Spiringsteen

[ukslim]

Yes because you are flawed (no offence) individual human being who has a personality, a set of circumstances etc etc. All these individual differences might stop you from loving something 'good' even if you put your heart and soul into trying to like it.

[pedmills]

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.

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.

Edited July 7, 2009 by pedmills

[pedmills]

I'd go further, and say, who's to dictate 'should be' being played? Possibly only the player.

You'd probably hate my scratched out acoustic guitar rendition of Total Eclipse of the Heart. But how do you know that caterwaul isn't exactly how I want it to sound?

Many people would listen to Hefner and conclude that the guy cannot sing. But I enjoy it.

The fact is, there is no good and no bad. There's only "I like it", "I don't like it" and a wide spectrum of positions in between.

Going back to the Venga Boys. I challenge anyone's right to call it bad music. It does what it sets out to achieve. Millions enjoy it. But it wouldn't matter if only one person enjoyed it. To them it's good music. You have no right to tell them they're wrong.

To return to the semantic misunderstanding that sparked this whole thing off: it should be bleedin' obvious that any statement made about music (or books, or film, or whatever) is based on the subjective view of that person. If I say "Trout Mask Replica is crap", everyone should understand that what that actually means is "I personally find Trout Mask Replica unenjoyable" and NOT "all those people who claim to enjoy Trout Mask Replica are either lying or deluded".

Just to complicate things, of course you can change your opinion by repeated listening. Indeed some of the most rewarding music takes several listens to get into.

Trout Mask Replica though, is crap even after a dozen listens.

[pedmills]

The funny thing is, what I have been saying bears no relation to everyday life. Its completely useless!

Its just a concept I have started to think about. People can (generally!) easily distinguish between sound and music. If there is a distinct difference between sound and music then why not a difference between good music and bad music? Even if its too complicated for any of us to work out.

[ukslim]

But if there was an almighty judge of music quality, which had a strict definition (not created by a human, but by I don't know...God or Maths or Truth or Science or something ), then this almight judge would be able to say very clearly (seperate to human opinion) what was good music and what was not.

[ukslim]

We can't so easily distinguish between sound and music.

My aunt heard Public Enemy and (visibly and genuinely confused) said "but it's just a load of blokes shouting".

[eFestivals]

Yes because you are flawed (no offence) individual human being who has a personality, a set of circumstances etc etc. All these individual differences might stop you from loving something 'good' even if you put your heart and soul into trying to like it.

When I said a 'problem with the way you are experiencing it' I didn't mean you just weren't listening to it properly, I meant that you being you means that you may never be able to like it. Thus it is a problem with your music taste/judgement/opinion (even if in some ways in it is a good problem - because it promotes individuality).

but there is only ever the subjective to make these decisions by. So there is no 'flawed', only personal tastes (outside of course of music sounding unlike it's meant to sound - which is the only sustainable view there can be on what is 'bad' music).

And (on a slightly different slant) I don't agree that promoting individuality is necessarily a good thing; it's such individuality that is f**king over the world, because *anything* can be justified by any individual, but it doesn't mean it's a good thing for other individuals. Individualism has been promoted by the likes of Thatcher as a way to divide and rule, because individualism is at the expense of collectivism - and if we never band together to promote common aims then it's unlikely that our common aims will ever be satisfied.

[pedmills]

I don't know why you're speculating about this, when quite clearly the role is taken by Simon Cowell.

To me, no. But that's just my opinion (albeit an opinion that's probably widely shared). There's probably someone recording 10 minutes of C chord and considering it their masterwork somewhere. Have you encountered the phenomenon of drone music?

">

[pedmills]

We can't so easily distinguish between sound and music.

My aunt heard Public Enemy and (visibly and genuinely confused) said "but it's just a load of blokes shouting".

[eFestivals]

I'd go further, and say, who's to dictate 'should be' being played? Possibly only the player.

that's actually what I was saying.

It only becomes bad music if what the player is aiming at isn't achieved.

[pedmills]

but there is only ever the subjective to make these decisions by. So there is no 'flawed', only personal tastes (outside of course of music sounding unlike it's meant to sound - which is the only sustainable view there can be on what is 'bad' music).

[Langdale Wolf]

Fair enough, so does that mean that if a song is composed as just a C chord played over and over again, if it is performed exactly how it is supposed to, then it is still of equal music quality to a full song? If you agree with that, then is someone just punching a drumkit once of equal music to a full song if someone intended that song just to be a drumkit being punched once?

Edited July 7, 2009 by Langdale Wolf

[pedmills]

that's actually what I was saying.

It only becomes bad music if what the player is aiming at isn't achieved.

Edited July 7, 2009 by pedmills

[eFestivals]

So what you seem to be saying is:

Music is constructed in a certain way. If this music is then played in a way which meants it comes out not as the performer wants then it is 'bad'. Everything that is performed as the musician wants is 'not bad'.

yep, that's what I'm saying.

Fair enough, so does that mean that if a song is composed as just a C chord played over and over again, if it is performed exactly how it is supposed to, then it is still of equal music quality to a full song? If you agree with that, then is someone just punching a drumkit once of equal music to a full song if someone intended that song just to be a drumkit being punched once?

Hmmmm .... now you're stretching the idea into really difficult ground.

I'd say that just one 'noise' (as in a drummer hitting a drum just once) is outside of what can be classed as music - I'd say that 'music' at a minimum has to include some sort of progression of noise, as in there being more than just one noise (not necessarily progressing to be a different noise for the second noise, just some sort of progression from the first noise [which can be a repeat of that first noise]).... but that's something I've just pulled from my head without a lot of consideration, so perhaps others would disagree.

[eFestivals]

You'd probably have to adjust that definition, as if the aim of the player was to create the worst and most painful sound imaginable and piss everyone off then if they succeed, does that make the music okay?. If someone attempts to play out of tune and out of time as a joke, is that bad or okay?

what is 'music' is itself a subjective idea - so who am I to say that some noises aren't music if that's what the composer or performer considers to be music?

[pedmills]

Hmmmm .... now you're stretching the idea into really difficult ground.

I'd say that just one 'noise' (as in a drummer hitting a drum just once) is outside of what can be classed as music - I'd say that 'music' at a minimum has to include some sort of progression of noise, as in there being more than just one noise (not necessarily progressing to be a different noise for the second noise, just some sort of progression from the first noise [which can be a repeat of that first noise]).... but that's something I've just pulled from my head without a lot of consideration, so perhaps others would disagree.

[eFestivals]

We can't so easily distinguish between sound and music.

music has to be - IMO - a number of sounds, joined together to make what the composer/performer considers to be music.

[pedmills]

music has to be - IMO - a number of sounds, joined together to make what the composer/performer considers to be music.

[pedmills]

does your theory (that there is good and bad music) relate to all art; paintings, films, theatre etc?

[pedmills]

Anyway it has been a nice little debate, even if I have probably sounded like a nutter.

[ukslim]

You seem to get quite heated in political discussions...do you see political views like music tastes, or do you think there is a clear right and wrong?

[Jens Wildman]

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

RIP JensWildman.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Jens Wildman

[The Nal]

Nah..

Just been around Europe, but been browsing the forum..

[Mardy]

Hooray! Jens is back,

so, what did you think of it then?

[Wooderson]

And Wooderson, no worrys.. Springsteen just had a sudden return to form.. your next gigs with the man will propably be up to pair with last years.