Music Lane It's all about the music, dude! Sit down, relax and listen to some tunes.

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Music Lane ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

RE: Seriously?

Posted by Analog Scott (A) on August 25, 2012 at 11:59:09

In Reply to: RE: Seriously? posted by josh358 on August 25, 2012 at 09:04:37:

Josh, I am geniunely sorry for any hurt feelings here. I am sure you are a good guy. But it does appear you want to continue this discussion and so I will address your points. I will try to do so as respectfully as possible.

>>> Argument from authority is also a logical fallacy and it is fair game to challenge one's 'authority' when one chooses to argue from such a position.>>>

>>That's a non-sequitur.>>

It is not a nonsequitur at all. It is what you did in my view.

>>>If one is offering alleged expert testimony their expertise is fair game.>>>

>>I made no claims to expertise.>>

Here are some of the things you said...

"I think that you have to have some familiarity with a genre to sense when the style is right or not, and fully judge the skill of a performer. I find it's just like audio in that respect: the more you listen, the more you hear."

"Listen to his recordings and you'll get a sense of why this is so, just as with familiarity with classical performances we start to appreciate the respective merits of various classical pianists."

"What I suspect you're missing is the experience of hearing more of Tatum's playing and coming to appreciate just how remarkable it is. "If it ain't got that swing . . ."

These are things you have said in this thread. IMO they clearly are inferences that you have a certain level of experience and that it gave you a degree of expertise that allowed you to make assertions of fact about the alleged "wrongness" of Yuja Wang's rhythms. I think there is a pretty clear inference that you were of the opinion that Chris and I lacked that experience and the expertise that comes with it.

>>It would, as you point out, have been a logical fallacy to do so, as in "I am a musicologist trained at the Sorbonne, therefore you are an eegnorant peeg and your opinions mean nothing." (I should add that I am not.) An argument must stand on its own merits.>>

I think the above quotes support my position that you were arguing from authority.

>>Here's an example that may hit closer to home. After you'd attacked him, another poster said that you don't understand jazz (I don't remember the exact words at this point, but they were to that effect). What did this comment contribute to the debate? It has no significance whatsoever to the question of whether you're right or not. You may not have cared, but *it adds nothing to the discussion.*>>

Indeed that was Paul who you seemed side with on the issue of my knowlegde of jazz. I hope you noiticed that I did not become outraged by his personal attack on my knowledge. He was also arguing from authority but he was worse. I hope you noticed my post in response to his suggestion that Yuja Wang should have run her interpreation by an actual jazz musician before letting it out into the public. You might find that take on her performance a bit surprising.

>>In my case, you did attempt to provide evidence that I lacked the expertise to comment,>>

No. I think I did provide evidence that your choice to make objective assertions about Yuja Wang's performace and about the rules of jazz were underminded by your own attempts to support those assertions. Not the same thing. Not personal either.

>> but it was completely off track; you interpreted a bit of laziness as lack of knowledge. This I find is another danger of personal attacks.>>

Well you do run into trouble when you presume to know what I was "thinking." I interpreted your choice to use the wrong arrangement as evidence for your assertions of fact about the wrongness of Yuja Wang's rhythms and your choice to assert that despite being the wrong arrangement that it still proved your point as evidence that your argument was quite self defeating.

>>They are much easier to make than to refute, and they are typically so speculative as to be useless. For this reason, I find that they are one of the most frequent tools of conformation bias.>>

But I made no such speculation. And quite honestly you might want to look at what you are doing here. You are speculating on what I was thinking. that is on you. I never speculated on why you chose to use the wrong arrangement as your evidence. I merely pointed out how it underminded your arguments.

>> As in, "That guy only risked his life by running in front of the car to rescue a child because he wanted to get into the newspapers." I've noticed that much political argument occurs along these lines -- imputation of motive, baseless speculation. As in Obama is a Muslim, or Bush invaded Iraq to get the oil, to use examples from both the right and the left.>>

I suggest you reread my posts. Show me where I actually did that.

>>>"I have offered no "speculation" as to why you somehow picked the wrong arrangement when the correct one was right there. I don't know why this is eating at you so much. It was lame regardless of why you did it and even you have conceded that point. So why are you stuck on it? I'm not. In my opinion you shot your own argument down when you insisted that the incorrect example still demonstrated the wrongness of Yuja Wang's "rhythms." And for the record that is me staying on subject and you trying to keep the subject about you.">>>

>>No speculations? Try "Sorry but this is sounding like back peddling to me. if you were familiar with the different arrangements why on earth would not check to make sure you were posting a link to the relevant arrangement?" Or "Never hurts to do your homework before stepping into it"?>>

And where in that do you find me making any claims as to *why* you chose the wrong arrangement? You stepped into it by what you did, by using the wrong arrangement as your evidence. I did not know *why* you did it nor did I care. You did do it. And you vouched for that choice. So IMO you do have to own it.

>> Otherwise, you continue to engage in speculation. Chris said,

"BTW, the "silly rhythm" came from Tatum's original - Yuja didn't change a thing [nt]"

I said, in reply,

I couldn't listen all the way through

By way of contrast, here's Tatum doing it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKb0Sc2lYVU

I guess she deserves credit for trying, but you have to be some kind of masochist to try to equal that.

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/music/messages/19/195558.html

You then reintroduce the subject of rhythms:

"You do realize that you are comparing two entirely different arrangements do you not? And seriously, you take issue with Yuja Wang's rhythm? So I guess this Art Tatum version also sucks since it suffers from similar "rhythmic issues"?'

I replied to point out that no, Tatum's version did not.>>

yeah but you also said this about the wrong arrangement that you posted..And sorry but here is where you get into all kinds of trouble

"It seemed to me sufficient to demonstrate Tatum's overwhelming superiority in jazz interpretation and technique."

So how did it seem to you to demonstrate tatum's overwhelming superiorty in jazz interpreation and technique in such a way that it demonstrated the objective "wrongness" of Yuja Wang's interpretation of *an entirely different piece of music*?

Do you not see the big problem here? You might want to chew on that one a while before answering. If you thought it demonstrated anything you had to have listened to it. Right? If you listened to it then you had to know it was the wrong arrangement and that you were comparing apples to oranges and that it did nothing to support your argument. Right?

And that was my point. Period. You killed your argument by posting the wrong arrangement and then *vouching* for that choice.

>> Throughout this, you have misjudged what I was saying and doing, generally because you weren't cautious enough in making inferences -- and when I explained, in effect, accused me of lying or being stupid.>>

Really? Do quote me where I accused you of lying. otherwise don't hold me responsible for things you beleive I am thinking. That is on you.

>>(It never occurred to me, and it still does not, that the intelligent listener could not infer from another Tatum version of Tea for Two that Tatum plays jazz with a mastery that Wang does not possess.)>>

IMO it should have. The arrangement you cited was so different that it showed nothing. the fact is Yuja Wang's performance was similar enough to Art Tatums on the *right* arrangement that if the wrong arrangement were really evidence that Yuja Wang's rhythms were objectively wrong then so were Art Tatum's on the 1933 arrangement. That was why Chirs said Yuja changed nothing. That is because on first listen he found them to be so similar in content. And the other arrangement is so dissimilar that it could hardly work as evidence about any alleged "wrongness" of rhythms on any performance of the enterely differnt arrangement from 1933.

Edits: 08/25/12

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Parts Connexion

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---