is my taste in music good?

[TheTim]

Its based on individual opinions so i couldn't really say.
Even though i don't particuarly enjoy those bands

 

[Velvo]

If you have to ask...

Seriously though why would you give a damn what your friends (or anyone else for that matter) thinks about something you like? If you enjoy it then surely that's all that's important?

Those are knock-off bands. Your taste is okay, but you could be listening to better versions of the genres you appear to like.

This makes no sense whatsoever. It implies that people should listen to music by genre, and as such should only choose the best of that genre (which is subjective anyway) and not listen to anything else.

I don't understand peoples need to always have the "best" when it comes to entertainment

There is easily enough good music in the world that you don't need to spend precious time listen to anything mediocre. There's nothing wrong with saying that if someone likes a band, they may like a band who play similar things better.
If given a choice between driving a Ford Panda and a Bentley, you would be crazy to choose the Panda. However, if you were in a race, you may want a Ferrari or Bugatti instead.
In other words, there is no reason that you shouldn't seek out the bands that are best, but depending on your mood and tastes, they will be good for different reasons.[/torturedanalogy]

Except the difference is that a car has a purpose. If you like speed you will want a faster car, if you need to transport a lot of things then you will want something with space.

Music is purely based upon whether or not the sound appeals to you, you can't objectively say which is better, whereas with a car you can based upon what it is you are after.

Nobody would say that a Ferrari is better at transporting large quantities things than a Land Rover unless they were trying to be awkward.

Whereas with music you cannot say one band is completely better than another. My favourite band Assemblage 23 makes a lot of good songs I like. There is another band called VNV Nation that has one or two songs that I like just as much if not more than a lot of Assemblage 23's.

To suggest I avoid the latter band because the former is better is ridiculous.

Dude, there are plenty of ways to determine the "goodness" of songs. If you were a musician you would know that the composition of a song determines whether it is "good" from an objective point of view. There is also the subjective point of view which, obviously, can differ from person to person. Which is more important depends on the person.

To me, composition matters immensely. This is because I am a musician. I was simply saying that there are bands that care more about the composition of their songs while still having the same vibe as other, "worse" bands. You wouldn't listen to the Monkees over the Beatles, would you? Course, some might, and that's entirely their choice.

 

[Bellvedere]

Why are so you self conscious about what you like?

I think it's completely fine to make fun of other peoples taste in music. Especially if you think it's really bad.

You shouldn't assume that because all your mates hate the stuff you like that it is considered bad by everyone. Arguing about music is pretty harmless and can generally be fun. There's no right or wrong arguments for liking or disliking music. Your mates will almost definitely have a soft spot for a song or an artist that even they would consider shameful. Everyone does.

 

[Sethzard]

Taste is a purely relative thing. I don't think what you like is very good, but you do and who am I to judge.

 

[mrpenguinismyhomeboy]

killers=awesome
coldplay=totally meh
onerepublic=???
gorillaz=hit or miss.

I tend to listen to mostly power metal (Nightwish,Gamma Ray, Hammerfall,Edguy, Kamelot, and even some Dragonforce if I'm in the right mood)as well as some metal,hard rock, synth-pop, and electronica.

WOOT! THERE ARE MORE OF US!!!

OT: I Like the gorillas, killers, and coldplay, and don't hate onerepublic, if it makes you feel any better. But then again, I am a musical person and like most music anyways, so almost all music is "good" in my eyes, but very few bands/songs are "very good" in my eyes, and even fewer bands/songs are "life altering" in my eyes. None of the things you listed are "very good" or "life altering" to me, but fuck me, who gives a shit right? I'll go listen to my avant-garde electronica, and you keep doing your thing.

 

[butterkniferampage]

Yeah yeah yeah. What other people are saying. Music is entirely subjective. Unless you don't like the Beatles. Then you are simply WRONG.

Rebuttal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgPqmRNjoTE

Well played.

 

[Estocavio]

And you definitely need your friends approval to enjoy music.

 

[Auric]

Theres no such thing as a "good" or "bad" taste in music.

 

[Jennacide]

Those are knock-off bands. Your taste is okay, but you could be listening to better versions of the genres you appear to like.

How, pray tell, is Gorillaz a "knock off band," and wtf does that even mean? You mean they all sound similar to something else? Guess what, that's the whole reason for music genres, because basically everything will sound like something else. You can name literally any band, and someone invariably will go "oh, they're like X." Without fail this can be proven.

[edit] I got sidetracked. Basically what everyone said, subjective. The only two cents I can put in is the more varied your tastes are, the usually the better they are. Which I can personally vouch for, if I don't mind saying so myself, as my playlist can jump from Mother 2 OST, to Beck, and Mindless Self Indulgance, to ohGr, and then to Gnarls Barkley. Mmm mmm that's some ecletic tastes.

 

[Velvo]

Those are knock-off bands. Your taste is okay, but you could be listening to better versions of the genres you appear to like.

How, pray tell, is Gorillaz a "knock off band," and wtf does that even mean? You mean they all sound similar to something else? Guess what, that's the whole reason for music genres, because basically everything will sound like something else. You can name literally any band, and someone invariably will go "oh, they're like X." Without fail this can be proven.

[edit] I got sidetracked. Basically what everyone said, subjective. The only two cents I can put in is the more varied your tastes are, the usually the better they are. Which I can personally vouch for, if I don't mind saying so myself, as my playlist can jump from Mother 2 OST, to Beck, and Mindless Self Indulgance, to ohGr, and then to Gnarls Barkley. Mmm mmm that's some ecletic tastes.

I've got nothing against the Gorillaz, actually. I saw the first couple bands and said that regarding them, though the Gorillaz obviously aren't that original, themselves (as if anyone is. Who uses guitars, seriously? So old hat. >.>).

While I totally agree that the enjoyment of music is subjective, there is something to be said for the objective review of a band. Composition: rhythm, meter, harmony, lyrical poetics, etc., all play a part, objectively. The subjective appreciation of such qualities can vary, obviously, but these qualities have to be there in decent abundance for me to consider them a good band. Some bands ARE better than others. Some, it's a little fuzzy to decide. It's a Monkees vs Beatles scenario. Some bands do what others do, but better.

I like your taste, btw.

 

[Ziltoid]

Music is very subjective. Some people think Animal Collective is a good band....

....How dare you.

OT pretty much what everyone else says, although I do think you need to branch out a bit more. The bands you listed are not particularly adventurous with their music.

lol...sorry dude. i tried with MPP, i just can't like them.

you do make a good point. those bands are not very adventurous. you should try some different stuff. pitchfork.com is a decent website to find new bands.

LOL funny you don't like them and then you recommend pitchfork, the biggest animal collective whore's on all the internet. It's all good I just found that slightly humorous.

OP here are some albums that would be worth checking out that are not too difficult to get into.

Porcupine Tree - Deadwing
Minus the Bear - Planet of Ice
Radiohead - In Rainbows
Thrice - Vheissu, or if you want something a little more mellow, Beggars

 

[Arenari]

i have been arguing about my taste in music with a few guys, so i have to check if i was right.
is my taste in music good or bad?
i like the killers, coldplay, onerepublic and gorillaz.
i like more but htose are my faves

Well I don't consider it good but that's irrelevant.

The basic rule is this: if you like it, it's awesome. If you don't, it sucks.

Music is 100% subjective.

I was going to say practically the same thing. Music is very subjective, if you think the music is good then you have a good taste in music. I may not agree with you, but that all comes down to difference in opinion.

 

[BonsaiK]

Music can be rated by complexity.

It is a common misconception that what people listen to is music.

A poem is not music --> rhythmical poems are not music --> rap and its likes are not music.

You must have both rhythm and melody to have music. If you want quality music you need polyphony and variation.

Your choices are not the likes of Hip Hop nor R&B nor Techno, so I can say that you already have the basis for good music taste.

Edgard Varese's Ionisation is therefore not music to you?

Ionisation is more of a rhythmic complex according to what seems like a logical definition of music. It does have some variation in tone due to different instruments being used, but not enough to create melody, just enough to complicate the rhythm.

So in other words, it's not music, according to you? Scholars would disagree.

 

[Yureina]

i have been arguing about my taste in music with a few guys, so i have to check if i was right.
is my taste in music good or bad?
i like the killers, coldplay, onerepublic and gorillaz.
i like more but htose are my faves

Well I don't consider it good but that's irrelevant.

The basic rule is this: if you like it, it's awesome. If you don't, it sucks.

Music is 100% subjective.

Truth.

Don't let other people talk badly about what you like. If you like something, then that's all that matters as far as I am concerned. If other people don't like it and feel the need to tell you that, nevermind mock you for it, then they are not people that are worth hanging around. I'm a pretty calm and reasonable person, and even that would not stop me from telling someone to bugger off if they decided to insult my choices of entertainment.

 

[unFunkiest]

I don't think that music (or art in general) is entirely subjective. If you like something, then yes, noone can say you don't like it. However, there is no contradiction in saying that you like something bad, or don't enjoy something good.
If there is any musician in existence which you think is in some way "bad", then you do in some way believe that music can be meaningfully assessed.
I think the "art is entirely subjective" thing quickly descends into counter-intuitions or inconsistencies. If you believe that there is no grounds upon which to say one musician is better than another, then why would a musician practice? By Art-is-subjective logic, I wouldn't be getting any better by practicing my instrument, because even if I played like Art Tatum, there would be no grounds to saying that I was better than someone that didn't play piano at all, because it would all be taste. Hey, why even listen to other musicians, the noise I may when I drum my fingers on the table is just as good as a Mozart symphony.
Furthermore, there are some qualities of music that seem to be taken as good in themselves, regardless of personal taste. No-one would say that a "innovation" or "technical skill" are detrimental characteristics. Obviously, its not as simple as that, its very difficult to define "good music", considering that, for example, the Ramones are considered one of the best bands of all time, despite negligible technical skill or innovation. However, the fact that "good music" is an ellusive concept, does not mean that we do not have some idea of it.

Saying "different people like different things" is not sufficient proof to say that all art is subjective. Some people may not think that 2+2=4, but that doesn't mean that maths is subjective. You may appeal to the fact that you cannot say one persons opinion is more valid than anothers, but I think we have all experienced some personal progress in music taste. My ability to assess music is much more honed now than it was when I first started listening to music. For example, with increasing knowledge, I have a better idea about whats an acceptable trope, whats a cliche and what is a genuine innovation.

You appear to be confusing skill with taste and logic with opinion. Skill is a measurable commodity, taste is not. Yngwie Malmsteen is obviously and provably a more skilled guitarist than Kurt Cobain but my personal belief is that Kurt's music is far more compelling than Yngwie's. The level of skill is measurable, the appeal and worth is not. If someone believes that that 2+2=5, it's possible to prove them wrong using logic but if they believe that 5 is a more aesthetically pleasing number than 4, there is no way to impartially measure the relative appeal of either number; it's all subjective...

OT: I'm with the majority here, if you like it then it's good. I might not agree with with you but that's just my opinion...

 

[The Buck Stops Here]

I like it how a lot of people say "LISTEN TO WHATEVER YOU WANT, IT'S ALL SUBJECTIVE" then proceed to list the musical genres that are OBVIOUSLY terrible no matter what you like

Are you saying that there can be bad genres?

No, I'm pointing out how people who say they don't judge others hypocritically do so in certain posts. No genre is bad in my mind.

 

[Kair]

Music can be rated by complexity.

It is a common misconception that what people listen to is music.

A poem is not music --> rhythmical poems are not music --> rap and its likes are not music.

You must have both rhythm and melody to have music. If you want quality music you need polyphony and variation.

Your choices are not the likes of Hip Hop nor R&B nor Techno, so I can say that you already have the basis for good music taste.

Edgard Varese's Ionisation is therefore not music to you?

Ionisation is more of a rhythmic complex according to what seems like a logical definition of music. It does have some variation in tone due to different instruments being used, but not enough to create melody, just enough to complicate the rhythm.

So in other words, it's not music, according to you? Scholars would disagree.

The truth is that 'scholars' as you put it would want a logical definition of music instead of the abstract one that is currently popularized.

This is of course unless by scholars you mean the artist society.