good and bad music

[gutsman]

I was reading an article about this the other day and I thought it was an interesting topic, especially since it is a recurring theme in many music related discussion.

Does anyone here believe classifying individual artists or even whole genres as "good taste" or "bad taste" is a reasonable thing to do? There's a lot of people who are willing to discuss that metal is "noise music" or jazz is a "atonal mess of notes". There's also notions of some artists being overrated and others under appreciated. Keep in mind that these people are not saying that they do not like a certain genre or band, they are saying that they believe that that genre or band just is objectively bad.

I always considered myself pretty open minded to other people's taste, but the article I was reading also brought up the Jonas Brothers and I caught myself passing judgment and actually believing that for all intents and purposes this is bad music. I know it sounds harmless, but is still kind of conflicts with the notion that since there is no objective proof we can't really state on any objective grounds that one piece of music or artist is better then the other. Sure we can give lots of indications that one band is probably better then the other, but probably isn't really undeniable proof that you are closer to the truth then someone else.

So what I'm getting at, do you think that calling some artists or bands "bad music" or saying "x is better then y" is justifiable on principal grounds? Or should everyone just account their musical preferences to their own perception (e.g. "I can't really enjoy this" as opposed to "this is just plain bad").

[YHWH]

Taste has nothing to do with evaluating art. There is good music and there is bad music. Now among good music you can prefer an artist over an other, have favorites, etc. That's taste, and it's irrelevant.

[Robotron]

Music, like language, turns the world of sound into a narrative, and much like any narrative it is designed to objectively communicate a subjective experience. So I see nothing wrong with categorizing these things in the same way they do the world.

[gutsman]

Taste has nothing to do with evaluating art. There is good music and there is bad music. Now among good music you can prefer an artist over an other, have favorites, etc. That's taste, and it's irrelevant.

And what or who would define good or bad music then? I mean it's true that there are certain rules, like using specific counterpoint styles in classical pieces, that promote the quality of the work. However there are enough examples of artists who throw all these rules or musical standards out of the window and still produce critically acclaimed work.


Music, like language, turns the world of sound into a narrative, and much like any narrative it is designed to objectively communicate a subjective experience. So I see nothing wrong with categorizing these things in the same way they do the world.

But there is no unified consensus about which subjective musical experience is good and which is bad. Otherwise everyone would rate every album and appreciate every artist equally.

[Robotron]

But there is no unified consensus about which subjective musical experience is good and which is bad. Otherwise everyone would rate every album and appreciate every artist equally.

And there's no consensus on the mechanics of the universe, but we use the same languages to invent or describe them. My point is not that an objective analysis is accurate but that it is no different from the purpose of music, and thus is a fine way to describe it, and that criticism is itself not so separated from an art form.

[md5fungi]

So what I'm getting at, do you think that calling some artists or bands "bad music" or saying "x is better then y" is justifiable on principal grounds? Or should everyone just account their musical preferences to their own perception (e.g. "I can't really enjoy this" as opposed to "this is just plain bad").

You could state "x is better than y", but you can't claim that this is an objective truth or that there is any objectivity involved. Everyone perceives music differently; there is no unified consensus of artistic perception.

[gardnerj]

anything pure pop main stream nowadays really makes irritates me. I can't be not bothered by it, it's so bad.

like that Rihanna/Alicia Keys song where she whines "no one, no one, no one..."

...anything by the fray

[YHWH]

And what or who would define good or bad music then? I mean it's true that there are certain rules, like using specific counterpoint styles in classical pieces, that promote the quality of the work. However there are enough examples of artists who throw all these rules or musical standards out of the window and still produce critically acclaimed work.


It is all subjective, since concepts of "good" and "bad" are insignificant, but we can choose to give them meaning. If the people whose opinion could interest me -me included- claimed some piece of music is crap, it makes it crap.

[Epigrammar]

What place does objectivity have in the appreciation of music?

[Last Song]

Erik Satie made good music. Frank Zappa did too.

I hope that helps.

[earwax]

Good? Bad? No.

There's only what you like and what you don't like.

[Ren]

No, actually, the music one likes may be good or bad, if we consider the skills of the person making it (e.g. good guitar playing or singing), which doesn't rule out the possibility of one liking music that would be considered as bad by someone who's an authority on the subject.

[earwax]

One could argue that ELP, despite being amazing musicians, put out some really bad music. While The Clash, despite being mediocre musicians, put out some great music.

[Ren]

One could argue that ELP, despite being amazing musicians, put out some really bad music. While The Clash, despite being mediocre musicians, put out some great music.

Yes.

Wheee, what a witty reply.

[Bongmaster General]

I think you could set up some loose guidelines for this sort of judgment call. Intent's important. You can usually tell the difference between music that's bad but which the author intended for to be good in the traditional sense vs music that's unstructured and dissonant on purpose.

There are real, objective concepts like harmony and rhythm by which music can be analyzed. More subjective but nonetheless valid measures might involve looking at complexity or originality. Needlessly complex songs or songs inadequate in complexity might be considered "bad." Of course, inadequate complexity doesn't mean the same thing as simple, since some of the best songs are the simplest ones.

Mostly, I'd approach the judgment of music in the same way I'd approach reviewing a book or movie. There are objective measures to choose from in judging any of these arts, but there are also subjective calls to make as to interpreting intent or establishing the appropriate value to attribute to the adequate fulfillment or failure to fulfill certain objective standards.

[earwax]

Let me put it this way, in my music literature class in college we studied Charles Ives. The subject of "good" vs "bad" music came up, as is expected when studying Ives. The teacher informed us in no uncertain terms that "good" and "bad" are value judgements. We were not there to make value judgements. We were there to study and understand. On the other hand, did we have to like everything we were exposed to? No.

[Faust06]

As far as objectivity goes in terms of quality of music, I think it's more of a personal objectivity. I have objective standards for myself, but I don't believe it's a universal standard.

Making a great pop song is an art on it's own. An epic complex song to me is personally more valuable, but it's a different experience altogether... it's an emotional ride, requires patience, an appreciation for complex harmony and structure. Not all people give a fuck about that. Wheras pop songs are more lighthearted, catchy, short, instantly likeable, danceable, have lyrics (which I don't give a fuck about).

I think it takes an open mind to enjoy both a great pop song as well as jazz, classical, metal, avant-garde, etc.. alot more people would enjoy it all if they gave it a chance, but I'm sure some people simply can't.. or have a much harder time with it. Some are more lyrically inclined, some exlusively want aggressive, some want happy, some dark.. I think we all have some bias, but it doesn't necessarily prevent us from enjoying everything else. Unless it's country, rap, or techno/dance... god damn I hate that shit.


One could argue that ELP, despite being amazing musicians, put out some really bad music.

They sure did. Proficiency at an instrument is only a tool, a means.. it doesn't automatically translate to good music, it just allows far more possibilities.

One more thing.. I don't believe any music can be considered "pretentious".. it is what it is. Music can't "pretend" to be anything, and you don't know what the author intended, unless he outright tells you. You don't know if it's poor emulation, or simply shit.

[euterpenc]

"Artists" like the Jonas Brothers and their kind are often enough simply tools of the music industry. Rather than call their music "bad," I'd prefer to use Nietzsche's terminology, that is, to call it "sick music."

Music that does not flow from the being of someone and is not an effort on their part to me is such. Art and music are living things to me, and every work can grow and change in itself. Music that has little room for growth may properly be called "sick" since it is too frail or weak to continue its life. Formulaic pop music usually has a very short life span, which I think is often indicative of its "sickness." Some popular music has room for growth and so may be superior to other, more limited works.

Beyond that we fall into preferences I think and value judgments and leave the realm of objective analysis.

[**life is...**]

"Artists" like the Jonas Brothers and their kind are often enough simply tools of the music industry. Rather than call their music "bad," I'd prefer to use Nietzsche's terminology, that is, to call it "sick music."

Music that does not flow from the being of someone and is not an effort on their part to me is such. Art and music are living things to me, and every work can grow and change in itself. Music that has little room for growth may properly be called "sick" since it is too frail or weak to continue its life. Formulaic pop music usually has a very short life span, which I think is often indicative of its "sickness." Some popular music has room for growth and so may be superior to other, more limited works.

Beyond that we fall into preferences I think and value judgments and leave the realm of objective analysis.


Yes, i agree, nice explanation.

[decades]

I'll take the Potter Stewart stance on this one. Even songs within genres I loathe can be great(the super poppy "Heartbeats" by The Knife, for example.) At the same time, many bands/artists/musicians that are supposed to be similar to ones I love are terrible("You're a big Jimi fan? oh man he's great, and Eric Clapton too, they don't make guitarists like they used to!" "Umm...yeah.")

[DennisThePenetrator]

Music is just as objective as it is subjective. If you honestly enjoy The Jonas Brothers' music then that's you and there's nothing you can do about it, but that still means you listen to terrible music. Technical, conceptual, and original music that has the potential to grow makes it good. Subjectivity also lies in the divide of good and bad music. I've never been able to draw much interest from Tool but I know they make good music, much like someone might not draw interest from Nickelback but will love Good Charlotte. In the end there's good in every genre.