Fun Stuff > BAND

Objectivity in Music

<< < (9/18) > >>

sp2:

--- Quote from: zekterellium ---i'll be honest, i cannot understand how somebody could notlike deftones. they are my favourite band by a pretty long way,
--- End quote ---


Well, admitting you have a problem is the first step in your recovery.*

*It's a joke, guys.**

**But seriously.  Deftones are sorta sucktastic.

sp2:
But back on subject:

While the absolute quality of a band is difficult to judge objectively, it is possible to judge a band's strengths and weaknesses relatively objectively.  

For example, if I were to claim that The Black Keys are particularly strong at writing complex and innovative songs with superior advanced musicianship, I'd clearly be full of shit.  Their stuff is damned catchy, and I enjoy it immensely, but superior musicians they ain't.  They can write a hell of a hook, and they have a lot of energy, which are their strengths.  But sheer musicianship, no, they're not strong musicians.

Some music really has nothing going for it.  It may be perfectly decent in execution, but is uninspired.  While it may inspire emotion in some segment of the audience, there's not a lot of inspiration behind the actual music.  This kind of uninspired musicianship (which is what a lot of mainstream music really is nowadays) results in poor music.  

Some music has some things going for it and lacks other things.  This is most bands....there is some bad and some good, and if you like it, you'll focus on the good parts, and if you don't, you'll focus on the bad stuff.  

A small quantity of music is just fucking brilliant and pretty much lacks anything bad at all.  This is normally restricted to individual songs and occasionally extended to albums.  People who dislike this stuff mainly give reasons like "I don't like that style" or else just lack any semblance of taste.  A good example would be Source Tags and Codes, by Trail of Dead...there is no legitimate reason to dislike this album with the exception of taste.  You could also argue that Funeral, by Arcade Fire, fits the same bill.

These are not arbitrary or subjective.  They are very real differentiations one can make from a relatively unbiased perspective.  Where, to use a previously mentioned example, would anyone place American Idol stuff?  I think it pretty obviously falls into category 1.  It's uninspired, it's not really even art.  It's performance.  Category 2 and 3 (and quality within category 2) are determined to a large extent based not on what the band is trying to do with their music, but rather on how well they execute a particular objective.  There are plenty of songs that attempt to convey a particular idea or make a particular sound that either seem forced or bungled.  To deny this fact would be naive.  It doesn't matter if you like what is being attempted, it matters how well that attempt succeeds, and as far as that goes, it can be considered from a much more objective perspective.

McTaggart:

--- Quote from: grrraham ---Didgeridoos? More like DidgeriSUCKS, am I right?
--- End quote ---

No. You just haven't heard the right stuff yet. Get the track 'Sun Shining After The Storm'.

Back on topic, the way I see it, there are two ways of rating music: Techinical and emotional. Objective and subjective. To me, the subjective is more important. Other people might feel differently. I'm also aware that different people will have different emotional responses to different music. The way I see it, the great thing about art is the wonderful ambiguity of the whole idea.

Se7en:
Yes, obviously you CAN rate music on technical proficiency etc, but since we are humans, the subjective view is the important thing when it comes to deciding if a peice of music is good or bad.

Now, the thing i think people are missing here, is that subjective opinions differ in their sophistication. They range from the "durr.. me like rythem" of commercial house fans, to the much more naunced emotional reactions that some songs provoke in perticular individuals. Sometimes songs speak to people on a deeper level, because they in some way reflect part of their own lives, making them identify with the art in a personal way.

Does a deeper connection like that make it a "better" opinion? Yeah, i think so. It certainly makes a song feel more important to a person than one they like just because its catchy. Art apreciation is of course a personal thing, and unless we were all clones leading identical lives, we would never all identify with the same music.

So i think theres an objective basis for saying that a piece of music that has a very deep, lasting meaning for a very small number of people, is "better" than a peice of music that everyone dances to for a week and then forgets.

I mean.. its not like theres a shortage of music is there? Theres room for everyone to have a favourite song that nobody else understands why they like it.

sp2:
But you can be more or less proficient at conveying a particular emotion to the listener.  That's the thing.  I could go and say "okay, I want to write a song about being angry with the US government" and I could find a million punk songs that all pretty much fall into that category.  Now, I could compare, say, Green Day's "American Idiot" with so many various songs by, say, Dead Kennedys.  Which communicates the emotions and ideas with more force,  more skill, more knowledge, and more authenticity?  If you didn't say Jello Biafra, you need to get your brain checked.  The same goes for sad songs, love songs, angst songs, whatever.  There are bands, songs, and albums that commmunicate their intended feelings with skill and authenticity, and there are others which seem forced or it's obviously a hackjob.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page