Music: its not all objective

[maxi--]

Music: its not all subjective

So,

the widely used theory is that, music is subjective, there's no such thing as good or bad music, it's all down to taste.

I think, this is bullshit.

I freely admit to liking bad music, a lot of the stuff i listen to isn't lyircally, musically, technically that good at all, I just like the sound, and so enjoy it. I enjoy some bad music.
Examples of bad music i do like:
Oasis' first album
Dressy Bessy
most twee-indie pop


I also, DON'T enjoy some good music, some well written, techincally groundbreaking, innovative and impressive, although rarely, do i not enjoy a good lyricists music.
Examples of good artists I dont like:

Captain Beefhart
Frank Zappa
Mogwai
God Speed You! Black Emperor
probably Melt banana.


and the same goes for you.


Discuss

edit/ using correct words

i was up till 5am!! and got up ate 8, cut me some slack dudes.

 

[Swift^]

Good and bad music can't really ever exist in music.

What defines what is good song writing?
What defines what is good technical ability?
What defines what is good musical ability?
What defines innovation?
What defines good 'sound'?
What defines a good player/singer/artist?
What defines as good production?

Too vague.

IMO, this thread looks like a sad attempt to have the "what album is best" thread in a place where it 'should' be - there's no point for it.


And btw, it should be music is SUBjective, not objective.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Originally posted by maxi--
*Random Shit*

and the same goes for you.

Ah, and all this time i thought you didn't know me.

 

[maxi--]

Originally posted by Swift^
Good and bad music can't really ever exist in music.

What defines what is good song writing?
What defines what is good technical ability?
What defines what is good musical ability?
What defines innovation?
What defines good 'sound'?
What defines a good player/singer/artist?
What defines as good production?

I think good and bad music CAN exist, I thought it'd be an interesting subject to raise...

You can define what you like AND what is good, i think they're two different things...i think if you show OBJectivity, this is possible, I also think that it requires at least a little knowledge of music, aswell how its made..I'm certainly not the best person to do so, It also requires listening to a lot of music, and having done it for a while, again, I'm not the best person to do this...

Swift, this was something i was talking about in the pub on ssaturday, with some friends..we all agree its sad that we can't appreciate some GOOD music, i named Zappa, as one...

 

[throdgrain]

Hey there people Im Bobby Brown
They say Im the cutest boy in town
My car is white
My teeth are shiny
i tell all the girls they can kiss my heiny.

Here i am at a famous school
Im acting sharp
and im dressing cool
Got a cheerleader here to help with my paper
let her do all the work
maybe later ill rape her

O god i am the American dream
I do not think
im too extreme
and my name is bobby brown
watch me now, im going down

Sorry, just COULD NOT resist it

 

[Tom]

Maxi you pretty much contradict yourself in your post. You don't say why you think that theory is bullshit, you just disagree with it.

 

[xane]

I agree with Tom, it does sound like you contradict yourself.

Anyways, the term "music" means much more in today's world, if you look at the Pop Idol thread in the General Forum you can see how people recognise the value and power of marketing, in today's environment, that means much more than the actual song itself.

A lot of punters will buy and listen to music not necessarily because they enjoy it. Songwriting and its performance is usually a measure of some image that people wish to associate with, and most songs are written with that image in mind.

Those with extra talent will write songs "to order", consider all those film scores that have sold massively, they are all written by a small core group of talent but performed by a wide variety of artists, and because they match with the film and ride on it on its coattails, they share the success, but that's not totally down to it being a good song.

Examples; I Will Always Love You (Bodyguard), My Heart Will Go On (Titanic), Everything I Do (Robin Hood), a greater trio of cringeworthy ear torture would be hard to find.

People will happily buy and listen to trash because it fits in with their ideals, I dispair watching the hardcore music fan make themselves sick over a song that they actually enjoy but doesn't fit in with their image.

If you had to measure "good" music, it would only be in timelessness, to me a "good" song sounds "good" whatever my mood, whatever the situation, and whenever I hear it.

 

[throdgrain]

More to the point fron my perspective .
Take Frank Zappa for example , an unarguably excellent musician, if prone to some odd lyrics
Now consider the first Clash album, The Clash.
If I take Ship Arriving Too Late To Save A Drowning Witch, and compare it with The Clash, I , me personally, like The Clash better, even though its undeniably of inferior musical "workmanship".

 

[Jupitus]

I don't think you will ever get people to agree on this. The problem is, do you mean music which is good or bad 'technically' or music which is good or bad 'to listen to' (or any other way of being good or bad for that matter)?

Composers know that particular combinations of notes will sound pleasing to the ear, whilst other combinations may actually cause some discomfort to the listener. Over time the secret to these pleasing combinations of notes has been documented and they have become the norm, and through acceptance have become what people would come to expect. You could therefore argue that if I wrote a piece of music utilising some of these well known pleasing combinations of notes that I have written a 'technically good' piece of music.

Does this mean if I write some music using combinations of notes not so 'pleasing to the ear' that I am writing some technically 'bad' music? Are we going to say that Shostakovic and Rimsky-Korsakov were bad composers, since they frequently wrote music containing discordant combinations of notes?

I don't think the difficulty is in determining whether music likes or dislikes are subjective, they certainly are. I think the problem lies in defining 'good' or 'bad' music.

 

[maxi--]

Originally posted by xane
I agree with Tom, it does sound like you contradict yourself.

Yeah, reading it, I do, and actually thinking about it, I think 'bad' music is pretty difficult to spot, I mean you CAN do it, but like Jupitus said, how many people will agree?

I can tell you that The Stereophonics lyrics are plain terrible in comparison with someone like Morrissey, and Musically fucking appauling when put up against the work of Marr + Rest of The Smiths, It's not bad, i suppose, just it is inferior in nearly every way possible. That doesn't make it bad, i mean they get by, they make music.

I suppose, like it has been said, good and bad are pretty poor ways to describe music, too, better or worse might be more appropriate, but then it becomes aimless pointscoring.

I think it is a shame though, that I am unable to enjoy music which i know is very good quality(?).

I was up at 5am yesterday, though, damnit, it made sense then.


I don't think music should be bought on the basis of someones Image, i hate that idea, but that's the way it is.

 

[Jupitus]

Originally posted by maxi--
I was up at 5am yesterday, though, damnit, it made sense then.

You sure?

*points maxi towards Damini's greatest dream thread*

 

[maxi--]

Ah, uh, i mean, i didnt get to sleep til 5am, I had t oget up at 8am.

 

[Rekin]

You were doing well maxi until you accused Definitely Maybe of being bad music.

 

[Swift^]

No, that's about the only thing maxi got right.

 

[Rekin]

Shut it wazz.

 

[maxi--]

Definately maybe is terrible lyricically.

 

[Jonaldo]

Nirvana - Kurt Cobain didn't have a very good voice, it breaks a lot, very limited range and he ends up shouting or screaming sometimes. He was a poor guitar player, often hitting wrong notes and only ever using power chords even when playing acoustic guitar and his guitar soloes lacking any imagination or structure. The patterns and number of chords used in each song were also very limited. The bassline for each song seemed to just follow the root note of each chord and also showed distinct lack of imagination and any sign of playing ability. Lyrically they were nothing special and never made any statements to make you sit and ponder over in the early hours of the morning.

Yet they made some cracking songs. Go figure.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by maxi--
Definately maybe is terrible lyricically.

LOL

 

[maxi--]

Originally posted by Tom
LOL

typo, jeez!

 

[Jupitus]

Actually it's just hilarious, not for the typo, but for the content

 

[maxi--]

what?

Patronise me more please, it's the onlyw a I'll learn

 

[Jupitus]

Just read the line a few times with a bit of rhythm.... it's got a fantastic ring to it

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Originally posted by maxi--
what?

Patronise me more please, it's the onlyw a I'll learn

Ah so you were teaching us all in the other posts?

 

[maxi--]

.

 

[dysfunction]

Originally posted by maxi--
.

I can only agree on that point...






+1 on obvious jokes...

 

[doh_boy]

Just to jump to maxi's defence (Shock horror! ) Noel himself says that he is not the best song-writer in the world (on one interview when asked 'What one thing do you want in the whole world' he answer 'another rhyme to car other than jaguar') he was being (or trying to be) funny but it had a serious point. He doesn't claim to be bob dylan* but writes songs from the heart that mean something to him. Which is why my favourite oasis song is 'Half the world away' because a lot of the feeling in that song I can empathise with ( I feel them myself).

* insert any good song-writer to flavour. and please don't have a go saying 'OMFG BOB DYLAN IS TEH SHIT RITOR!!!!' pretty please.


I do think that music, like most art, is more to do with conveying feeling and emotion rather than any technical ability. As such there cannot be any objective good, thinking as much ruins the whole experience and makes it elitist. Think of contemporary art today it's full of people who think that because you don't agree with them that x is great art that you don't understand it because you're retarded. As with any other art some people don't like the concept and as such will never like anything to do with it. For me it's modern art such as 'installations' I'm much more into ultra-classical stuff like the 'boring' landscapes and most photography. Horses for courses innit!

 

[Jonaldo]

Originally posted by doh_boy
Think of contemporary art today it's full of people who think that because you don't agree with them that x is great art that you don't understand it because you're retarded. As with any other art some people don't like the concept and as such will never like anything to do with it. For me it's modern art such as 'installations' I'm much more into ultra-classical stuff like the 'boring' landscapes and most photography. Horses for courses innit!

You have to admit that Damien Hirst is utter shit though right?

 

[doh_boy]

Well I don't like it and I think it's all a pile of poop but I've friends who will gladly argue that Damien hirsts stuff is meaningful and the very best of art at the moment.

Someone told me that the point of the sheep in formaldahyde was:

'The falacy of meat products packaged so that the consumer is removed from the horror that killing animals for meat is.'

Another said:

'A witty comment on the obsession with youth and keeping yourself ever young in relation to nature.'

Neither particularly lights my fire, so to speak.