Unpopular Drumming Opinion Thread

Perhaps we can differentiate opinions that are purely self referenced ( i find Neil Perts drumming boring) to opinions that relate to criteria that might be considers objective ( Neil Perts drumming is precise and well structured in the context of the music he plays)

One type has no real reason other than our aesthetic response, it is purely subjective - you like Neil or you don't - it's a reaction and you invent reasons later if you have any

The other type puts out their a judgement of quality or worth objectively - you analyze something and find it comes up short or makes the grade.

By the way... I do now find Neil's drumming boring.... But I recognize its quality. Both are my opinion - the first can not be argued - what I find boring is that way because that's what I feel. I really don't know why. I loved it 1982

But we could analyze and have reasonable discussion about if his drumming is "good". And I find it good based on a number of criteria that can be somewhat objectively verified and agreed upon by people with an open mind. No one can say he is sloppy, or inconsistent, or lacking musical conviction and be taken very seriously.

Anyway that's my opinion about the two types of opinions on this thread about unpopular opinions. :)
 
That's the thing. 'Opinion' is a subjective position that may be informed by a couple of facts but ultimately derives from personal factors. There is no such thing as an 'objective opinion'. We call those 'facts'.

Fact: Neil Peart is precise and metronomic.
Opinion: His drumming is tedious.
Justified opinion: His drumming is tedious because it is precise and metronomic and I can't identify with that musically.
 
Pocket-full-of-gold said:
Since when do "opinions" no longer have to be held up to scrutiny, Mike? Why can someone seemingly come up with any ignorant, ill-conceived, ill-thought out, misinformed, factually incorrect or otherwise idiotic ramblings and then not have to be held account for them purely because they are expressing an "opinion"?
Click to expand...

Ooh, ooh, I know, I know! Is it because this is what passes for news and informed discussion on the mass media these days, and we've become so accustomed to it that we have forgotten how to create a logical argument based on empirical evidence to support a particular proposition or how to respond to one?
 
I like pi. Just my opinion. What does pi have to do with drumming? Very little. That's why it's an unpopular drumming opinion.

IMO, opinions don't need reasons. They just are. It's nice to have something that can't be quantified for once. I don't want to lose that option. I simply am entitled to not like something with no logic at all behind it. My prerogative. As long as it's really true that I don't like something, and I'm not trolling people. What matters is I don't like it. Like I said, I want that option available, if only to rebel against the complete quantifying of EVERYTHING.
 
JimFiore said:
Ooh, ooh, I know, I know! Is it because this is what passes for news and informed discussion on the mass media these days, and we've become so accustomed to it that we have forgotten how to create a logical argument based on empirical evidence to support a particular proposition or how to respond to one?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm not sure when it was that reporting the facts took a back seat to editorials disguised as journalism.......but it appears as if it's a horse that's well and truly bolted now.

larryace said:
IMO, opinions don't need reasons. They just are. It's nice to have something that can't be quantified for once. I don't want to lose that option. I simply am entitled to not like something with no logic at all behind it. My prerogative. As long as it's really true that I don't like something, and I'm not trolling people. What matters is I don't like it. Like I said, I want that option available, if only to rebel against the complete quantifying of EVERYTHING.
Click to expand...

Sadly, you're not alone with that line of thought mate. As long as people believe they don't have to be accountable to reason, then they're free to say whatever they please......they are after all, "entitled to their opinion".........even if not a skerrick of thought has gone into forming it.

The fact that the most ignorant and damaging of opinions hide behind that very same guise shouldn't be lost on any of us though.
 
Actually, I don't always much care for post-solo applause either, but it's fun to get it :)

As for dampening highly resonant drums, aside from the technical stuff previously spoken about, sometimes we want more or less sustain depending on the music. It's nice to have the option with highly resonant drums. Horses for courses.
 
Larry, you know that I have a lot of time for you - #1.

I do think though that at the basis of all opinions lies some reason. It doesn't have to be understood by other people and it doesn't have to necessarily be something rational. It could simply be an immediate visceral reaction or something that triggers an emotion that you can't quite describe. At least that would provide some validation toward understanding.

Saying 'it's just my opinion, I don't need to say anything else' really is a cop out for all kinds of behaviours. 'It's my opinion that I didn't hit her' if we're going to logical extremes. Sure, you might feel that way but the facts point elsewhere. If the facts contradict your opinion then tough. If your opinion is based on fact (and I say 'fact' tenuously but that's for epistemologists to argue over) then at least you have a basis from which to make an argument.

Saying that you have a negative emotional reaction to something is fine as well - but I think it's always good to try and back up emotional reactions to some kind of reasoning. You might hate the music of Merzbow - many do - and that's because it invokes emotions because of its deliberately unpleasant, overpowering nature. That's cool.

I have a negative emotional reaction to most blues (sorry mate!) because I find it overly repetitive and played to death. Many disagree with me, that's cool. I'll argue my point but it's simply a case that some people like it and some don't. The difference is that I've given a reason for my reaction and if somebody points out that there is some really lively, new and experimental blues music out there that breaks the mould, I might go and check it out. If I don't like something, I'm always asking 'why?'. Likewise, if I like something, I'm asking 'why?'.
 
Me too Dunc. I always have what I think are logical reasons for my opinions too. But not everyone analyzes things to that degree. They aren't built that way. They might not realize why they don't like something, because to them, it's not important. A few girlfriends from my past would fit that description.
 
larryace said:
Me too Dunc. I always have what I think are logical reasons for my opinions too. But not everyone analyzes things to that degree. They aren't built that way. They might not realize why they don't like something, because to them, it's not important. A few girlfriends from my past would fit that description.
Click to expand...

See, I think it's important that we understand ourselves. Our motivations, why we react to certain situations in certain ways and what it is when we have an emotional connection.

Maybe doing my job has changed my views on self-awareness? Probably.
 
My view is that if you put your opinion out on a public forum you should expect it to be challenged. And there is such a thing as a good opinioni and a not so good opinion. If the opinion is not based in some sort of facts or evidence, then how valuable is that opinion. everyone has a right to their opinion though, good or bad.
 
drummer-russ said:
My view is that if you put your opinion out on a public forum you should expect it to be challenged. And there is such a thing as a good opinioni and a not so good opinion. If the opinion is not based in some sort of facts or evidence, then how valuable is that opinion. everyone has a right to their opinion though, good or bad.
Click to expand...

Right, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.


larryace said:
IMO, opinions don't need reasons. They just are. It's nice to have something that can't be quantified for once. I don't want to lose that option. I simply am entitled to not like something with no logic at all behind it. My prerogative. As long as it's really true that I don't like something, and I'm not trolling people. What matters is I don't like it. Like I said, I want that option available, if only to rebel against the complete quantifying of EVERYTHING.
Click to expand...

Where did this issue of "quantifying" everything come from, Larry? You can have an informed opinion about something and have no numbers attached to it.

If you're "simply entitled to not like something with no logic behind it" then everyone else is entitled to challenge it. What if you "simply don't like" the fact that gay people have a right to vote in this country? Would you expect not to be challenged?

Opinions certainly can be challenged and let's all be thankful that some people do. If we just say, "This is my opinion and therefore it can't be challenged" we're headed off a cliff. Consider that 150 years ago here in the US it was a rather popular opinion that it was perfectly OK (indeed, morally justified) to buy and sell other humans. Happily, that opinion was successfully challenged.

I think about the only opinions that can reasonably go without a challenge are matters of personal taste, such as "I think chocolate ice cream is way better than strawberry ice cream".

In sum, I think that it is true that many opinions don't have logical reasons behind them. Instead the reasons are prejudice, habit, sloppy thinking and the like. Maybe all opinions on matters of a public nature should be informed ones but they aren't. That's where the challenges come in.
 
Last edited:
JimFiore said:
Right, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.




Where did this issue of "quantifying" everything come from, Larry? You can have an informed opinion about something and have no numbers attached to it.

If you're "simply entitled to not like something with no logic behind it" then everyone else is entitled to challenge it. What if you "simply don't like" the fact that gay people have a right to vote in this country? Would you expect not to be challenged?

Opinions certainly can be challenged and let's all be thankful that some people do. If we just say, "This is my opinion and therefore it can't be challenged" we're headed off a cliff. Consider that 150 years ago here in the US it was a rather popular opinion that it was perfectly OK (indeed, morally justified) to buy and sell other humans. Happily, that opinion was successfully challenged.

I think about the only opinions that can reasonably go without a challenge are matters of personal taste, such as "I think chocolate ice cream is way better than strawberry ice cream".

In sum, I think that it is true that many opinions don't have logical reasons behind them. Instead the reasons are prejudice, habit, sloppy thinking and the like. Maybe all opinions on matters of a public nature should be informed ones but they aren't. That's where the challenges come in.
Click to expand...

I was stretching the meaning a bit by saying that reasons don't need to be quantified. What I really meant was reasons can be illogical. Your chocolate vs strawberry analogy is a perfect example. There's no logic in that scenario at all.

But I never said that opinions shouldn't be challenged. That's crazy. You inferred that on your own, as if I said it, and used it against me. No fair. C'mon Jim you can do better than that.

I simply stated that everyone is entitled to an opinion without logic behind it. Challenges were not a part of that statement, in any way.
 
As we pursue this discussion about opinion, fact, and reasons I think one quirk of the human mind should be kept in mind.

It is likely that we make a judgement or form an opinion first and then subconsciously filter the available evidence to create the illusion we came to a logical conclusion.

A non-musical example:

A person meets a guy with red hair named Pete. He instantly dislikes Pete. Why does he dislike Pete? It may be he was picked on by a guy named Pete during his childhood but doesn't remember that. Or he was frightened by a red headed person some distant Halloween. Now this guy dislike Pete and with out knowing it he finds " reasons" and ignores counter evidence.

This is a threatening concept for some who have a deep trust in rationality, and a fear of non-verbal intuition. I believe if you are really interested in this phenomenon you can find how it has been verified by seeing how different parts of the brain activate in a sequence. Primitive brain response first, frontal lobes kick in later kind of thing.

Rationality is nice enough but hardly infallible. There are trans-rational ways of knowing and sometimes that can be every bit as reliable as rationality.

Back to music. Do you really think you know why you decided to devote a sizable part of your life to hitting things with sticks? I bet none of us do and I also bet most of us think we do.

Sorry if the epistemological musings are a bit much but I do think it helps us move from "either-or" to the more useful "both-and" in the false dichotomy of reason vs intuition. I like them both and see limitations in both. Most of the mind is subconsciously operating anyway so how can be sure which approach we are actually using?
 
Last edited:
larryace said:
Me too Dunc. I always have what I think are logical reasons for my opinions too. But not everyone analyzes things to that degree. They aren't built that way. They might not realize why they don't like something, because to them, it's not important. A few girlfriends from my past would fit that description.
Click to expand...

Thing is, opinions come first as an unbidden thought or feeling, and then people try to find a rationalisation for it. We don't choose our opinions, nor our internal beliefs (not to be confused with stated beliefs) - we just opine and believe what we do, and then work out the details later.

We actually don't know what the heck we are doing - pulled and pushed by chemicals - we don't know what thought will come into our head next unless we force it. The thoughts just come and go, and we identify with them because they are "ours".

None of you know what it's like perceiving the world through my eyes and ears and I have no idea what it's like for you guys either. But I do know that we have an almost constant flow of thought that we have limited control over. Then we judge each other for it.

Midnite Zephyr said:
I think most people crash their cymbals way too much - way, way too much.
Click to expand...

Cymbals are traditionally used to accentuate musical climaxes. However, many players also use cymbals texturally. Some others just like to make a racket and I wish they'd get off my lawn!
 
Griffman said:
As we pursue this discussion about opinion, fact, and reasons I think one quirk of the human mind should be kept in mind.

It is likely that we make a judgement or form an opinion first and then subconsciously filter the available evidence to create the illusion we came to a logical conclusion.

A non-musical example:

A person meets a guy with red hair named Pete. He instantly dislikes Pete. Why does he dislike Pete? It may be he was picked on by a guy named Pete during his childhood but doesn't remember that. Or he was frightened by a red headed person some distant Halloween. Now this guy dislike Pete and with out knowing it he finds " reasons" and ignores counter evidence.

This is a threatening concept for some who have a deep trust in rationality, and a fear of non-verbal intuition. I believe if you are really interested in this phenomenon you can find how it has been verified by seeing how different parts of the brain activate in a sequence. Primitive brain response first, frontal lobes kick in later kind of thing.

Rationality is nice enough but hardly infallible. There are trans-rational ways of knowing and sometimes that can be every bit as reliable as rationality.

Back to music. Do you really think you know why you decided to devote a sizable part of your life to hitting things with sticks? I bet none of us do and I also bet most of us think we do.

Sorry if the epistemological musings are a bit much but I do think it helps us move from "either-or" to the more useful "both-and" in the false dichotomy of reason vs intuition. I like them both and see limitations in both. Most of the mind is subconsciously operating anyway so how can be sure which approach we are actually using?
Click to expand...

Anon La Ply said:
Thing is, opinions come first as an unbidden thought or feeling, and then people try to find a rationalisation for it. We don't choose our opinions, nor our internal beliefs (not to be confused with stated beliefs) - we just opine and believe what we do, and then work out the details later.

We actually don't know what the heck we are doing - pulled and pushed by chemicals - we don't know what thought will come into our head next unless we force it. The thoughts just come and go, and we identify with them because they are "ours".

None of you know what it's like perceiving the world through my eyes and ears and I have no idea what it's like for you guys either. But I do know that we have an almost constant flow of thought that we have limited control over. Then we judge each other for it.
Click to expand...

You guys make a lot of sense. So we create our own reality based on primitive feelings that are part of our own experience. That's sounds about right. 7 billion people, 7 billion different realities. It's a wonder anyone agrees on anything.
 
larryace said:
I was stretching the meaning a bit by saying that reasons don't need to be quantified. What I really meant was reasons can be illogical. Your chocolate vs strawberry analogy is a perfect example. There's no logic in that scenario at all.

But I never said that opinions shouldn't be challenged. That's crazy. You inferred that on your own, as if I said it, and used it against me. No fair. C'mon Jim you can do better than that.

I simply stated that everyone is entitled to an opinion without logic behind it. Challenges were not a part of that statement, in any way.
Click to expand...


Actually, there is plenty of reason/logic behind the chocolate vs. strawberry scenario: How that person's taste buds are wired to their brain. They don't have to articulate that any finer than "Chocolate tastes better to me". We understand that there are such variances from human to human.

I agree that someone's reasons might be illogical or irrational. I also agree that everyone is entitled to an opinion. Do we also agree that it is appropriate for another person to critique an opinion that is logically faulty, based on erroneous data, etc., or do you hold the concept of opinion as sacrosanct?


Finally, if folks want to simply write everything off as unbridled feelings from the deep subconscious and leave it at that, well, don't forget that we humans have also developed higher brain functions that we can use to dispense of irrational and illogical thoughts. If it was all about after-the-fact rationalization then it seems humans, individually and collectively, could never grow past those initial feelings and reactions. I'm not saying that rationalizations don't occur, just that that is not the only path.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top