Inuzuka Skysword

Why is taste the way you grade music? I mean, hell, tell me who Cynic ripped off to be unoriginal because I can't find it. Since music is an art I am going to grade it in an artsy way because that is obviously how you grade art, is it not? I mean I am not against taste at all and taste is a gift because without it we would not "get into" certain genres, but you cross the line when you say music is bad because you don't like to listen to it at the time. See, what if you were to like Cynic later in your life. I mean you would love them, but because of what you said earlier in your life you cannot say they are good. See the problem with grading by taste? It changes by the mood. Now if you look at the originality of a band, then you will be able to appreciate music much more.

Rainard Jalen

But that's the whole point. There's no objective criteria for "grading art". If no common ground can be agreed upon, it's effectively meaningless. It's all down to personal taste and interpretation at the end of the day. Take a set of lyrics. To one person, it may be profound - to another, pretentious. Or a melody: to one person exciting, to another, saccharine and sickly. Or a riff: to one person, complex and deep; to another, wooden, plastic, over-calculated, soulless. You can never say that one piece of art is better than another, except going by one's own personal criteria. Which is no more valid than anybody else's.

One of the things you mentioned was originality. To me, originality to a degree is important, yes. In that way, my own personal criteria matches yours. A lot of people don't place any importance in that sort of thing, though.


To riseagainstrocks: I had assumed you were ridiculing, marginalizing and scorning a number of other genres. If not, then my bad. Sorry.

The Unfan

I forgot to hit the quote button so pardon my slight paraphrase there.

Well thought out intricate sound without meaning to the listener is just well thought out intricate sound. If the listener can't relate to the song, no matter how complex or how much technical talent is put forth into the creation of said song, than why should the listener enjoy it? I know the reason I like music is because I can relate to the thought or emotion expressed therein. I like Vai's music not because he plays over the top stuff, but because it has a certain feel to it that I can often relate to. Same goes for Cynic's sound, sometimes I just like a calculated yet delicate form of anger. A very honest form of emotive expression. Does that mean I don't like simplistic music sometimes? Of course not.

What makes music good is genuinely grasping the expression, even if grasping the expression is admiring the wanktarded musicianship it is still something you personally understand and relate to, or just an honest being entertained by. Same goes for all art.

I find that I don't like Superman as a character because he represents things I'm not personally, and I often find I'm against his stances. He often expresses a sort of conservative idea of objective morality. On the other hand Batman has a sort of badass act upon feelings vibe going, a sort of chaotic vigilante justice thing. The honesty of Batman's mournful losses makes him easily relatexd to and I think I can more honestly empathize with Batman. See how that works? Superman may technically represent the Super-Hero genre more purely, but Batman has more character. My favorite super-hero is actually Iron-Man. His raging alcoholic tendencies makes him seem so human and likeable. Point? No matter the medium of art, what makes it good is going to be something personal, not something set in stone.

You find technical prowess to either be relatable (doubtful) or entertaining. Some just don't.