Sneer

It is completely subjective, quality is in the ear of the listener. Music is a personal experience, and there are elements that, whilst for some may be brilliant, fail to pique the interests of others. To go around saying 'this person's opinion is incorrect, they obviously don't understand music' is arrogant.

__________________
Fright Team radio show

blastingas10

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

RMR

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.

__________________
RMR
My music reivew site: RMR Music Reviews

Howard the Duck

i'm hearing less and less of "bad" music the older I get

i draw the line at Modern Talking

__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

ThePhanastasio

Taste and preferences in anything, not just music, are always subjective. It's not something you can look at in simple and universally accepted black and white terms as "good" and "bad", and it's really irksome to me when people choose to be that presumptuous.

__________________

• Phish: Studio Discography Reviewed
• 100 Albums I Heartily Recommend
• My last.fm

Howard the Duck

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

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

__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

Windy

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.

Phantom Limb

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 ****.

__________________

Last.Fm

My Bomb Music Shit

blastingas10

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.

VEGANGELICA

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 . If I could shoot one song off into space to represent humanity's music, I might shoot this one!

__________________