Spiringsteen

[russycarps]

Yes they obviously do, never said they didn't.

What I said was that if you don't like music either there is something wrong with the music or something wrong with the way you are listening to it.

That's what personal tastes are.

There are only two options here:

Either my above statement is right.

Or music tastes have nothing to do with personality, individual differences, type of friends, exposure or the quality of music or any other factor and are 100% random (which is nonsense in my opinion).

[sifi]

Okay, okay, bad examples. What I just getting at is that none of them have the best natural singing voice but are seen as poets/visionaries/spokesmen/political heroes blah blah blah.

[russycarps]

hypocrite?

Anyway if you go through this thread the majority of what you'll see is "he played for too long", which is why i mentioned it

[pedmills]

Music tastes have everything to do with personality, individual differences, type of friends, exposure or the quality of music, etc.

Some people like some stuff, and others don't. That's all there is to it. Your statement above is wrong.

[pedmills]

Oh I see ... I thought you were suggesting Bob stuck to one formula, whereas he's had almost as many personnas as Bowie!

[eFestivals]

Well if by "competently composed" you mean 'good' (which it often doesn't!) then of course there's that scope, that is the 'something wrong with the way you are experiencing' part of it.

"competently composed" merely means that someone has attempted to compose music for their or others enjoyment of that music.

It's only "good" if you as an individual find it to your liking.

There's absolutely nothing more to it than that. I cannot be made (for example) to think Springsteen's music "good", and you suggesting that if I don't think it good that I have some sort of problem is, I think, the most ridiculous thing I think I've ever read on these forums. I have my tastes; others have their tastes. Our tastes dictate what we each consider 'good'.

Thank f**k for those differences in tastes .... otherwise we'd all be sheep, and we'd all still be listening to only olde english folk music (or bagpipes in Scotland ) because we considered it good and so didn't feel the need to try making anything different.

[Langdale Wolf]

Yes they obviously do, never said they didn't.

What I said was that if you don't like music either there is something wrong with the music or something wrong with the way you are listening to it.

[Sam Crawley]

Crikey I can't believe this thread is still going?!

[eFestivals]

Okay well if you admit that then there are two options:

1. No such thing as good music and bad music. All music is equal. No difference in musical quality between your average local pub band and The Beatles.

2. There is such a thing as good music and bad music (not just opinion but a true quality even if it would be too hard for us to measure it). This means that all the things you listed above account for a skewed music taste where you might dislike good music and like bad music.

Which is it?

it's 2 - for everyone on the planet.

Just because someone likes the (for example) 'good' music of Springsteen doesn't mean that they're unable to like the badly played music of their local pub band. The only 'bad' music is music that's done differently from how it's meant to actually be - so out of time, out of tune, etc, etc.

Everything else is taste - and there is no such thing as good tastes and bad tastes, only different tastes. If I hate Springsteen as I do, that means only that I have different tastes to those that like him, and zilch more.

[eFestivals]

I have a feeling some of neils comments re: bruce being balnd may have lead Jens over the brink of despair.

if that's really the case then he won't be missed - someone unable to accept that some don't like their god has a serious mental problem.

[pedmills]

"competently composed" merely means that someone has attempted to compose music for their or others enjoyment of that music.

It's only "good" if you as an individual find it to your liking.

There's absolutely nothing more to it than that. I cannot be made (for example) to think Springsteen's music "good", and you suggesting that if I don't think it good that I have some sort of problem is, I think, the most ridiculous thing I think I've ever read on these forums. I have my tastes; others have their tastes. Our tastes dictate what we each consider 'good'.

Thank f**k for those differences in tastes .... otherwise we'd all be sheep, and we'd all still be listening to only olde english folk music (or bagpipes in Scotland ) because we considered it good and so didn't feel the need to try making anything different.

[Langdale Wolf]

And in relation to your last point. No, because any band which just copied the band before would not be making 'good music' because it would be old and boring. Someone who experimented and came up with a new genre was making 'good music' because it was creative, fresh etc.

[pedmills]

But that's simply not true. There doesn't have to be something WRONG with the music for you not to like it. I could list a load of bands I don't like, some of which I will admit are talented. GOOD even. But I don't like them. And it's not that I 'don't get it', it's simply a case that it doesn't appeal to me.

At the other end of the scale, I like Oasis. Now, I will happily admit that they have MANY faults - a lot of their tracks have plenty 'wrong' with them. But I like them despite their faults. In a similar way, I don't like Kasabian. Surely both these bands are 'listened to' in the same way? So why do I like one of them and not the other? Because it's my personal opinion.

If I don't like the music, it's because I don't like the music. It can be good, it can be bad, but if I don't like it, I don't like it.

[eFestivals]

And in relation to your last point. No, because any band which just copied the band before would not be making 'good music' because it would be old and boring. Someone who experimented and came up with a new genre was making 'good music' because it was creative, fresh etc.

in which case Springsteen can only be bad music, because as even his fans will admit he's been very far from groundbreaking thru-out his career.

But I didn't say that Springsteen was bad music, I simply said that I find it bland, because I do. I recognise that it all comes down to personal tastes (once you get beyond badly played music - out of time, etc). While I might find The Wiggles to be awful, the fact that young kids don't shows it's good music for young kids - and so it's only really about tastes, nothing about 'good' or 'bad'.

But anyway .... didn't you think Springsteen good (I can't be bothered to check back and see what you'd said about him)? Yet now you're working on a definition which categorically defines him as bad (thru not being groundbreaking) .... and so don't those conflicts say to you that you're now talking crap?

[Langdale Wolf]

I just mean that if the music is definitely good and you don't like it then perhaps you have certain personality traits that mean you don't like it.

[pedmills]

.......in your opinion!

When drum and bass first arrived - I thought it was crap. But it's still a new genre, isn't it? I like Oasis (as I said earlier) - they're hardly original or groundbreaking, are they?

It's all about opinions.

[Langdale Wolf]

Okay let's pretend Drum & Bass have this impossible to measure quality called 'good' which I believe in and many don't.

DnB arrives and you think it is crap. Doesn't make the music crap, but it is so new to you so that you are in no position to enjoy it. You have not become accustomed to it, learned to love it, seen why others like it etc etc

You get what I'm on about?

There may not be such a thing as good music and bad music (apart from opinions) but in this moment in time, I'm inclinded to believe there is.

[eFestivals]

EXACTLY!

When I say there is something wrong with the way you are experiencing it, I don't necessarily mean you only listen to it in the background whilst having a shower or something. I just mean that if the music is definitely good and you don't like it then perhaps you have certain personality traits that mean you don't like it.

That is the 'problem with the way you are experiencing it' you are listening to it as an flawed individual human being, who can't always like everything that is 'good'.

nope - there's no flaw.

I cannot have a definition of 'good' unless there's something to separate it from other things ('bad'). Having a 'good' has as a precondition there also being a 'bad'.

There's nothing which says that what I find good or bad has to be matched by every other person on the planet as you're suggesting.

I think you chose the wrong number maybe?

I'm confused...do you think there is a very definite quality which determines good and bad (even if we can't actually measure it)?

Or do you think that good and bad in music is all just opinion and there is no definite quality.

There is 'bad music' - or "not music" if you like - but this can only ever be music that is badly played from what should be being played. Everything else is music (and just 'music').

The good and bad which then might be applied subjectively to 'music' is simply down to those subjective tastes.

[eFestivals]

Okay let's pretend Drum & Bass have this impossible to measure quality called 'good' which I believe in and many don't.

DnB arrives and you think it is crap. Doesn't make the music crap, but it is so new to you so that you are in no position to enjoy it. You have not become accustomed to it, learned to love it, seen why others like it etc etc

You get what I'm on about?

But even if I were to try to learn to love it, there's no guarantee that I would do. If it's not to my tastes then it's not to my tastes.

Could I similarly learn to love to eat liver? It is after all food. Yet I never will do: it's not to my tastes.

Edited July 7, 2009 by eFestivals

[pedmills]

in which case Springsteen can only be bad music, because as even his fans will admit he's been very far from groundbreaking thru-out his career.

Edited July 7, 2009 by pedmills

[Langdale Wolf]

Well as part of 'good music' it should be inventive/creative etc so perhaps he is not. I'm in no position to say whether or not he is.

[pedmills]

But even if I were to try to learn to love it, there's no guarantee that I would do. If it's not to my tastes then it's not to my tastes.

Could I similarly learn to love to eat liver? It is after all food. Yet I never will do: it's not to my tastes.

[pedmills]

Should it? Who's to say what criteria 'good music' should or shouldn't conform to? The individual, and each individual's opinions. Which might not even be consistent!!

[ukslim]

There is 'bad music' - or "not music" if you like - but this can only ever be music that is badly played from what should be being played. Everything else is music (and just 'music').

Edited July 7, 2009 by ukslim

[Langdale Wolf]

That is what I have observed. It is a guess.

Maybe good music doesn't need to be groundbreaking.

I suspect it does, but whatever.

I still think there is such thing as good and bad music.

As I said, I am in no position to decide what is good and what isn't.

I used the wrong words, I apologise.