Jimmy Eat World - Integrity Blues (October 21, 2016) Album • Page 115

The only positive I could see from this album leaking is the fact that it would interrupt the absurd logic going on in this thread at the moment.

 

I just listened to the demo version of "Work."

WTF did I just hear? Wow that song came a long way..

 

[100+ comments in this thread later...]

First off, I'll thank you for bringing up one of the most important facets of this conversation: being wrong. (I kept forgetting to address this in earlier comments.) I hope that you have been following what I've been saying enough to know that none of my presented idea about objectivity should lead to a sense of superiority. I've tried to be very clear in saying that any sort of "perfect" objectivity or judgment within art is unattainable. Thus, there could never be a human being who can say, in the context of art, "I'm totally right" or "You're totally wrong." Naturally, though, this danger exists; to believe in any sort of objectivity lends itself to the pitfall of, "Objectivity exists, so it must align with how I think."

So I agree with you. I can't say people with a different opinion are wrong, but that's exactly because I'm not discussing black and white, right and wrong. I'm discussing all the gray in between, having more judgment, having more informed opinions. In this sense, I do believe people can be more right or less right. Of course, it would be unwise and unfair of me to ever go into a conversation like this assuming I'm the one who's more right.

This goes back to what I said about why we share our thoughts on music in the first place. At least, the reason I do it: to learn from others who might know more than I do or see things differently than me. You've possibly experienced this, but I've actually changed my position on an album or a movie because of reviews I've read. I don't consider this act to be trading opinions, as if I'm picking a different opinion from a cesspool of equally valid opinions. Rather, I'd concede that the other person was more right than I was--that I am persuaded to his position because of how he argued his case. (Right now, I'm specifically thinking about how Chicago Tribune critic Michael Phillips gave me insight about the film Carol, which caused me to love it much more in hindsight than I had immediately following my viewing of it.)

All that goes to say, as @Craig Ismaili has mentioned earlier I think, people can hold to opinions that can actually be disproven. If someone hears a new Green Day song, and it's the first rock song they've ever heard, they might think it's the most unique thing in the world. Show that person older Green Day songs and they should see that the newer Green Day song isn't as unique as they'd originally thought. If they hold to the original opinion, and are ignoring the evidence that it's an uninformed opinion, yeah, I don't mind saying that the person is wrong.

To address your first two questions, essentially, yes, that's what I was saying: knowledge make opinions more objective, or at the very least more informed. To use an earlier example, I now have a more balanced and historical opinion of Mae now that I'm familiar with older and more foundational emo artists such as JEW and American Football. I used to have a much more biased and uninformed adoration for Mae because they were one of the first rock artists I ever got into. Essentially, I had nothing to compare them to, no knowledge of the rock tradition they were part of, thus free reign to consider them the best rock band ever. Now, with the things I've learned, I cannot honestly say that Mae is a better band than JEW--I know it's not true, even though my personal biases lean heavily towards Mae.

I think those are adequate answers and examples for your questions. Feel free to ask for clarification, but now that I've answered a fairly large amount of your questions, may I turn the tables to ask you a few?

When someone has said something to you that caused your opinion to change, why did it change? Was your opinion as valid as theirs, as equally subjective? If so, then why change your opinion to begin with?

Do you believe that one opinion can be more informed than another opinion? (i.e., two people discussing "Pol Roger," one person listened to the song more or less as background noise; the other has heard the song multiple times in context of the album, able to view the song both as a standalone work of art and as the closing track to a larger piece of art)

Do you or do you not think that your music tastes have become more interesting / more refined / more compelling as you have aged and learned more about composition and different styles of music?

When virtually all music critics say the same things about an album and give it scores within a wildly tight range, (as was the case with the latest Against Me! album, for example), is it 1) 100% coincidental, 2) insider trading, or 3) might it have to do with some inherent value of the work of art?

Hmmm....trying to remember all the questions I had...hahah

In your own songwriting/production, do you think you've had any songs better than others?

If art is completely subjective, than is it impossible for an artist to ever get better or get worse?

I think that will do for now, hahahah

 

no i dont believe that one bit

 

im aware of the diversity

i dont think the numbers says that an album leak make peopel lose money
i think it does the oposite

 

Speaking of objectivity, we got people in here spouting facts and getting "no I don't think that's true" in return

 

whoof im gonna tackle this in a little bit haha! thanks for the great conversation and debate btw its been fun

 

yeah i didnt see any numbers or any proofs

just moralizer who love to make themself feel better by buying records

 

When you pull away, I say, it matters.

 

see jason is a good guy he will buy the record even tho he already has it

 

I did in fact order it. It's sitting somewhere in CA right now.

 

ok here's an example

thrice - beggars leaked three months in advance. the label had to push the record up to a digital only release date two months before the actual release date. it hit 47 on the billboard chart, cant find exact first week sales but im assuming they were low if thats all they got. the follow up, major minor, released two years later, hit 18 on the chart. substantially better. it leaked a few weeks out if i remember correctly. their most recent record, released earlier this year, hit 15 on the chart with 21k sold. their best first week sales since the alchemy index in 08. if i recall, tbeitbn leaked mere days before album release. the point is that the further out a record leaks, the more harm it does, so it stands to reason if a record doesnt leak at all that damage wont be done. but, this is just one case and i could point to many, many cases of bands being hurt sales wise by their leaks. the proof is there.

 

Ha! When I saw the notification, I thought, "There's NO way he responded that quickly!" Agreed about the funsies.

 

@sophos34 i need more tangible proofs to even consider it

sounds more like factual proofs at this point

i think leaks are extremly good as it creates this exitement wich result in people going to shows

 

what tangible proof do you need? im showing you album sales from the same band for albums that leak early vs albums that dont. the albums that dont leak do better. that's proof.

leaks dont make people go to shows, first of all. good promotion from the band/their management and the venues make people go to shows. which brings me to my second point, is that with everything being on streaming services in today's age people are going to have avenues to hear the record for free or extremely cheap anyway. but, leaks actively hurt streams, because people wont stream a record they already have the files for.

 

Please, for the love of all that is good and holy, define the difference between "tangible proofs" and "factual proofs."

 

tangible as in spread sheets with actual numbers
and factual as in people just looking at one band and than saying that
the leak hurt them one time and less the other

even tho it could be just because the last record is better so it sold more or it was more appealing to the mass

 

Wait, what's the leak/sales argument going on?

 

I mean, none of us keep a spreadsheet of album sales handy

 

It's in your best interest to avoid the vortex forming in this thread right now. I'm just looking out for you.

 

Apparently you need to add an attachment feature on the forums so we can upload Excel spreadsheets.

 

yeah im suprise that the album hasnt leaked yet

im taking it on the fact that the band isnt too popular these days
when i see interview of them on youtube
often they barely have any views rarely over 1000

 

@sophos34 gave you numbers. He gave you tangible evidence. If you want more evidence and more numbers from more artists, that's fine, but they don't exist in different categories of proof.

 

i gave you sales figures

i can give you other examples of bands having worse sales due to leaks if you want, just seems pretty obvious

but i said their most recent record did just as well as their record from 08, thrice has had wide appeal for a very long time and well the record that leaked super early and did the worst is agreed to be their best among a large faction of their fanbase, though that is definitely arguable.