- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 4/12/15 at 1:10 am to BigOrangeBri
quote:
I just think it's funny that some people think that no bad music has ever been made.
I just think its impossible to quantify what is bad music. I'll give you shitty performances. If the band isn't together or out of key or technically not proficient, I'm with you.
I don't generally care for my wifes taste in music. In fact at least half the shite she listens to I HATE. But it doesn't mean her taste in music is bad. It's just her taste.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 1:14 am to Roaad
quote:
He needs to think shite is objective. . .that way he can justify elitism. One day he will realize that someone can value Justin Timberlake AS MUCH as someone can value Suicidal Tendencies.
In not being elitist. I've said earlier that there is bad mainstream and unknown music and within all genres. Just like there is good music in the mainstream and within all genres.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 8:38 am to inadaze
Ok, now I enjoyed your selective bolding and what not; however I was making my own specific point regarding how I feel about the subject.
This is just going to keep moving back and forth and back and forth. There are further issues we could discuss regarding mass marketing and things like that but I'm not planning on getting into all that.
not all mainstream artists are bad, nor are they all good - (good / bad being in reference to a basic presence/lack of original ideas and thoughts). there are some without a doubt that are putting out unoriginal/lower quality/simplistic work just because people will consume it without thought. I think the easiest analogy would be an author who gets paid for 500 pages and puts it out as quickly as possible then starts up on the next one just to put something new for people to buy. people can certainly find that enjoyable (their taste) and I read that kind of shite too.
Finally perhaps movies. I like crappy action movies, Battleship, a team, expendables, Pacific Rim, all that shite. They are not quality movies and my taste in movies isn't considered very good. I like good movies too which present compelling story lines however if my friends ask my opinion on a movie, it must be be viewed with caution.
This is just going to keep moving back and forth and back and forth. There are further issues we could discuss regarding mass marketing and things like that but I'm not planning on getting into all that.
not all mainstream artists are bad, nor are they all good - (good / bad being in reference to a basic presence/lack of original ideas and thoughts). there are some without a doubt that are putting out unoriginal/lower quality/simplistic work just because people will consume it without thought. I think the easiest analogy would be an author who gets paid for 500 pages and puts it out as quickly as possible then starts up on the next one just to put something new for people to buy. people can certainly find that enjoyable (their taste) and I read that kind of shite too.
Finally perhaps movies. I like crappy action movies, Battleship, a team, expendables, Pacific Rim, all that shite. They are not quality movies and my taste in movies isn't considered very good. I like good movies too which present compelling story lines however if my friends ask my opinion on a movie, it must be be viewed with caution.
This post was edited on 4/12/15 at 9:33 am
Posted on 4/12/15 at 12:12 pm to heatom2
quote:
I just think its impossible to quantify what is bad music. I'll give you shitty performances. If the band isn't together or out of key or technically not proficient, I'm with you.
I don't generally care for my wifes taste in music. In fact at least half the shite she listens to I HATE. But it doesn't mean her taste in music is bad. It's just her taste.
This is correct Poor musicianship gives you bad music. Some songs are deeper than others, some are longer than others, some are geared at different audiences. If their audience appreciates it, it's not objectively bad music.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 3:48 pm to Peazey
quote:
I can only really think of it as simply as this. It is a person's ability to discern.
It can mean that, but you're more referring to the word discernment (or judgment). Even if that's how you interpret it, discernment/judgment of what? This is where we get into the context. The context is the average person's taste in music -- that means we're talking about what people like -- their individual preference. Their taste. I mean, would you say that the average person has a poor ability to discern what they like? (There is something to that, to some degree, with relation to marketing, and people just listening to what's put out as popular, as opposed to seeking out other types of music, but that doesn't necessarily apply when we're talking about preference.) We're not talking about the discernment of singing competition judges, or football scouts. We're talking about the average person's preference, at least that's what the OP is referring to in a general way.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 4:08 pm to BigOrangeBri
quote:
I just think it's funny that some people think that no bad music has ever been made.
Who is saying that?
You're taking the thread to wild, undefined extremes.
To keep this on track, you have to define "good" and "bad" for the context of the thread.
Who/what are you appealing to when you talk about "good" and "bad"?
If you define "bad" as music that most people don't enjoy, then sure, "bad" music has been made. However, if you're defining "bad" music as popular music that many people enjoy, but you think is bad, then you're talking about your personal opinion. That is not objective.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 4:13 pm to inadaze
If someone thinks Taco Bell is better than Torchy's they are certainly entitled to that personal opinion, but I'm also allowed to look at that as a shitty opinion and conclude they have a poor taste in tacos based on the relative quality of ingredients between the two.
Same thing applies here.
Same thing applies here.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 4:26 pm to CheeseburgerEddie
quote:
Ok, now I enjoyed your selective bolding and what not; however I was making my own specific point regarding how I feel about the subject.
I was just trying to keep your comments about objectivity within the context of the thread. I wasn't trying to distort the meaning of your post or anything like that.
quote:
There are further issues we could discuss regarding mass marketing
I agree, that plays a role to some degree.
quote:
good / bad being in reference to a basic presence/lack of original ideas and thoughts
Okay, but that's your criteria. Other people value different things in their criteria. That is what is meant by subjectivity. As you get down into the basics, you'll find values that line up universally, or almost universally, and you can talk objectively (in some sense of the word) about that, but those basic values don't lead you to total objectivity.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 4:41 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
If someone thinks Taco Bell is better than Torchy's they are certainly entitled to that personal opinion, but I'm also allowed to look at that as a shitty opinion and conclude they have a poor taste in tacos based on the relative quality of ingredients between the two.
How is quality defined in this instance? The point of disagreement in this thread is conflating preference with objective fact.
Some people are appealing to an objective standard without defining what that standard is. They are acting like they have total objectivity in judgment when what they really have is a point of view/opinion.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 5:05 pm to inadaze
quote:
How is quality defined in this instance?
It's a difficult thing to describe, I'll give you that. But that said I can look at a band like say the Arcade Fire, and even though I don't like them nearly as much as some other people do, I can pretty easily recognize their music as imaginative, thought-provoking, and aesthetically/artistically significant. Even though it's not my thing, I can respect them as "quality"
On the other hand a band like Nickelback is none of those things. If someone wants to be a big Nickelback fan then good for them, I'm in no position to tell anyone what to like. But that said my perception of their artistic taste is not going to be too high.
Same thing with movies. I may personally not be a huge fan of The King's Speech, but it doesn't take Francis Ford Coppola to see that it's an objectively better film than Transformers 2.
This post was edited on 4/12/15 at 5:10 pm
Posted on 4/12/15 at 6:33 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
If someone thinks Taco Bell is better than Torchy's they are certainly entitled to that personal opinion, but I'm also allowed to look at that as a shitty opinion and conclude they have a poor taste in tacos based on the relative quality of ingredients between the two. Same thing applies here.
This x1000. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. There are a myriad of factors that can make a song or album bad and it has nothing to do with popularity.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 6:51 pm to BigOrangeBri
quote:
There are a myriad of factors that can make a song or album bad and it has nothing to do with popularity.
What are they?
Posted on 4/13/15 at 12:48 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
It's a difficult thing to describe, I'll give you that.
It's actually not too difficult. You just ask someone how they define quality. Get them to explain their criteria for what they think quality/good is (good to me). That's it.
As I said, you'll find consensus on some basic/fundamental things, then variation regarding other factors.
There's no need to continue with the comparisons. They're only making a point on consensus/popularity, which essentially goes against what OP is saying. Plus, even with food quality, there's a wide range of variation in preference. Ask different people what quality is and you'll get different answers -- bodybuilders, vegetarians, diabetics, people from India, people from Africa, etc. -- there are lots of different factors that affect people's criteria for what quality is. Also, people's taste buds vary.
Taste bud
quote:
On average, the human tongue has 2,000–8,000 taste buds, implying that there are hundreds of thousands of receptor cells. However, the number of taste buds varies widely. For example, per square centimetre on the tip of the tongue, some people may have only a few individual taste buds, whereas others may have more than one thousand; this variability contributes to differences in the taste sensations experienced by different people. Taste sensations produced within an individual taste bud also vary, since each taste bud typically contains receptor cells that respond to distinct chemical stimuli—as opposed to the same chemical stimulus. As a result, the sensation of different tastes (i.e., salty, sweet, sour, bitter, or umami) is diverse not only within a single taste bud but also throughout the surface of the tongue.
That doesn't mean that there is indefinite variation for what is considered quality food for humans beings. There's a limit on the variation. But quality does vary and is relative to the individual.
Posted on 4/13/15 at 5:39 am to CocoLoco
quote:
CocoLoco
I just want to add that although I have pushed back against this idea of "poor taste" and objective comments about it, I do personally agree with much of what you're saying about mainstream music. I think much of it is very dull and predictable. I think some of it is inauthentic, and as you said, "soulless" (that word makes me somewhat uneasy because I think that some may have a religious interpretation associated with that relative to their definition of "good"). I feel that way about various other things that are mainstream as well (e.g., mainstream news). However, I do like some mainstream music.
People in this thread keep alluding to some type of objective standard, but they don't really get into it fully. I'd like to see an explanation of this objective basis that doesn't confuse objectivity with one's personal opinion. When I think about what that objective basis could possibly be, I think of maybe some kind of tip-of-the-spear evolutionary drive, or maybe some kind of Platonic idealism. Of course, for some people it would be religious -- I find the spiritual aspect of that intriguing. None of this leads to a totally objective basis for music, though. It may provide a better framework to talk about objectivity and good, but the subjectivity of different people's tastes still plays a huge part.
Posted on 4/13/15 at 8:31 am to inadaze
Why was the first sentence the only part of my post you responded to. It was the least substantive part if the whole thing 
Posted on 4/13/15 at 11:50 am to CheeseburgerEddie
quote:
Can you people not who are adamant about "music is subjective" not have a general idea of something being good quality even if you don't like it? Or recognize talent outside of your personal preference?
Of course! I never implied otherwise. But you are opening a can of worms, because what "quality" can mean many things. Creative quality? Technical quality? Quality chops?
quote:
If I get up and start wailing on stage and someone decides they love my off key and talentless singing. Guess what, they have really, really shitty taste.
So what is your threshold of quality / talent that music has to exceed in order for someone to like it and be considered to have "good taste"? I'd love for you to answer it, along with all the other questions I've asked.
quote:
You can tell which books have original effor and new ideas put into it and which ones are aimply copying older methods and putting out formulaic story structure because it is a simple to read and enjoyable for some people, who will purchase it. I read those books some times, and enjoy it for what it is. However if that was the only type of books I read and I didn't recognize what they were then I would have bad taste.
So now you are saying it's ok to listen to poor quality or "easy listening" music, as long as it is not exclusively if you want to be considered to have "good taste"? Wow, I just love where you are going with this...
Posted on 4/13/15 at 12:00 pm to BigOrangeBri
quote:
So, your argument is that nothing in the world is good or bad. A 1998 Saturn is just as good as a 1998 Mercedes.
You actually have a criteria to judge against, like safety, performance, features, durability, so this isn't relevant a tall. You've still never told me what your criteria is for judging someone's taste as good or bad. You've only given examples and analogies that don't make sense.
Posted on 4/13/15 at 1:42 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Why was the first sentence the only part of my post you responded to.
Because it was the only part of the post that dealt with the question. As I said, the comparisons are just derailing the discussion. It's an attempt to say what an objective basis is like, while not saying what it is. The words objective and good still haven't been defined by the people who are trying to talk about objectivity.
For the posters who are talking about objectivity, it seems to mean -- my vague sense of what I think is good -- that's just an attempt to assert one's opinion as an objective fact.
Posted on 4/13/15 at 2:26 pm to inadaze
quote:
inadaze
I agree with everything you've said. Some people are incapable of grasping the concept of objectivity. You'll probably see several more analogies of "well you can tell that a whopper is bad but a fresh hamburger is good", but no real criteria, definition, or basis for what makes someone have poor / good taste in music will ever be given. Because it's impossible and contrary to the definition of the word "taste."
Page 9 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News