Do you think that music can be divided into good and bad?

Windy · 11-02-2011, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Il Duce

i think sometimes music itself is "bad" and I prefer silence or ambient sounds

usually when I'm over-saturated with listening to it

If all sounds, broadly speaking, are all music, then I may consider what I like as good music while what I doesn't like are bad music.

Actually music is an art form whose medium is sound and silence. Sometimes I just can't enjoy art and then I may consider it bad.

Lisnaholic · 11-02-2011, 10:41 PM

Quote:

(From 500 Greatest Songs of All Time)
When you hear a great song,
(1) you can think of where you were when you first heard it, the sounds, the smells. It takes the emotions of a moment and holds it for years to come. It transcends time.
(2) a great song has all the key elements — melody;
(3) emotion;
(4) a strong statement that becomes part of the lexicon;
(5) and great production.

^ Thanks for digging up the Rolling Stone criteria, Vegangelica; that was interesting to read, but also disappointing, I felt. Here`s what I think of their criteria:-
(1) not relevent at all because it`s all about the emotions and memory of the listener, not about the merits of the music.
(2) and (3) are ok.
(4) as you suggest, this seems to rule out anything that isn`t famous, or catchy in some way.
(5) to me, that`s like saying that a great painting must be on top-quality canvas. With no disrespect to anyone involved in music production, I don`t think there`s necessarily a strong corelation between a great song and great production.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA

"Good" music to me is music I enjoy listening to, for whatever reason.

My criteria for "good" music:
(1) It holds my attention.
(2) I feel emotionally moved by it (except that it shouldn't make me annoyed *at* the song).
(3) The musician is doing something novel or conceptually clever and so the song sounds new and fresh to me.

I readily accept that other people's criteria for judging music is different than mine, and that there is no fixed "goodness" or "badness" inherent in music.

However, I don't much like the Rolling Stone Magazine's criterion that I numbered as 4: a song has "a strong statement that becomes part of the lexicon." This suggests that only famous songs can be considered "great."

^ I think your criteria are way better than Rolling Stone`s - in fact, I`d like to adopt them myself !
I`d probably add these, as well:-
* the music should withstand time, so that it doesn`t date too fast, but rewards repeated listening.
* as a nod to those Victorians, it should fulfill its purpose.

blastingas10 · 11-02-2011, 11:04 PM

Your critieria for good music should simply be, "do I like it?" you don't need any reason to like a certain music, the fact that you like it is enough and there's no need for explanation. Music is all subjective. There are things like technical ability that are objective, like I said earlier. I don't listen to music just because it's technical. I enjoy simple music too. If something isn't technically proficient, that doesn't mean it isn't good, in my opinion; You might come off as an elitist if you thought otherwise.

Howard the Duck · 11-02-2011, 11:32 PM

sometimes i just like "interesting" music and not "good" music

i mean, Daniel Johnston is objectively crap but it sure is interesting, like watching a turtle with mold on its back in a fishtank

dancer9 · 11-02-2011, 11:45 PM

I think it depends upon listener's interest and taste towards particular music track.

Necromancer · 11-02-2011, 11:46 PM

Do I think music can be divided into good and bad?

Good and bad is better suited to work together on an individual basis verses trying to divide or separate the two for any conventional purpose.

blastingas10 · 11-02-2011, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Il Duce

sometimes i just like "interesting" music and not "good" music

i mean, Daniel Johnston is objectively crap but it sure is interesting, like watching a turtle with mold on its back in a fishtank

Maybe some people posses qualities that can't be measured on a technical level? Use your imagination

Quote:

Originally Posted by dancer9

I think it depends upon listener's interest and taste towards particular music track.

True. It depends on what you value as a listener.

VEGANGELICA · 11-03-2011, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic

^ Thanks for digging up the Rolling Stone criteria, Vegangelica; that was interesting to read, but also disappointing, I felt. Here`s what I think of their criteria:-

...(5) to me, that`s like saying that a great painting must be on top-quality canvas. With no disrespect to anyone involved in music production, I don`t think there`s necessarily a strong corelation between a great song and great production. ^

I think your criteria are way better than Rolling Stone`s - in fact, I`d like to adopt them myself !
I`d probably add these, as well:-
* the music should withstand time, so that it doesn`t date too fast, but rewards repeated listening.
* as a nod to those Victorians, it should fulfill its purpose.

You're welcome, Lisnaholic.

Good point about Rolling Stone's criterion #5. It's a little like saying a good movie has to have good production, which seems obviously false, since some great movies have poor production, even lacking color (GASP!).

The idea of the degree to which a song fulfills its purpose (conceived by the composer or musician) intrigues me. I like that criterion. That explains why I can admire a song that I may dislike in many other ways. Songs like "My Humps." Er... actually I don't admire that song even though it *does* fulfill its purpose. :/ But I still like the criterion you've added!

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

Your critieria for good music should simply be, "do I like it?" you don't need any reason to like a certain music, the fact that you like it is enough and there's no need for explanation. Music is all subjective. There are things like technical ability that are objective, like I said earlier. I don't listen to music just because it's technical. I enjoy simple music too. If something isn't technically proficient, that doesn't mean it isn't good, in my opinion; You might come off as an elitist if you thought otherwise.

True, there's no *need* for explanation, but identifying reasons that individuals like one piece of music and not another interests me because doing so tries to nail down the qualities of the music that draw them to it.

This sort of analysis of music, like other forms of art criticism or appreciation, may seem academic and rather like the horror of killing a beautiful butterfly and then putting a pin through it, but seeking to understand *why* different music appeals to different people and why many people may appreciate the same song is fun to me. I want to understand the allure of music by going beyond "I like it" or "I don't like it." Add in brain scans of people listening to music, and it would be even better!

Thinking about my own criteria for judging music that I like or don't like challenges me to break down a "gut" reaction and try to understand it. I think the music someone likes is similar to a personality test and may reveal a lot about a person, even to herself or himself. Music is the psyche, turned into sound.

blastingas10 · 11-03-2011, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA

You're welcome, Lisnaholic.

Good point about Rolling Stone's criterion #5. It's a little like saying a good movie has to have good production, which seems obviously false, since some great movies have poor production, even lacking color (GASP!).

The idea of the degree to which a song fulfills its purpose (conceived by the composer or musician) intrigues me. I like that criterion. That explains why I can admire a song that I may dislike in many other ways. Songs like "My Humps." Er... actually I don't admire that song even though it *does* fulfill its purpose. :/ But I still like the criterion you've added!

True, there's no *need* for explanation, but identifying reasons that individuals like one piece of music and not another interests me because doing so tries to nail down the qualities of the music that draw them to it.

This sort of analysis of music, like other forms of art criticism or appreciation, may seem academic and rather like the horror of killing and then putting a pin through a beautiful butterfly, but seeking to understand *why* different music appeals to different people and why many people may appreciate the same song is fun to me. I want to understand the allure of music by going beyond "I like it" or "I don't like it." Add in brain scans of people listening to music, and it would be even better!

Thinking about my own criteria for judging music that I like or don't like challenges me to break down a "gut" reaction and try to understand it. I think the music one likes is similar to a personality test and may reveal a lot about a person, even to herself or himself.

I know what you mean, I often take the same approach. I often question all of my favorites.

lucifer_sam · 11-03-2011, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA

This sort of analysis of music, like other forms of art criticism or appreciation, may seem academic and rather like the horror of killing a beautiful butterfly and then putting a pin through it, but seeking to understand *why* different music appeals to different people and why many people may appreciate the same song is fun to me. I want to understand the allure of music by going beyond "I like it" or "I don't like it." Add in brain scans of people listening to music, and it would be even better!

Thinking about my own criteria for judging music that I like or don't like challenges me to break down a "gut" reaction and try to understand it. I think the music someone likes is similar to a personality test and may reveal a lot about a person, even to herself or himself. Music is the psyche, turned into sound.

You should read this, then. It's very insightful for the academically-oriented music listener.

11-02-2011, 11:04 PM	#63 (permalink)
blastingas10 Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,126	Your critieria for good music should simply be, "do I like it?" you don't need any reason to like a certain music, the fact that you like it is enough and there's no need for explanation. Music is all subjective. There are things like technical ability that are objective, like I said earlier. I don't listen to music just because it's technical. I enjoy simple music too. If something isn't technically proficient, that doesn't mean it isn't good, in my opinion; You might come off as an elitist if you thought otherwise. Last edited by blastingas10; 11-02-2011 at 11:21 PM.

11-02-2011, 11:45 PM	#65 (permalink)
dancer9 Groupie Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Hillsborough New Jersey Posts: 8	I think it depends upon listener's interest and taste towards particular music track.

11-02-2011, 11:46 PM	#66 (permalink)
Necromancer Divination Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,655	Do I think music can be divided into good and bad? Good and bad is better suited to work together on an individual basis verses trying to divide or separate the two for any conventional purpose.