If music is all perspective and thus meaning nothing is "bad" does that mean there is no "good" music either?
Philosophically speaking of course. By this way, this means that music is what it is, thus the music you listen to is very, very awful and at the same time very, very great. Do you think the perspective thing is flawed, or do you think its possibly to actually judge music without it being an opinion?
2009-07-21T03:35:27Z
I meant possible, but yea I just re-read what I wrote, and I think I confused myself, just answer the initial question if you can.
2009-07-21T03:38:36Z
very nice view V.
Tony R2009-07-21T03:50:56Z
Favorite Answer
It is possible to judge music without it being an opinion. There are many ways
1. Complexity and technicality
Ok, you see, I can say that Khan from Kamelot is the best singer in the world. That would be an opinion. HOWEVER, if I say that he has a higher skill in singing that say, Hannah Montana, then THAT is a fact, and therefore, he is a better musician then her. His notes are clearer than hers, he has more octaves to his voice, and much more control (if you don't believe me, look him up). Disagreeing based on the fact that you think she sounds better, is an opinion based on what pleases your ears, and opinions cannot be used when deciding something like this.
2. Amount of "selling out" the artist does (as in changing completely, just to get more money, and stuff like that).
Obviously if an artist changes their genre and stuff EVERY album, and they always go with what is "in", then they are not really an artist, but rather someone who has a knack for doing multiple genres (most likely with LOTS of help). When you stick with what kind of music is REALLY in you, you aren't selling out. And sellouts are some of the biggest offenders when it comes to being musically stupid.
3. Artistic and emotional input.
Now, I will start with emotional input because it's easier to address. The more of what you are REALLY feeling that you can put in your music, the more people can feel it, and relate to it. Songs like "I Kissed a Girl", or whatever, are not emotional in any way. They are fake, and that is why it dropped off the map so fast. It was a fad. Instead it relied on sexual exploitation to drive sales.
As for artistic input, this is by far the most important and IS what makes or breaks whether an artist is good or not. Have you ever heard Brittany Spears REALLY sing? She can't do it to save her life 90% of the time, so she lip syncs. On top of that, she has someone else write her lyrics, her melodies, AND pretty much the every song as a whole. She has a little input, but doesn't actually make the song at all. She is one of the biggest fakes in the industry, and therefore, she has no artistic talent, and can be considered, a bad musician. This is part of the reason why, while people may not like them, I know that artists like The Jonas Brothers, and Demi Lovato and such are REAL artists, and good musicians. THEY come up with their stuff on their own, and actually have talent at doing so. Hey, you and others may not like them (I don't actually know about whether you do or not), but I won't deny that they actually are musicians. Whether we like them or not is an opinion, and opinions have no place in deciding whether music is good.
Essentially, in the end, I think it comes down to this. The more people you could get to like your music (supposing that everyone knew of every artist in existence), who don't normally like that genre, the better you are as a musician. But, there are exceptions. Some people just write better lyrics, or can get a more emotional note out of their guitar, yet people might tend to pick some other artist over them. Nothing in music is set in stone, when deciding who is better, but you still can do it, as long as you don't bring any opinions into it. Overall, if people would look at music WITHOUT putting opinions in, they could actually be truthful with themselves, and everyone else when they decide who is a good artist or not. PLUS it helps them tell the truth about their opinions on musicians pieces. And that is why I am not afraid to admit that I actually DO like Demi Lovato (not so much The Jonas Brothers), AND Killswitch Engage, AND Chuck Loeb, because I know what makes music good, and what makes it bad. I know how to look at it from a completely unbiased perspective, that is based purely on facts.
EDIT: Just so anyone who read this before, and found typos and such know, I found them too, and fixed them (one in particular was big, lol)
Yeah. That's what I've always believed. Generally speaking, there is no good or bad music. Like they say, one man's treasure is another man's trash. So, this means Miley Cyrus, The Jonas Brothers etc. are not bad music. An Led Zeppelin, Queen, The Beatles etc. are not good music.
Some people will argue about talent. But just because a musician has talent doesen't mean everyone should like the music.
Basically, I can record my fingernails tapping a beat on the table and I'm sure someone in this world will find that better than a Van Halen or Jimi Hendrix solo. The quality of music is 100% subjective and nothing else.
A very good question. Music is all about taste and opinion, so you can't say something is good or bad.
However, your question raises the question of 'what is music?'. If one person says that they like the sound of someone drilling a hole in a wall, does that mean that you can't say it neither good or bad?
Also, a more pressing issue is do you trust the judgment of everyone else on the planet to make sound decisions about the merits of songs? Should you accept the opinion of a 10 year old who has heard very few genres and bands as equally valid as a more experienced listener?
What is good? What is bad? Is it a battle between simplicity and complexity? If it is then there is no answer. Is a song good if 1 person takes enjoyment from it?
There are too many unknowns in the questions to give a definite answer. As a general rule, I just say listen to whatever gives you the most enjoyment. It doesn't matter what the general consensus is, if you like it then listen to it.
I think this is one of those things that will never, ever be solved.
I do think it should be possible to objectively judge music, rather than just basing it off of opinion, but there are very few people who can do that. Too many people say a band "sucks" just because they don't like the genre, or a member of the band, or whatever. They don't listen to the music as a whole.
I do believe there are a few who can listen to music, and individually judge the instrumentals, vocals, and overall performance. The thing is, even after someone sits there and does that, they will still be accused of being close minded, and opinionated.
Well...I'm not really sure how to answer. Each person has their own standards, their own "good" and "bad". And when it comes to certain things you'll find a lot of people - millions - that have similar standards. I'm not sure if it's possible to judge music without it being an opinion...the two seem sort of synonymous to me. By passing judgment on something aren't you making an opinion on it? It's neither good nor bad, it just...is.
But if someone is going to use the argument "There is no bad music, it just depends on your personal tastes" then the flip side of that (being "There is no good music...") seems like it should hold true too huh? Lol.
Yeah the music I listen to, some people think it's awesome, others think it's utter shite, and still others are fairly neutral on the subject. So, yeah, I guess it depends on your perspective.....
* * TY I tried not to be too rambly I'm not used to being awake at this hour :P