Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "Марк Эпельбаум: Сумасшедший исследователь музыки" video.

  1. It's all been done and discarded decades ago or more, and the reason it is continually discarded is that there are aesthetic baselines for ARTISTIC appreciation, which this guy's work, and others like it (such as "8 hours of silence") do not reach. If he wants to deconstruct the nature of music, it's as much an intellectual, rather than artistic endeavour, in which case it would spare our ears if he just talked us through his self-indulgent nonsense.
    1
  2. Agree. I would go further and suggest that this guy has tried to reinvent music by making it non-musical. Like reinventing visual art by shitting on a canvas. There'll always be some pretentious highbrow who sits enthusiastically clapping and talking about "pushing boundaries" whilst the saner rest of the world scratches their heads going "what the fuck?!"
    1
  3. Nonsense. You said, "The organizers at Stanford obviously thought he had something worth sharing, AND the audience received him well." You are clearly connecting the fact that the organisers thought he had something worth saying (of merit), with the fact that he was well received by the audience. If that is not what you meant, then why mention the audience in the same statement?
    1
  4. The question is not "Is it music?" the answer is clearly no. Nor is the question "Is it interesting?" Ebola virus is intersting - it desn't mean that I want anything to do with it. The question should be "Does it have any value? Whatsoever." I think it's naval gazing self-indulgence on a par with new age visual "art" such as "cow chopped in half", "pile of bricks", and "canned dog shit". It adds as little to the human experience. Mere aristic masturbation, best hidden from the eyes of others.
    1
  5. Proving what? That TED will give a stage to any asshole with a whacky idea?
    1
  6. Well said.
    1
  7. The Germans voted in Hitler. Lots of of people joined the KKK. Many crazy ideas have been popular. It doesn't make them worthy of a public forum.
    1
  8. thanks for your oh-so-clever contribution - you've added absolutely nothing to the conversation but your own need for recognition.
    1
  9. I think it's understood but what is meant by "too artsy". Artsiness is often seen as pretentious appreciation of total bollocks simply to appear intellectual or urbane. I think it fits well here.
    1
  10. Disagree. For something to be considered art, it surely needs to fall within certain very broad parameters, if not culturally or even aesthetically, then functionally. This was nothing but wanking to noise.
    1
  11. That's more like it - I knew that you could provide a coherent argument if you put your mind to it. Clearly when it comes to art, there can be no absolutes because there is no universally consistent definition of what art is. Thus in a discussion about the merit of an "artistic" work - and I don't consider this art - all comments are implied to be prefaced by the words "in my opinion" - simply because there is no scientific metric by which to judge artistic merit. Any appreciation is subjective.
    1
  12. And just because one "expresses oneself" does not make it art. And if somehow, it does, then it should fall into a category of art for the appreciation of of the performer alone. If you took the humour away from this presentation (which I suspect was injected to bolster an otherwise feeble presentation), there was absolutely nothing of any merit here at all.
    1
  13. You opened with an ad populum argument AND an appeal to authority in the same paragraph, so I really don't think you have any right to be lecturing me on my discussion technique. I didn't compare Hitler OR the KKK to this musician - I used them to refute your weak inference that recognition by Stanford University, or being well received by an audience are automatically indicative of merit. Mine were examples of hateful ideas that were well received by intellectuals and lots of people.
    1
  14. I'm sorry. It was clearly too complex for you to understand. I would explain using no more than 5 letter words, but I fear I'd still be wasting by time as your ego clearly requires disagreement and victory, not rational discussion.
    1