How would define "bad music"?

[jthisdell]

Music must have rhythm, melody, harmony, unfortunately I hear a lot of music where I cannot identify all three.

 

[Alkali Ike]

 

[BassBrass]

I need melody and harmonic progression and tension to hold my interest, and in the vast majority of cases, that's not there in hip hop. devolution into totally computer generated "trance," "club," and other genres of electronica

well, there you go. How do you like Indian Raga? There ain't no harmonic progression OR tension for you.

 

[MonetBass]

In high school I briefly played in a garage band, and we played some really bad music.

 

[Aloe]

Anything by Bad Company, Badfinger, Bad English ... whom have I missed?

Bad Manners?

 

[Gluvhand]

Bad News-IFYKYK

 

[coy garcia]

Anything without a melody or inhuman like computer loops. IMHO

 

[factory presets]

Just for the record, one of the bands I toured with covered Devo, Bowie, Ted Nugent, Peter Tosh, Bob Marley, and Sex Pistols....and covered them well and authentically. I'm also acquainted with Javanese Gamelan music, Tibetan throat singing and other polyphonic vocal techniques, ragas, and music of many other cultures....and none of those I just mentioned or that you mentioned rely on programming, overdubbing, and sequencing by computers.

Your mentioning of me being "not all up in hip hop and electronica" may be accurate (and about the only accurate assumption you made about me) if "not all up" means I don't like most of it. If it means I haven't heard it, it would be inaccurate. I have heard some hip hop with some pretty hip rhythmic phrasing and creativity, and even some positive messages and thoughtul prose, but I need melody and harmonic progression and tension to hold my interest, and in the vast majority of cases, that's not there in hip hop. Just as human interaction and spontaneous musical sensitivity is not there in the vast majority of electronic music. I say that having listened to Morton Subotnik's "Silver Apples on the Moon" when it was released, Walter/Wendy Carlos' "Switched-on Bach," Dick Hyman's "The Age of Electronicus," and being involved in synthesis from the early Arp and MiniMoog days (owned an Arp Odyssey, MicroMoog, PolyMoog, Roland Juno, Korg Poly Six, Yamaha DX7, TX7, CS1x, and a host of weighted action sampled piano controllers through the years) through the development of MIDI, sequencers, samplers, and the continued devolution into totally computer generated "trance," "club," and other genres of electronica

Yes, you made a lot of assumptions. It's not always a question of being "out of one's comfort zone" or not being familiar enough with certain genres. Sometimes it IS about disliking it for very concrete reasons, some personal, some intellectual, and some moral. We all like what we like, and dislike what we like, for our own reasons.

Fair doos I was caught out facetiously suggesting you might be all those things. I didn't say you actually were because I was playing around with assumptions. Much like some of the suppositions you've implied about modern music production.

If you are looking for melodic hip hop beyond the autotune the news stylings of Drake and Future, might I suggest The Dancehall music of Jamaica. It's not known for it's II, V, I progressions. But then neither is your list of covers. But, as the direct father of rap, it stands out for never having abandoned melody. Plus the double barrelled vowels they use throw up some interesting rhythmic inflections.

Electronic dance music probably got nothing for you beyond some of the sounds they come up with and how they incorporate them might appeal to your inner synthesist.

I guess I mainly feel the need to push back when people who plainly have never really listened to music that has rewritten so many of the rules of the game try to tell me that only the music of last century has any intrinsic value. I'm not even really invested in those genres. I just see them as part of the continuum of western music. And it kind of offends me to see folk want to cut it off and preserve it in amber. I mean you could just as easily call bebop the ultimate expression and say rock is a pointless pretense of music. Well... you could if you didn't mind being thought of as Canute-like.

 

[RichardW]

It's easy. The music I like is good. The music I don't like is bad.

 

[Tom Bomb]

Sums it up nicely.
​

 

[HP Hovercraft]

I'll chalk that up to ignorance. There are lots of live recordings done today... Although perhaps not in genres with which you may be familiar.

Edit: I realize that sounded harsh, but it wasn't meant to. Ignorance just means a lack of knowledge in a specific area, not a lack of intelligence. There are VAST areas in which I am ignorant. Music is not one of them.

I'm aware of jam band stuff and tape-trading. I'm sure there are other kinds of bands that record live with no edits. But I'm speaking of commercially released music. I personally cannot imagine only listening to live music (from the soundboard or mic'd). Some of the greatest records of all time are studio creations, going back over half a century.

And you claim that you aren't ignorant of music, but your posts make you seem incredibly ignorant of certain kinds of music. Which is fine. I just prefer to have a base understanding of things I'm willing to argue about. I also don't care to defend feelings about something, as those are personal.

 

[Koshchei]

Duke Ellington once said there were really only two kinds of music; good and bad. I do agree with that statement although musical appreciation and musical tastes are highly subjective and vairy tremendously.
Of course, I do know which music I like and which music I adore. Oftentimes my favorite genres (without getting into particulars) are overlooked, under appreciated, not understood by folks who listen on the "surface only".
Then again music which is insanely popular, I am sometimes not drawn to. (over the top, intellectually lacking, formulaic etc.) My reasons for catagorizing music as simply "bad" are very personal.
What is "bad" music to you?

Bad music to me possesses the following characteristics:
1) Poorly composed: ideas either not thought through or wing-clipped by composer's poor understanding of theory, craft, etc.
2) Poorly arranged: failure to consider tonal colours available for the recording and make use of them.
3) Poorly performed: let down by performers' lack of technical facility, inability to interpret and express a cohesive musical narrative (i.e. just plays the notes).

 

[factory presets]

The point is, thoughtfully produced electronic music ISN’T repetitive, or at least not any more repetitive than any pop song with a standard structure.

Humbly suggest dance music makes use of long, slow build-ups that can sound repetitive if you don't hear the parts being subtly added to achieve that dynamic.

 

[HP Hovercraft]

Just for the record, one of the bands I toured with covered Devo, Bowie, Ted Nugent, Peter Tosh, Bob Marley, and Sex Pistols....and covered them well and authentically. I'm also acquainted with Javanese Gamelan music, Tibetan throat singing and other polyphonic vocal techniques, ragas, and music of many other cultures....and none of those I just mentioned or that you mentioned rely on programming, overdubbing, and sequencing by computers.

You trying to claim that Devo didn't use sequencers? indigenous music aside, all of those artists used overdubs.

 

[Discount Bassy]

Personal taste is entirely subjective. Applying good and bad to music is similar to choosing the best color without context.

 

[GLEN18INCHSPICA]

Anything by Bad Company, Badfinger, Bad English ... whom have I missed?

Bad Brains

 

[factory presets]

Music must have rhythm, melody, harmony, unfortunately I hear a lot of music where I cannot identify all three.

But does it need all those or do those codified elements just make it easier to organise sounds into something coherent?

 

[Obese Chess]

Oh, oh!

This is a fun one for me as it's something I've spent a lot of time thinking about - and with the death of music criticism this century I think it's something more people should think about, but I digress.

For me, the biggest part of whether I label something "bad" vs "not for me" is whether or not what I am listening to is authentic. If I can tell that someone truly put their heart and soul into something, whatever it is, even if it's something fun and silly, I'm not going to say it's "bad," but it might not be for me. There's stuff out there that leaves me cold but I can tell someone busted their ass to make it, so I give it a pass even if I don't like it much.

I think that leads to a second thing, which is that a lot of music I think is bad is also incredibly lazy. Endless droning vocalizations (ooohhh hooaaaahhh whhoaaa whoa whoooaaa hey), frequently repeated lyrics, rhyming words with themselves over and over again, incredibly basic song structure/composition in a genre that doesn't lend itself to it, that sort of thing.

I also agree with an above comment about some things being poorly composed, poorly constructed, or poorly performed, but it's pretty rare to hear stuff that meets those metrics outside of like, DIY punk or noise shows these days.

So, basically, if I can tell someone worked really hard to show me their vision, I'm not going to think it sucks, even if I don't like listening to it. If there's no vision or they phoned it in, it sucks.

 

[ThinCrappyTone2]

Can all agree on present day Vince Neil, live?

 

[Tom Bomb]

"Megadeth to Disco Duck — it's all atrocious. … Fire up the barbie."

​