General Music Discussion

[BackupAlt]

There is a prevailing sense, not only in our lives but society as a whole, that music is one of three things.

It's either "good", "bad" or "Meh."

I'm going to give you an example of each, to the best of my ability.

For starters, we have "Maybe I'm Amazed" by Mr. Paul McCartney.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm2YyVZBL8U

Widely hailed as one of the best, well constructed love songs ever written.

Most people would agree, it is "good."

Next, I present to you "Alcoholocaust" by supergroup Behold... The Arctopus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wniXxeTJlyM

"Wow, this s*cks."

That's probably what the majority of you said before clicking the "X" button as fast as possible.

Lastly, we'll take a look at "The Moment" by prominent smooth jazz musician Kenny G.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=447yaU_4DF8

Now, compared to that last video you saw, this is tolerable.

You probably wouldn't say it's good, though.

But, it's not bad right?

So.

In conclusion, we must look at these questions.

What makes a song, or music in general, "good?"

What is it about a song that makes us hate it?

And why is there music that is pleasant to the ear yet entirely unremarkable or memorable?

[Dark_Lord_Khrima]

I think you got the ratings mixed up:

Paul McCartney song - Meh

The Arctopus song - Good, but the video's sound quality was bad (not going to hold that against the bad, though).

Kenny G. song - Bad.

Conclusion: Nothing makes a song good or bad, and in fact there aren't really any explicitly good or bad songs, it's just a matter of opinion. For me the Kenny G. song was really slow and boring, and the Paul McCartney song was really corny, while the Arctopus song was fast-paced and exciting.

[_Star_Wolf_]

I think there is some music that is pleasant to the ear yet unmemorable because while it follows a pleasing formula and carries a pleasing sound, it brings nothing new or memorable to the table. Outside of a band being good at what they do, they might have no other memorable qualities.

As far as music being good or bad, or however else you want to rate it, I still feel like for the most part it is subjective. However occasionally I run into something that I would have to agree is literally awful. I think this has more to do with something following a basic formula (not in a good way though, because I agree that can be done well) and really just being generic, unmemorable, and being something that lacks any pleasing or redeeming quality at all. Yet, some people like some things like that. The thing I've noticed though is that some bands or artists that I'm referring to (I won't name names) appeal to middle schoolers/high schoolers who probably haven't bothered to explore much music.
I mean, I used to like a lot of stuff I consider **noel** awful now. I only started feeling like those things were awful after I really dug around and explored.

[SODMGBASEDBOYZ]

your definition of good seems to be music that's as simple as possible. Behold the Arctopus is a great band but your regressive mindset won't allow you to enjoy them. Paul Mccartney is stupid simple pop music made for people who haven't evolved past the earworm mindset & refuse to look at music on a more analytical level (as opposed to a superficial level). I would say it's possible that BtA is even objectively better than Paul McCartney. people think it's good because they know nothing of musical composition, theory, & are for some reason revolted by the idea of a band having technical prowess. people have been conditioned to enjoy music that utilizes only the most basic & primitive components of music. complex or abrasive music turns people off, likely because they view music as merely a form of entertainment & not an artform & don't want to have to think about what they listen. I would say it has to do with intelligence (not to say stupid people can't enjoy technical music or vice versa). intelligent people percieve music in a way that allows them to distinguish between regressive mediocrity & genuinely intricate compositions. age is also a huge factor. when I was younger I was much more easily impressed by amateurish four chord pop songs by people who had probably never taken a music course in their lives (or at least sound like it)

"And why is there music that is pleasant to the ear yet entirely unremarkable or memorable?"

timbre & aesthetics. something may have a nice overall sound but be completely lacking in terms of composition.

#WALLOFTEXT

[_Star_Wolf_]

---

SODMGBASEDBOYZ wrote:

your definition of good seems to be music that's as simple as possible. Behold the Arctopus is a great band but your regressive mindset won't allow you to enjoy them. Wank=/=good. Paul Mccartney is stupid simple pop music made for people who haven't evolved past the earworm mindset & refuse to look at music on a more analytical level (as opposed to a superficial level). I would say it's possible that BtA is even objectively better than Paul McCartney. people think it's good because they know nothing of musical composition, theory, & are for some reason revolted by the idea of a band having technical prowess. Technical isn't bad. I won't deny that the guitarists do have skill, however it's pure tech. There isn't a ton of artistic value there. people have been conditioned to enjoy music that utilizes only the most basic & primitive components of music.Simple yet catchy isn't exactly the easiest thing to do either though. complex or abrasive music turns people off, likely because they view music as merely a form of entertainment & not an artform & don't want to have to think about what they listen. I would say it has to do with intelligence (not to say stupid people can't enjoy technical music or vice versa). intelligent people percieve music in a way that allows them to distinguish between regressive mediocrity & genuinely intricate compositions. age is also a huge factor. when I was younger I was much more easily impressed by amateurish four chord pop songs by people who had probably never taken a music course in their lives (or at least sound like it) Taking a music course doesn't automatically make you a good mucisian though. At least not artistically. There is a lot of wank that sounds like Behold the Arctopus, but wank lacks soul. It's just technical widdleywepwah. Something being technical as fuuuuuudge doesn't really make it "artistic" (although you could argue the subjectivity of art but w/e) Like I said, I won't deny their skill, but I find them to be more wankfest than art. There are a couple of parts in one of the songs that could have been okay, but so many unnessecary notes. Holy **noel**.

"And why is there music that is pleasant to the ear yet entirely unremarkable or memorable?"

timbre & aesthetics. something may have a nice overall sound but be completely lacking in terms of composition.

#WALLOFTEXT

---

[BackupAlt]

Actually, I don't really think of music in terms of "good" or "bad.

If something sounds pleasant and harmonic, it does. If it sounds dissonant, it does.

I appreciate and respect all the songs I linked here.

I'm just pointing out that there is this general consensus that many people buy into. Either music is "good" or it's "bad."

I'm just saying that it's silly to think of it in terms like that.

At most I find myself just not being into bands I don't really connect with. For example. I'm not really into Radiohead. I love their music. Their ideas, their expression. But, it's just not my kind of thing, really. I don't think they s*ck just because it's not my thing.

A lot of my friends really like Tool. I, personally, never find myself having the urge to listen to them. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the music. It's just not in my taste.

Music is an art, a form of expression. I personally admire anyone who's brave enough to put their heart and soul out in the open, full knowing there will always be people who are derissive, dismissive, and just negative in general.

Even that indie crap with the acoustic guitar and vocals that sound like a 13 year old with a sinus infection **noel** off to a Victoria's Secret catalogue.

[BackupAlt]

---

BackupAlt wrote:

Even that indie crap with the acoustic guitar and vocals that sound like a 13 year old with a sinus infection **noel** off to a Victoria's Secret catalogue.

---

Speaking of which, I need to record my next album.

Angst And The B Chord.

[Wonderstatement]

---

BackupAlt wrote:

---

BackupAlt wrote:

Even that indie crap with the acoustic guitar and vocals that sound like a 13 year old with a sinus infection **noel** off to a Victoria's Secret catalogue.

---

Speaking of which, I need to record my next album.

Angst And The B Chord.

---

Dude I hate to break it to you, but Bob Dylan already did that.

[_Star_Wolf_]

---

BackupAlt wrote:

---

BackupAlt wrote:

Even that indie crap with the acoustic guitar and vocals that sound like a 13 year old with a sinus infection **noel** off to a Victoria's Secret catalogue.

---

Speaking of which, I need to record my next album.

Angst And The B Chord.

---

I can't wait

[BackupAlt]

---

Wonderstatement wrote:

---

BackupAlt wrote:

---

BackupAlt wrote:

Even that indie crap with the acoustic guitar and vocals that sound like a 13 year old with a sinus infection **noel** off to a Victoria's Secret catalogue.

---

Speaking of which, I need to record my next album.

Angst And The B Chord.

---

Dude I hate to break it to you, but Bob Dylan already did that.

---

Psh.

Yeah but Dylan is too mainstream.

I don't even have any fans on Facebook.

Hell I'm not even on Facebook!

Which makes my music way better.

[-Ninja_Jesus-]

Paul McCartney: Haven't listened to any of his stuff in a long while. Still like his music, though.

Behold the Arctopus: I like Sensory Amusia and You Will Be Reincarnated As An Imperial Space Attack Turtle better myself.

Kenny G: Talented player, and his music is okay.

I personally like most types of music, though.

[the_raytownian]

revolted by the idea of a band having technical prowess.

Yes. Yes, I am: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH5EAUCzHfA

[SODMGBASEDBOYZ]

spare me yer adolescent catchphrases. wank & soul are buzzwords used by teenagers to justify their inferior taste. trust me, I went through that phase too. hopefully you'll grow out of it.

"Simple yet catchy isn't exactly the easiest thing to do either though"

since I've started honing my skill at guitar I've began to notice how easy it is for me to improvise catchy melodies actually. I can come up with songs that could easily be radio hits, but I don't bother recording or remembering them. why? because it's not fulfilling at all. no longer am I impressed by four chord indie rock w/ simple melodies, which I was once so enthralled by. because I have a deeper understanding of what is to listen to music analytically. I've had to reassess many of the things I used to like. this is the natural progression & refinement of one's music taste. not everyone experiences it but for those who do it's a very cathartic experience, an epiphany almost, seeing what you once loved for what it really is.

the fact that you're a girl sort of explains your stance tho. not to be a misogynist.

[SODMGBASEDBOYZ]

I <3 me sum noise music. altho I find masonna too one dimensional. merzbow, kazumoto endo, mouthus, hair police, wolf eyes. now that's the ish I get hyphy to.

[foreignlawns]

i've given up trying to pin down what my specific tastes are.

if it sounds good, i just keep listening.

[_Star_Wolf_]

---

SODMGBASEDBOYZ wrote:

spare me yer adolescent catchphrases. wank & soul are buzzwords used by teenagers to justify their inferior taste. trust me, I went through that phase too. hopefully you'll grow out of it.

"Simple yet catchy isn't exactly the easiest thing to do either though"

since I've started honing my skill at guitar I've began to notice how easy it is for me to improvise catchy melodies actually. I can come up with songs that could easily be radio hits, but I don't bother recording or remembering them. why? because it's not fulfilling at all. no longer am I impressed by four chord indie rock w/ simple melodies, which I was once so enthralled by. because I have a deeper understanding of what is to listen to music analytically. I've had to reassess many of the things I used to like. this is the natural progression & refinement of one's music taste. not everyone experiences it but for those who do it's a very cathartic experience, an epiphany almost, seeing what you once loved for what it really is.

the fact that you're a girl sort of explains your stance tho. not to be a misogynist.

---

Funny, I grew out of fapping stuff like Behold the Arctopus at like 16. As I said, I won't deny their skill but this crap about "people don't like it because they don't like to think about their music" is only true for some. Those some being a small fraction of the people who listen to music (referring to those who do it more than casually) , because honestly I could go to any mall in any town or city and find people talking like that. It's a lot of wanking and being a show off. We had another wave of that as well. Being technical and having skill isn't a bad thing, but when it just sounds like you're showing off I mean, come on.

And I thought Tool fanboys were bad.

"I could do that, but I don't" Got it.

Oh, also

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNu9JuURXL8

I'd much rather have atmosphere than pure wank.

[SODMGBASEDBOYZ]

I like atmosphere as well. if something isn't compositionally interesting then it should be aesthetically inventive/experimental. music with dense layers & interesting textures can sometimes be just as good technical music, I'll agree with that. but to dismiss music as "wank" is still just downright ignorant. I mean it's practically like insulting someone for getting university degrees. anyway i'm more sort of referring to pop music like paul mccartney & run of the mill indie rock & whatnot. there's absolutely no atmosphere in that sort of music, nor any redeeming aspects of the composition. I like a lot of ambient, shoegaze, minimal techno, & black metal, so I have my fair share of technically bereft music. years ago I loved the angelic process actually. haven't listened recently so I 'm not sure how it's held up but I'd probably still get a kick out of it.

[-Ninja_Jesus-]

I like that he called you a girl.

[_Star_Wolf_]

Well at least we're on the same page about somethin

[BackupAlt]

You should upload some of your fullfilling, complex melodies and melt all our faces with your deep understanding of music.

[BackupAlt]

Also I'm sure these guys feel pretty fulfilled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76RbWuFll0Y

Especially when they're having sex with any chick they want and being millionaires.

[SODMGBASEDBOYZ]

once I finish a track i may upload it. I have tons of stuff that I don't bother finishing. altho these "let's see you do better" challenges are always a bit useless since the person saying it will always harbour a pre-estabilished bias that'll obviously effect their judgement. never have I seen someone proposing this sort of challenge concede defeat, regardless of quality. 

re: nickelback. simplicity sells. should hedonism be the ultimate goal in life? I mean you don't always have to completely dumb your sound down to be popular (radiohead, for example, i'm sure there's others I can't think of rite now)

[westpark]

Really depends on your taste.

[the_raytownian]

---

SODMGBASEDBOYZ wrote:

I <3 me sum noise music. altho I find masonna too one dimensional. merzbow, kazumoto endo, mouthus, hair police, wolf eyes. now that's the ish I get hyphy to.

---

nowaybro

masonna keepin it troo nouiseee.

everybody else b overthinkin' #### and end up just making MUSIC.

KEEPIN IT REAL WIT SUM HNW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-7eyJQX-_Q

[Goldar]

---

foreignlawns wrote:
i've given up trying to pin down what my specific tastes are.

if it sounds good, i just keep listening.

---

Someone had to say it.