Paedantic Basterd

Right.

Salami

Despite my best efforts not to appear an elitist, self-important bastard, I have sadly been unsuccessful it seems. I probably ought to have asked if preferring something means that you think it's better music - which I don't think is necessarily the case. One of my favourite Fall songs, "Touch Sensitive", is basic musically, coarse and generally unruly.
But yet I still prefer it to any piece of symphonic metal I've ever heard, despite the fact that the metal music is clearly more intricate and more thought out.

(I'm guessing this is the part where mankycaaant turns up and asks if I'm on my period again)

Paedantic Basterd

Of course you think it's better if you prefer it. I prefer the taste of apples to oranges, but that opinion does not make them empirically better.

I'm not really sure where you're trying to take this.

Salami

Well that's the point of me mentioning the Fall - I like their work far more than I like Beethoven or Wagner, but I am perfectly happy to accept that The Fall's music is of inferior quality. I don't think grandeur and intricacy should take precedence though.

I'll reiterate now I'm not saying anything about something being "empirical" - although it looks like that in my last post. I'm just wondering if this issue should be so blurred as it is. It's also possible that it's best for me to shut up about this.

Goofle

Sope people think the Sex Pistols are the greatest band ever. Opinions can be wrong.

__________________

Salami

Yes, I feel the same way. Most opinions are entirely contradictory anyway, so they cannot all logically be right.
I think personally it's because I dislike the postmodernist philosophy surrounding the idea of truth, that basically anything that suits you best is true.
What I do think though is that different people will have different emotional responses to different kinds of music, towards some more than others.

I don't think this is something which can necessarily be divided into "right" and "wrong".

Paedantic Basterd

I think that's more because of your nature. You're not very confrontational, and you try to keep your opinions inoffensive, because you do care how you come across to people and how your opinions affect your relationships. I'm not saying this to be insulting, because I'm exactly the same way.

Unfortunately subjectivity just isn't any fun. If everyone treated music subjectively, this would be a very boring place. What we have instead, is relativity, which takes in a great deal more factors for both the artist and the listener, including everything from the listener's experience with music and personal preference to the artist's mastery of their instrument and decades of influence.

Point is, there is no way to objectively rate the value of a piece of music. You can however, provide a better argument for your preference than your discussion partner, and thus still win a debate, which is always fun.

Salami

I can relate to this quite well, and me mentioning Wagner is indirectly demonstrates this. I was at a performance of The Ring and when it was being discussed afterwards, in a conversation I admitted that I really couldn't connect to this music as I would to an artist like the Fall or even something like Joplin, who I happen to be immensely fond of. Of course this was met with polite condescension.
I think this is probably spot on, and the distinction between subjectivity and relativity is clearly an important one. You mentioned this concerning the way the artist can interact with the senses of the listener, and I think that connecting with people's feelings isn't something anyone can do universally, hence the "relativity".
Indeed! This, I suppose, is the challenge of the reviewer - they are required to do exactly that. Although I'm not a fan of postmodernist philosophy, I still accept that with an art such as music it is not possible to objectively assess it's merit when it's purpose isn't meant to register objectively.

And it certainly is satisfying to "win" a discussion on something such as this, although I personally think that for me "street cred" on the internet is far less important than the opportunity to learn something. I know people often admire the tendency certain people have to argue for the sake of the argument, and some individuals are evidently at the stage where they are able to do this in any situation for their own amusement as much as anything.
Although I admire this, I'm perfectly content to accept when I'm wrong and try and learn something constructive, and I think this is one of the benefits of a discussion here. I'll often come away having changed my mind about something and consider it educational.

riz1music

The definition of good music is music that a person enjoys enough to call it 'good'. That's the easiest answer i can think of. It's not news that everyone rarely agrees on what is good music. I studied music history in a bunch of classes, being told what is good music from all sorts of professors, most of which made very strong cases. I played with musicians that told me what they thought was good... everything from jazz to progressive rock, death metal to hip hop to hendrix, all the way to a singer who was greatly inspired by 'The Thong Song'. Maybe defining what bad music may help answer this question. I think bad music is music played or produced by people with no musical talent, knowledge or inspiration.

TockTockTock

Uhg.