Music and opinion

Scholesgoals

Full Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2008
Messages
7,899
Location
Ogmalocopia
Ok, so its pretty well accepted that arguing about what music is better is totally stupid - its subjective right!

Why do we do it?! How can we make it objective?

To make music objective there needs to be a unanimous consensus as to what "good music" is. Now obviously if something is good it can be comprised of totally different components and still be good - food for example, it is one complete type of something, you intend to eat it - but different tastes can be good. Some people are into chocolate, some prefer crisps, but a non lover of crisps can appreciate the higher quality of kettle chips to smart price asda crisps.

I think music is a little like that, to paraphrase bjork - It's not just that simple. It's like saying <Filet Mignon is brilliant food, but bananas are stupid to eat>. It's not! You need all the different things, you should chew it, all of them. If you wanna eat toast with jam for a week and that's all you wanna eat.. do it!'

Tastes are personal and simply can't be judged. One should listen to whatever he wants to listen, without being afraid of what other people may say about him or his favourite music. On the other hand, one also has the right to think whatever he wants to about an artist or a certain kind of music.

I think therefore - to continue the food analogy (i really need to go to lunch!) a food conoisseur is a more respected authority on food and what constitutes "good food" I think that this also applies to music. It doesnt mean that you can tell someone they are wrong if they say "that rustlers burger was yummy" because to them it was, its more appropriate to say - correct, it is pretty yummy (all music is good) but try this delicious bacon and cheese burger (what i consider in my experience to be more yummy!)

And i think thats where the argument lies.
 
The food shout is a terrible one. And a rather tired one at that. It's not as if intellect has anything to do with whether someone likes english peas or not...
 
JCurr said:
The food shout is a terrible one. And a rather tired one at that. It's not as if intellect has anything to do with whether someone likes english peas or not...
Click to expand...

Music has very little to do with intellect as well.
 
here-we-go.png


And here... we... go !
 
JCurr said:
The food shout is a terrible one. And a rather tired one at that. It's not as if intellect has anything to do with whether someone likes english peas or not...
Click to expand...
It's also not like you can deduce what's good music from a set of god-given, self-evident premises. You have to make up rules and pretend they're obviously valid and universal.
 
Scout's honor. Although I'm not good at those sorts of things...
 
JCurr said:
The food shout is a terrible one. And a rather tired one at that. It's not as if intellect has anything to do with whether someone likes english peas or not...
Click to expand...

music can be but is not exclusively an intelletual pursuit
 
The key thing that everyone seems to be missing is relevance. A really large contributing factor to whether you deem music to be 'good' is what it means to you; and that comes from your experiences and culture.

For example, no matter how much I listen to the NWA I'm never going to identify with it as much as a young black man growing up in that era. That's a large part of why I don't rate that type of music as highly as other forms which are relevant to me.

A good example would be African tribal music. As a westerner I can appreciate how their complex rhythmic interplay and dynamically shifting time signatures are very clever. But I can't understand, let alone identify with, the stories the drums speak. Or the chanting that accompanies it. And now I realise I am in no position to judge whether this music is 'better' than anything else.

In the end, the only logical conclusion for all art is that if it elicits an emotional reaction for you but not me, then fair enough. I'm not going to say my emotions are better than yours, and hence I try to resist saying my judgement is better than yours. Hard as that is.
 
Decotron said:
I may be wrong but I think musicans have a different perception of music than the average joe. I dont mean in a prick way either
Click to expand...

Like maths , not that musicians are any good at maths , but in the fact that some understand it easier than others. The difference with maths is that uppity pseudo intellectuals can't bluff it quite as easliy as they can bluff a knowledge of music on a football forum.

Is our pal Jcurr some sort of musician or some cnut who has never missed and edition of Q?
 
MikeUpNorth said:
The key thing that everyone seems to be missing is relevance. A really large contributing factor to whether you deem music to be 'good' is what it means to you; and that comes from your experiences and culture.

For example, no matter how much I listen to the NWA I'm never going to identify with it as much as a young black man growing up in that era. That's a large part of why I don't rate that type of music as highly as other forms which are relevant to me.

A good example would be African tribal music. As a westerner I can appreciate how their complex rhythmic interplay and dynamically shifting time signatures are very clever. But I can't understand, let alone identify with, the stories the drums speak. Or the chanting that accompanies it. And now I realise I am in no position to judge whether this music is 'better' than anything else.

In the end, the only logical conclusion for all art is that if it elicits an emotional reaction for you but not me, then fair enough. I'm not going to say my emotions are better than yours, and hence my judgement is better than yours.
Click to expand...

This is correct I think, but only one of many factors when judging music.

I run a tiny record label but used to do A&R for a bigger one ... there are no rules and definites. A lot of it is just 'gut'
 
mosesfromtala said:
This is correct I think, but only one of many factors when judging music.

I run a tiny record label but used to do A&R for a bigger one ... there are no rules and definites. A lot of it is just 'gut'
Click to expand...

But you don't chose to release music because it is 'better' surely? You chose it because you think it will sell better.
 
Scholesgoals said:
Ok, so its pretty well accepted that arguing about what music is better is totally stupid - its subjective right!

Why do we do it?! How can we make it objective?
Click to expand...

It is subjective but it is still interesting to discuss and hear others opinions about what music they like and why.

However, if you comes along and say 'album X is better than album Y and anyone who thinks any different is stupid' - then its high time that you pulled your head out of your arse (as shown by JCurr)
 
MikeUpNorth said:
But you don't chose to release music because it is 'better' surely? You chose it because you think it will sell better.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's the bottom line , emphsising the many columns in which it can be 'measured'.

We have a policy now of artists sharing each others profit/loss so as a lable we can release music we think should be released for reasons other than commercial
 
mosesfromtala said:
Yep, that's the bottom line , emphsising the many columns in which it can be 'measured'.

We have a policy now of artists sharing each others profit/loss so as a lable we can release music we think should be released for reasons other than commercial
Click to expand...

All your roster is cross-collaterized? How do you manage to get people to sign to that!?
 
mosesfromtala said:
Yep, that's the bottom line , emphsising the many columns in which it can be 'measured'.

We have a policy now of artists sharing each others profit/loss so as a lable we can release music we think should be released for reasons other than commercial
Click to expand...

Thats a great idea Moses....


Now give me a three album deal!
 
MikeUpNorth said:
All your roster is cross-collaterized? How do you manage to get people to sign to that!?
Click to expand...

Short license terms of the music after recording costs is one, ie , if it's hugely sucessfuk it reverts to them within a few years to renegotiate with us or a major, if they go to a major we take a tiny % .

And lots of musicians like the idea. We can get records made cheaply, and majors are not keen to invest these days
 
mosesfromtala said:
Short license terms of the music after recording costs is one, ie , if it's hugely sucessfuk it reverts to them within a few years to renegotiate with us or a major, if they go to a major we take a tiny % .

And lots of musicians like the idea. We can get records made cheaply, and majors are not keen to invest these days
Click to expand...

Where are you based man? Have you had much success yet?
 
mosesfromtala said:
Short license terms of the music after recording costs is one, ie , if it's hugely sucessfuk it reverts to them within a few years to renegotiate with us or a major, if they go to a major we take a tiny % .

And lots of musicians like the idea. We can get records made cheaply, and majors are not keen to invest these days
Click to expand...

A suit. I should've known. :D
 
mosesfromtala said:
Yep, that's the bottom line , emphsising the many columns in which it can be 'measured'.

We have a policy now of artists sharing each others profit/loss so as a lable we can release music we think should be released for reasons other than commercial
Click to expand...

interesting - do all your artists get an equal % of the profit share?
 
Scholesgoals said:
And i think thats where the argument lies.
Click to expand...

What argument? I'm completely amiss as to what your argument is? That people who listen to a lot of music should be able to tell other people what to listen to?

Music plays far more to your feelings and emotions than food does.

A lot of the time a fairly rubbish song (in my opinion) can be proppelled to greatness if it catches the zeitgeist, whereas another can be overlooked because its out of its time so to speak, but resurrected years later. Food doesn't really work as an analogy to this particular phenomenon at all.

A good recent example is Beggin' by Frankie Vali & The Four Season. Released in 1968 it was fairly popular but no where near as much as their other cheesy pop hits like Walk Like a Man or Sherry. These songs would struggle today as they're very much 'of their time'. Beggin' however, resurrected by an Adidas advert and a subsequent cover version feels very much like a song written now and has gained a whole new level of popularity. A lot of people (myself included) would say its their best song. But hardly anyone would've done so in 1968.

Similarly, saying that a musician or some one who is a connoisseur is better qualified to judge, or advise on music is untrue. There are many well schooled musicians languishing in poverty whereas the Arctic Monkeys or Lilly Allen can simply pop to the top of the charts with their first real attempts. You could very easily argue this is because they are instictivley more in tune to what people want to hear, and therefore in the majorities eyes what is good.

Furthermore many musicians will, at some stage in their career, divert into a experimental phase which is often unpopular with their fans and no where near as successful as their other work. However the musician will often think that this portentious dross is their best and most creative work.

I can understand where your comming from wit your food analogy, but I don't agree with it.
 
MockneyRevil said:
What argument? I'm completely amiss as to what your argument is? That people who listen to a lot of music should be able to tell other people what to listen to?

Music plays far more to your feelings and emotions than food does.

A lot of the time a fairly rubbish song (in my opinion) can be proppelled to greatness if it catches the zeitgeist, whereas another can be overlooked because its out of its time so to speak, but resurrected years later. Food doesn't really work as an analogy to this particular phenomenon at all.

A good recent example is Beggin' by Frankie Vali & The Four Season. Released in 1968 it was fairly popular but no where near as much as their other cheesy pop hits like Walk Like a Man or Sherry. These songs would struggle today as they're very much 'of their time'. Beggin' however, resurrected by an Adidas advert and a subsequent cover version feels very much like a song written now and has gained a whole new level of popularity. A lot of people (myself included) would say its their best song. But hardly anyone would've done so in 1968.

Similarly, saying that a musician or some one who is a connoisseur is better qualified to judge, or advise on music is untrue. There are many well schooled musicians languishing in poverty whereas the Arctic Monkeys or Lilly Allen can simply pop to the top of the charts with their first real attempts. You could very easily argue this is because they are instictivley more in tune to what people want to hear, and therefore in the majorities eyes what is good.

Furthermore many musicians will, at some stage in their career, divert into a experimental phase which is often unpopular with their fans and no where near as successful as their other work. However the musician will often think that this portentious dross is their best and most creative work.

I can understand where your comming from wit your food analogy, but I don't agree with it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There are countless angles to prove music more complex than the food parallel. For one, eating asparagus will not teach you to appreciate the taste of cauliflower. But if one opens his mind to listen to a band of a genre or persuasion which he's not familiar, it can be a stepping stone to appreciate that and possiblly other movements in music.
 
roodboy said:
interesting - do all your artists get an equal % of the profit share?
Click to expand...

Pretty much, the most important thing for them is that we pay for the music, sell it until it's paid for, then sell it some more to run the company and then it belongs to them. It's like a loan in a way.
 
JCurr said:
Exactly. There are countless angles to prove music more complex than the food parallel. For one, eating asparagus will not teach you to appreciate the taste of cauliflower. But if one opens his mind to listen to a band of a genre or persuasion which he's not familiar, it can be a stepping stone to appreciate that and possiblly other movements in music.
Click to expand...

This is true, I work a lot with traditional Irish music these days, 10 years ago I didn't know the difference between a jig and a reel
 
JCurr said:
Exactly. There are countless angles to prove music more complex than the food parallel. For one, eating asparagus will not teach you to appreciate the taste of cauliflower. But if one opens his mind to listen to a band of a genre or persuasion which he's not familiar, it can be a stepping stone to appreciate that and possiblly other movements in music.
Click to expand...

Now that's a good analogy
 
JCurr said:
Exactly. There are countless angles to prove music more complex than the food parallel. For one, eating asparagus will not teach you to appreciate the taste of cauliflower. But if one opens his mind to listen to a band of a genre or persuasion which he's not familiar, it can be a stepping stone to appreciate that and possiblly other movements in music.
Click to expand...

False,

"i hate vegetables"

"mmm this asparagus is quite nice, i wonder if i was wrong about hating vegetables"
 
MockneyRevil said:
What argument? I'm completely amiss as to what your argument is? That people who listen to a lot of music should be able to tell other people what to listen to?

Music plays far more to your feelings and emotions than food does.

A lot of the time a fairly rubbish song (in my opinion) can be proppelled to greatness if it catches the zeitgeist, whereas another can be overlooked because its out of its time so to speak, but resurrected years later. Food doesn't really work as an analogy to this particular phenomenon at all.

A good recent example is Beggin' by Frankie Vali & The Four Season. Released in 1968 it was fairly popular but no where near as much as their other cheesy pop hits like Walk Like a Man or Sherry. These songs would struggle today as they're very much 'of their time'. Beggin' however, resurrected by an Adidas advert and a subsequent cover version feels very much like a song written now and has gained a whole new level of popularity. A lot of people (myself included) would say its their best song. But hardly anyone would've done so in 1968.

Similarly, saying that a musician or some one who is a connoisseur is better qualified to judge, or advise on music is untrue. There are many well schooled musicians languishing in poverty whereas the Arctic Monkeys or Lilly Allen can simply pop to the top of the charts with their first real attempts. You could very easily argue this is because they are instictivley more in tune to what people want to hear, and therefore in the majorities eyes what is good.

Furthermore many musicians will, at some stage in their career, divert into a experimental phase which is often unpopular with their fans and no where near as successful as their other work. However the musician will often think that this portentious dross is their best and most creative work.

I can understand where your comming from wit your food analogy, but I don't agree with it.
Click to expand...



My argument is that someone who listens to alot of music doesnt tend to be a britney spears fan. And i tried to find a reason for that.

Im not talking about inter genre, my tastes range from bjork to dimmu borgir to leadbelly to Snoop. Im talking about "higher" music within that genre. Its better to be a man dissatisfied than a pig satisfied and all that John locke stuff.

feck the charts man, that isnt an accurate measure of anything except for palatability and marketing skill perhaps.
 
Scholesgoals said:
My argument is that someone who listens to alot of music doesnt tend to be a britney spears fan. And i tried to find a reason for that.

feck the charts man, that isn't an accurate measure of anything except for palatability and marketing skill perhaps.
Click to expand...

I listen to a shit load of music and make my own. Toxic is one of the best pop songs of the last 10 years IMO.

Thing is, as stupid a guide for taste as the chart is, to discredit the people who buy chart music as cretins only makes you a snob.

Toxic for example, is a more complex, original and well structured song than Sympathy for the Devil. Who is to say which is better though?
 
MockneyRevil said:
I listen to a shit load of music and make my own. Toxic is one of the best pop songs of the last 10 years IMO.

Thing is, as stupid a guide for taste as the chart is, to discredit the people who buy chart music as cretins only makes you a snob.

Toxic for example, is a more complex, original and well structured song than Sympathy for the Devil. Who is to say which is better though?
Click to expand...

No that isnt my point!!!!!

Toxic is a great pop song, but why is it great? because its a radio friendly unit shifter. Its an effective song. For me (and this is subjective) its like a catchy ringtone.

but that wasnt my point, do you ever choose to listen to it? or when its put on somewhere you are like "ok, i can live with that"

Great songs which are popular include - Torn by natalie imbruglia, thats a good song, and i would happily put that song on. Theres loads more, Golden brown is another great example.

Thing is, as stupid a guide for taste as the chart is, to discredit the people who buy chart music as cretins only makes you a snob.
Click to expand...

agreed, but only buying music because it is in the charts makes you an ignoramus (in the classical sense of the word)

To me its irrelevant whether a song is in the charts or not for whether or not i like it. I'm sure its the same for you. I know people that say "its pushed by suits, im not buying it" thats a stupid approach.

But do you ever think - wow this song is amazing and then wonder why no one (or very few) 12 year old girls agree with you?
 
I hate everything Britney Spears stands for, Toxic never did anything for me. But 'Piece of Me' was very nearly brilliant. And i'd argue it's more than the fact it's a catchy tune.

As long as you can stand by your opinion on a song or artist then I have no problem at all with whatever anyone listens too. It's the twats that constantly and only quote from those sterile '100 best albums' lists like they're some authority on the subject, who really lack imagination and intellect.
 
Scholesgoals said:
But do you ever think - wow this song is amazing and then wonder why no one (or very few) 12 year old girls agree with you?
Click to expand...

No because when I was 12 I was listening to chart crap myself. If you're expecting 12 year old girls to be well versed in mature music your expecting a lot.

If you want to sit down and play Billie Holiday or Jeff Buckley to 12 year old girls then I'd suggest you where a little sadistic. Their life experiences don't connect with the subject matter and they're not mature (or even jaded) enough to find it appealing.

I get your point, but I am imagining your thinking that if you sat everyone in the world down and played them all the songs you like that they might not of heard then they'd end up agreeing with you. But they won't, because the music you like you like for a certain set of reasons. Either it speaks to you emotionally, or reminds you of something, or has a certain set of chord patterns or structures that you particularly like. All these things are relative to you, but probably not to them.
 
MockneyRevil said:
I get your point, but I am imagining your thinking that if you sat everyone in the world down and played them all the songs you like that they might not of heard then they'd end up agreeing with you. But they won't, because the music you like you like for a certain set of reasons. Either it speaks to you emotionally, or reminds you of something, or has a certain set of chord patterns or structures that you particularly like. All these things are relative to you, but probably not to them.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Well put.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.