Which is worse - to be bad or boring?

[Sparkl]

There is plenty of popular music that doesn’t require a player to be “good” to play, but one can also be “bad” at making that music in some compelling way at the same time as being “not good” at an instrument- that generally makes them both bad AND boring though. I prefer a train wreck of a performance to a boring one usually- sometimes people are so bad that it becomes compelling (like karaoke, where many great singers are a snooze-fest). So “bad” can mean multiple things- lack of technical ability, or lack of compelling performance. I would say the latter could also be synonymous with “boring”. One can be bad at playing an instrument or singing but also put on a performance that people enjoy or one can be technically amazing at playing an instrument and leave an audience cold (I’ve seen many virtuoso players like this, super common in LA when I was there).

What is a definition of "good"?

What is the definition of "boring"?

I think you will find that if you try to answer this question you should conclude that classifying something as "good" will require you to set a specific set of objective criteria (keeping time, clear playing, consistant bass line, etc.) which a player/musician will have to accomplish in contrast to "boring" which will also consist on a certain set of criteria you will personally conjure but you will not be able to link it to anything objective.

There is nothing objective to be said about being boring because you will not be able to explain that a certain person is boring because they stand at a fixed angle on stage whereas objectively they should be jumping around at a 45 degree angle, or because their face sits wrong.

So if we already discuss something like that we should at least try to employ minimal standards of scientific research.

 

[bdplaid]

What is a definition of "good"?

What is the definition of "boring"?

I think you will find that if you try to answer this question you should conclude that classifying something as "good" will require you to set a specific set of objective criteria (keeping time, clear playing, consistant bass line, etc.) which a player/musician will have to accomplish in contrast to "boring" which will also consist on a certain set of criteria you will personally conjure but you will not be able to link it to anything objective.

There is nothing objective to be said about being boring because you will not be able to explain that a certain person is boring because they stand at a fixed angle on stage whereas objectively they should be jumping around at a 45 degree angle, or because their face sits wrong.

So if we already discuss something like that we should at least try to employ minimal standards of scientific research.

This is the opposite of what music ought to be, because it's boring.

 

[bdplaid]

Objective vs subjective, hmmm... I'm not sure that enters into it for me. If it music or art, everything is subjective. Is Van Gogh objectively better than another artist?

If I see a band, and they strike me as bad, I'll move on, probably; it depends on what is bad and if I want to rubberneck the accident. If I see a band that strikes me as boring, I'll move on for sure.

 

[Sparkl]

This is the opposite of what music ought to be, because it's boring.

No it is not. Problem is that a lot of people in this forum tend to interpretate things very specifically, for their own interest.

I'm not picking at you in this specific case but questions like the OP's require a bit more depth than just merely subjective opinions. This is honestly a question not only specifically related to music but rather requires a fair share of psycho-analysis knowledge, along with the field of musicology and market research.

To just purely say "this or that is boring to me" is not justifiable in such a discussion because it provides zero argument to the topic in terms of a productive research into the matter. If we refuse to dissect this in a more detailed manner then the whole topic ends up being just another "share your opinion" thread. Fine by me but there is really nothing to discuss about then.

To me Taylor Swift is boring. But obviously she's doing just fine. So what gives?

 

[bassicmike]

Bad can be enthralling, exciting, enraging...it can provoke a response.

Boring is just boring. zzzzzzzzz...

 

[bdplaid]

No it is not. Problem is that a lot of people in this forum tend to interpretate things very specifically, for their own interest.

I'm not picking at you in this specific case but questions like the OP's require a bit more depth than just merely subjective opinions. This is honestly a question not only specifically related to music but rather requires a fair share of psycho-analysis knowledge, along with the field of musicology and market research.

To just purely say "this or that is boring to me" is not justifiable in such a discussion because it provides zero argument to the topic in terms of a productive research into something. If we refuse to dissect this in a more detailed manner then the whole topic ends up being just another "share your opinion" thread. Fine by me but there is really nothing to discuss about then.

To me Taylor Swift is boring. But obviously she's doing just fine. So what gives?

I don't believe a "scientific" approach is useful at all. One likes what one likes for many reasons. Including Taylor Swift. Which I think is both boring and bad.

 

[Sparkl]

I don't believe a "scientific" approach is useful at all. One likes what one likes for many reasons. Including Taylor Swift. Which I think is both boring and bad.

Let's not go further into what is useful or not. Fact is, OP formulated their question in a way that at least touches the need for a scientific approach. They are specifically asking for which of the two is worse, therefore it is impossible to attempt to answer this question with any solid credibility without setting some parameters first.

 

[bdplaid]

Let's not go further into what is useful or not. Fact is, OP formulated their question in a way that at least touches the need for a scientific approach. They are specifically asking for which of the two is worse, therefore it is impossible to attempt to answer this question with any solid credibility without setting some parameters first.

I'm the OP.

 

[Sparkl]

I'm the OP.

Then what is it you want to know?

 

[bdplaid]

It was just a matter for discussion.

 

[sunbeast]

What is a definition of "good"?

What is the definition of "boring"?

I think you will find that if you try to answer this question you should conclude that classifying something as "good" will require you to set a specific set of objective criteria (keeping time, clear playing, consistant bass line, etc.) which a player/musician will have to accomplish in contrast to "boring" which will also consist on a certain set of criteria you will personally conjure but you will not be able to link it to anything objective.

There is nothing objective to be said about being boring because you will not be able to explain that a certain person is boring because they stand at a fixed angle on stage whereas objectively they should be jumping around at a 45 degree angle, or because their face sits wrong.

So if we already discuss something like that we should at least try to employ minimal standards of scientific research.

I disagree because one can be good or bad at being a compelling performer too- not just good or bad at the skills of playing an instrument- and what makes a compelling performance isn’t just a set of objective technical rules, and in fact someone can be a compelling performer with minimal effort or skill (it can literally just be charisma, which probably isn’t an objective trait). Sometimes a musician can play so terribly that it is in itself a compelling performance. Does what makes it compelling have to be practiced or even intentional for that person to be considered a good performer? I would argue absolutely not.

 

[SDC1-ClickClack]

No it is not. Problem is that a lot of people in this forum tend to interpretate things very specifically, for their own interest.
(...snip...)

Your attempt to vocabularize is faultified and weakenated by the fact that "interpretate" is not a legitimate word. It offendulates my delicatated sensibillys — which is a bad thing, but not boring.

(^Just yankin' yer chain here, not seriously trying to be antagonistic.)

 

[bdplaid]

Will youse guys cut it out! I can feel the flame war heating up.

 

[bassicmike]

"interpretate' is a perfectly cromulent word.

(tip'o'the cap to HIAR)

 

[Sparkl]

Your attempt to vocabularize is faultified and weakenated by the fact that "interpretate" is not a legitimate word. It offendulates my delicatated sensibillys — which is a bad thing, but not boring.

(^Just yankin' yer chain here, not seriously trying to be antagonistic.)

Interpretate is a legitimate, if slightly archaic version of "interpret" in english language.

 

[SDC1-ClickClack]

Interpretate is a legitimate, if slightly archaic word in english language. I'm not kidding.

 

[factory presets]

Energy vs chops maybe?

Energy can get you through a lack of chops. But chops can get you likes on YouTube. You need to consider the audience you want to attract.

 

[Guitalia]

I don't believe a "scientific" approach is useful at all. One likes what one likes for many reasons. Including Taylor Swift. Which I think is both boring and bad.

Exactly. Our genes program us for competition. We have to feel as if we have what it takes to compete and win. But too much success, especially success on the all but unimaginable scale of that of Taylor Swift, is intolerable: it has absolutely nothing to do with us, and yet it makes us feel like utterly irredeemable failures.

The merits of her music could not be more irrelevant to this reaction. She's just the latest example of the phenomenon of absolute success and so has to be rejected absolutely,

 

[fhm555]

For me, well done boring music is preferable to amateur hour. I've listened to some incredibly well-played music that would make watching paint dry seem exciting, but I can only take out of sync or slinky timing or sloppy skills with an instrument for a few bars before I'm tuning it out if I can't get up and leave.

 

[roleki]

At least bad can be entertaining. Boring can't be saved.