Blogcritics Comments on Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Comment by Nanette on Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Fri, 16 May 2008 09:12:42 EDT

Go check out Donnie's good friend Nasri. He was the reason they got back together. He wrote most of ther new songs. You can even hear his voice on the chorus of "summertime" and he sings the second half of "click click click"

Comment by Georgre on Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Thu, 15 May 2008 13:44:14 EDT

Who cares about the NKOTB, lets focus the on writer behind it all. Nasri is the real deal. GO NASRI!!!

Comment by Ximena Borroni on Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:45:34 EDT

I think it doesn't matter what people can say 'cause we the real and forever fan will support the NKOTB even if they sing country music . We wanna be in New kids universe for eternity.

Comment by Jordan Richardson on Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:51:08 EDT

So funny.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:17:40 EDT

Ah, Nietzsche - the Sylvester Stallone of philosophy... Not much of a soccer player, either - him or any of the other great German philosophers.

Comment by Jordan Richardson on Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:53:10 EDT

Yeah, Bergson's mighty tricky (his essay on laughter is....yeah) and that Russell book can be a beast at times, too. Still, I like to think that Jordan Knight has a place in his heart for Nietzsche, personally.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:48:42 EDT

I'm reading Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy at the moment and it sorrows me to frankly say that after reading the chapter on Schopenhauer, I know no more about the man's philosophy than I did before I started. If you think Schopenhauer's bad, though, try Henri Bergson. My goodness. Up next: William James. That chapter at least promises to be more enjoyable. BTW, this may be the first time in the history of the world that Schopenhauer has been discussed in the same context as New Kids on the Block.

Comment by Jordan Richardson on Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:39:28 EDT

"Ultimately how can we ever prove that what we see & hear exists outside the mind." Ah, Schopenhauer. We certainly cannot, which leaves us grasping at straws as a society. As it is, those straws are all we have and we therefore formulate criteria to subscribe to various universal definitions. Food is defined as such because of its properties, and so on. As such, our definitions don't function so much as "proofs" but rather as defining linguistic mechanisms. You might perceive something a certain way, but our perceptions can be clouded and can impact our reasoning and our ability to tune in to a broader universal distinction. This isn't variances in taste, either, but rather variances in how we strictly define things. You can tell a blind person what "green" is and, while he or she will never perceive "green," he or she CAN come up with a way to apply the universal linguistic mechanism to the concept of "green" and can "know" what green is. Same goes for music, there are concepts and there are perceptions. For most, the two are interchangeable. In this case, your perception of music doesn't match the concept of music and you're making a taste distinction. It isn't that you don't know what music is universally defined as, it is that you refuse to categorize pieces of it that you don't like as a part of the universal distinction. Surely Iron Maiden is music to your ears, while NKOTB is not. Both are universally understood to be "music" acts, though. Whether you perceive things that way or not is irrelevant to the notion that perceptions can be dishonest. There's a way out of Schopenhauer's Will and Idea philosophy, btw, but it's not an easy one and I think we've pissed off the New Kids fans enough. Fun stuff, though!

Comment by Brian aka Guppusmaximus on Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:28:02 EDT

If we start getting into how we perceive words and what words mean to us, surely you'd agree we're getting into dangerous territory. I can definitely agree with what you are saying but that's the territory I'm referring to & am looking to go to. BUT, I would rather talk about it then type about it(too lengthy for me) Ultimately how can we ever prove that what we see & hear exists outside the mind. As for NKOTB, I still perceive them as noise than music...

Comment by Jordan Richardson on Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:11:39 EDT

Sorry for the double-post, but one more question to add to this discussion: Can a perception or a perceived notion be deceitful or dishonest?

Comment by Jordan Richardson on Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:10:02 EDT

I think it's safe to say that the definition for what music is can be considered fairly flexible, but I'd still argue that there is such a definition. I think most people would agree that music does have some properties that can be objectively defined. If music didn't have any such properties, you would be up a creek linguistically. A deaf person can't hear music, but he or she certainly can arrive at a conceptual understanding of what music is. One can look at musical notes on a page and say, "well, those are musical notes." Surely you'd agree that the visual realm does offer some consolation to universal understanding. Sensory perception is one thing, but there are still some universal concepts that we can discuss without requiring a perception. Music, food, sound, painting, colours, etc. all have properties that help define them. The properties the aforementioned items have are not confined to perception, rather they extend beyond it and into the world of linguistics. That is to say that we can define these things using language not perception of language. If we start getting into how we perceive words and what words mean to us, surely you'd agree we're getting into dangerous territory. Same goes with other things that have an implied universal meaning for practical purposes. Surely NKOTB albums belong in a music store and not a food market? The idea of preconception is really at the core of how we, as human beings, define things that we live with everyday. Sure, there isn't much keeping the numbers we know from being defined in a completely different way and the same goes for any other definable principle with universal appeal. We could call music a banana, linguistically, but it must be a universally understood distinction and the majority of people must be able to understand that. A tribe in Africa may not grasp that Slipknot is musically similar to tribal drums (although it probably is!) but there would be some similar grounds and the properties of music would be identifiable after exploration. The really tough discussion isn't "what is music?" but more or less "what is art?" Could NKOTB be musical but not artistic?

Comment by Brian aka Guppusmaximus on Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:50:46 EDT

Jordan, Thank you for spending the time to have this discussion. I think we may see eye to eye... My point is that what you hear & call music can never be 100% defined because the information that your senses perceive will always have to be translated until the day that we can smell music. You can carry on all day about all the similarities NKOTB may have to a preconceived set of standards that music may have but unfortunately you'll truly never know what someone hears or understands to be music. Which,in my opinion, shows there could never be a universal concept because there is no end to what sounds/noises that can be produced. There is only a perceived limit to what Humans can invent to make these sounds/noises. Your argument falters when you introduce subjectivity because you are arguing a lack of universal distinction. Not true, because it is all subjective to how people perceive those sounds/noises that make it impossible to have a universal distinction. And,I have only used the term music in this argument because I haven't gone off the rails into oblivion. But, I could be a d!ckhead about it & you would still not be able to disprove it 100% and that,sir, would be going off the rails like a Crazy Train!

Comment by Jordan Richardson on Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:27:24 EDT

Ah, the joy of relativism. So intangible that it allows any discussion to go directly off the rails and into oblivion. Brian, since we have no definition for music and since we clearly cannot agree to any universal distinction about it, this conversation is ultimately futile (that is if you take futility to mean the same thing that I do). "You will never know 100% why your father doesn't accept Slipknot as music because you cannot experience Slipknot through your father's ears." Are you suggest that my father is deaf and cannot hear notes, tone, and pitch? This would be the only way in which he could consider this to be a universal concept. As a point of general fact, he is aware that Slipknot IS music and is aware that he does not enjoy their brand of music. Of course, that's him. You might call it a banana, if the word fits your purposes. "You will never fully understand why someone likes Salamanders with wilted lettuce because you cannot utilize their taste buds & brain." Your error here is in suggesting that it takes an understanding of "liking" something to make this clearer. It does not. We're not talking about subjectivity or whether something is liked or pleasing or desirable. We're talking about a simple definition, period. I can say "I don't get why those people like salamanders" and be pretty safe in my assertion. However, having seen "those people" eating salamanders and consuming them for nutritional purposes or for pleasure, I cannot say "well, that's NOT food they're eating" any more than I can hear something with notes, pitch, tone, and composition and suggest that it isn't music simply because it's not agreeable to my ears. Your argument falters when you introduce subjectivity because you are arguing a lack of universal distinction. There is no music, essentially, and we could honestly push it that far. "In fact, your argument supports my theory that music can be so broad & undefined because it has different meanings to different cultures which ultimately ends with someone's perception..." Was that a slip-up? You discuss "music" as being "broad and undefined," yet you use the term "music" to characterize it. How can this be? While I obviously agree with the notion that music has different meanings to different cultures, I obviously don't agree with the notion that is lacks a universal definition. We see tribal instrumentations, for example, as music because they own the properties of music. By having inherent musical value, which has already been pretty broadly defined, you can discover what music is. If I have your point correctly, you're suggesting that there is no inherent musical value and that it's all relative, whether the sound/noise in question has musical notes, structures, chords, instruments, etc. And your supportive evidence for this is perception, which pretty much enables you to call a spade a duck if you wish. Fair enough, but we're back to futility. Or as you would have it, a banana.

Comment by Brian aka Guppusmaximus on Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:51:15 EDT

We're not talking about perceptions, we're talking about strict definitions. Yes,Jordan, we are still talking about perceptions... Definitions are parameters set by human beings to clarify a meaning using vocabulary. Still, those are only perceptions of what processes & variables were used which is ultimately limited by our knowledge & understanding of that subject. I doubt that we fully understand everything... You will never know 100% why your father doesn't accept Slipknot as music because you cannot experience Slipknot through your father's ears. You will never fully understand why someone likes Salamanders with wilted lettuce because you cannot utilize their taste buds & brain. Ultimately, your ideas do not disprove my idea that music does not have a branded universal concept. In fact, your argument supports my theory that music can be so broad & undefined because it has different meanings to different cultures which ultimately ends with someone's perception...

Comment by Jordan Richardson on Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:05:59 EDT

The only problem with identifying music as "pleasing sound" is that "pleasing" can be such a subjective term. For my dad, Slipknot isn't "music." But by all objective standards using universal definitions, it surely is. The only issue I'd find with applying your own perception to a universal concept is the question of where it all ends. How many other things do I get to personally label that would normally have universal definitions? Like the food example, is salamander "food" because I perceive it to be or is it food because it meets the generally accepted universal criterion. I'd go with the latter.

Comment by Mark Saleski on Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:20:42 EDT

really great ideas jordan. we've had this argument around here before though usually what we've talked about is the musicality of 'noisy' things...Reed's Metal Machine Music is a good example though the more extreme examples - like brian's dog barking/explosions - challenge/stretch whatever definition gets used. the popular 'normal' definition of what music is usually refers to organized sound, or 'pleasing' organized sound. other people bring in things like melody, harmony. they all have their merits but ultimately don't work for me: 'organized' and 'pleasing' are SO broad, and requiring things like melody and harmony are way narrow, not to mention western. i kind of like the Zappa approach, which is basically that something is music if you perceive it as music. so i almost end up agreeing with brian if my definition is used, though usually you don't get to "un-music" something. lets face it, the boy bands are considered to be music in general....though i personally don't like any of it. (p.s. wasn't trying to be difficult brian. just wanted to stir up some discussion)

Comment by Jordan Richardson on Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:58:08 EDT

We're not talking about perceptions, we're talking about strict definitions. Your flaw is in defining it your way and altering the pure definition of the term by adding variables. It's not a subjective distinction we're talking about here. We're not discussing Now That's What I Call Music Vol. 4 in which a subjective term with personal taste connotations is substituted for "music." We're discussing music, period. When you say "it's not music," you mean that it's not "good" music. It's not a universal truth, it's simply not what you call music. That doesn't mean there isn't a universal definition. Transfer the argument to food for a moment. Food is basically defined as "any substance that can be eaten or drunk by an animal for nutrition or pleasure." In that respect, all manner of horrible items, animals, creepy-crawlies, and other things could be considered food. People could be considered food in cannibalistic cultures, so the definition for food is pretty broad. Yet, there is a universal distinction of what the idea of food is. In Japan they eat salamanders with wilted lettuce. That's not what I call food, but it is food nevertheless. I don't get to claim some sort of universal distinction based on my perception. I merely get to say "ew." Same goes for music and the argument is even more sound (forgive the pun) when there are "musical notes," "time signatures," and other elements representative of music intact within the NKOTB catalog. Those piece of evidence exist whether you like it or not.

Comment by Brian aka Guppusmaximus on Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:32:32 EDT

Your arguments are sound in theory yet there will never be any pure defining evidence proving that your perception of noise/music is my perception,thus,by all accounts there is no single and intercultural universal concept defining what music might be. *SideNote: I use the term recognize in the sense of how my senses dictates the information to my brain

Comment by Jordan Richardson on Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:37:27 EDT

Art is not precluded by being "orderly and pleasant." That's your own distinction and is not innate to the definition of music as a whole. One could argue, quite successfully using most accepted definitions of music, that car crashes and the like arranged sonically with rhythm and tone would qualify as music. Hence, noise bands exist. Drone metal like Sunno)), ambient music in general, experimental noise groups like Fuck Buttons, Luigi Russolo's "The Art of Noises" composition, Boyd Rice, Merzbow, Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music, and so on are all examples of music that is structured around noise in general. Most of the music listened is not "pleasant" nor is it "orderly" but it sure as hell falls under the definition of music and actually contains far less sonic properties and organization than NKOTB, of course. One could also argue that the sheer existence of musical notes that correspond with NKOTB songs serve as defining evidence of "music."

Comment by Brian aka Guppusmaximus on Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:15:44 EDT

Cars crashing,dogs barking,violent explosions,etc. are sonic & could be considered art but I do not recognize them as music. So,those sonic tones entitled "Hanging Tough" are NOT registering as orderly & pleasant,thus,I can only perceive it as noise NOT music.

Comment by Jordan Richardson on Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:32:19 EDT

Linda, I'd ask you to afford your favourite band the same respect. They're big boys, they can protect themselves and, believe it or not, they very likely have a sense of humour. I highly suspect that your incessant defence of all things NKOTB isn't necessary from where they sit and their "comeback" will suffice just fine, with or without the rantings and satire of bloggers around the world.

Comment by Jordan Richardson on Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:29:54 EDT

What do you hear when NKOTB is played? Music is sonic art form, so you aren't hearing sonic tones when "Hangin' Tough" hits your ears? Are you seeing it instead?

Comment by Linda on Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:28:44 EDT

again, while this article was INTENDED to be in good fun, there were some parts that were offensive to those of us who have followed NKOTB for many years. Since you are unable to see those statements as offensive i will point them out: from the EconoLodge just outside of Missoula, Montana This statement implies, indirectly that NKOTB is broke, which is the same statement that offended us when MTV used it in an article. Our fans will be pleased to know that it's still 1989 to us No it is not still 1989 to them or us, nor do we expect it to be. The Music market has changed, and so have NKOTB. They are grown up, in their 30's and have families. the Music is different from what we have heard in the past from them. it has a more mature sound. To imply that they are still recording music that would be relevent in 1989 is offensive because it is obvious the writer has not even heard the new stuff.(by the way a sample is available on NKOTB.com) The band is also keenly aware that many people view the reunion as pointless This statement is prehaps the most offensive of all. Because the band reuniting is NKOTB, the writer has said that the reunion is pointless. Obviously, based on the comments left here, there is a point to this reunion. Fans from all over the world eagerly await new music from a band that provided us with many hours,days, weeks, months even years of entertainment. The point of this so called "pointless" reunion is to thank the fans for being loyal over the years, and if they happen to acheive success from it, then that is even better. The NKOTB is doing this reunion for one reason only- the fans! as to the rest of your post,I don't think that bands are affored respect blindly, however, I again say that NKOTB ( and their fans) should be treated with the same courtesty as other bands ,such as poison, metallica, even U2. if those bands were to break up and come back in say 14 years, as fan, You ( or fans of the other 2 bands) would expect your "favorite" to be given a chance to prove that they were still relevent and had something to offer to the current music scene. I doubt NKOTB will be given this chance because they are label " boyband". Since you are a U2 fan, I know you have the capability to appreciate good music. so i ask you ,Jordan,and others out there to look at NKOTB and judge them not by the label they are branded with, but by the music they are providing today, not the music they released 20 years ago

Comment by Brian aka Guppusmaximus on Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:07:35 EDT

prove it. Neither you or I can prove or disprove that NKOTB is music just as we can't prove or disprove that we both see the same color when we talk about the color red. With that in mind, I don't hear music when NKOTB is played and you cannot prove different. (you wanted to be difficult..Bring it on)

Comment by Jordan Richardson on Satire: New Kids on the Block Defiant in Press Conference

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:35:59 EDT

"Would you find this article funny/amusing if it were about YOUR favorite band? some how i think not." Yes, I would. And believe me, my favourite band (U2) gets it a lot! "We aren't asking you to like NKOTB, we are just asking for them to be treated with the same respect other musicians are given." Welcome to the world, though. I don't think respect is blindly afforded to any musician or performer of any kind. I defend music of all shapes, sizes, and sounds on a regular basis. I pretty much think that all music follows a formula and don't criticize things blindly. But I do think it's odd that people take such a personal stance as relates to musicians and performers they consider to be their "favourites." It's as though there is a sense of entitlement and immunity there, which really isn't true. The fact of the matter is that all subjects and topics are ripe for humour and, this article being a satire, the beloved NKOTB are no exception. There was nothing overly mean or cruel in this article, either. It was good fun.