Fun Stuff > BAND
Objectivity in Music
zekterellium:
i'll be honest, i cannot understand how somebody could notlike deftones. they are my favourite band by a pretty long way, so that's obviously gonna sway my opinions and all, but at the same time i can see that sometimes they're aggresive and sometimes they're beautiful and mostly they're experimental, and they write slow songs and fast songs and the occasional epic. deftones have all these different aspects that different people who maybe only like one certain thing about music, like shouting or singing or rapping or riffing can latch on to, so in my opnion anyone who doesn't like deftones is in the wrong. at the same time, i cannot see why anyone would like papa roach, who are basically just deftones with a shitty lead singer and all the wrong ideas. it's complicated, but i think anyone who is maybe more familiar with music, or lsitens to it more, will be able to say that deftones are a better band, or at the very least a little more interesting.
KharBevNor:
--- Quote from: Gryff ---However, music is made up of technical parts which are not really open to interpretation. You can analyse a guitar player's technique or a singer's vocal range or the verse-chorus-bridge makeup of a song.
--- End quote ---
Ah, but what's good technique? Finger-picking, speedy tap solos, eery black metal tremolos, what? And why should the technique or skill of a guitar player contribute to whether a song is good or not? There are plenty of great songs with mediocre guitar players, and plenty of crap songs with amazing guitar. But of course, that's just my subjective opinion. To someone else, maybe a song isn't good at all unless it exhibits great technique and virtuosity, and maybe to someone else musical show-offery detracts from the realness and emotional impact of music. Some people can't stand guitar solos, others cringe at overdrive. Vocals are in some way an even more dicey affair. A lot of people would agree that, say, Pavarotti was a good singer...but what about the people who hate Opera, or find his voice annoying, or just don't like clean singing at all? Song structure can be analysed, but how is song structure any more an indication of the worth of a song than the rhyming scheme of a poem tells us how good the poem is? Just because I write a sonnet doesn't mean that it's Shakespeare's Sonnet 130.
I would agree that American Idol are crap...but how do you define good taste. I don't know what you would say your favourite band was, but I suspect you could find more fans of American Idol than your favourite band. Thus, in popular opinion, American Idol are better than them. But can you judge taste like that?
All, sir, subjective. Just because we think we listen to better music than someone else does not make our taste better in any but the eyes of ourselves and those who share our opinions.
I'm kinda Devils Advocating too, I agree there's probably some things that most sane humans can agree are crap, but still...
My Aim Is True:
--- Quote from: Gryff ---Everyone liking something is not the same as it being good. It could be that the people who don't appreciate it are wrong (an idea tha will no doubt appeal to many a hipster)!
--- End quote ---
I phrased it badly. I did not mean that if something were objectively good that everyone would have ot like it, but that everyone have to agree that it was good, whether or not they like it. That's the thing about objectivity- you can't argue with an objective value. Mathematics is objective. Whether or not something fits a pre-defined parameter is objective, and that is about as close as you can come to objectively judging music.
Also, with all this talk about objectivity, I hope no one is confusing objectivity with Objectivism. ...shudder...
Oerdin:
--- Quote from: trolley ---I think it's definately objective. I think Pink Floyd are are consistantly dull and unremarkable, and yet dads the world over were dribbling with anticiapation at them playing yesterday. It all comes down to your environment and what you're adapted to liking.
--- End quote ---
I think you mean subjective. Objective means something can be proven without any emotional involvement or subjectivity due to point of view. Manufactures love objective analysis since you can prove something is true or not (usually by attaching a number to it; I.E. number od defects per 1000 units, since of body panal gaps, or something else which can be physically measured) where as subjective analysis involves emotions and how people feel about something.
A subjective review would say I like this car because it is red and goes fast while an objective review would say car A is better then car B because it has been mathmatically proven that it has fewer mechanical problems.
Edit: Never mind someone else already got around to this point.
KharBevNor:
Tremolo is when you bend the string back and forth a lot, makes it sound a bit like a bowed instrument. You can do it with a whammy bar, or with your right hand on the thingumy that holds the strings at the bottom, or with your left hand when you hold the string.
At least, that's my understanding of it. It wouldn't be beyond me to mix up terms though. I'm not a particularly apt musician at the best of times.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version