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

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by The Batlord

I don't know that I'm describing it well or even conceiving it well but I definitely think I'm gesturing at something with some objectivity to it. If a certain group of brain cells and neurons are arranged JUST SO, "Angel of Death" will make you *** in your pants no matter what. Or something.

I think I get it, like there can be objectively understood conditions for a subjective experience?

I'll ****ing ban you if you start talking about free will.

[Marie Monday]

Lmao

Originally Posted by Frownland

I think I get it, like there can be objectively understood conditions for a subjective experience?

Speaking for myself that sums it up quite well

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by Frownland

I think I get it, like there can be objectively understood conditions for a subjective experience?

I'll ****ing ban you if you start talking about free will.

Lol yeah the complexity of human cognition makes objectivity in music worthless as an arguing point but there is still something there that someone like JGuy is completely unequipped to argue for cause someone like JGuy is stupid.

[The Batlord]

Just to muddy the waters further I'll say there's a level of development in musical instint that made Among the Living a more accomplished and effective Anthrax album than Spreading the Disease, but my own preference for what Spreading the Disease was trying to accomplish makes me prefer it even if I respect the accomplishment of Among the Living more. Cause objectivity means nothing if overwhelmed by subjectivity.

[rostasi]

Does this fit the "complexity hypothesis"?

[Mucha na Dziko]

Originally Posted by rostasi

(why the quotation marks)

Because She is the one performing the vocals, but not actually writing the music or lyrics, or performing the music itself

[Mucha na Dziko]

Originally Posted by rostasi

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”? .

I kinda feel like you’re arguing here for the sake of argument, or that you’ve been somewhat offended by my comment.

Innovation in songwriting and production techniques is creating new wąsy, possibilities, etc, that other people then start to use. Like a certain chord progression, or playing a tape in reverse, or whatever

Complexity is when the music in question is not created out of cliché chord progresions, or simple 3-4 chords patterns, or not out of chords that you learn when you first pick up an instrument. Et cætra
If your music is based on cliché progressions, 3 chords, or basic chords, then what you need is the „idea” (your own „invention”) for innovation, so these simple patterns seem new and interesting.

What was the point of asking these things?

[Mucha na Dziko]

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


Is petroleum objectively better than water?

1. I’m not denying that response, or feeling. I’m just saying that taste and quality are two completely different things. I don’t think that „emotional response” is an objective parameter. I might have a gigantów emotional response to an Adam Sandler movie, and I wouldn’t have one when watching a Stanley Kubrick movie, but there’s no way I’d say that Sandler has been in better movies than Kubrick has ever made.

2. Yes, that is true. But the again, they can also be used (Along with other parameters, even like the emotional response) to actually talk about and determine the quality. Quality is then divided into other parameters, like how that certain artist affects other artists, how it affects the world, etc. If we dive deep only into „taste” and we’ll be just standing and Talking about how „taste is subjective” (which it is, but it doesn’t mean what people usualy tend to mean by that), then there would be no conversation, discussion, argument, anything, and the world would stand still. So actually creating a vocabulary for Talking about taste, quality, art, etc is much needed to keep things moving forward, and have any social interactions.

3. Well it’s exactly the oposite. One might say water is much better than petrol, mostly because it’s the source of all life, the thing that all life needs to keep on living, and is probably a part of petroleum’s chemical structure (so no petrol without water).


(Though I’m not sure about that last statement - i’m not much of a chemist)

[Mucha na Dziko]

Originally Posted by jadis

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

I don’t really see a problem with such a statement.
I can see why you would frown upon the Beatles in terms of „musical complexity” (but then they actually make up for that in other things).

But the Beach Boys? Come on. Brian Wilson was writing truly complex music for his time and even for any other really for that matter. It’s just that his songs are made in such a manner that at first, second, third listen you don’t hear what’s actually happening, because the melodies/harmonies are so captivating.


Also, I believe we’re not Talking about classical music, so comparisons to Bach or Mahler do not apply. It’s a discussion about popular music, right?

And in popular music I often feel like the „complex” bands are doing it usualy for complexity’s sake, and not to actually enhance the experience. The Beach Boys or the Beatles are the oposite of that. The song/melody comes first, complexity later.

[Frownland]

Wilson's a genius but is only complex within prescriptive pop limits. In terms of what the music world has to offer he doesn't rank high on the complexity spectrum.

Originally Posted by Mucha na Dziko

1. I’m not denying that response, or feeling. I’m just saying that taste and quality are two completely different things. I don’t think that „emotional response” is an objective parameter. I might have a gigantów emotional response to an Adam Sandler movie, and I wouldn’t have one when watching a Stanley Kubrick movie, but there’s no way I’d say that Sandler has been in better movies than Kubrick has ever made.

The aspects that you believe are more important than your emotional response are still subjectively chosen though.

2. Yes, that is true. But the again, they can also be used (Along with other parameters, even like the emotional response) to actually talk about and determine the quality. Quality is then divided into other parameters, like how that certain artist affects other artists, how it affects the world, etc. If we dive deep only into „taste” and we’ll be just standing and Talking about how „taste is subjective” (which it is, but it doesn’t mean what people usualy tend to mean by that), then there would be no conversation, discussion, argument, anything, and the world would stand still. So actually creating a vocabulary for Talking about taste, quality, art, etc is much needed to keep things moving forward, and have any social interactions.

No it wouldn't lmao. Discussions about interesting qualities in music can still happen, they're just inherently subjective because of the nature of art. A standardized Objectively Good Music would actually make music discussion more pointless because we would collectively understand what's dope and would be useless to speak against the musofascist hegemony. Maybe start the vocabulary process by adapting your understanding of objectivity to what the word actually means?

3. Well it’s exactly the oposite. One might say water is much better than petrol, mostly because it’s the source of all life, the thing that all life needs to keep on living, and is probably a part of petroleum’s chemical structure (so no petrol without water).

Yes, that is the point. Limiting music analysis to the declining traditional pop sphere is just as illogical as only considering a liquid's function as car fuel.