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

blastingas10 · 11-02-2011, 10:04 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.

Necromancer · 11-02-2011, 10:46 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.

Windy · 11-03-2011, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necromancer

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.

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?

VEGANGELICA · 11-03-2011, 03:16 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, 03:19 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, 06:17 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.

VEGANGELICA · 11-03-2011, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucifer_sam

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

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:

Quote:

This is your brain on music : the science of a human obsession by Daniel J. Levitin:

Whether you listen to Bach or Bono, music has a significant role in your life--even if you never realized it. Why does music evoke such powerful moods?
The answers are at last becoming clear, thanks to revolutionary neuroscience and the emerging field of evolutionary psychology.

Both a cutting-edge study and a tribute to the beauty of music itself, this book unravels a host of mysteries that affect everything from pop culture to our understanding of human nature, including:

Are our musical preferences shaped in utero?
Is there a cutoff point for acquiring new tastes in music?
What do PET scans and MRIs reveal about the brain's response to music?
Is musical pleasure different from other kinds of pleasure?

Neuroscientist and former recording engineer Levitin explores music across cultures, brain disorders and developmental levels to unlock deep secrets about how nature and nurture forge a uniquely human obsession.

--From publisher description.

Blarobbarg · 11-03-2011, 07:21 AM

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.

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.

11-02-2011, 10:04 PM	#1 (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 10:21 PM.

11-02-2011, 10:46 PM	#2 (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.