Youre right. Music doesnt have to technically proficient to be good to someone. Typical reply from Jew Sun Ra. Hes never wrong. Ever. :rofl:

I agree that all *real* music is 100% subjective to the listeners ears. It is purely a matter of taste; however, there has to be some sort of minimum requirement for what constitutes *real* music. Otherwise, there is certainly categorically bad music.

For example, if I get up and sing karaoke to Bone thugs-n-harmondy- "Crossroads," there is not a person on the planet that would consider it good music; therefore, I would classify my hypothetical karaoke performance as not *real* music. If there is not a minimum requirement of what *real* music is, then the whole subjective argument shatters, and there would certainly be examples of good and bad music at polar opposite ends of the musical spectrum.

This is really a philosophical question, as it applies to all art, and I remember it being discussed ad nauseam in philosophy 101 courses when I was in college.

“There are two kinds of music. Good music, and the other kind.” ~ Duke Ellington

Hmm...
 

All music is subjective. End of story. If you think Justin Beiber is the best then by all means enjoy his music.

Interesting, coming from a person you condemns the whole British Invasion.:rofl:

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

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

Connect
 

You obviously aren't connecting things together properly.

^ This is pretty much what I was thinking, too; there are parallel debates about good and bad in every art, which have been going on for years. In fact they were struggling with the same concepts as us back in 1909 when they opened " The world`s greatest museum of Art and Design" in London, and this was the best dictum that they could come up with :-

I wonder if your ad nauseam discussions came up with anything better, RMR ?

I`m really undecided on this issue; I don`t like the idea of people going around labelling music good or bad, or somehow measuring one artist up against another, but there must surely be some way of assessing music, to distinguish a karaoki performance from an orchestral concert. Besides, every time mags like Rolling Stone publish another "100 best ..." list, aren`t they tacitly declaring that, yes, there is good and bad in music ?

And here`s a question for musicians: when you make an effort to improve your performance, or make a mistake, aren`t you also saying, "This is good music, that was bad, this is better" ?

The concept of good or bad in music may be difficult to pin down, but I`m sure it`s out there somewhere.

Grape?

I love grape.

I believe that while music is subjective, you can still divide music into the categories of good and bad. For instance, I don't like Sufjan Stevens, but I have to admit that he created technically good music. Likewise, there are probably lots of people out there who enjoy listening to Rebecca Black's "Friday", but there should be no disagreement over the fact that that song is a piece of ****.

The concept of "good" or "bad" applied to music only works if specific criteria for judgment are agreed upon (by the judges) in advance.

For example, you could compare two pieces of music and judge which performance involved fewer wrong notes by comparing them to the notes printed in the score. If you value the correct playing of notes, then you would say the performance with fewer missed notes was "better." (Judging improvisation music in this way would be impossible.) However, if you are someone who likes improvisation and surprise in music, you might actually prefer the performance which had more "incorrect" notes.

As for Rolling Stone magazine's "Best" lists, they are probably using certain criteria to make their judgment. I looked up their list of 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, and learned this:

John Cage's 4'33" may not make that list as it doesn't have (2) melody or (5) great production. It does make a strong statement, I'd say, so it succeeds at (4), but lacks emotion IMO, as it has no music...but I prefer 4'33" to a whole mess of songs you can actually hear. :p: Like Il Duce said, sometimes I like silence more than listening to a song.

EDIT: Rolling Stone lists Bob Dylan's "Like A Rolling Stone" as the greatest song of all time...and I doubt that is a coincidence, given the name of the magazine. :rolleyes: Strange, because I've never liked that song much at all.

Dylans song has nothing to do with the name of the magazine. The magazine, Dylans song, and the Rolling Stones band were named after the Muddy Waters song of the same name. Considering Rolling Stone magazines criteria, I'd say that "Like a Rolling Stone" is a good fit. I'm not saying I think it's the greatest. It would be impossible for me to say what song is the greatest ever. It's actually one Dylan song that I got tired of rather fast. I think he has better songs. But considering that criteria, I think it's a good fit.

Ah...I didn't realize the source of the name of Rolling Stone Magazine. Thank you for that information.

I agree Dylan's "Like A Rolling Stone" does a good job of meeting the magazine's criteria that they seemed to be using to pick their greatest 500 songs. The reason I felt their choice was strange was that I don't like to listen to that song, and therefore I don't think of it as "good" music.

"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 are 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."

Now THIS song, "Fine Objects" by Eskamon, tops my list of good music because it meets my criteria very well, especially my third criterion:



I like crunchy music that sounds like shattering glass and has an ominous yet playful feeling about it. I'd never heard such a song before listening to this one...and when I heard it, it was :love:. If I could shoot one song off into space to represent humanity's music, I might shoot this one! :p:

Sure, this works. But this only presents a different perspective from which subjective opinions are valued; it is the act of externalizing an opinion (from its subject) and canonizing it. Your own distaste for "Like a Rolling Stone" should be evidence enough that an objective "good" and "bad" simply doesn't exist.

But that, I feel, is one of the great appeals to music -- everyone has their own preferences, and nobody is any more "correct" in their convictions than anyone else.

Good golly, we agree on something! :p:

I think if you were to come up with a greatest songs list, the criteria would have to be a little more broad and not just based upon your feelings about music. I think that the Rolling Stone criteria covers that pretty well. Transcending time, becoming part of human consciousness and lexicon are pretty big deals. There have been a lot of other popular acts that haven't had as much of a profound affect on culture as Bob Dylan. Surely there are more reasons for his influence on things other than just popularity. I think he rightfully belongs at the top of any "Greatest songs" list or and "Greatest Artists" list. Not many, if any, can match the influence he had on music and culture. And it's not just because he was popular. He wasn't even that popular at the beginning of his career, his songs were first popularized by other artists.

I agree with you that the Rolling Stone Magazine criteria were pretty good, given their goal of identifying music that has, does, and probably will speak to many people. If they had published *my* top 500 songs, based on *my* emotions, they probably wouldn't have pleased many readers.

:laughing:

If there's music out there that can transcend time, I'd love to hear it. Do you need special earbuds to listen to it?

There certainly is music that transcends time. Artists like Dylan, The Beatles and Zeppelin continue to sell a lot of records and their influence and popularity are still strong almost 50 years after their heyday. Not every band is capable of that. Therefore, some artists transcend time a little more than most.

I know what you were trying to say, but your phrasing was suggestive of a very, very different connotation...
That's all I was hankering on about.

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.:confused:

^ 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.


^ 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.

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.

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

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

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. :p:

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


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

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 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! :p:

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.

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

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

This. I really don't see what the argument here is. If you like it, then for you, it's good music. I listen to a ton of stuff that almost everyone else around me thinks is crap. Does that mean it is? No. I hear other people's music and think it sucks. Does that mean it's bad? Bad for me, maybe. But that's just subjective.

It can definitely be divided between good and bad but those good and bad is too broad and clearly based on subjective parameters. I find the more detailed in your analysis of music (like keeping it within a particular genre) the closer you can get to objectivity although you can never really reach a point of objectivity.

Excellent! Thanks for the recommendation. It turns out my public library has the book and I was heading there today, so I should be able to get it. :)

More about the book:

Yes, there is no need to diviede music into good and bad, you can do whatever you like whatsoever.

individual basis verse? what do you mean? show me an example?