PDA

View Full Version : Music is so complicated.



All About Eve
06-02-2007, 08:00 PM
Like, when you're talking about 'good' music v. 'bad' music. I had someone call a band I was listening to earlier (Lucky Boys Confusion, for those interested) 'bad'. I asked them why the band was 'bad', and they said, "I don't know, I just don't like it."

I say in return, "That doesn't make it bad, though. It just makes it unappealing to you." They reply, "if it's unappealing, it's bad." The conversation goes on a bit, and ends up with them not knowing why it's 'bad' and/or 'unappealing', but sticking to that judgement regardless.

So what makes music 'good' or 'bad'? Is it solely on your interpretation, and good v. bad is relative? Or is there good music and bad music based on level of popularity? Or based on skill involved?

-----Issue number two-----

The other confusing part about music, is HOW you like it. Some bands, you can love love love, and then they suddenly get old, and you never listen to them again (for me, Damone), or they can become interesting to you again, get boring again, etc etc in a continuous cycle (for me, Garbage). Other bands, you always like some, not LOVE, but like, and it never really goes away from that (for me, Barenaked Ladies). Sometimes you can hate a band forever, then suddenly like them (for me, Dave Matthews Band). Or you can just love one for as long as you can remember (for me, REM).

But what causes the changes, and causes them to change differently? When talking about taste, your tastebuds die and regrow, and by the time seven years is up, you have a whole new set, so obviously taste changes there. But what about MUSICAL taste? Do your auditory nerves change over time, and each little change may alter how you hear each band or genre? Or what?

wheelchairman
06-02-2007, 08:10 PM
Music is good and bad entirely and solely based on tastes. Musicians can be talented, or creative, based on other things. But this does not make them good or bad when judging them based on taste.

Your friend was in his right to say it was bad, and taste needs no explanation. Had he said the band was uncreative or untalented, an explanation would obviously be required.

mrconeman
06-02-2007, 08:13 PM
Yeah. There is surely a line that can be drawn between taste and actual talent.

As obvious a statement as this is, there are bands I hate, but I still know they have good musicianship, I hate them over a question of taste. There are bands I love without any real shred of proper musical skill, but it just appeals to me.

On the changing musical taste, that is something that has always got me wondering. Why is it when I was like 5 years old I became a Guns 'n' Roses fan, and still am to this day, but between now and then I have picked up and lost touch with countless other bands?

Things that didn't appeal to me at all a couple years ago have become a regular playlist for me. It's all quite odd.

Llamas
06-02-2007, 08:16 PM
I'm glad coneman posted. Now the only thing I have to add is that I generally don't stop liking any bands. Maybe it's because of nostalgia? I don't know. But once I start really liking an artist, I'll probably always like them to some degree.

All About Eve
06-02-2007, 09:45 PM
Wait, so you still are an avid listener to The Offspring?

Llamas
06-02-2007, 09:56 PM
Not really avid, but yeah, I still like them. Did I once say I didn't?

JohnnyNemesis
06-02-2007, 10:00 PM
Yeah, for the most part, even if I stop listening to a band, I still list them among my favorites if there was ever a point at which I liked them. I don't think I've listened to Le Tigre in almost three years, but I listened to them so obsessively at the time that I still consider them one of my favorite bands.

All About Eve
06-02-2007, 10:04 PM
Not really avid, but yeah, I still like them. Did I once say I didn't?
No, it's just surprising. Most people here grow out of them. I listen to them more than the majority of the frequent posters here, and that's only a few songs here and there, 90% of which are because of shuffles.

Llamas
06-02-2007, 10:18 PM
Yeah, for the most part, even if I stop listening to a band, I still list them among my favorites if there was ever a point at which I liked them. I don't think I've listened to Le Tigre in almost three years, but I listened to them so obsessively at the time that I still consider them one of my favorite bands.

Same here. I don't really listen to, say, Better Than Ezra very much anymore, and I had a huge Alanis kick a month or so ago after a few years of barely listening to her.... but I still list them as some of my top artists.


No, it's just surprising. Most people here grow out of them. I listen to them more than the majority of the frequent posters here, and that's only a few songs here and there, 90% of which are because of shuffles.
I see. I never get rid of music for this reason, also. I have 80 some GB of music because I can't part with it, even if I'm not big on it anymore. And there are plenty of "worse" bands than the Offspring that I liked when I was 14 that I still like, haha. Oh, and I sometimes post in GOD.

There are definitely artists that I stop listening to regularly, but when I throw on their album for nostalgia, I still sing along with every word. Like, Backstreet Boys or Cher or today I put on Vitamin C. I'd never go out and buy more albums from these artists, and I don't actively choose to listen to them a lot, but I still like them at some level.

But seriously, that stuff about "good" vs. "bad" music is annoying a lot. I hate arguing in real life, and avoid it at all costs... but that is one of the top things that I find the hardest not to argue about. Sad, isn't it? haha. I define "good" and "bad" as talent. What I love may not be good at all. Hell, I love Static X and own all their albums. Are they *good*? No way; their lyrics are repetitive and they basically just loop basic chords and drums underneath screaming vocals. I can't stand Justin Timberlake, but does he suck? No, that boy can sing... I just hate the music that he sings and that he does all that falsetto. But he doesn't *suck* by any means. I hate when people define "good" and "bad" as what they enjoy. And not just in music. I guess it goes for all forms of art, really.

nieh
06-02-2007, 11:39 PM
You don't need a reason to like/dislike music. Whatever sounds good to you, you like, whatever doesn't, you don't. You might be able to give better reasons for why you like a band than someone else has for disliking them but that's not going to make them change their opinion of them.

Not exactly related, but not worth it's own topic: my friend took a history of rock and roll class as his elective thing at college recently. When I first heard he was doing this, I thought "Yay! Now I he won't be totally clueless when I go on my stupid rants/ramblings!". So, he mentioned at one point that he finished studying punk rock and while we're driving around, the song "Hot Hot Hot" by Buster Poindexter comes on. I tell him "Did you know this is the same guy that fronted the New York Dolls?", he asked "who are the New York Dolls?" and I said "They were proto-punk, one of the bands that was influential over punk without quite being punk themselves. Some others were Iggy Pop and the Stooges, the MC5" "I've heard of the MC5 but my teacher said they were a metal band." "Ok...but they were a huge influence over the Ramones, and Iggy Pop and the New York Dolls were both incredibly influential over punk in general" "Well, what was so influential about them? I mean, Jimi Hendrix was influential because no one ever played guitar like he did before. The Sex Pistols were influential because of how over the top they were, what was so influential about those other bands?" "They were influential because of their song-writing and the fact that they pretty much had some punk songs before punk existed" "Song-writing doesn't really mean anything though" and that's when I started turning the conversation elsewhere.
Today we had another little argument. One of the requirements for this class is that he has to go to a certain amount of shows, so we decided to go to some random show in Philly at the Khyber tonight. One of the bands billed themselves as something along the lines of "Interpol-style indie" which made me say something like "Why would a band advertise that they sound like Interpol when Interpol pretty much just sound like Joy Division?". He tried getting me for being snobbish (which, to be fair, I can be) "how do you know Interpol have ever even heard of Joy Division? Maybe they just had the same combination of influences that Joy Division had". He'd never heard of either band before I brought them up but already knew from what I had said that Interpol were from 20 years later and that the surviving members of Joy Division went on to form New Order so it wasn't like they were that secret of a band. I tried explaining to him that 20 years after they were pretty much cemented in cult status, it's almost impossible for a group of people interested in that style of music to start listening to bands that influenced Joy Division without ever actually hearing Joy Division themselves. He said "well, they would have to backtrack through New Order and dig around to find them, that wasn't easy to do in the 90s and not everyone thinks like you do when it comes to digging up random bands". Blargh. This didn't turn out at all the way I had hoped it would.

Nina
06-03-2007, 02:36 AM
Music is good and bad entirely and solely based on tastes. Musicians can be talented, or creative, based on other things. But this does not make them good or bad when judging them based on taste.


I entirely agree with that, and I get pissed off when people dont seperate the two. People often call a musician talentless just because they dont like their music. annoying. Same goes to movies, but that's the wrong subject matter for this topic.




Things that didn't appeal to me at all a couple years ago have become a regular playlist for me. It's all quite odd.

I actually dont find that odd at all. I'd find it surprising if music tastes never changed (and I mean the taste as a whole, not a bunch of bands that you'll always love) because that would mean that the person never changed, and that would be sad.
Our personality keeps developing...and I'm sure to some extend, our taste in music is related to our personality.



Yeah, for the most part, even if I stop listening to a band, I still list them among my favorites if there was ever a point at which I liked them.

I was the same....until yesterday while listing my favorite bands. I guess I just dont see anymore why I should list The Offspring as my favorite band when they're not much to my taste anymore.

-=xanathos=-
06-03-2007, 07:02 AM
Taste differs a lot from time to time I have noticed, not only with years, but also with state of mind and even the mood you're in. i'm probably not going to listen to hardcore punk when i feel like a peacefull little kid, and i'm not going to listen to ska when I feel like breaking something.

But, back to the matter at hand. I personally have a lot of bands I used to listen to a lot (Jamiroquai being my best example) but don't listen too much to anymore. Not that I don't like it anymore, but I just got bored of it a bit. I will still say they are one of my fav bands, cause they made instant classics for me, and when i hear one of their songs I can sing all the lyrics and feel happy with it too, but i will less easely put in an entire cd, cause i have other favourites too now.

It really ticks me off when people listen to a sort of music at one point, and then have this radical change saying they hate it. I can't understand why a person would change so much to bash on something they used to love before.

What was said about writing a band off because you don't like them i wholeheartedly agree with the majority of the people here. Then again, I can't stand bands who are live bad performers, because no band was ever supposed to get big just by making studio albums and being crap on stage. Good charlotte for instance I used to think was catchy back in the day (ok, they had real bad lyrics imo, but hey), untill I saw them live. There are so many unknown bands who work twice as hard and are as or even more catchy then them, who imo deserve that fame a lot more. Good songs are great, but what are songs if you can't do them credit...

Jakebert
06-03-2007, 07:39 AM
I think it's fine to bash whatever band you want as long as your reasoning is solid. Of course it all comes down to taste in the end, but music is an incredibly easy thing to be opinionated about, and you really can't fault somene for being that way. It's something that people get passionate about, and when people are passionate about something, that kind of "my opinion is the best" is almost always going to eventually show up.

I personally try not to bash too much, although there are certain bands that I will let myself go and say whatever just because I hate them that much. The best example there is probably Incubus, whom I hate more than just about any band out there. But I do try to keep it in check most of the time, especially when it's a band in a genre that I don't really get into anyway.

But that said, I completely agree that you can dislike a band and still respect them. I always use Radiohead as an example when I say this, because I find their music boring, yet I realize that they're incredibly original and talented.

As for evolving music tastes, I still like a lot of the stuff I used to listen to, but I'm embarassed by some of it too. The nu metal and shitty 90's rock are a black spot on my music history, but aside from that I still listen to most of the stuff I always did, I just keep adding to it rather than subtracting. I'm kind of growing away from punk rock, but I feel bad about that since I have so many punk CD's in my collection that I spent tons of money on.

JohnnyNemesis
06-03-2007, 08:15 AM
People often call a musician talentless just because they dont like their music. annoying.

I slightly disagree here. I've always said there's a huge difference between talent and whether I like the music being crated or not.

Saying the music is "good" or "bad" is definitely a matter of taste, but the whole talent thing is different. Even if I like a certain song or artist, the musician might be lacking big time in the talent department.

For example: Celine Dion is undoubtedly a talented and capable singer, but I really can't stand her music. She has talent, but my taste would lead me to say she's not "good".

Then there are bands like NOFX or Polytune, who I wouldn't say are particularly talented at all, yet I can still enjoy many of their songs because what they produce with their limited talents sounds better to me than what Celine Dion produces with her unlimited talents.

nieh
06-03-2007, 08:19 AM
God dammit I was whiny last night.


"well, they would have to backtrack through New Order and dig around to find them, that wasn't easy to do in the 90s and not everyone thinks like you do when it comes to digging up random bands"

I feel the need to point out that while I know he's right in that not everyone seeks out music the way I do but he doesn't understand that people that are way into that kind of music...I can't even say "underground" because it's really not far beneath the surface...but people that follow that kind of music, DO tend to think the same way I do, often times even more obsessively. He doesn't understand how I can hear about so many bands that don't get played on the radio when hardly any of the bands I listen to are really unknown. He doesn't get that if you're into that kind of music then word gets around to you. There have been scenes like that before the internet and there probably always will be. The internet only makes it easier because you don't have to actually be a part of a specific scene to be able to get introduced to bands that are a part of it. I can't really get mad at him for not getting it though, when I was in high school and my brother listened to bands like Jets to Brazil and the Promise Ring, I wasn't able to understand how he heard of those bands that "no one else knows about". I was kind of hoping his History of Rock teacher to go into a little more depth than "And then the Ramones came along and the Sex Pistols sang "God Save the Queen" while riding a boat down a river and that was tru punx!!1!" and that I'd feel less like I'm annoying him when I go into my occasional rant about how "these guys were so influential!" or "these guys are basically just a clone of so and so" which is funny because the vast majority of bands I say that about are bands I don't even really LIKE or listen to actively, I just think it's interesting to follow the trail of influences and I don't like it when bands seem perfectly content treading water in another band's ideas when most bands at least mix multiple influences together, even if they're not able to bring anything new to the table.

opivy21
06-03-2007, 12:18 PM
Saying the music is "good" or "bad" is definitely a matter of taste, but the whole talent thing is different. Even if I like a certain song or artist, the musician might be lacking big time in the talent department.

For example: Celine Dion is undoubtedly a talented and capable singer, but I really can't stand her music. She has talent, but my taste would lead me to say she's not "good".
Exactly. It doesn't matter to me that Celine Dion is a great singer, and she's singing songs written by professional song writers, and she's being backed up by studio musicians who are very talented at their instruments. What matters is that her music is boring, bland, corny, etc. Celine Dion is bad (in my opinion, obviously).

On the other hand, I can listen to a band like Guitar Wolf, who speak poor English and sound like they were recorded in a small closet, and consider them to be a good band. To me, the ability to play an instrument well has never been an incentive to listen to a band. I can respect that a band's music is hard to play but still dislike that band.

I think that I judge artists based on their songwriting more than anything else. Why would anyone listen to a band that plays shitty songs just because they can play their instruments well (I'm not actually sure that anybody does that)? If you can write a good song then that's all I need. Of course, I think most people can agree that the quality of songwriting is a very subjective thing, and a person's ability to play an instrument is much more objective.

The main idea is that I have no real problem with calling a band bad if I don't like their music. That's not necessarily saying that they're not talented in some way, but just that I don't enjoy them, thus making them bad in my own opinion.

wheelchairman
06-03-2007, 01:26 PM
I slightly disagree here. I've always said there's a huge difference between talent and whether I like the music being crated or not.

Saying the music is "good" or "bad" is definitely a matter of taste, but the whole talent thing is different. Even if I like a certain song or artist, the musician might be lacking big time in the talent department.

For example: Celine Dion is undoubtedly a talented and capable singer, but I really can't stand her music. She has talent, but my taste would lead me to say she's not "good".

Then there are bands like NOFX or Polytune, who I wouldn't say are particularly talented at all, yet I can still enjoy many of their songs because what they produce with their limited talents sounds better to me than what Celine Dion produces with her unlimited talents.
Why are you pointing out the obvious? And how does this contradict what I said/statement she was agreeing with? I mean good for you and all, but it should be clear that this wasn't an all or nothing type of statement.

JohnnyNemesis
06-03-2007, 01:31 PM
The fact that this thread even exists shows that it's not as obvious as it should be. So I was just branching out in a different direction based more on what she said, not just on how she agreed with you.

HeadAroundU
06-03-2007, 02:16 PM
*insert anything here what Ricky doesn't understand*

I'm with Jakebert. But I don't have a music I'm ashamed of.

JohnnyNemesis
06-03-2007, 02:26 PM
Learn English.

Nina
06-03-2007, 02:52 PM
I slightly disagree here. I've always said there's a huge difference between talent and whether I like the music being crated or not.


So you dont think that people dont seperate the two? Because as I mentioned, I doubt a lot of people seperate it the way most people in this topic have.

HeadAroundU
06-03-2007, 09:43 PM
Learn English.
Whoops, sorry, I'm kinda busy/tired...

*perfect English on*

I've read it all again...

Well, good or bad music from my point of view:

I see it in 2 dimensions, personally and generally.

Personally: (matter of personal taste)
example: Let me take NOFX that is not as talented as Celine Dion, let's take it as a fact.

You can say that NOFX is a good music because you like them, even though they are less talented. You can say that Celine Dion is a bad music because you don't like her, even though she is talented.

I don't like that dimension. It's not objective and everybody should keep it for yourself. I'm not saying that you can't say: Oh my gosh, NOFX, I love them, they are so good.

You shouldn't be telling somebody that you are listening to a good music when it's based on personal tastes.

Generally: (you have to take many things into consideration)

You need something more to say that NOFX is a good music, for example, that one of their albums was 3 times platinum or they have a huge influence and thousands of bands are ripping them off.

Well, I (HAU) don't like Celine Dion and I hate her ugly nose but knowing that she is a Canadian Grammy and Juno award winning pop singer who have sold over 175 million albums, I would say that Celine Dion is a good music.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celine_Dion_awards_and_accomplishments (fucking hell, I didn't know...)

I (HAU) would say that NOFX is a good music (I guess not as good as Celine Dion :D ) because I like their album 'The War on Errorism'. The group has sold over 6 million records worldwide, and are one of the most successful independent bands of all time.

Now, the question is, what is a bad music for HAU? D-TOX ROCKERS! Check out my band! http://www.myspace.com/dtoxrockers :D

JohnnyNemesis
06-04-2007, 06:44 AM
You shouldn't be telling somebody that you are listening to a good music when it's based on personal tastes.

That's exactly what I said.


Now, the question is, what is a bad music for HAU? D-TOX ROCKERS! Check out my band! http://www.myspace.com/dtoxrockers :D

I <3 U.

Nina
06-04-2007, 10:43 AM
I am honestly wondering, Ricky :[

JohnnyNemesis
06-04-2007, 11:58 AM
Huh?

EDIT: Gah, I missed your post! My mistake:


So you dont think that people dont seperate the two?

I think some people do and some people don't. I actually agree with you a lot more than it seems like, I just wanted to further the distinction between taste and talent judgments.

All About Eve
06-04-2007, 12:10 PM
There's an obvious difference. I guess I didn't really explain that well. I just find it strange that some people define good/bad purely on tatse, or purely on skill.

I also think that you should be able to at least tell why you don't like something, which is what I was miffed about in the intro paragraph.

nieh
06-04-2007, 01:22 PM
I also think that you should be able to at least tell why you don't like something, which is what I was miffed about in the intro paragraph.

I disagree. There's lots of bands I listen to that I'm totally in love with where there are other similar bands out there I can't stand and I can't really give a reason why I like one but not the other aside from that it just clicked that way. I can give tons of reasons for why I dislike tons of bands but a lot of the time it's just because it doesn't work for me. That said, there are times that I get a little frustrated when someone can't give a reason for why they dislike one of my favorite bands, but normally it doesn't bother me because I know a lot of what I listen to doesn't appeal to most people.

All About Eve
06-04-2007, 01:35 PM
I never found a situation where I couldn't discribe why I didn't like a band. Sometimes it's had to describe why I do, but that's about it.

Llamas
06-04-2007, 02:17 PM
I often can't describe why I don't like a band. I have no idea why I dislike Foo Fighters. I think it's his voice, but I have no idea what it is about his voice... but every time I hear one of their songs that isn't one of about 3 songs, I get so annoyed. And I can't stand REM. I can say their music bores me, but that doesn't explain anything... while I can sit here for days and talk about why I dislike Method Man or Paula Cole.

BREAK
06-05-2007, 09:40 AM
Bad music can be nearly as entertaining as the best good music. I don't like to limit myself, or anyone else for that matter. My main wish is to not have my intelligence insulted too much.

Jakebert
06-05-2007, 01:17 PM
There's an obvious difference. I guess I didn't really explain that well. I just find it strange that some people define good/bad purely on tatse, or purely on skill.

I also think that you should be able to at least tell why you don't like something, which is what I was miffed about in the intro paragraph.

I made a thread about the whole skill thing a while ago. It's a big pet peeve of mine when people will immediately diss a band just because they use simple song structures or guitar playing. I respect a good guitarist or whatever, but that alone doesn't make the band a good band.

Betty
06-07-2007, 02:55 AM
I guess I should ultimately agree with the whole "everybody has their own taste blah blah" thing, but honestly, when I have to listen to a bunch of horrible top 40 songs against my wishes at the bar, sometimes I want to kill myself. Or all those awful pop remakes I've been hearing of used-to-be-awesome classic rock songs. It's tragic. I mean, does there not come a point when music can be relatively objectively considered "bad"? I guess not, but I'm still going to allow myself to say that it's bad, because it really is just that bad.

Also, something I've discussed with a friend is that it kind of depends how into music the person who's taste we are considering is. I mean, some people like house/techno music, and some like hardcore, and some metal, and some rap, etc, etc. I don't particularly like any of that music, but I can respect their taste, I guess, if they have a fairly good sense of what is available in music and what they like, and especially if they've delved into the more underground stuff at least in their genre. But when somebody just likes an extremely narrow genre because that's what they heard on the radio, I don't really think their taste counts very much because they don't have anything to base it off of.

I think there should also be a distinction between simple non-technical music and "bad" music. A band that plays simple music in addition to having no particular talent or appealing features, and basically rips off other bands in a completely uninspired fashion, I am tempted to consider "bad". And hey, it's possible to admittedly love a bad song or two.

If that makes sense...