Good music v. Bad music

[BonsaiK]

I was on a site I frequent quite a lot and I got into a conversation about music.Basically it was about how good music and bad music were subjective positions,but I disagree.I was just wondering about other peoples opinions on this: Is the quality of music subjective,or is there a way to determine the quality of music objectively?

Subjective, and as a music industry professional and teacher I am qualified to tell you this.

Why? Because people's brains and ears are all different. The way people hear music is literally physically different because of the different physical makeup of people's ears, and then there's the brain doing the interpreting of the sound which varies even more wildly from one person to the next. It's the same reason why not everyone likes the same food.

 

[ajh93]

Why? Because people's brains and ears are all different. The way people hear music is literally physically different because of the different physical makeup of people's ears, and then there's the brain doing the interpreting of the sound which varies even more wildly from one person to the next. It's the same reason why not everyone likes the same food.

ok then so let me ask this: why is it that there are some general exceptions,like one person said the "Disney manufactured pop"?or nickleback?how is it different than normal pop?why is it generally accepted as a sucky type of music,when there are still people (kids,mainly) that like it?is it the music itself,or is it the fact that it's just a cash-grab?

 

[flare09]

Why? Because people's brains and ears are all different. The way people hear music is literally physically different because of the different physical makeup of people's ears, and then there's the brain doing the interpreting of the sound which varies even more wildly from one person to the next. It's the same reason why not everyone likes the same food.

ok then so let me ask this: why is it that there are some general exceptions,like one person said the "Disney manufactured pop"?or nickleback?how is it different than normal pop?why is it generally accepted as a sucky type of music,when there are still people (kids,mainly) that like it?is it the music itself,or is it the fact that it's just a cash-grab?

Because a lot of people that hate all of what you listed visit this site. So very few, if any, are actually going to defend that here.

 

[IamQ]

I enjoy Power Metal alot, but my friends all hate it. It's subjective alright.

 

[The Wykydtron]

It's subjective, i mean i fucking love this song but i'm pretty sure someone will say it sucks

Or just say that it sucks just because it's Apollo that works too

 

[bdcjacko]

There is no accounting for taste. I know this, I am accountant.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

I'm really tempted to say that, at certain extremes, music becomes objectively "good" or "bad", but really....No. It's all subjective.

 

[number2301]

Subjective, certainly. But not many people would utterly hate this song and the way it sounds:


But most people would, and do, hate this song:

Well, shit I'm not looking for it, I was going to post that damn Friday song here but it isn't worth looking up. You people get my point. Music is indeed subjective, but there are some songs that are almost universally liked and some that are almost universally hated.

That song is so middle of the road it's offensive. Sorry, I just don't like it.

On topic, beyond musical technique, which doesn't determine how good a song is, it is all subjective. I like some pretty extreme stuff (Speedcore and Gabber, look it up) which a lot of people would call noise, never mind some of the more obscure Aphex Twin stuff. But I really dislike most rock and pop.

 

[Drakane]

How exactly does Dimebag Darrel get technical or stand out???

Ummm.. hes often considered one of the top 10 metal guitarists ever, outside of just speed metal he also played country and blues/jazz, and his speed play ability was pretty amazing,amongst much more. I guess I don't really know what to say. I openly admit to being a big PanterA fan and grew up w/ his music so I might be slightly jaded, but most people in the metal community really think and speak highly of his skills and abilities.

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

Why? Because people's brains and ears are all different. The way people hear music is literally physically different because of the different physical makeup of people's ears, and then there's the brain doing the interpreting of the sound which varies even more wildly from one person to the next. It's the same reason why not everyone likes the same food.

ok then so let me ask this: why is it that there are some general exceptions,like one person said the "Disney manufactured pop"?or nickleback?how is it different than normal pop?why is it generally accepted as a sucky type of music,when there are still people (kids,mainly) that like it?is it the music itself,or is it the fact that it's just a cash-grab?

it's an acceptable hypocrisy, like i noted above. technically, no, we can't say that stuff is objectively bad. it's just that it's so offensively stupid to such a large number of people that we dismiss it as garbage. however sad it may be, there are plenty of people who like Nickelback, Disney crap, and Kids Bops (or whatever they're called), and we can't fairly tell them they're wrong, no matter how much we may dislike that stuff.

 

[Sightless Wisdom]

Opinions are subjective, and that's all there is to it. Anyone can say they like or dislike a particular kind of music.

Objectively you can only say things like: this music required technical skill to play, the audio production was well done on this album,this music is simple, this music is complex etc etc.

This is really a question of linguistics, and the answer is very simple.

 

[BENZOOKA]

It's extremely subjective. And BonsaiK killed it, so I don't really have anything else to say, apart from posting a couple videos of some songs that I've listened to today and enjoyed very much:

 

[Drakane]

How exactly does Dimebag Darrel get technical or stand out???

Ummm.. hes often considered one of the top 10 metal guitarists ever

So? Just because some people think so doesnt mean its right, Im really not sure what contributions he made...

outside of just speed metal he also played country and blues/jazz,

So do many other guitarists, alot of musicians play diffrent things.

and his speed play ability was pretty amazing,amongst much more.

I found his speed and ability pretty tame, can you link a vid which you consider his best?

but most people in the metal community really think and speak highly of his skills and abilities.

Ye and loads of people speak highly of lady gaga, and that really doesnt mean much.

I am not saying hes the best, though personally I do think that hes among them... which I guess gets to the subjective bit of music. Just because others think it doesn't mean its right, but I think it holds some lvl of truth when other guitarists and artists, writers, etc. w/ in the community he performed for and with all speak highly of both his talent and him as a person. The fact that people think highly of Lady Gaga for what shes doing today really isn't that important, but if they say it for another 20 years then yea I would say she did have a lasting effect on that section of the industry and is good and notable for that particular genre of music. As for any particular video of his skills... I am way to lazy to search but I think some of his "best" stuff were on their home videos when he was just fuckin around.

To each their own as the saying goes.

 

[BonsaiK]

Why? Because people's brains and ears are all different. The way people hear music is literally physically different because of the different physical makeup of people's ears, and then there's the brain doing the interpreting of the sound which varies even more wildly from one person to the next. It's the same reason why not everyone likes the same food.

ok then so let me ask this: why is it that there are some general exceptions,like one person said the "Disney manufactured pop"?or nickleback?how is it different than normal pop?why is it generally accepted as a sucky type of music,when there are still people (kids,mainly) that like it?is it the music itself,or is it the fact that it's just a cash-grab?

That stuff is cultural and social, not musical. Millions of people around the world love Nickelback for example - and not just kids. I've actually never met a Nickelback fan who was under 30 (although I'm sure they exist as well), but I know plenty who are over 30. However, Nickelback gets a lot of flak for being perceived as basically average, generic and uninteresting, because, while they're a competent band, they have a very radio-friendly sound, they fit very neatly into existing proscribed genres. I actually find them quite dull, however plenty don't. If Nickelback was the first band like that you've ever heard for instance, they wouldn't appear generic at all, in fact, they might even become the musical benchmark you compare everything else to. Or maybe they're not the first band you've heard, but not everybody likes to listen to experimental, different shit. So it doesn't really come down to music, it come down to your perspective, and what you are exposed to and when, what you've grown to like and dislike, which is cultural and social. You average Nickelback fan probably gets most of their musical taste from commercial radio and TV, and if that's where you're getting your music, then maybe Nickelback might seem pretty out there.

To say Nickelback is a "cash-grab" is silly. If they are, then so is all other music, after all it's all sold in the same stores and on the same websites. The fact is that the people in that band, like in all bands, really believe in the integrity of what they're doing. Whether you do or not.

 

[Aris Khandr]

Well, what genres you find good and bad is subjective, but certain things, like Disney manufactured pop is just bad. No ifs, no buts, just bad.

I completely disagree.