that implies that if it ISN'T recorded it's more likely to sound the same? weird.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Is 'good' music objective or subjective?
- Thread starter Brelic
- Start date
it's good because i learned that many of my fellow tb'ers don't know what "objective" means.
I personally feel that there is no such thing as good or bad music, only music that one person can connect with emotionally. If you will, the music that you feel closest to is more or less "good" for you. Most people say "what about a band that sounds bad", let us not forget that technique and musicianship have a large role, if a person can emotionally connect to the music being played then i personally believe that song is good for them. Of course this is my opinion and only relative to me. Many of the other great musicians on this thread may have a difference of opinion that i do respect.
I learned "I Love How You Love Me" for a first dance at a wedding last weekend. I had never heard of it so I googled. Top vid:
Nice, but we're all male so I checked out the next one:
Also nice. Then, just in case the bride was exposed to a newer remake I clicked on the third:
This was the most godawful sound I think I've ever heard. Fingernails on chalkboard painful. Yet it has 1/4 million hits and they were apparently quite popular. As Frank Zappa said when asked why people liked his music, "There's no accounting for taste."
Nice, but we're all male so I checked out the next one:
Also nice. Then, just in case the bride was exposed to a newer remake I clicked on the third:
This was the most godawful sound I think I've ever heard. Fingernails on chalkboard painful. Yet it has 1/4 million hits and they were apparently quite popular. As Frank Zappa said when asked why people liked his music, "There's no accounting for taste."
well, i obviously dont belong in this thread because i would put the Foo Fighters up against any of the greats, including Nirvana and them Crooked Vultures. Nickelback is worthless garbage. FOO is real rock n roll....i couldnt compare the two at all.
Is 'good' music objective or subjective?
This is an easy question. Good music is objective when 'I' talk about it. Good music is subjective when 'you' talk about it.
This is an easy question. Good music is objective when 'I' talk about it. Good music is subjective when 'you' talk about it.
It has been brought up to court, and judgment has been made. It was the same with those art paintings in the 60s. You let two chimpanzees have their way with a brush and a couple of jars with paint, and then the artist "signed" it, and put it out at a gallery as a new series, of abstract art. Then the reviews came. After 6 months he showed vide (film) of them painting and all reviewers were ridiculed and then some. In Sweden this "random" musical patterns have been brought up to court, and it didn't even go further because the one who'd been suing was told that he had not a candle to hold. I e his "random music" was rubbish, and could just as well be made up without influence from or with another. It was too unoriginal. It has all about originality to do. It's the same if you claim to have written a poem with random words in it, and claim you're Shakespeare.
Of course, odds are it will not be the same due to the randomness. But the randomness will not have a set pattern that can be REPEATABLE so much that is said to be plagiarism. Chances are that it will sound the same to listener who couldn't care less of which is which, the original or copy. But as this is of purely academical nature, and just brought up if someone is sued and alleged plagiarism. But in the end, if you want to make it a stretch, it's actually possible to determine objectively what is bad music, theoretically and technically. And that's - lo and behold - up to court to decide.
When it comes to blues music, which has repeatable licks, and simple triad forms, most rhythms and general and common chords form are not originality. But the lyrics sure are. See Wille Dixon/Led Zeppelin lawsuit. And if there should be a memorable melodic hook that is different from stock pattern licks that anyone can come up with without influencing each others it's different level of height and originality. Not too obvoius. I think you can't patent a drum pattern for example. Or tempo signature. It's too un-original. Old cult prog band EGG from the 70's tried to do that, with their time signature to their oddball tune Contrasong. Didn't fare well. As if someone would be able to copy that and try to play it live.
- - - - - - -
On a side note, in Sweden the court has even passed out judgment and verdict that a person is - objectively - ugly. The person was officially famous as a manager, record company boss (successful) for several acts in Sweden, and figuring in media all of the time. He was called Billy Butt. (no kidding, it's true). He was involved in alleged rape scandals, and it turned out that he tried to do it the old way, you know old female film actors of the 40's that, "if you go to bed with me, I'll make you famous and rich", but on a smaller scale and in music business.
In the court ruling, the final verdict was dressed up and sugarcoated in words "due to the accused characteristic facial features" i e that he was unable to get chicks the normal way, so - as usual - he had to promise them money instead. And when some of the naive girls later on, didn't get that famous at all, they decided to have a go at him.
It was a media storm in Sweden when that court ruling came out. A court decided if you were ugly or not. You can Google it for how much you want.
I'm not going to tell people what to like. I'm not going to let them tell me, either.
it is BOTH at the same time - this is easy
there is the music you 'connect' with -the subjective - could be for various reasons - your place in life, an experience you relate to the music, etc
but then there is appreciation - the objective, sort of cerebral side - the ability to comprehend the quality and value of the music for it's own sake
there are social trends that effect 'popular' music and create temporarily accepted aesthetics - immediately I think of Nirvana or Grunge or Punk - these are specific crude responses to a sort of clean and orderly world view and meant to be unattractive and reactionary - purposely the opposite of quality
I know I am biased (being a geezer) but 'popular' music from the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s even some 80s were generally endeavors in producing a superior product - if you don't believe me go back and listen to Duke Ellington or Burt Bacharach (sp?) or The Allman Bros or Steely Dan or The Beatles - hard to argue that any of it was 'bad' music - you may prefer this or that but you can't argue the quality and care with which it was produced
unfortunately technology is not our friend if we're pursuing 'quality' - digital recording, sampling & such allow neophytes to sit down and cobble some crap together - no skills, no training, no study - this is a disposable product - maybe it's appropriate for our time but....
there is the music you 'connect' with -the subjective - could be for various reasons - your place in life, an experience you relate to the music, etc
but then there is appreciation - the objective, sort of cerebral side - the ability to comprehend the quality and value of the music for it's own sake
there are social trends that effect 'popular' music and create temporarily accepted aesthetics - immediately I think of Nirvana or Grunge or Punk - these are specific crude responses to a sort of clean and orderly world view and meant to be unattractive and reactionary - purposely the opposite of quality
I know I am biased (being a geezer) but 'popular' music from the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s even some 80s were generally endeavors in producing a superior product - if you don't believe me go back and listen to Duke Ellington or Burt Bacharach (sp?) or The Allman Bros or Steely Dan or The Beatles - hard to argue that any of it was 'bad' music - you may prefer this or that but you can't argue the quality and care with which it was produced
unfortunately technology is not our friend if we're pursuing 'quality' - digital recording, sampling & such allow neophytes to sit down and cobble some crap together - no skills, no training, no study - this is a disposable product - maybe it's appropriate for our time but....
Pnchad. I agree. Also, the TIME it takes for music to become good from bad. It takes time. You know how the same people loathed jazz, rock or whatever was new, WHEN IT CAME OUT. Later on, down the road, the same people did a 190 degree shift, and not only liked, but loved the music. It's just about how much time it takes.
These days, even Rammstein ain't that terrible, and provocative or challenging anymore. Once we become accustomed to it. It's slowly "getting good" ;-)
These days, even Rammstein ain't that terrible, and provocative or challenging anymore. Once we become accustomed to it. It's slowly "getting good" ;-)
buldog5151bass
Kibble, milkbones, and P Basses. And redheads.
As another older (49) guy, I call foul. You can find !@#$%$ in any decade. For every Sgt. Peppers or Pet Sounds, you have Mrs. Brown you have a Lovely Daughter, or These Boots Were Made for Walking, etc.
