that creating something automatically means that thing has value which drives these people to demand compensation for their art; it is not necessarily insincerity that drives monetary hope among artists

Well I can't be certain of which track or artists is more involved with this, but generally when they aren't writing the music themselves and are more a face (especially now with the ability to digitally alter vocals etc) for the music, I see that as less about personal expression and more about ego. It seems like it'd be impossible to know exactly of course, but when you see someone like Louis CK avoiding distribution through major studios and doing it himself because he says it gives him more creative freedom, then I think there is definitely an element to it in most major label/studio produced material. You just said you agree with this aspect and would choose not to release on a major label. So I think you are in agreement with the concept that certain processes can equate to less sincerity. Skrillex getting famous because of deadmau5's isn't exactly the best example of someone gaining real recognition only on their body of work... When someone subjects themselves to the advertising corporate machine of major labels that right there makes what they are doing less sincere because they are willingly contracting themselves to advertisements and promotion that typically has nothing to do with art. So trailers for example showing major plot points or money shots... presentation is very important to me and if you are presenting your music on the side of a Wendy's frosty that only cheapens whatever it is. I never said that I can always tell sincerity, but that I don't think it's impossible to determine either.

The simple fact is when you do focus on money it is less sincere to me. You agree as well... so our approach is to do what we enjoy and if people like it, awesome. Before things got commercialized this is all there was to it. Now there are businessman, marketing theorists, and presentational adjustments that alter the personality of the individual to streamline it for consumption.

So my point in all this is not to say that music is objective in the sense that you are silly not to like Squarepusher or something... but that there is something inherently dirty with "selling out" or being the pretty face for music you had no part in creating. A bunch of whores

  On 8/14/2012 at 2:23 AM, Dan C said:

If some people are giving complete control without guidance real horrors can occur.

 

Like The Phantom Menace.

 

It's easy to be histrionic about both sides of the fence innit.

Considering how much Lucas has sold out on the Star Wars brand, I'm not sure he kept the Star Wars universe alive because he really needed to keep telling that story. He hasn't directed or written anything but Star Wars or Indiana Jones stuff in yearsss.... maybe has something to do with that huge ranch he owns?

  On 8/14/2012 at 2:31 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 8/14/2012 at 1:15 AM, Dan C said:

Bangarang EP

More Monsters and Sprites, but I guess that's mostly remixes.

Oh yeah but wasn't Bangarang mostly collabs anyways?

Whatevs - let's get back to Gummo-DonkeyBoy Humpers and Selena Gomez. Much more interesting.

 

http://blogs.indiewi...lena-gomez-more

James Franco as Riff Raff?

  On 8/14/2012 at 9:22 PM, patternoverlap said:

  On 8/14/2012 at 2:31 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 8/14/2012 at 1:15 AM, Dan C said:

Bangarang EP

More Monsters and Sprites, but I guess that's mostly remixes.

Oh yeah but wasn't Bangarang mostly collabs anyways?

Whatevs - let's get back to Gummo-DonkeyBoy Humpers and Selena Gomez. Much more interesting.

 

http://blogs.indiewi...lena-gomez-more

 

James Franco as Riff Raff?

Yeah. I posted this Pitchfork thing a few pages back. It's about Riff Raff but it goes over HK a ton.

He seems to think that this is a compliment somehow, that James' character is based on him.

lol

I can't tell if this movie is going to be good or fucking terrible.

  On 8/29/2012 at 3:16 PM, gmanyo said:

lol

 

I can't tell if this movie is going to be good or fucking terrible.

and that, my friend, is Harmony Korine.

Having grown up in the area this was shot, I can't wait to see this.

Already aired at some film festivals.

http://www.rottentom..._breakers_2013/

  On 8/14/2012 at 12:41 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 8/14/2012 at 12:26 AM, luke viia said:

just rollerbladed in to say that "sincerity" is a fucking ridiculous merit to be judging music on. if you think you can accurately judge "sincerity" in *the artwork of other human beings, you have fooled the sincerity out of yourself.

 

*edit

Artwork or commercial product for mass consumption?

Obviously my interpretation of Skrillex's sincerity in music is not the sole, nor is it even the main factor in why I think it is utter gash.

Do you think it is completely unreasonable to make a judegment about an "artist's" sincerity based on past behaviour? People pass judgement about politicians' sincerity based on their speeches and past actions. Why can we not do something similar for artists?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgUWTquztGY

 

  On 8/14/2012 at 12:26 AM, Dan C said:

  On 8/14/2012 at 12:24 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 8/14/2012 at 12:13 AM, Dan C said:

Well you're the one saying who is and isn't sincere here.

 

I'm establishing the boundaries, it's an interesting discussion.

I'm not saying, it's my interpretation. But really you don't think someone whose success was fueled by a massive marketing/PR campaign and has jumped through a few different genres that were trending at the time could possibly be insincere?

 

I'm not saying that at all, I think that definitely people are like that, but I don't see it from this guy. He seems to genuinely really like electronic music and the stuff he's doing. I think my question would be do you think that anyone doing any of the stuff you mentioned could possibly be sincere?

I doubt it very much - to me the whole jumping from trend to trend is pretty awful.

Really? You're comparing a speech to music? Jesus Plus he didn't jump on a trend, his take on dubstep difers greatly from what was going on then and yes I know what was gong on that time, but sonny made it more "poppy" and acessible. Dan C and lukke are right about this whole skrillex hate. There's no point and it is exagerated. I think most poeple here just like to hate because it makes them feel special inside.

Also, how can you fucking have a take on sincerity and intention when you like aphex twin? Wasn't come to daddy a joke? A song is a piece of art and will be appreciated by diferent people in diferent ways that have nothing to do with the idea the artist had in mind if he did have one.

This movie is coming out this month.

  On 3/6/2013 at 5:51 AM, gmanyo said:

This movie is coming out this month.

hopefully it'll go back in before the month is over