is my taste in music good?

[badpun]

Everyone's opinion is subjective, there is no " right" band or genre to listen to. Just listen to whatever you like

 

[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.

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.

When I talk about scholars I mean not any specific society of artists, but the academic community of people who teach and study in classical as well as popular music at postgraduate level (myself included here). The general consensus of these people is that Edgard Varese's Ionisation to be not only definitely music, but one of the most important pieces of music in the 20th Century. However, you seem to be suggesting that it is not music at all, based purely on a "logical definition" that seems to be informed only by your personal taste, rather than any objective standards. To say that you think something is "bad" music is fine, but to say that it is "not" music requires you to demonstrate using objective measures, exactly how it is not musical, and why your definition of "not musical" takes precedence over the definition of experts in the field. What you are doing right now is the equivalent of walking into science class, watching hydrochloric acid eat into some cement and saying "that's not a chemical reaction because it's not complex enough for my personal taste".

 

[Croix Sinistre]

there is only one requirement: Pantera. If you dont like pantera, then you must like tofu steaks and pink flip-flops

 

[BonsaiK]

there is only one requirement: Pantera. If you dont like pantera, then you must like tofu steaks and pink flip-flops

I think Pantera were "meh" after Vulgar. And what's wrong with Tofu Steak?

 

[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.

When I talk about scholars I mean not any specific society of artists, but the academic community of people who teach and study in classical as well as popular music at postgraduate level (myself included here). The general consensus of these people is that Edgard Varese's Ionisation to be not only definitely music, but one of the most important pieces of music in the 20th Century. However, you seem to be suggesting that it is not music at all, based purely on a "logical definition" that seems to be informed only by your personal taste, rather than any objective standards. To say that you think something is "bad" music is fine, but to say that it is "not" music requires you to demonstrate using objective measures, exactly how it is not musical, and why your definition of "not musical" takes precedence over the definition of experts in the field. What you are doing right now is the equivalent of walking into science class, watching hydrochloric acid eat into some cement and saying "that's not a chemical reaction because it's not complex enough for my personal taste".

It seems we have hit a brick wall here, a musician who dares not venture into the world of logic and a realist who dares not venture into the world of chaos.

We need a definition or else we are just banging our heads against the wall. So instead of exercising your veins, give me a better definition of music. I will not have anything be called music, this is just illogical.

 

[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.

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.

When I talk about scholars I mean not any specific society of artists, but the academic community of people who teach and study in classical as well as popular music at postgraduate level (myself included here). The general consensus of these people is that Edgard Varese's Ionisation to be not only definitely music, but one of the most important pieces of music in the 20th Century. However, you seem to be suggesting that it is not music at all, based purely on a "logical definition" that seems to be informed only by your personal taste, rather than any objective standards. To say that you think something is "bad" music is fine, but to say that it is "not" music requires you to demonstrate using objective measures, exactly how it is not musical, and why your definition of "not musical" takes precedence over the definition of experts in the field. What you are doing right now is the equivalent of walking into science class, watching hydrochloric acid eat into some cement and saying "that's not a chemical reaction because it's not complex enough for my personal taste".

It seems we have hit a brick wall here, a musician who dares not venture into the world of logic and a realist who dares not venture into the world of chaos.

We need a definition or else we are just banging our heads against the wall. So instead of exercising your veins, give me a better definition of music. I will not have anything be called music, this is just illogical.

The dictionary can help us here.

1. The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.
2. Vocal or instrumental sounds possessing a degree of melody, harmony, or rhythm.
3.
3.1. A musical composition.
3.2. The written or printed score for such a composition.
3.3. Such scores considered as a group: We keep our music in a stack near the piano.
4. A musical accompaniment.
5. A particular category or kind of music.
6. An aesthetically pleasing or harmonious sound or combination of sounds: the music of the wind in the pines.

Ionisation arguably doesn't fit into 1 but certainly fits into 2, as does rap music.

Your mum banging along on a tin can in time (or out of time) to Lady Gaga's "Bad Romance" on the radio fits into 4.

Me listening to my toilet flush and thinking "hmmm, that sounds interesting" fits into 6.

 

[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.

When I talk about scholars I mean not any specific society of artists, but the academic community of people who teach and study in classical as well as popular music at postgraduate level (myself included here). The general consensus of these people is that Edgard Varese's Ionisation to be not only definitely music, but one of the most important pieces of music in the 20th Century. However, you seem to be suggesting that it is not music at all, based purely on a "logical definition" that seems to be informed only by your personal taste, rather than any objective standards. To say that you think something is "bad" music is fine, but to say that it is "not" music requires you to demonstrate using objective measures, exactly how it is not musical, and why your definition of "not musical" takes precedence over the definition of experts in the field. What you are doing right now is the equivalent of walking into science class, watching hydrochloric acid eat into some cement and saying "that's not a chemical reaction because it's not complex enough for my personal taste".

It seems we have hit a brick wall here, a musician who dares not venture into the world of logic and a realist who dares not venture into the world of chaos.

We need a definition or else we are just banging our heads against the wall. So instead of exercising your veins, give me a better definition of music. I will not have anything be called music, this is just illogical.

The dictionary can help us here.

1. The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.
2. Vocal or instrumental sounds possessing a degree of melody, harmony, or rhythm.
3.
3.1. A musical composition.
3.2. The written or printed score for such a composition.
3.3. Such scores considered as a group: We keep our music in a stack near the piano.
4. A musical accompaniment.
5. A particular category or kind of music.
6. An aesthetically pleasing or harmonious sound or combination of sounds: the music of the wind in the pines.

Ionisation arguably doesn't fit into 1 but certainly fits into 2, as does rap music.

Your mum banging along on a tin can in time (or out of time) to Lady Gaga's "Bad Romance" on the radio fits into 4.

Me listening to my toilet flush and thinking "hmmm, that sounds interesting" fits into 6.

You, my good sir, suck at dialectics.

 

[Croix Sinistre]

there is only one requirement: Pantera. If you dont like pantera, then you must like tofu steaks and pink flip-flops

Sorry but...


Pantera is a cancer that is killing Metal music.

no, bands like As I Lay Dying, Job for a Cowboy, and pretty much the whole modern 'hardcore' genre are killing metal music.

 

[Outright Villainy]

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.

When I talk about scholars I mean not any specific society of artists, but the academic community of people who teach and study in classical as well as popular music at postgraduate level (myself included here). The general consensus of these people is that Edgard Varese's Ionisation to be not only definitely music, but one of the most important pieces of music in the 20th Century. However, you seem to be suggesting that it is not music at all, based purely on a "logical definition" that seems to be informed only by your personal taste, rather than any objective standards. To say that you think something is "bad" music is fine, but to say that it is "not" music requires you to demonstrate using objective measures, exactly how it is not musical, and why your definition of "not musical" takes precedence over the definition of experts in the field. What you are doing right now is the equivalent of walking into science class, watching hydrochloric acid eat into some cement and saying "that's not a chemical reaction because it's not complex enough for my personal taste".

It seems we have hit a brick wall here, a musician who dares not venture into the world of logic and a realist who dares not venture into the world of chaos.

We need a definition or else we are just banging our heads against the wall. So instead of exercising your veins, give me a better definition of music. I will not have anything be called music, this is just illogical.

The dictionary can help us here.

1. The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.
2. Vocal or instrumental sounds possessing a degree of melody, harmony, or rhythm.
3.
3.1. A musical composition.
3.2. The written or printed score for such a composition.
3.3. Such scores considered as a group: We keep our music in a stack near the piano.
4. A musical accompaniment.
5. A particular category or kind of music.
6. An aesthetically pleasing or harmonious sound or combination of sounds: the music of the wind in the pines.

Ionisation arguably doesn't fit into 1 but certainly fits into 2, as does rap music.

Your mum banging along on a tin can in time (or out of time) to Lady Gaga's "Bad Romance" on the radio fits into 4.

Me listening to my toilet flush and thinking "hmmm, that sounds interesting" fits into 6.

You, my good sir, suck at dialectics.

You didn't address his point. You're the one calling for a definition for music, and no, your definition is not going to be the authoritative one just because you say it is. Music, as defined by the dictionary (and scholars) is purposefully vague, because music should not be limiting, just as any art should not be limiting. You can have your opinion that whatever doesn't conform to your requirements of music isn't good music, but that's just it: an opinion. If you're going to try and quantify music like maths, and have a legitimate point, you'll have to prove to me why a Minor chord sounds "sadder" than a major one for starters.

 

[Kair]

snip

You, my good sir, suck at dialectics.

You didn't address his point. You're the one calling for a definition for music, and no, your definition is not going to be the authoritative one just because you say it is. Music, as defined by the dictionary (and scholars) is purposefully vague, because music should not be limiting, just as any art should not be limiting. You can have your opinion that whatever doesn't conform to your requirements of music isn't good music, but that's just it: an opinion. If you're going to try and quantify music like maths, and have a legitimate point, you'll have to prove to me why a Minor chord sounds "sadder" than a major one for starters.

It seems like you also have no sense of dialectics.

 

[Mr. Gency]

Like everyone else said (at lest I assume everyone else, I only read the first half of the first page) just listen to what you want.

There are only two exceptions;

1) Justin Bieber (The worst music ever, no matter what you like...if you like this then your opinion is invalid.

What about a parody of Justin Bieber?

2) Anything involving Maynard (The best music ever, if you don't think so then your opinion is also invalid)

[sub]I never knowingly listened to Maynard, to be clear.[/sub]

 

[Trivun]

Modest Mouse

Haha, funny you should mention that because they've been the band I've listen to most of for the past six months.

Going off on a little tangent, what's your favourite album by them? I ask this because I've listened to almost everyone so far, Lonesome Crowded West was my favourite, but I can't get into WWDBTSES (Ship Even Sank) at all, which is odd because I love their newest EP which came out AFTER that one... so is it just not as good as the rest, or am I just not doing it right!?

Ahhh, I'll have to make a confession now . I haven't heard any of their albums, I just found a few songs of theirs that I really liked on Youtube and started listening to them recently. Quite disappointed actually since I think they're going to be at the Leeds Festival this year, and I live in Leeds now, and yet I don't have a ticket .

Anyhow, favourite songs are probably Float On and Missed The Boat .

 

[Dys]

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.

To a point, but I'm pretty sure coldplay are defined as being crap

wait no, I quoted that to agree with it.

[small]coldplay really are terrible though[/small]

 

[rokkolpo]

no.

there is no such thing as ''good'' in music. neither is bad.
it's subjective.

now if you were to ask, do you find my taste in music good?
that we can answer.

and my answer would be: yes it's Aight!

 

[Mr.logic]

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

music is in the ears of the listener. It is utterly and completely about personal opinion. If you like those bands listen to them.

 

[MalevolentJim]

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

Can I ask..Why do you need our approval of yourtaste?


People tell my taste( http://www.last.fm/user/MalevolentJim ) sucks all the time.It's not going to actually change what I like.So why do you need our opinions?

My actual opinion (since you asked for it) : It's pretty mainstream and unimaginative,but one or two of the favourites mentioned are sorta good I guess.

 

[EchetusXe]

It's good enough. If you said Phil Collins, the Kazakhstan national nose flute orchestra and Job for a Cowboy then you would have a terrible taste in music.

 

[MalevolentJim]

there is only one requirement: Pantera. If you dont like pantera, then you must like tofu steaks and pink flip-flops

Sorry but...


Pantera is a cancer that is killing Metal music.

Not really,since metal isn't being killed.More.... cattle-prodded.