What is the definition of "good music"?
 

I know people tend to say that music is something that is entirely subjective, but I've always wondered how artists can be commonly grouped as "bad" or "good" artists and where the standards for doing so come from.

Do they come from the amount of listeners an artist has? Isn't the goal of a musician ultimately to get his vision and creations out to as many people as possible? That is also what a majority of crappy award shows are based on and what the general public tend to look at when evaluating music.

Then surely it must be based on technical skill? Normally if a person can play their instrument really well or can sing like no one can then they are good artists? Then I'm always baffled when people reject rappers like Nas and Common for artists like Wacka Flocka based on the fact that they are "too wordy" or are "dictionary rap" as to state that their superior lyricism is a vice?

So what I'm asking is that is there such a thing as a collective barometer for "good" and "bad" music and artists? If so then what is that barometer based on?

Stuff that Pitchfork likes.

Music with redeeming qualities. ICP has negative qualities, music that isn't very good but not worthy of hate is of neutral quality, and good music is just good music. Entirely subjective to the listeners tastes.

If there's a collective barometer of what's considered good, then it's responsible for a lot of successful crap. And by crap, I do mean that in a negative sense. So, it seems to me, the reasonable thing to do is forsake any sort of broad statistical measurement and just focus on what you think is good, which should favor personal scrutiny that's as free of any significant external influence as possible.

Any and all artists I suggest and listen to.

You are the exemption in my statement above.

what u deem "negative qualities" some people can see them has Postives

This.

We had this discussion in one of my Digital Composition classes. Not to be cliche, but I think "good" music is something that someone took their time and put a passion towards achieving their own purpose. They may see their creation as amazing, and that's what really matters, whether or not they share that view with you or thousands, even millions, is what separates good from fantastic.

Good music is music that volunteers at the local homeless shelter and is respectful of its elders.

It`s an interesting question, Xenith, and has in fact been debated here before; in this thread, for example, at some length:-

http://www.musicbanter.com/general-m...-good-bad.html

this but ironically

Not necessarily.

As a fan of Norwegian Black Metal I can tell you that many in the scene are highly elitist and only want a select few to know about their jams.

Again, not necessarily.

For example Kurt Cobain was a great transformative musician, but was a very mediocre guitar player. He managed to make up for his lack of technical skills with great song-writing.

:pimp:

Gud muzic is muzic that's n d charts. It's n the charts becuz it's gud muzic rite?

Serious answer

I consider good music anything that tries to sound unique while also progressing it's own particular sound. Basically, bad music is music I've heard before by a thousand different bands, or a band that plays literally the same song every time.

Also see most mainstream rap music. That's just lazy.

Non serious answer

See Grammy winners of the past ten years.

Yes. The barometer is personal taste.

If you're recognizing that certain groups tend to be placed in 'good' or 'bad' camps based on popular opinion you're really just noticing trends in the social hive mind for lack of better terms.

Different demographics are going to recognize different elements of the final creation in order to determine a relative worth. It's not so much a matter of celebrating stupidity so much as, if you grow up in a less than awesome area with little to no chance at higher education and you hear some dude busting out a deluge of verbose prose to accentuate their social soliloquies, you're gonna roll you're eyes until you're seeing behind you.

Like it or not, good / bad IS relative to the individual and entirely subjective to their personal views and morals regarding whatever is being judged by their mind in the moment.

There's no objective subformula to the subjectivity of music, for it's really just a factor of taste.

I know this is absolutely true, but surely there is a case for saying that aspects of music can make some music better than other music?

For instance, I think that one of these pieces is clearly far superior to the other:





I think most would agree that Gershwin here outclasses Rancid in almost every way. I picked pretty obvious examples, but the point is that we can't use the premise "all taste is subjective" to lead to the conclusion "music can not be defined as 'bad' because that's down to subjectivity" on to the dubious final conclusion "all music is equally good because it is all in some for appreciated".

I've not been too clear, but I think there is a case for there to be some sort of recognition of music that is better.
I appreciate that some people will PREFER the Rancid song, but at the end of the day, should this mean that neither can be considered "better"?

Well that's like, uh, your opinion, man.

Right.

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)

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.

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.

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

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".

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.

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.

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.