The Official "Music Was So Much Better in the Glorious Days of Yore" Thread

[jadis]

I love the idea that Beach Boys and the Beatles are somebody's avatars of "complexity"

[rostasi]

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Quality, taste, better, worse, richness, are all made up concepts that only exist inside the human brain. Black is better at reflecting light. White is better at absorbing light. Which is better? Neither cause that's a stupid question unless you're talking about specific uses of black and white or subjective taste.

Agreed (even tho the black/white statement is reversed - black absorbs light while white reflects).
This is why I asked our Polish friend what yardstick he is using to measure?

[rostasi]

Originally Posted by Mucha na Dziko

I don't believe that. I think you can "measure" objectively the quality of any art really.
The parameters being innovation in songwriting or production techniques, the complexity (or if lack there of "idea" or "invention") of the music and so on.

Taste is subjective, quality is not. One might like listening to Rihanna more than to the Beatles, but no one can say that Rihanna "makes" better, richer, etc music.
I think it's important to be able to distinguish taste from quality, and I'm not sure why most people aren't capable of that.

What is the “standard” for “innovation”? What is the “standard” for “production technique”? Who’s the person setting the “standards” for “complexity”, “idea” or “invention”? There are lots of people who can, and do, say that Rihanna makes (why the quotation marks) “better, richer, etc<sic>“ music.

[rostasi]

Originally Posted by jadis

I love the idea that Beach Boys and the Beatles are somebody's avatars of "complexity"

[Anteater]

Tf when a Westcoast power ballad from the early 80's is more complex than the entire Beatles and Beach Boys catalogues.

[rostasi]

Ant just loves him some disingenuity…

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Mucha na Dziko

I don't believe that. I think you can "measure" objectively the quality of any art really.
The parameters being innovation in songwriting or production techniques, the complexity (or if lack there of "idea" or "invention") of the music and so on.

Taste is subjective, quality is not. One might like listening to Rihanna more than to the Beatles, but no one can say that Rihanna "makes" better, richer, etc music.
I think it's important to be able to distinguish taste from quality, and I'm not sure why most people aren't capable of that.

Quality is subjective as well. When music evokes an emotion and the listener determines that they like it, that emotional determination is just as much an objective fact as the amount to which music aligns to the parameters you mention. They might feel that way because they're naive about music or whathaveyou, but there's no denying the existence of that response.

The parameters you lay out are definitely useful in saying why you like music so that maybe the person you're talking to can come closer to understanding your emotional response underpinning it, but they're rather useless as comparative parameters because artists are individuals who tend to have wildly different goals and visions of music. The Beatles achieved production innovation that Rihanna wasn't aiming to accomplish. Idk Rihanna's music but I imagine that she has different goals in terms of storytelling and atmosphere that The Beatles weren't trying to fulfill. Satisfying the parameters someone sets for music is only an objective measure of satisfying those parameters, not of musical quality.

Putting water in your fuel tank won't fuel your vehicle but petroleum will. Is petroleum objectively better than water?

[Anteater]

Originally Posted by rostasi

Ant just loves him some disingenuity…

Your mom is disingenuous. And she probably hates the Beatles.

[Trollheart]

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

But what if you are a jellyfish? Technically you lack an anus.

I doubt jellyfish have opinions.

Originally Posted by Frownland

Quality is subjective as well. When music evokes an emotion and the listener determines that they like it, that emotional determination is just as much an objective fact as the amount to which music aligns to the parameters you mention. They might feel that way because they're naive about music or whathaveyou, but there's no denying the existence of that response.

The parameters you lay out are definitely useful in saying why you like music so that maybe the person you're talking to can come closer to understanding your emotional response underpinning it, but they're rather useless as comparative parameters because artists are individuals who tend to have wildly different goals and visions of music. The Beatles achieved production innovation that Rihanna wasn't aiming to accomplish. Idk Rihanna's music but I imagine that she has different goals in terms of storytelling and atmosphere that The Beatles weren't trying to fulfill. Satisfying the parameters someone sets for music is only an objective measure of satisfying those parameters, not of musical quality.

This is exactly true, and why someone can get all excited/emotional/angry about say a hardcore punk or gangsta rap or whatever song that someone else might see no merit in. Hell, you even had it in classical music. Some liked the relaxing chamber music while the wild children wanted that heavy baroque stuff.

Putting water in your fuel tank won't fuel your vehicle but petroleum will. Is petroleum objectively better than water?

Not for drinking.

Originally Posted by Anteater

Your mom is disingenuous. And she probably hates the Beatles.

The playground is open. Don't skin your knees boys, and play nice.

[grindy]

Originally Posted by jadis

I love the idea that Beach Boys and the Beatles are somebody's avatars of "complexity"

Yeah, whenever people bitch about lacking complexity and technical skills I think to myself "Well, they seem pretty narrow-minded but at east I have met a fellow AvantProg fan."
But mysteriosly that never turns out to be the case.