My use of the phrase ‘ignorant critic’ in the November Spawned Mary piece has generated a good deal of comment over the last two days. Firstly when Damien reacted to it by saying that “if you give an opinion about a concert and it doesn’t fit with the views of others then you are ignorantâ€. And then secondly when Sinead Gleeson chipped in to argue that “perhaps [Damien] didn’t know much about her music, her distinct singing style, but does it warrant such a loaded, dismissive word as ignorant?â€
The answer to Sinead’s question is no, of course not. I now admit that it was indeed a loaded, dismissive word, one that suggested arrogance on my part and which wasn’t respectful to opinions that are different to my own.
What I am guilty of most though is not realizing that it was such a loaded word. I reserve, unequivocally, the right of everyone to have a different opinion and to express it freely and for that opinion to be respected for what it is. I didn’t realize when I said it that it would be inferred that I thought that Damien was ignorant, although I realize now that is exactly what I said. The suggestion that it was done with irony is no excuse and anyway, that level of meaning was invisible to everyone except me.
I was being disingenuous when I used the term as it does not reflect my own opinion. I believe that not being able to say that you don’t like something because you think it might offend those who do is self-censorship.
On this occasion the ignorance was all my own.
A further complication. While writing this I managed to delete the offending November Spawned Mary post. Isn’t the unconscious mind a strange and powerful thing?
End of Mea Culpa.
Donagh, what’s happened to the beard ???
What’s more, you’re now doing it in Latin (apologising, that is..) Have you gone back to pre-Vatican II ??
I didn’t know that ignorant was a loaded word. Maybe you should have called him a philistine instead.
I should point out that I know nothing about Mary Margaret O’Hara, so for all I know she could be a fucking screeching zombie.
Seán,
You philistine. That’s a picture of Peter Lorre, star of such films as Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon and The Patsy. Do you know nothing about Cinema? When you’ve been an apologholic as long as I have, you develop a certain sophistication. Therefore, or should I say ergo, the latin.
Hugh,
Neither did I. It’s a learning curve. From now on I’ll use philistine but I’ll make sure to attach a picture of me wearing a cravat and monocle (oh, and I’ll probably still have the beard).
If you go to the Mossissey video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zZeHdJXaZ4 you can hear her screeching at the end of the song. It’s harder to screech in a sing-along way than you think. As to whether she’s a zombie, I don’t know. She mainly does acting these days, so maybe she appeared in a horror flick along the way.
what exactly *does* a “fucking screeching zombie” sound like? i know what a fucking sreeching banshee would sound like (having listened to mmoh and others) but i’ve no idea what a fucking screeching zombie sounds like, even after watching loads and loads of zombie flicks. singing zombies could be the interesting innovation for the next zombie flick … i guess they’d sound a bit like morrisey on mogadon, no?
It’s gracious (and rare) to see an apology in blogging. “Ignorant” has a peculiar dismissiveness in Ireland, but I think you used it in a throwaway sense and not out of malice.
Now if only MMOH would release another album…
Thanks Sinead, there was no malice. I’m malice-less, the least maligning fellow you could meet.
I think though that if I was the maligning sort that this blog could become very popular, with regular vistors turning up to see who I’ve been unreasonable about this week. But that’s not where I want to go.
Fmk, I think you’ve just invented the Zombie musical. Zombies are usually thought of as having atrophied vocal cords (weak tissue is the first to decay)but if they’ve made a documentary musical (http://www.theamericanrulingclass.org/) why not a zombie musical? I suppose the precedent for this would be that bit in Young Frankenstein when Peter Boyle and Gene Wilder sing Putting on the Ritz. However, for his part of the song Boyle as the Monster goes Mraharrrruuuuhhhhfrr, while dressed in top hat and tails.
I think you guys owe me a teacup.
I am genuinely incensed by this. What do you mean saying we owe you a teacup?! Actually, just explaining what you mean would be enough.
Indeed apologies are rare in blogging, and fair enough if you meant it as a joke that didn’t translate in print, that happens.
However I would take issue with you not realising how loaded and dismissive the word ‘ignorant’ is; it’s not an excuse that worked for Kevin Myers when he used the term ‘mothers of bastards’ to comment on single mothers, and it’s not really one that should fly anywhere; you seem educated enough to understand the strenght of the language you use (and if not you should take more care in using words you don’t fully appreciate).
Anyway, enough of that; no harm done and fair dues to you for not being one of those idiots that refuses to back down just because their online and they have no face to save anyway.
Shame the post got deleted all the same, people coming fresh to the discussion may be at a loss as to what happened without it.
There’s always Google Cache though; you could salvage it that way if you want.
Link to your post here.
ah but the weak tissue thing was put to rest in 28 days later, where we had zombies* that could run … that was a great leap forward (well, more a dash or a sprint, i guess) … singing zombies would be just what the genre needs right now … since 28 days later, the genre has somewhat atrophied and aside from knocking off zombie heads with a cricket bat (shaun of the dead) the only real zombie innovation i can think of has been zombies in leitrim (dead meat). but sure we always knew that leitrim was a weird county anyway, sort of like the land that time forgot and full of all sorts of strange cratures.
the putting on the ritz thing (oddly, a fave tune of mine, in that version - this is what you get for liking jimmy durante and tom waits) … well, you’d hardly say the monster was screaching, now would you? and it’s screaching zombies we’re discussing here. i mean a screach is more like a caterwaul, isn’t it, and that version of putting on the ritz, as you so phonetically depicted it, was more a stentorian mumble, sort of like the way you might imagine ian paisley singing it.
re theamericanrulingclass.org - odd that we should only have a documentary musical years have we’ve had loads of mockumentary musicals.
* ok, technically speaking, they weren’t *really* zombies in 28 days later. but everyone thinks they were, so that’s good enough for me and it’sstill classifiable as a zombie flick. but if you really want to get pedantic on me and insist that it doesn’t count as a zombie flick, then you’ve got the running zombie dogs in resident evil being the ones to advance the genre to the running stage (and i guess their barking proves the vocal cords work just as well as the leg muscles).
A storm in a teacup.
Hey, Adam, let me get this straight. Using the word ‘ignorant’ is loaded, but comparing someone to FUCKING KEVIN MYERS is not?
Hey, Adam, is that your educated opinion? Jesus H. Christ.
Ben, with all due respect I would never insult someone to the degree of a comparison with Kevin Myers.
Note that I never said ’saying that is like…’ or ‘you’re like…’; I simply pointed out that claiming you did not realise the full potential of a word is not an excuse and it never should be.
I raised Myers because he tried to act as if he did not realise the most common meaning of the word bastard, which is a justification that no-one really accepted.
Adam, you don’t have to use like to compare. By placing Kevin Myers in your comment as an analogy, you compared. Now, you seem educated enough to understand the strength of the language you use (and if not you should take more care in using words you don’t fully appreciate).
Very good Ben, firstly you might look up the words analogy and comparison in order to understand the difference between the two.
Secondly my analogy was not used to highlight similarities between Myers and Donagh as you seem to assume.
The excuse is indeed similar, but that’s no reflection at all on the individual behind the comments and I’d never try and judge someone I didn’t know in such a way.
If you believe that putting a name in a comment on someone else instantly creates a comparison then you’re simply creating future confusion for yourself.
But you see, Adam, it does, and you have. By comparing Donagh to Kevin Myers you’ve brought this to a new low. Kevin Myers is one of the most right-wing nutters in this country - and this country specialises in right-wing nutters. Is that what you think of Donagh? Are you going to be big enough now to apologise? Or, like Kevin Myers, will you hide behind semanitcs?
But you see, Adam, it does, and you have. By comparing Donagh to Kevin Myers you’ve brought this to a new low. Kevin Myers is one of the most right-wing nutters in this country - and this country specialises in right-wing nutters. Is that what you think of Donagh? Are you going to be big enough now to apologise? Or, like Kevin Myers, will you hide behind semanitcs?
Asking those questions would be fair if I had indeed compared Myers to Donagh, but I have not.
As I’m sure you’re aware, an analogy is when you highlight the ’similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.’
And so, I highlighted the similarity in the justifications used by both Donagh and Myers for their use of loaded terms, but by making it an analogy have expressed my belief that they are otherwise dissimilar.
I don’t believe I have dragged this discussion anywhere; you’re accusations that I am making personal and insulting remarks about Donagh, on the other hand, are far from constructive.
If you want to continue to believe that I am comparing Myers to Donagh, go ahead, but I think I’ve made it quite clear from the beginning that I am not.
Indeed apologies are rare in blogging
You shouldn’t have apologised - calling someone a screaming fucking zombie is ignorant in the sense that it was rude, uncalled for and malicious and in the sense that it was ill-informed, as the more reasonable comments of other witnesses suggest. At worst, you could say she attempted an experiment which in some eyes was less than a complete success.
It’s hardly musically insightful to liken an artistic interpretation to the act of a mindless zombie - a fucking screaming one at that.
I think we’re getting a bit precious about the validity of every single opinion by every single person. We can’t all be right about everything or immune from charges of talking bollocks when in fact we’re got up like naked Emperors.
I meant to use the word vicious instead of malicious above. Because I think that Damien is well-meaning and not malicious, but occasionally quite vicious.
“calling someone a screaming fucking zombie is ignorant in the sense that it was rude, uncalled for and malicious and in the sense that it was ill-informed”
but *was* it? if we could only work out what a zombie would sound like singing, we might actually find that many people would find damien’s description to be a compliment. i mean, a lot of bjork fans don’t get their knickers in a knot everytime someone compares here caterwauling to a banshee - many even seem to say it themselves. so maybe it’s the knicker-twisting of the mmoh’s over-protective fans that’s really at issue here, not damien’s opinion?
so far, i think all we’ve established is that, given the available evidence, zombies probably *can* sing. but what does that singing sound like? there’s the real rub … *does* it sound like mmoh? or does it sound like something even worse?
Adam
Whether as an analogy or a comparison, I think that the dovetailing, on this occasion, of myself and Kevin Myers is not appropriate. If memory serves, Myers referred to children of single mothers as bastards repeatedly throughout that Irishman’s Diary piece. It was obvious that he was aware that such a reference would be controversial. He just wasn’t aware how controversial. He made the term ‘bastard’ the focus of his piece, repeating it a number of times. That he should retract it suggests a level of hypocrisy. Myers uses incendiary language for effect all the time. I, on the other hand was being glib and offhand. It was not the focus of the whole, rather slight piece. Yes, I knew it was a strong word, but didn’t expect Damien or anyone else to pick up on it.
But the likening is not completely out of line. We both used language unwisely. For Myers it’s his bread and butter and he chooses his offending words carefully. In my case I was using language in the way someone in a private conversation would. While I agree with Copernicus that it’s wrong to get too precious about it, I still think I was guilty of playing the man rather than the ball, as politician and pundits are fond of saying these days.
Fmk
I really think we should organize those You’re a Zombie Star auditions now for that Zombie musical, but we must insist that only the ‘fucking screeching’ variety need apply. Sharon Osborne would chief judge of course, seeing as her husband goes around like a zombie and hey, these days even sing like one too. We could even arrange to have MMOH come disguised as a zombie to see if any of the judges catch her out. She might even win the lead role! What should the musical be based on though? My Fair Zombie, Calamity Zombie…..
Oh shit, it’s already been done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCL43IHXUpA
Bet they didn’t use real zombies though.
I think we’re getting a bit precious about the validity of every single opinion by every single person. We can’t all be right about everything or immune from charges of talking bollocks when in fact we’re got up like naked Emperors.
It’s not so much that people are being precious about opinions, it’s just a matter of respecting them as as valid as your own (in the context of art at least).
The point is there’s no right or wrong answer when it comes to art of any kind, and there is no right degree of education at which someone’s voice becomes more valid than the next.
As for the comment itself, I’d say it was pretty vicious, but it’s an opinion, just like my opinion that Westlife are a souless blight on the world of music.
Many, many people disagree with that assesment, but the point is that there’s nothing wrong with my judgement or theirs, it’s just different.
Adam
Whether as an analogy or a comparison, I think that the dovetailing, on this occasion, of myself and Kevin Myers is not appropriate. If memory serves, Myers referred to children of single mothers as bastards repeatedly throughout that Irishman’s Diary piece. It was obvious that he was aware that such a reference would be controversial. He just wasn’t aware how controversial. He made the term ‘bastard’ the focus of his piece, repeating it a number of times. That he should retract it suggests a level of hypocrisy. Myers uses incendiary language for effect all the time. I, on the other hand was being glib and offhand. It was not the focus of the whole, rather slight piece. Yes, I knew it was a strong word, but didn’t expect Damien or anyone else to pick up on it.
Oh, I agree completely; hence me making the analogy rather than comparison… Myers knew what he was saying would provoke a reaction and used the term bastard for that very reason; I appreciate that it was not you attention at all to provoke a reaction out of Damien of anyone else
But the likening is not completely out of line. We both used language unwisely. For Myers it’s his bread and butter and he chooses his offending words carefully. In my case I was using language in the way someone in a private conversation would. While I agree with Copernicus that it’s wrong to get too precious about it, I still think I was guilty of playing the man rather than the ball, as politician and pundits are fond of saying these days.
Well this is my point; It’s not that you both used loaded terms for the same goals, but that you both used the excuse that you didn’t understand the full impact of the word before using them.
I’m not saying you’re lying as Myers did, not at all, what I’m saying is that when you posted your blog you used the word ‘ingorant’ somewhat in jest or ironically, and in doing so did not consider the potential the word would have when read without the correct tone.
The analogy comes into effect in the sense that your intentions were completely different, I believe, it was simply your defence (and perhaps carelessness) that was similar.
But again, forgetting that sarcasm and irony don’t often communicate well in text is something we all (or at least I) have felt the brunt of to some degree, and it’s understandable in that sense.
I fundamentally disagree Adam. I think there’s a tendency to conflate the (correct) idea that everyone is entitled to an opinion with the notion (false) that everyone’s opinion is valid and worthy of respect.
Some people’s opinions are ill-informed bollocks and not worthy of respect. And, contrary to your point, it may well be that they don’t know what they’re talking about because they aren’t sufficiently educated, either by themselves or a university somewhere or by cracking open the odd book, or whatever.
It is also the case that we are calling “opinion” what is in fact simply reactionary.
I fundamentally disagree Adam. I think there’s a tendency to conflate the (correct) idea that everyone is entitled to an opinion with the notion (false) that everyone’s opinion is valid and worthy of respect.
Some people’s opinions are ill-informed bollocks and not worthy of respect. And, contrary to your point, it may well be that they don’t know what they’re talking about because they aren’t sufficiently educated, either by themselves or a university somewhere or by cracking open the odd book, or whatever.
It is also the case that we are calling “opinion†what is in fact simply reactionary.
I’ve made it as clear as I can that when I say all opinions are valid, I’m not talking generally but about the arts.
Opinion on what is good or bad art is complete subjective and objective, and even people with comparable artistic education and training will differ in their opinions. There is no right or wrong answer on what makes good or bad art.
Of course politically, for example, people can be completely wrong in their opinions because they’re mis-educated etc. At the same time there is still no room, in my opinion, for personal insults or attacks (and I’m straying way off topic here).
Basically I think someone can disagree with anothers opinion in both cases (I, unlike you don’t like band xyz, nor do I subscribe to the same political ideology), in both cases disagreeing with the others opinion should be, for your own arguments sake, attacked rationally and not personally (at least in my opinion), but in only one case can someone actually be called wrong for thinking a certain way.
When your opinion is criticised it is not the act of expression that is under attack, but rather the arguments and evidence you use to BACK UP THAT OPINION.
What you usually find is that when someone does not have ANYTHING TO BACK UP their opinion they cite the opinion as justification for the opinion. In other words, my reasons for holding an opinion is the opinion itself. It’s a tautology. Useless logic.
If you think something is shit, you have got to explain WHY you think something is shit. If you think something is good you have to explain WHY something is good.
Does it appeal to your intellect or to your emotions, or both? Does it show skill, innovation, daring? What about its structure? What about its content? Has the artist used traditional structure but daring and skilful content (Leonard Cohen)? Or has the artist gone for experimental structure AND content (Captain Beefheart)? Similarly, has the artist used traditional form AND content in a clichéd, hackneyed, way (James Blunt), or is the artist’s appeal completely divorced from the work of art (Westlife).
A good critic can explain why they think something is good or bad. A useless critic spouts tautologies. You’ve got your right to hold an opinion. Fucking use it.
And I believe that holds for both politics and art. What makes an opinion useless is not whether it’s held about politics or religion or art or football, but whether that opinion can be backed up through a combination of evidence and argument.
When your opinion is criticised it is not the act of expression that is under attack, but rather the arguments and evidence you use to BACK UP THAT OPINION.
How can you back up an opinion that comes down to personality? This type of music appeals to me, this type doesn’t. Is it going to be the same for you? Hell no.
The difference in politics is that opinions are formed on the cause and effect of policies etc.; so to say that socialism is right for this country because it appeals to you personally isn’t enough, you have to show it’s plausibility in action.
I can’t prove to anyone that my favourite artist is any good, they either agree or they don’t.
What you usually find is that when someone does not have ANYTHING TO BACK UP their opinion they cite the opinion as justification for the opinion. In other words, my reasons for holding an opinion is the opinion itself. It’s a tautology. Useless logic.
But when something has no right answer you cannot back it up with proof. There is no perfect song, genre, artist and there is no artist better than another beyond what I think is good and bad (which differs from what others think).
Leonard Cohen makes great music because his lyrics are xyz won’t make him more liked by those who just have no stomach for it.
If you think something is shit, you have got to explain WHY you think something is shit. If you think something is good you have to explain WHY something is good.
No; you can if you want to but you most certainly don’t have to.
Does it appeal to your intellect or to your emotions, or both? Does it show skill, innovation, daring? What about its structure? What about its content?
What does it matter if it appeals to me in all of the above ways, if it doesn’t appeal to you that way, you won’t agree with my opinion anyway.
A good critic can explain why they think something is good or bad. A useless critic spouts tautologies. You’ve got your right to hold an opinion. Fucking use it.
I do, and I don’t try to be a critic, I’m just a fan of music.
What’s funny about this whole thing is that Damien gave his reasons for not liking the artist in question; he obviously thought she couldn’t sing or lacked vocal talent… the problem being that he was called ignorant for having that opinion, because he didn’t get it.
Do we have to go into long-winded explanations every time we talk about bands/artists we love/hate?
Sounds like a pretty joyless way to do things.
so intelligence and insight have nothing to do with opinion. Intelligence and insight have no role or influence. It’s all just personality? I suppose that’s ‘The Ticket’ fucked so.
so intelligence and insight have nothing to do with opinion. Intelligence and insight have no role or influence. It’s all just personality? I suppose that’s ‘The Ticket’ fucked so.
I never said intelligence and insight have no role. When it comes to art, intelligence and insight can be tools used in forming an opinion, but they don’t make anyone else wrong or you right.
Intelligence and insight might make you more able to verbalise or explain your opinion, or they might make you more aware of music but they don’t give you any answers, because there are none.
I don’t see what effect this has on The Ticket; as long as that doesn’t start telling people they’re wrong for thinking a certain way about a certain act and continues to simply voice it’s (as in the reviewers/critics) opinions on the arts then things will be well.
you did say that intelligence and insight have no role. you said “How can you back up an opinion that comes down to personality?” you have dismissed over 2,000 years of literary and artistic critical studies with the statement that personality defines what we do or do not like in art and/or music. That’s just silly. ‘The Ticket’ is one example of a group of critics who are able to articulate WHY they think something is good or bad,and who can make a convincing argument based on that ability to articulate their opinion. They don’t just say ‘Casino Royale is great. That’s just my personality.’ Or ’such-and-such made a terrible album. That just my personality, so it is.’ Have a read of Aristotle’s Poetics before you make making personality statements about artistic appreciation, or indeed whether it is possible to make an INTELLIGENT argument as to why something stinks. I don’t expect you to agree with this, but that’s because you are wrong. It’s a free country. Knock yourself out with your wrongality.
you did say that intelligence and insight have no role. you said “How can you back up an opinion that comes down to personality?†you have dismissed over 2,000 years of literary and artistic critical studies with the statement that personality defines what we do or do not like in art and/or music.
No, you simply assume I am dismissing all critical studies by saying what I’m saying, but I don’t.
People’s learned opinions have a place in the discussion on music and depending on their studies they are likely to have a better understanding of what they talk about, a greater ability to verbalise their thoughts and a wider experience to draw those thoughts from… my point is that even someone who knows every note of every song, who has spent a lifetime studying all forms of music and can discuss any aspect of it at any length cannot say someone else is wrong. They can disagree, of course. I’d never suggest otherwise but if someone says ‘I don’t like music by artist x’, they cannot be made to like it and they cannot be called wrong for giving an opinion, as uneducated as that may be.
That’s just silly. ‘The Ticket’ is one example of a group of critics who are able to articulate WHY they think something is good or bad,and who can make a convincing argument based on that ability to articulate their opinion. They don’t just say ‘Casino Royale is great. That’s just my personality.’ Or ’such-and-such made a terrible album. That just my personality, so it is.’
You see now you’re confusing what a critic is with what demands are created by the creation of a “professional” critic.
People read magazines and newspapers for learned and varied opinions; the critic is never right or wrong in what they say and they’d be pretentious to assume they were; they’re just offering their own opinions.
Are the critics in The Ticket right when they say an album is good or bad? Well they might be for 100 people, but there are 100 more that disagree… they might simply disagree because they think the music is ‘deadly’ or they might have a more eloquent way of putting it, but that’s their opinion, and they’re not wrong in it.
Have a read of Aristotle’s Poetics before you make making personality statements about artistic appreciation, or indeed whether it is possible to make an INTELLIGENT argument as to why something stinks.
I don’t see why I need to read that, thanks. Artistic appreciation at any level doesn’t make anyone right or wrong in their personal tastes. As I said; all the learning in the world doesn’t give you any answers because there are none.
Just because one person doesn’t know music (or a particular artist) to the same depths as you doesn’t make them wrong when they form an opinion.
I don’t expect you to agree with this, but that’s because you are wrong. It’s a free country. Knock yourself out with your wrongality.
Thanks for that.