Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Good music is objective.

By that I mean, you can definietly seperate bad from good....crap from "non-crap". And although it's harder to determine what "non-crap" is better, I still say it's not subjective.

If good music was subjective, then Brittney Spears would be considered good...after all lots of people think she's good. Brittney Spears is NOT good...it's crap...and if you say "it's good if people like it" then...oh boy.

So what if I take a band like Stone Temple Pilots and weigh them up against Nirvana, (although I personally have my own opinion as to which one is better...and I think it's no contest) it'd be kinda hard to make a case for which one is best because I don't think either are crap.

Now how about Nickelback compared to Stone Temple Pilots? Both not crap (although with one of these I'd say we're getting pretty close).

I'll be as bold as to say that if you said STP over Nirvana for the first one...you're wrong...and if you said Nickleback over STP for the second one...you're dead wrong. But I wouldn't say that the least of those in each comparison is crap...(although...with Nickleback...I dunno).

The thing is, some people just don't have the capacity to determine what's better (and even worse...what's "crap"...and that's hard for a lot of people to accept.

If you think I'm wrong, then I'd love for you to explain in this thread how STP is better than Nirvana and worse than Nickleback...

Music taste is not objective.

You cannot factually, beyond all deniability, prove one piece of music to be better and more enjoyable than another, or of better quality.

It's obvious that Jimi Hendrix made better music in the truest sense than say, Britney Spears, but that's not factual. As shit as it is, it's not a fact.

I'd love to hear someone explain how they think Nickleback make better music than Nirvana, but that's simply because it's a ridiculous belief, it doesn't make them wrong.

You can be as bold as you want, no music taste is objective. If you think so, you're wrong.

Why? Ok, let's try it.

Prove to us all that Nirvana produce factually better music than Fall Out Boy. For the sake of the argument, I'll defend Fall Out Boy.

Fall Out Boy make better music (Better being personally subjective term, we're talking about what music is made, not how). I like it more.

^^^ Prove that statement factually incorrect and you win a cookie. Don't just say I'm wrong and stupid, prove it factually incorrect so nobody could deny it. Prove any piece of music to be better in terms of enjoyment or subjective experience.

You don't know half as much as you think you do, and I can tell you're already frequenting this forum as if you run the place. Might as well stop now.

-AC

That was cool

Waiting on that challenge.

-AC

Like all art, there is no right or wrong answer when it comes to music. It's all personal opinion. One person's crap is another person's good, that's how human beings work.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Prove to us all that Nirvana produce factually better music than Fall Out Boy. For the sake of the argument, I'll defend Fall Out Boy.

Fall Out Boy make better music (Better being personally subjective term, we're talking about what music is made, not how). I like it more.

^^^ Prove that statement factually incorrect and you win a cookie. Don't just say I'm wrong and stupid, prove it factually incorrect so nobody could deny it. Prove any piece of music to be better in terms of enjoyment or subjective experience.
Oh my. I can't...one, becasue I'm laughing too hard (you put up a good fight), and two, because...I don't know if you even need to.

You know Nirvana is better than Fall Out Boy the same way you know a rose is prettier than a peice of s#@%. There's no explanation needed. Sure, you'll get some people saying the s#@% is nicer (and if it was packaged and presented the same way some crap music is, then you can understand why)...but at the end of the day...it's still s#@%...and there's a lot of us who can even smell it from a mile away if you know what I mean.

I think it is possible to explain how to seperate the two...I just don't know how to do it. If there was a God of music...then he'd know how. But they can be seperated.

There's your anwer...

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Oh my. I can't...one, becasue I'm laughing too hard (you put up a good fight), and two, because...I don't know if you can or even need to...but that DOESN'T mean I'm not right.

Let's continue:

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You know Nirvana is better than Fall Out Boy the same way you know a rose is prettier than a pile of shit.

Yeah, to me. Not to someone who likes Fall Out Boy or shit better than Nirvana and roses.

Fall Out Boy don't make good music to me just because someone thinks it's good. They make good music to THEM because they think it's good. It's entirely opinion. You cannot prove that Nirvana make better music, objectively. I agree with you, but that's all. We agree, we're not "right".

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
There's no explanation needed. Sure, you'll get some people saying the shit is nicer (and if it was packaged and presented the same way crap music is then you can understand why)...but at the end of the day...it's still shit...and there's still a lot of us who can even smell it from a mile away if you know what I mean.

Yeah, you're too stupid to say "Ok, you like shit. It's shit to me, but it's not to you. I still think it's shit, but that doesn't mean I'm right. You think it's good, but that doesn't make you right.". It's up to the listener to decide what output they believe is good or not good, based solely on taste, it's subjective.

Some opinions may be more credible than others, but they are still opinions.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
There's your anwer...

You didn't give me an answer that carried any weight. You just said "But they're wrong, cos it's shit. I mean, it's SHIT!". Aka, I don't see why they'd like it, and they're shit for liking it, so it's wrong.

No, you're stupid.

I think Alice in Chains were worlds ahead of Nirvana, musically. Prove me wrong. Don't say "I can't, they're both great bands.", but we both know that you only separate what YOU think is crap from what YOU think is shit.

You have a Star Wars sig, therefore your taste in movies is already off on a bad foot to me. Does it mean I'm right? No, it means our opinions differ.

-AC

This is a hilarious thread already.

I see your point, and you don't have to be mean, but I don't think you quite get my original argument from the first post.

...And to say I have bad taste because I like a certain movie...dunno about that one.

Be right back, just turning these tables over.

Back, what were you saying?

I do get your point. "They can be differentiated between, but I don't know how.". Why CAN they be? Because you simply refuse to accept that it's subjective, that's why.

They can't. It's opinion. Not all opinions are equal, but all opinions are opinions.

-AC

I think you're afraid of admitting something you can't prove...which is silly.

I'm not talking about political parties here...I'm saying Marvin Gaye rules and K-Fed sucks. If you don't have the balls to say, "ya...that's a fact", and admit that it is proveable (although as humans, we don't have the capacity to explain exactly how)...then go home.

Who care's what K-Fed thinks about his music...and who cares what a dog thinks about another dog's butthole...whether they like or not, it's still CRAP.

This'll help you see the bigger picture. Maybe you're just afraid that you like something that's as crap as K-Fed and don't recognize it as being bad. The thing is though...there's nothing wrong with liking bad stuff. If you like, you like it. You can't help it. But people are scared to admit that...and that's the problem.

It's all about opinions. People like how music sounds, not because of technical skill. And how did I know Nickelback would get mentioned? Anyway...

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I'm saying Marvin Gaye rules and K-Fed sucks. If you don't have the balls to say, "ya...that's a fact", and admit that it is proveable (although as humans, we don't have the capacity to explain exactly how)...then go home.

It's not a fact, though. It's as close to fact as you can get without being one, but it's not a fact.

It's nothing to do with balls or guts, it's the way it is. It's not an undeniable truth that his music sucks objectively. People like it, so they think it's good. What's their opinion worth? Zero, but it doesn't mean they are wrong.

The funny thing is, you are factually wrong. The fact that you can't prove it means it's not proveable, you idiot. It's not a matter of us not being able to individually, it's impossible.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Who care's what K-Fed thinks about his music...and who cares what a dog thinks about another dog's butthole...whether they like or not, it's still CRAP.

To you and anyone with a decent sense of taste, but it's still opinion that it's crap.

Go to the dictionary and look up "Fact". It's proveable, undeniable, objective truth. Oxygen exists, fact. Kevin Federline sucks, opinion. Kevin Federline is good, opinion. One of those opinions is less credible, but it's still an opinion.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
This'll help you see the bigger picture. Maybe you're just afraid that you like something that's as crap as K-Fed and don't recognize it as being bad. The thing is though...there's nothing wrong with liking bad stuff. If you like, you like it. You can't help it. But people are scared to admit that...and that's the problem.

You are unbelievably stupid.

People who admit they like music they think is "bad" are dumb, because they obviously don't think it's bad if they like it.

Second, it's not a matter of my taste. I'm not afraid to admit anything I like, I'm proud of my taste, but my taste isn't factually good. It's good to me, it's good to many others, but it's not factual.

Music TASTE is entirely subjective. It doesn't mean a Britney fan has an opinion as credible as a Jimi Hendrix fan, it doesn't mean we're all equal, it means it's not proveable either way.

What part of this are you not getting? It's not a matter of having guts. If I think something is shit, I say it's shit. You only need ask anybody here that knows me, but I won't say it's a fact because it's simply not, THAT'S a fact.

Don't give me that cop out bs of "I can't prove it, but it's a fact.". It's not a fact if it can't be proven.

-AC

Seriously, AC don't bother. You can't win an argument with someone who's stupider than you. They just won't see your point no matter how much you dumb it down, forget it.

Simply put, music is subjective because people's perceptions and interpretations all differ.

man am i sick of over-sensitivity to subjectivity. music has a defined set of aesthetic perimeters. therefore, to a certain extent, it CAN be treated as objective.

for instance, saying "pet sounds" is better than some shitty puddle of mudd album is "fact". though many might prefer puddle of mudd, there ways of measuring music aside from enjoyment.

Originally posted by manorastroman
man am i sick of over-sensitivity to subjectivity. music has a defined set of aesthetic perimeters. therefore, to a certain extent, it CAN be treated as objective.

for instance, saying "pet sounds" is better than some shitty puddle of mudd album is "fact". though many might prefer puddle of mudd, there ways of measuring music aside from enjoyment.

First paragraph is true, second isn't.

It's not true that it's "fact" that "Pet Sounds" is better than "Come Clean" or false that here's no way of measuring music aside from enjoyment?

Popular opinion, no matter how popular, is still opinion. The word fact doesn't even come into play, there. Personally, I'll respect Beach Boys' contribution, but still don't have a preference between they and Puddle of Mudd.

why isn't the second true? it's no different than saying a jeremy michael weiss is better than some crappy snapshot, or saying saul bellow is better than clive cussler, or taxi driver is better than not another teen movie...

though some may prefer the latter, it's kind of ridiculous not to admit that the former is a superior example of the craft.

It's still not a "fact", is his point. See my last post.

Personally, I think "Taxi Driver" is terribly overrated, dated, and only enjoyable in the last 10 minutes. "Not Another Teen Movie" on the other hand, while a little too "gratuitous" with the goods, considering the demographic, is a brilliant, scathing parody.

Originally posted by manorastroman
why isn't the second true? it's no different than saying a jeremy michael weiss is better than some crappy snapshot, or saying saul bellow is better than clive cussler, or taxi driver is better than not another teen movie...

though some may prefer the latter, it's kind of ridiculous not to admit that the former is a superior example of the craft.

I would say that Pet Sounds is a better album than Come Clean.

It's not a fact, though.

Mostly because, as I have said before, the statement isn't even clear.

Nothing can be proved to be 'better' than something else, without further qualification.

Originally posted by manorastroman
man am i sick of over-sensitivity to subjectivity. music has a defined set of aesthetic perimeters. therefore, to a certain extent, it CAN be treated as objective.

for instance, saying "pet sounds" is better than some shitty puddle of mudd album is "fact". though many might prefer puddle of mudd, there ways of measuring music aside from enjoyment.

Thank you

I expected that before I started this thread, 9 out of 10 people would disagree with me...then along would come someone who gets it.

...and there'll be another after about 20 people have posted.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You are unbelievably stupid.

People who admit they like music they think is "bad" are dumb, because they obviously don't think it's bad if they like it.

That statement clearly shows me you're not getting my drift...

...and you don't have to be mean.

Originally posted by The Core
Simply put, music is subjective because people's perceptions and interpretations all differ.
There's that argument again...enjoyment/taste=quality.

I admit I like a couple Backstreet Boys songs from the 90s...no real reason why...just do...the same reason I like blondes over brunettes. But I can also admit that these songs are utter crap...

...they lack soul, they're contrived, they're shallow, purposely marketed, overly-polished, unoriginal, unsubstantial, and I gurantee you they will not stand the test of time.

So what if I like them...I'm not worried that just because I like them and they suck that it says anything about me. I'm afraid others in here don't get that, and as a result will say everything is subjective to ensure that what they like couldn't possibly be crap.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
There's that argument again...enjoyment/taste=quality.

I admit I like a couple Backstreet Boys songs from the 90s...no real reason why...just do...the same reason I like blondes over brunettes. But I can also admit that these songs are utter crap...

...they lack soul, they're contrived, they're shallow, purposely marketed, overly-polished, unoriginal, unsubstantial, and I gurantee you they will not stand the test of time.

So what if I like them...I'm not worried that just because I like them and they suck that it says anything about me. I'm afraid others in here don't get that, and as a result will say everything is subjective to ensure that what they like couldn't possibly be crap.

Possibly the least sensible comment in all of recorded history.

Of course.

You are putting across the idea that it's a fact that some music is better than others by fact, and that's simply not true. It's not.

You are suggesting that there's a way to prove one piece of music to be factually better than another...but we just don't know what it is. No, there isn't a way. Or if there is, it's not a fact until anybody can prove it.

So either way, you're wrong.

I'm not saying everything is subjective out of fear, anyone here will tell you that the one thing I don't have is lacking self-esteem in my music taste. I say everything is subjective in terms of TASTE because it factually is.

You cannot prove that one album is factually better than another, can you? You can't. It's not a matter of "I just don't know how, but there's a way". No, you just can't, because nobody on Earth can.

You are saying The Backstreet Boys are utter crap in hopes that we all don't look down on you, but you've already said you like them. So you're either admitting you like shit music, or admitting you think certain music is good, where any sensible music fan would disagree with your opinion (Which would, funnily enough, prove my point about subjectivity, that is a fact).

You think that by saying they are crap, you are illustrating they are factually crap. That's not the case, they're obviously crap, not factually.

-AC

That's right...nobody on earth can...doesn't mean it's not possible though. And yes, I am admitting I like shit music...and guess what, I guarantee you like shit music too. I don't think however, you could admit that...a)because it doesn't make sense to you (where it should), and b) because maybe you don't have the guts.

Whatever man...great you're right. You essentially maintain that STP is just as good as Nirvana who are just as good as Nickleback...and that you can't argue otherwise.

And I think you're even saying that Brittney is just as good as Nirvana. If that's so wrong friends, then why do we all KNOW that's just not true...it's my whole rose and peice of S#%* theory. You and others just can't fess up to it making sense because you're afraid that you might like something that's as s#%* as Brittney.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
There's that argument again...enjoyment/taste=quality.

I admit I like a couple Backstreet Boys songs from the 90s...no real reason why...just do...the same reason I like blondes over brunettes. But I can also admit that these songs are utter crap...

...they lack soul, they're contrived, they're shallow, purposely marketed, overly-polished, unoriginal, unsubstantial, and I gurantee you they will not stand the test of time.

So what if I like them...I'm not worried that just because I like them and they suck that it says anything about me. I'm afraid others in here don't get that, and as a result, will say everything is subjective to ensure that what they like couldn't possibly be crap.

What are you on about? I didn't say anything about fan's taste or how much they enjoy the music determining a bands overall worth or quality.

I SAID, in Layman's terms, people's perception, or singular opinion complete with a personal basis and interpretation, or what life the words and actual notes take on for a fan makes music subjective. Subjectivity is how you percieve the music. It may be musical allegory, irony in the lyrics, double entendres, or as simple as how you can relate to what the song is about, what emotions the song evokes..whatever the case.

Music can be, but isn't always, subjective. It can be OBJECTIVE too. Tastes, however, cannot be. By that, I don't mean they focus on objects, I mean that it's devoid of personal opinion, focusing on what everyone already knows. Musicans, true musicians, make music because it's what they love and their work is inherently subjective. If it isn't, their heart isn't in it.

We say some music is subjective, because like I've said 1,000 times over; if it's open to interpretation, like true art should be, it's subjective. Backstreet Boys' music is subjective to a degree because it may deal with relationships, and personal experiences are put into context. But, under the pretense in which the music is made, it's still objective.

Like whatever you want without fear. There's one great lesson I've learned from AC and that's that there should be no such thing as a guilty pleasure. Like it, admit it, and other people's opinion shouldn't sway your fandom.



It's all in one's opinion. That said, and for a totally different night, both STP and Nirvana had a much larger impact, factually, on the music scene than Nickelback, which still doesn't even begin to play into the quality of their music. I could go and bang on piece of cardboard with a chicken bone and make music history. That doesn't necessarily mean the "music" I made was good.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
That's right...nobody on earth can...doesn't mean it's not possible though. And yes, I am admitting I like shit music...and guess what, I guarantee you like shit music too. I don't think however, you could admit that...a)because it doesn't make sense to you (where it should), and b) because maybe you don't have the guts.

I don't admit it because I don't think any of the music I listen to is shit. Why? Because it doesn't make sense to listen to music you think is shit, when in actuality, you're listening to music you think is good, but think you should say "This is shit", in hopes of saving face.

You would obviously think some of the music I like is shit, but I don't, because I only like good music. If I decided I liked The Backstreet Boys, I'd not come out and say "But I do think they're shit.", because why the hell should I care what anybody else thinks? Or you?

Someone here said they liked the new Justin Timberlake song, and were ashamed. Why? Do I think he's incredibly shit? Yes. Do I think that person has a shit opinion? Yes. Are they wrong for liking his music? No.

I have no such things as guilty pleasures.

This is only proving my point. It's not about guts.

Music taste is factually subjective. This isn't a debate about having the guts to stand up and say "No, that music is shit.". I do that all the time. I'm just not ignorant enough to think an opinion is fact.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I'm saying Marvin Gaye rules and K-Fed sucks.

I think anyone in their right mind would say that that's a fact.

Marvin Gaye Jr. was a musical genius. K-fed is a nobody pinche baboso who is just riding his ex-wife's coattails. That crazy gringo can't even rap, ey.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think anyone in their right mind would say that that's a fact.

Marvin Gaye Jr. was a musical genius. K-fed is a nobody pinche baboso who is just riding his ex-wife's coattails. That crazy gringo can't even rap, ey.

No, it's the opposite. Anyone in their right mind would agree with the statement, anybody who's a stupid idiot would say it's a fact.

It's not a fact.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, it's the opposite. Anyone in their right mind would agree with the statement

Which is basically saying the same thing, minus using the word "fact".

Que no?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I have no such things as guilty pleasures.


Everyone does...

Originally posted by The Core
What are you on about? I didn't say anything about fan's taste or how much they enjoy the music determining a bands overall worth or quality.

I thought by perceptions you meant taste.

I agree with almost everything you said here...good stuff...and it seems you actually agree with most of what I'm saying in terms of objectivity.

But I still mainitain people can't get over the hump of admitting music isn't subjective becasue of what it might say about their taste.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Which is basically saying the same thing, minus using the word "fact".

Que no?

precisely. forget the semantics of the word "fact".

Originally posted by manorastroman
precisely. forget the semantics of the word "fact".

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't admit it because I don't think any of the music I listen to is shit. Why? Because it doesn't make sense to listen to music you think is shit, when in actuality, you're listening to music you think is good, but think you should say "This is shit", in hopes of saving face.

I'm not coming from the angle of saving face, I'm just saying it DOES makes sense to listen to music you think is shit...becasue we have as much choice over what music we like as we do over what girls (or guys) we find attractive.

Except with music, even though some of it is beautiful to you, it really can be just CRAP. Some people don't have the capacity to make that distinction though, and that's where the confusion lies.


manorastroman and Quiero Mota know what's up...

People fail to make the distinction between good music and bad music in our opinion. To them, they're listening to good music, to us...it's shit.

It's not fact, it's opinion. A fact is an undeniable, proveable truth. Music taste does not coincide with this.

It's as close to BEING a fact as you can get without being one. Why? Because it literally is not a fact. It's not. The only fact here, is that.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
But I still mainitain people can't get over the hump of admitting music isn't subjective becasue of what it might say about their taste.

Music taste is entirely subjective. People not admitting it doesn't mean it's objective, it means they are chicken shit idiots who don't have faith to admit what their own taste is, to admit what they think is good. You should never be afraid to say what you like, no matter how shit everyone may think it is, because the most they can do is say "That's shit.". They can't prove it, because it's not factual.

The only objective area of music is instrumental talent and ability, where you can prove why and how people are better. You can't do that with the music that is made, and using the pathetic rationale of "There's a way, we just can't do it, nobody can. Doesn't mean there isn't.".

That's like saying because we haven't found a way for humans to fly via the gift of flatulence, doesn't mean it can't happen.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Everyone does...

Why, because you do? I'll speak for me, you speak for you. Good?

-AC

It really is amazing how long you people can argue over such a stupid topic, knowing nothing will come of it. Go listen to the music you like, let others listen to what they like, and don't worry about if you think its crap or not. Im a big Nickelback fan, but do I think they are crap? No. But I'm sure you do. Everyone has their own opinions, just get over it and don't bother to continue this stupid argument for the next ten pages.

Ok, Arctic, you can prove my point.

I personally think Arctic has arguably the worst taste on these boards, but I challenge this new Star Wars guy to prove him wrong when he says Nickleback are a great band that make great music.

Go.

And no, "You're wrong. They're shit, they're useless, they're soulless." isn't proving him wrong.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why, because you do? I'll speak for me, you speak for you. Good?

-AC

I don't know you, pero I garuntee that you have some.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I don't know you, pero I garuntee that you have some.

What is this bs? Where in this tapestry of idiocy did you become wielder of the power to tell me that I have guilty pleasures?

If you don't believe me, fine, but don't sit there telling me I'm wrong about myself.

-AC

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think anyone in their right mind would say that that's a fact.

I'm in my right mind, but respect what you say as an opinion. Not a fact.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Everyone does...

I don't. I'm not ashamed of anything I like, neither is AC, obviously.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES

But I still mainitain people can't get over the hump of admitting music isn't subjective becasue of what it might say about their taste.

Who ever said that? You think people won't admit that music is open to interpretation because it might reflect poorly on their taste? Not following.

Originally posted by manorastroman
precisely. forget the semantics of the word "fact".

By "semantics", you mean definition?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I'm not coming from the angle of saving face, I'm just saying it DOES makes sense to listen to music you think is shit...becasue we have as much choice over what music we like as we do over what girls (or guys) we find attractive.

Except with music, even though some of it is beautiful to you, it really can be just CRAP. Some people don't have the capacity to make that distinction though, and that's where the confusion lies.


manorastroman and Quiero Mota know what's up...

It doesn't make any sense to listen to music you think is garbage. Like the ****ing tunes, and change your own opinion to reflect how you HONESTLY feel, and ignore what other people think. It's so simple.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Ok, Arctic, you can prove my point.

I personally think Arctic has arguably the worst taste on these boards, but I challenge this new Star Wars guy to prove him wrong when he says Nickleback are a great band that make great music.

Go.

And no, "You're wrong. They're shit, they're useless, they're soulless." isn't proving him wrong.

-AC
I already said I can't prove Arctic is wrong...but it doesn't mean it's not provable. Look at Plato's "Forms" and maybe you'll get my point.

I'm glad though I'm discussing this with people who are more or less intelligent. I think you AC probably have good taste in music, and I'd go as far as to say that it's a sign of your muscial intelligence, but I guarantee you like stuff that's trully crap...and it's not your fault...it's just natural to like what you like...but at the end of the day...you, AC, like crap.

It's crap compared to something else, and it's crap on it's own.

The worst taste on these boards? ha, you may think that, but I don't. Everyone on these boards probably hates everything I like, but I don't care. I like my taste in music. I've tried listening to some of the music the people on these boards like, but I just cant get into it. At all. But, hey, whatever.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I already said I can't...but it doesn't mean it's not provable.

No, the fact that it's not proveable means it's not proveable. You're being remarkably childish by employing this kind of rhetoric.

"It hasn't NOT happened, so that doesn't mean it can't!". Stupidness. I can't fly because I don't know how, it doesn't mean I can't!

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I'm glad though I'm discussing this with people who are more or less intelligent. I think you AC probably have good taste in music, and I'd go as far as to say that it's a sign of your muscial intelligence, but I guarantee you like stuff that's trully crap...and it's not your fault...it's just natural to like what you like.

What are you ON about? There's stuff I like that's crap to you. There's nothing I like that's crap to me. Hence this debate being pointless, because you're wrong.

When are you going to pick up the breadcrumbs?

Such a fool.

Originally posted by Arctic
The worst taste on these boards? ha, you may think that, but I don't. Everyone on these boards probably hates everything I like, but I don't care. I like my taste in music. I've tried listening to some of the music the people on these boards like, but I just cant get into it. At all. But, hey, whatever.

And this is exactly correct.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
...but I guarantee you like stuff that's trully crap...and it's not your fault...it's just natural to like what you like.

With that, you've proven that you've listened to pretty much nothing that's been said tonight.

"Crap" is an opinion. "Crap" is subjective. We like what we like, and don't need a reason, nor justification as shallow as some non-exsistant human disposition to do so.

You should follow suit.

Exactly. I like stuff that is crap to probably everyone here, but none of it is crap to me. And no one can prove to me, as a fact, that your music is better than mine. In fact, I like a lot of things that are considered "crap." It seems I'm cursed that way. Most of the music I like is considered crap by both people on these boards and critics. With the exception of maybe Audioslave. I like the Inheritance series, which is considered crap by a lot of people and critics...I like crappy things.

excellent job of ignoring plato's "forms". don't worry, i'm sure you're still the smartest guy on these boards.

not the semantics of the word "fact" itself, but the semantics of its usage in this conversation.

Originally posted by The Core
I don't. I'm not ashamed of anything I like, neither is AC, obviously.


I'm not talking music, homes. I'm talking period/in general. You mean to tell me you don't have a single guilty pleasure? If so, then you're a unique human.

Originally posted by Arctic
The worst taste on these boards? ha, you may think that, but I don't. Everyone on these boards probably hates everything I like, but I don't care. I like my taste in music. I've tried listening to some of the music the people on these boards like, but I just cant get into it. At all. But, hey, whatever.

I never said anything about you having the worst taste on these boards...?

TOO MANY CONVERSATIONS!!!

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'm not talking music, homes. I'm talking period/in general. You mean to tell me you don't have a single guilty pleasure? If so, then you're a unique human.

I pride myself on my uniquity. I'm dead serious, and have no reason to lie.

No that was AC who said that. And its probably true to most people.

It shouldn't bother you. If it makes you feel any better, I'm a huge fan of Third Eye Blind's first album, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

OK. Here's the deal...

...at the end of the day, you always see the same bands in the top whatever of greatest music/band/album lists. As a collective, humans KNOW what music is great and what should be left out.

The big ones being there - Dylan, Beatles, Nirvana, Zeppellin, Hendrix - regardless of what order or frequency, show a sense of objectivity. The ones that are sure to be left out (and I think we know what those could be) just strengthen that point.

It's almost as objective as saying Brazil, Argentina, England, and France are consistently the top footballing nations of the world. It's more or less fact. In both cases, the numbers prove it.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest. In fact I'm going to go listen to a heavy dose of Nickelback, Creed, and Audioslave here in a few minutes. Cheers!

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
The big ones being there - Dylan, Beatles, Nirvana, Zeppellin, Hendrix - regardless of what order or frequency, show a sense of objectivity. The ones that are sure to be left out (and I think we know what those could be) just strengthen that point.

It's almost as objective as saying Brazil, Argentina, England, and France are consistently the top footballing nations of the world. It's more or less fact. In both cases, the numbers prove it.

Stupidest analogy I've seen/heard in my entire lifetime.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
OK. Here's the deal...

...at the end of the day, you always see the same bands in the top whatever of greatest music/band/album lists. As a collective, humans KNOW what music is great and what should be left out.

The big ones being there - Dylan, Beatles, Nirvana, Zeppellin, Hendrix - regardless of what order or frequency, show a sense of objectivity. The ones that are sure to be left out (and I think we know what those could be) just strengthen that point.

It's almost as objective as saying Brazil, Argentina, England, and France are consistently the top footballing nations of the world. It's more or less fact. In both cases, the numbers prove it.

Not necessarily know, but recognize, and that's only because of popular opinion. Personally, I think Nirvana were severly overrated, all because they were the last nail in glam rock's coffin and made the biggest splash.

Soccer rankings aren't a comparable measure to music where we're supposed to recognize, and then differentiate between "good" and "bad". What's good in music can't be measured. Athletic skill on the other hand, can be.

You should know, album sales mean jack scheisse. It's a band's impact, staying power and subsequent evolution that make all the difference.

clapping

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
OK. Here's the deal...

...at the end of the day, you always see the same bands in the top whatever of greatest music/band/album lists. As a collective, humans KNOW what music is great and what should be left out.

The big ones being there - Dylan, Beatles, Nirvana, Zeppellin, Hendrix - regardless of what order or frequency, show a sense of objectivity. The ones that are sure to be left out (and I think we know what those could be) just strengthen that point.

How utterly pathetic, they show no objectivity at all.

They show that there are names that can be reliably namedropped for instant credibility, musicians that nobody feel they dare oppose. Me? I don't give a shit. I think Pink Floyd are nothing special, I really like The Beatles but I think they're overrated, I don't and never have been a HUGE fan of Dylan, I love Zeppelin and Hendrix, Nirvana I like a lot. There are people who may suck off every band in that list, or people that hate them all. Neither are wrong, one is just less credible.

It doesn't prove anything. Greatest album/artist lists are never OFFICIAL. It's a tally of many opinions. It's not fact, it's opinion.

It strengthens no point, it weakens it.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
It's almost as objective as saying Brazil, Argentina, England, and France are consistently the top footballing nations of the world. It's more or less fact. In both cases, the numbers prove it.

Hahaha, you foolish idiot.

It's a fact that Brazil are the most successful footballing nation ever because you can prove it. PROVE IT. It's a fact if you can prove it. If you asked me to prove how Brazil are more successful than England I could list all their footballing achievements and player achievements.

If you asked me who plays the more enjoyable football, I couldn't prove that it's Brazil, because they aren't factually entertaining. Not everybody watches them and is entertained.

If you can't prove that one music is better than another, it's not a fact, and you can't, nobody can. So the only desperate point you have is the childish and lame rhetoric that "It might be possible.", even though it's not. Because someone can ALWAYS say "I disagree". I don't like the fact that I can't prove Radiohead to be better than Britney Spears, but it doesn't matter to me, because it doesn't need to be a fact to be obvious.

Even if it was a fact, so what? It doesn't mean people will automatically start liking great bands.

If you can't grasp that, take your ball and go home, because you've got to the point of ignoring objective fact in favour of trying to say opinion is fact.

-AC

Oh please...relax.

It's fun when people don't actually read your posts.

Don't make this comparison into something it's not. I'm not comparing goals vs. weeks at #1

I never said anything about album sales, and I said it's "almost" as objective as saying Brazil, Argentina...

People who usually enter what bands will and will not appear on lists, more likely have that job because they have SOME sort of idea of what good music is, and a wealth of musical knowledge (probably more than you and I) to compare that with.

It's no coincidence that you see the same bands, albums or songs popping up over and over again. And all I'm saying is that the fact that these same artists end up appearing on lists numerous times is comparible to the fact that the same foootballing nations end up being considered the best numerous times.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Stupidest analogy I've seen/heard in my entire lifetime.

It doesn't surprise me that some people don't undertand this analogy, but at the end of the day, the same objectivity that applies to football (or whatever) can more or less be applied to music. Crap is crap...I'm sure this is very "new" thinking to some of you.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
People who usually enter what bands will and will not appear on lists, more likely have that job because they have SOME sort of idea of what good music is, and a wealth of musical knowledge (probably more than you and I) to compare that with.

Which is still opinion, just a more credible one in the area of knowledge, not any closer to being factual than the moon being made of cheese.

That's all it is.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
It's no coincidence that you see the same bands, albums or songs popping up over and over again. And all I'm saying is that the fact that these same artists end up appearing on lists numerous times is comparible to the fact that the same foootballing nations end up being considered the best numerous times.

Yes, that's precisely what it is, it's coincidence. Some of these acclaimed albums turn out to be actually good anyway, like Radiohead or The Beatles, but they're not factually good just because they keep coming up.

Stop being an idiot.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
It doesn't surprise me that some people don't undertand this analogy, but at the end of the day, the same objectivity that applies to football (or whatever) can more or less be applied to music. Crap is crap...I'm sure this is very "new" thinking to some of you.

You win stupidest new music forum member.

Brazil keep getting that accolade because you can factually prove what they've done better than anyone else, how much more they've won, what they've won etc. It's not comparable to anything, because it's totally different.

If The Beatles win best album ever for Abbey Road 10 times in a row, you still can't factually prove that it's a great album. You cannot.

On the other hand, it's not up to me to decide how many times Brazil have factually won championships.

FACT: Brazil are the most successful footballing nation ever.

OPINION: Brazil are the best team to watch.

Do you see how it works?

FACT: The Beatles are a very highly regarded band.

OPINION: The Beatles are definitely a great band.

You cannot prove that one piece of music is factually better than another. What part of that do you not get?

Polls mean nothing. They're just published groups of opinion, nothing factual about it.

Now I suggest you start to actually grasp points.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You cannot prove that one piece of music is factually better than another.

Maybe...but it's still true.

Led Zeppelin = Brazil

Nickleback = Madagascar



Might sound ridiculous, but it's so true!

Led Zeppelin = Stella Artois

Nickleback = Budweiser



...anyone got any more??

Originally posted by Deathblow
Like all art, there is no right or wrong answer when it comes to music. It's all personal opinion. One person's crap is another person's good, that's how human beings work. speaking of crap. i heard there's a museum somewhere in the world that displays dog feces as art. anyone heard about this?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Led Zeppelin = Stella Artois

Nickleback = Budweiser



...anyone got any more??
I like Nickelback, but I know your using them to make fun of Budweiser. Not cool. Budweiser is one of the better beers.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I like Nickelback, but I know your using them to make fun of Budweiser. Not cool. Budweiser is one of the better beers.

Budweiser is not one of the better beers. It is absolutely reviled the world over, mostly because of its ridiculous popularity. Being a Canadian though, I know we like to drink piss.

And there's far better beers than Stella, but for the purposes of popularity I used those two.


Oh, I got one!!!

Led Zeppelin = Robert DeNiro

Nickleback = Keannu Reeves

I'm using seemingly ridiculous anaolgies here to prove a very reasonable point. Crap is crap, and quality is quality, no matter how you slice it.

Somebody try it...it's fun!!

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Maybe...but it's still true.

True = Truth. Truth = Fact.

So, once again, no.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Led Zeppelin = Brazil

Nickleback = Madagascar

There's a whole country of people who would support Madagascar against Brazil.

There's people who prefer Budweiser over Stella, people who prefer Nickleback over Led Zeppelin.

It's opinion and preference. If they prefer Nickleback over Zeppelin, it means they have a shit opinion to you or I, not that they are factually wrong.

Please get this into your bulletproof skull.

I challenge you right now, prove that a piece of music is better, or retract your statement. None of that "I can't prove it but it might be true.".

You can't, so stop acting like it's true. Let's close the book:

o·pin·ion

1. a belief or judgement that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

You have a belief and judgement resting on grounds insufficient to produce a certainty.

That's number one, the reason you have number one is because of number two. A personal view, attitude or appraisal.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There's a whole country of people who would support Madagascar against Brazil.

There's people who prefer Budweiser over Stella, people who prefer Nickleback over Led Zeppelin.
What a waste of a post. Saying the same stuff..."People liking something makes it good" (and I knew there'd be people like you out there, that's why I made a point of mentioning how that's wrong thinking in my very first post). You don't get it.


Led Zeppelin = Apocalypse Now

Nickleback = Pearl Harbour

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's opinion and preference. If they prefer Nickleback over Zeppelin, it means they have a shit opinion to you or I, not that they are factually wrong.
I disagree. They're wrong. Accept it.


Led Zeppelin = Me

Nickleback = You

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I challenge you right now, prove that a piece of music is better, or retract your statement.
This sounds awful familiar. Your arguments are gettin' kinda stale, although they've been decent until recently.

How about a familiar answer...

I can't prove it.

Same way I can't prove killing is wrong...but it is...and I think that can be proven by something greater than you or I.


Led Zeppelin = Jeopardy!

Nickleback = Deal or No Deal!

Led Zeppelin = Dr. No

Nickleback = Dr. Evil

Led Zeppelin = Laughter

Nickleback = Diarrhoea

Led Zeppelin = Top Sirloin Steak

Nickleback = Diarrhoea

Jesus Christ...
Lets just accept that you have no idea what you are talking about and move on.

Led Zeppeilin = What I'm talking about

Nickleback = What the last dude just said...and diarrhoea

You really arn't helping yourself, you know that right?

Led Zeppelin = Irony

Nickleback = Cluelessness

Wow, you really are embarrassing.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Led Zeppelin = Stella Artois

Nickleback = Budweiser



...anyone got any more??
Ha! I prefer Bud... That just proves that it's not a fact... It's an opinion.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
What a waste of a post. Saying the same stuff..."People liking something makes it good" (and I knew there'd be people like you out there, that's why I made a point of mentioning how that's wrong thinking in my very first post). You don't get it.

I'm not saying it makes it good because they like it, you cretin.

I'm saying it means THEY think it's good, and they're not wrong, or right. It's opinion.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I disagree. They're wrong. Accept it.

You can't technically disagree since I'm factually right. You can say it, but it means nothing.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I can't prove it.

Same way I can't prove killing is wrong...but it is...and I think that can be proven by something greater than you or I.

Personal then, not factual.

-AC

Music, like all the kinds of arts( cinema, paint, etc) its subjetive. One person could love something and another person could hate it. The art is subjetive.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Wow, you really are embarrassing.
You're right. Maybe I should be embarassed because I'm belaboring a point and making a complete mockery of my very own argument, and could be leading people that already aren't getting it into thinking it's totally ridiculous.

Wait a sec...who cares. It's fun as hell!

Speaking of embarassing...
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Wow, you really are embarrassing.
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Anyone who says The Departed is his best film is an idiot. Fact.


Good one Ya Krunk'd!

And I'm not laughing at you for syaing what you just did. I think it's cool. But in the context of your "embarrasing" comment it's pretty darn funny.

Led Zeppelin = Brazil

Nickleback = Madagascar


Led Zeppelin = Stella Artois

Nickleback = Budweiser


Led Zeppelin = Robert DeNiro

Nickleback = Keannu Reeves


Led Zeppelin = Apocalypse Now

Nickleback = Pearl Harbour


If there's any of you can't see the humorous yet poignant truths that indeed exist within these comparissons, and understand how it parallels my very valid point about objectively good and crappy music, then...I'd say you take yourself and your so-called intellect way too seriously, and that you're unable to seperate relevancy from seeming absurdity.

Superior minds to be sure...

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
you take yourself and your so-called intellect way too seriously,
The fact that you didn't consider that ironic enough to edit out of your post proves that you yourself are the moron.

And as said before, by many people before me, you will always have people who like Nickelback more than they like Led Zeppelin. That's why music is subjective. You can choose to like certain bands/artists or not to like them.

Yup. Another uninformed poster.

Music is subjective. Good music isn't.

Keep trying though.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Yup. Another uninformed poster.

Music is subjective. Good music isn't.

Keep trying though.
Then make a thread title which actually explains where you are going with this thread.

How about reading the first post. That'd be a smart thing to do!!! Geesh!

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Yup. Another uninformed poster.

Music is subjective. Good music isn't.

Keep trying though.

Yes, it is, and I have factually proven so.

You like Lily Allen, do you consider her good music? I don't. Name some bands you consider to be genuinely good. And don't name drop Zeppelin etc.

The burden of proof is now on you, and since you know you cannot prove your point, only continually use pathetic analogies that indicate you don't know the meaning of the words "Fact" or "Truth", I suggest you stop before you embarass yourself further.

We all get your point, idiot, you're just wrong. I totally understand what you're saying and even went so far as to agree that it's shit nobody can prove good music, but you can't, and that's how art is.

-AC

Nice contradictio in terminis.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Music is subjective. Good music isn't.
If good music is objective, how come there aren't two people in the whole wide world who have exactly the same musical taste ? How come that every "best of" list - be it pop, rock, classical, jazz, country, salsa - mentions different names ? On different places ?

Because it's all a matter of taste.

Free tip of the day : the more you know about music, the more you start to realize that, at the end of the day, it all comes down to personal opinion and preferences.

Conclusion : your way of thinking is arrogant, immature and unrealistic.

Originally posted by Kid Kurdy
How come that every "best of" list - be it pop, rock, classical, jazz, country, salsa - mentions different names ? On different places ?
What are you talking about? The same artists DO appear on those lists. Why would they have to be in exactly the same places?

If you read my first post (which I'm guessing you haven't) I said it's more difficult to determine what "non-crap" is better...so obviously people will differ in opinion as to where good music rates amongst itself.

BUT, there are also a large group of artists who DON'T show up on those lists...go figure!

Here's a thought, maybe it's because the people who often make these lists tend to have a good idea of what good is and what crap is. So, after a while, it more or less becomes as factual as what footballing nations are World Cup contenders. It's a drastic analogy but it holds some truth.

I myself can't prove that music's objective, by I think it's proveable by something greater than myself.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You like Lily Allen, do you consider her good music? I don't.
Who cares if you don't think Lilly Allen is good. She's excellent...AND I happen to like her.

Dude, if you actually think Lilly Allen belongs in the "crap" category as opposed to the "good" category, and can't seperate your own personal taste from just qualifying her as an artist, then a). I'm afraid most critics in contemporary pop would laugh at you, and b). your musical intelligence isn't quite where I thought it might be.

You still truly don't get it.

You're making the mistake of using your own personal taste as a measure of what's good, and because you don't like her, you're saying her music's not good. Wow! Good for you! Have fun doing that for the rest of your life!

I hate The Police, but I think they're a good band and that they make good music...can't stand 'em though. Their music just seems to be too scholarly or pretentious. But I wouldn't say they're crap just because I don't like any of their songs.

Grab a clue dude!

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I myself can't prove that music's objective, by I think it's proveable by something greater than myself.

So this whole argument you have, which is factually incorrect, is based on you saying "I can't do it, nobody can, but that doesn't mean it can't be done."?

The reason it can't be done has nothing to do with individual ability to prove it or not. The reason it can't be proven is because it is impossible.

Someone can ALWAYS disagree that something is good or not. There is such a thing as credible and non-credible opinions, sure. Opinions that are more respected and trusted, but they are still just opinions.

You cannot uphold your personal belief because it's wrong, but you are ignoring the fact that it's impossible and opting to say "It just hasn't been found yet.", which is absolutely pathetic. If you can't prove it, don't speak it.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
So, after a while, it more or less becomes as factual as what footballing nations are World Cup contenders.

Yes, because they have factually proven to be winners and successful teams. The Beatles are factually successful as a band, but that doesn't make them factually good.

Achievements can be compared and proven, preference cannot. Preference is subjective, and that is all good and bad music is, preference.

There is no default good or bad, it all depends on what YOU like and don't like. I have my own ideas of what good and bad are, so does everyone else. I'm not saying it's good if people like it, because there's no room for such ultimate statements. I'm saying if they like it, they think it's good, and they aren't wrong or right.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Who cares if you don't think Lilly Allen is good. She's awsome...and I happen to like her.

Dude, if you think actually Lilly Allen belongs in the "crap" category as opposed to the "good" category, and can't seperate your own personal taste from just qualifying her as an artist, then a). I'm afraid most critics in contemporary pop would laugh at you, and b). your musical intelligence isn't quite where I thought it might be.

No, you're wrong. She's shit because I know she is. You obviously just don't know what good music and crap music is.

She's shit, you're wrong, I'm right, you just don't see it and are afraid to admit it.

(Sound familiar? Sound stupid? Yes, that would be me using your rationale against you).

I think she's crap, you think she's good. You thinking she's good doesn't make her good to me, it makes her good to you. Me liking Gojira doesn't make them good to you, it makes them good to me.

It's entirely about preference. I don't like Lily Allen's music, personally, but you do.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You still truly don't get it.

Oh I do, you're just getting desperate.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You're making the mistake of using your own personal taste as a measure of what's good, and because you don't like her, you're saying her music's not good. Wow! Good for you! Have fun doing that for the rest of your life!

That's exactly how it factually is. If I don't think music is good, then TO ME ONLY, it isn't good. If you think she's good, she's good to you. I'm not saying "You think she's good, I don't, but she's good cos you like her.", I'm saying I don't think she's good, but if you do, go for it.

The only thing we have is personal taste, you moron.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I hate The Police, but I think they're a good band and that they make good music...can't stand 'em though. They music just seems to scholarly or pretentious. But I wouldn't say they're crap just because I don't like any of their songs.

Is this some kind of a joke?

You hate them, can't stand them, but say they make good music and good songs?

Are you heavily damaged?

Genuine question. Are you mentally ill?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Name some bands you consider to be genuinely good. And don't name drop Zeppelin etc.
There's the KMC's Top 10 Favorite Albums to give you an idea.

Note how almost half of my "favourite" albums just HAPPEN to be half of what I think are the "greatest" albums...which in turn HAPPEN to be a handful of what albums usually appear on the tops of the "greatest albums" lists we see.

Hmmm...could that say anything about how adept I am in recognizing what great music is??? Naaaa...couldn't be.

Ok.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I'd say the top 10 greatest albums of all time (in terms of sheer greatness/importance) are ...

1. Dark Side of the Moon -Floyd
2. Pet Sounds - Beach Boys
3. Rumours - Mac
4. Revolver - Beatles
5. Are You Experienced? - Jimmy
6. Led Zeppelin - Zep
7. Nevermind - Nirvana
8. The Stone Roses - Stone Roses
9. Mezzanine - Massive Attack
10. Rhythm and Stealth - Leftfield

My personal 10 favourite are...

1. Pet Sounds
2. Dark Side of the Moon
3. Rhythm and Stealth
4. Violator - Depeche Mode
5. Strange Days - Doors
6. Heaven or Las Vegas - Cocteau Twins
7. Definitely Maybe - Oasis
8. Mezzanine
9. Maxinque - Tricky
10. Psalms 69 -Ministry

Don't really listen to any of these anymore (and I wouldn't necessarily recommend them all because of some of the content)...but they're all great albums.

What a chicken shit.

"Look, these are albums I'm gonna say are the best, so you all like me. Then I'll list my personal favourites after. Just so you know I'm ignoring my taste and conforming to popular opinion first, because I think it's a fact.".

-AC

What???

Oh my...I just always seperate the 2 that's all. That's what makes sense to me...that's what this thread is about. I'd do that with lots of things. Although when it comes to paintings and such, I can honestly say I don't know what's crap and whats' good...

...BUT, I'm not as ignorant and foolish as probably most of you are as to think I can safely say that this or that painting is good just because I like it, or is crap becasue I think it's crap.

Give it up dude!

Maybe some of you should accept that you might not have a clue of what good music is...that's your problem.

Why? Why do you seperate them? So you will look like you know what "good" music is in the eyes of the general public?

Why aren't you comfortable enough with your own taste to say: "This is what I like, this is good music."?

I know full well it makes sense to you, but you're wrong. Many times over I have proven that music taste is subjective, and the only defense you have is "Nobody can prove it, but it can be proven I think. I don't know how, though.". You're a cop out.

-AC

You're truly hopeless. You haven't proven anything except...well...

That's quite an assumption you made about my taste with those albums. If you read at the bottom I said they're all great albums.

I like ALL those albums. I've owned ALL those albums. Some just happen to be closer to my heart than others...just because they're closer to my heart doesn't mean I should stand up and say...'I love this album...and I don't care whether anyone thinks it's a great album or not. I love it and it's great!!!"

You use that same "conforming to the general public" logic in a bunch of these threads. Maybe I don't blame you becasue I agree there are critics and fans alike that do that and it's really annoying. But sorry...you got the wrong guy if you're suggesting you've figured me out and that's GOTTA be what I'm doing. wt...???

Just relax dude. You don't get it. It's pointless going on. I've offered a plethora of analogies and humurous comparisons to help you understand.

I'd have to think after so much explanation that you're just in denial at this point, as most people are who don't get this line of thinking.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You're truly hopeless. You haven't proven anything except...well...

That you are wrong, indeed. That's all I need to prove. Not just me, others too.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES

Hmmm...could that say anything about how adept I am in recognizing what great music is??? Naaaa...couldn't be.

All it says is that you have the same tastes as other people. Our opinions don't impact a band's worth, like I said before. KMC is no ruling class on music, either.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES


Maybe some of you should accept that you might not have a clue of what good music is...that's your problem.

I've been as cordial as I can be, but your being really ****ing stubborn.

WHAT'S GOOD IS AN OPINION. Just because what YOU *think* is good doesn't fit our criteria doesn't mean our opinions are wrong. Not that anyone should have to justify themselves to you, or anyone else, still we've gone to those lengths, only to have them go in one ear and out of the other.

Just leave it alone. Have your own opinion, and keep it to yourself.

Music is subjective and objective. Tastes aren't. End of story.

?
Originally posted by The Core
Music is subjective and objective.
So you more or less agree.
Originally posted by The Core
Tastes aren't. End of story.
Of course tastes aren't. What?
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
when it comes to paintings and such, I can honestly say I don't know what's crap and whats' good...

...BUT, I'm not as ignorant and foolish as probably most of you are as to think I can safely say that this or that painting is good just because I like it, or is crap becasue I think it's crap.
Dunno if you missed this part of that post you quoted. Pretty much says it all.

regardless, there is still "good taste" and "bad taste". otherwise everyone and their mother would be a critic.

i'm actually surprised nobody's mentioned criticism. it's a field and profession that wouldn't exist if taste and such were totally subjective.

Exactly. And here's some criticism of music in response to you saying music has a "defined set of aesthetic perimeters"...

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I admit I like a couple Backstreet Boys songs from the 90s...no real reason why...just do...the same reason I like blondes over brunettes. But I can also admit that these songs are utter crap...

...they lack soul, they're contrived, they're shallow, purposely marketed, overly-polished, unoriginal, unsubstantial, and I gurantee you they will not stand the test of time.
BUT...even from my 1st post I said...
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
what if I take a band like Stone Temple Pilots and weigh them up against Nirvana, (although I personally have my own opinion as to which one is better...and I think it's no contest) it'd be kinda hard to make a case for which one is best because I don't think either are crap.
It's amazing people aren't getting this.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Dunno if you missed this part of that post you quoted. Pretty much says it all.

You DO know what's crap and what's good TO YOU. You can see two paintings and think one is crap and one is great. What are you talking about?

Are you referring to SKILL rather than preference? Technical musical ability rather than just liking the music? What are you on about? You must be, because you're making no sense.

You CAN say it's good if you think it is, or bad if you think it is, because nobody is assuming that you are applying that to them. It's about what YOU think. There is no set quality parameter.

Originally posted by manorastroman
regardless, there is still "good taste" and "bad taste". otherwise everyone and their mother would be a critic.

Yes, the concepts and ideas of good taste and bad taste exist, but the bands that fall under either catagory are not preset, by anybody. It's up to you who you put in there and where.

We're all critics. Every time you judge an album, you're critiquing it.

Just because somebody does it for a profession, it doesn't make their words factual or mean they have more knowledge.

Originally posted by manorastroman
i'm actually surprised nobody's mentioned criticism. it's a field and profession that wouldn't exist if taste and such were totally subjective.

Of course it would. Taste is totally subjective, 100% totally subjective. Movies, music, books, every piece of art...taste is subjective.

The only area music is OBJECTIVE in is if you are judging instrumental talent or musical ability, because that requires skill, skill is measureable and you can't PREFER who is better at something.

Music that you listen to is subjective. Totally and completely. Critics existing doesn't change that. Criticisms, published or not, are still opinions. You are incapable of differentiating between the concept of opinions not being equal, and subjectivity being non-existent.

A critic who knows shitloads about music has a more credible opinion than someone who just watches TRL, but that critic's opinion is no closer to being RIGHT than the TRL fan's opinion when it comes to what music they like.

It's simple.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
what if I take a band like Stone Temple Pilots and weigh them up against Nirvana, (although I personally have my own opinion as to which one is better...and I think it's no contest) it'd be kinda hard to make a case for which one is best because I don't think either are crap.

Read that shit and tell me you honestly think you're making credible points.

You hate The Police but think they're a great band who make good music, you have an opinion on which band is better between STP and Nirvana, but you consider it a no contest...

You "like" The Backstreet Boys, but you call them utter crap.

Are you a retard?

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
It's amazing people aren't getting this.

I get exactly what you're saying, it's just phenomenally stupid.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You hate The Police but think they're a great band who make good music, you have an opinion on which band is better between STP and Nirvana, but you consider it a no contest...

You "like" The Backstreet Boys, but you call them utter crap.

Are you a retard?

-AC


It's official...he doesn't get it.

No clue.

Clealry and absolutely oblivious to this kind of thinking.

Wouldn't know where to start.

It's as foreign a concept to him as Paris Hilton vacationing in a monastery.

I do, actually.

You see, the problem with your argument is that you assume there is some mythical way of factually gauging which taste is better, despite admitting you don't know how or why it would be possible (It's not), and admitting that nobody can do it.

If you accept this and realise that outside of proveable areas, nothing you say is anything close to a factual statement, you will see why you are wrong.

By saying a painting is good or crap, you are simply expressing your opinion. You aren't standing there saying there was no skill involved, you aren't demeaning the painter him/herself, you are simply saying you dislike what he/she has produced, which is your right.

Someone else may disagree and say they like it.

Just like music.

That's how it is, that is a fact. You cannot oppose fact.

-AC

Do we have a life?

Originally posted by manorastroman
regardless, there is still "good taste" and "bad taste". otherwise everyone and their mother would be a critic.

i'm actually surprised nobody's mentioned criticism. it's a field and profession that wouldn't exist if taste and such were totally subjective.

People have no clue what they are talking about, in this thread.

Mainly one person actually, although not the above-quoted poster.

Actually, he knows exactly what he's talking about. Maybe you should read some of his other posts to understand the discussion better.

As for The Core (which is who I think you have in mind)...he's pretty darn close. You and AC seem like you're out of it completely me thinks...sorry.

Or maybe you're just agreeing with idiots that are...idiots.

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
People have no clue what they are talking about, in this thread.

Mainly one person actually, although not the above-quoted poster.

Is it....is it you?

Because that would be funny.

Originally posted by BackFire
Is it....is it you?

Because that would be funny.

Fairly.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Actually, he knows exactly what he's talking about. Maybe you should read some of his other posts to understand the discussion better.

As for The Core (which is who I think you have in mind)...he's pretty darn close. You and AC seem like you're out of it completely me thinks...sorry.

Out of what? Your argument consists of what, 'there's good and shit music, because there is, although I can't prove it, but people say it, I like bands, who aren't good, are shit, good, music is good and shit, I like them are shitgood shit good'.

You have literally made zero sense, and then have the audacity to point out that people aren't as senseless as you as if it casts a bad light on their knowledge.

What is your argument? Music can be qualitatively assessed, but we can't do it?

Not very impressive, that.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Out of what? Your argument consists of what, 'there's good and shit music, because there is, although I can't prove it, but people say it, I like bands, who aren't good, are shit, good, music is good and shit, I like them are shitgood shit good'.


That's awesome.

Kudos!

There was more to his post, try replying to that.

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
What is your argument? Music can be qualitatively assessed, but we can't do it?
Exactly.

This is the part where I say..."some of you don't understand this concept because you're probably think truth is subjective"

Then you say..."WHAT? That's ridiculous. Truth IS subjective!"

And then I say..."You're dead wrong. And that's why you can't even understand why I'm able to say I like certain music but then state that it's in fact bad. It's cause it is. That's the truth"

Then you say..."You're an idiot"

Then I don't say "no, you're an idiot", but instead I say "maybe you just aren't able to grasp why it's true that the Backstreet Boys suck. Not all of us are good at doing that. If we were, they wouldn't have sold millions of records."

Then you realize I have a point but immediately discard it from your mind and go back to posting pretty much the same variation of your argument again.


...WOW, I just saved us all like 10 posts!

Here's a thought....we'll see if you get it.

There's a lot of music out there that's just crap...and a big reason for this is because there are tons of artists out there that think exactly the same way some of you do....And if they like the music they've made...then who's to say it's not good...right? Who's to say? Huh?

I write music all the time. I'll come up with a tune one morning, and I'll be totally into it for the rest of the day, but then I'll say... "even though I kinda like this, it's just not that good. It sounds kinds contrived or whatever". Maybe I'll keep it, or maybe I'll chuck it.

Now I have no problems with people recording whatever music they want, and it's fine to like your own music and want to share that with others, but don't think for a second that just because you like something you wrote that it's actually good...

...And as a result, we get freakin' Nickleback.

A band who haven't the foggiest idea of how bad their music IN FACT is. And RIGHT HERE is where people get sensitive about subjectivity...and say "if I like Nickleback, then that means I'm listening too bad music. Well that can't be, I'm smarter than that!"

Who cares. Join the club. That's fine.

But...again...I'm sure some of you don't undertand what's being said here.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Then you say..."WHAT? That's ridiculous. Truth IS subjective!"

No, that proves that you don't read a word anybody says.

The truth is not subjective, fact is truth, therefore...taste is not objective, as it's not true that one piece of music is factually better than another.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
There's a lot of music out there that's just crap...and a big reason for this is because there are tons of artists out there that think exactly the same way some of you do....And if they like the music they've made...then who's to say it's not good...right? Who's to say? Huh?

Anyone has the right to say it's not good, but that would be their opinion, just like the guy who wrote it would have the opinion that it's good.

It's all about opinion.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Now I have no problems with people recording whatever music they want, and it's fine to like your own music and want to share that with others, but don't think for a second that just because you like something you wrote that it's actually good...

Who the f*ck is saying that liking something makes it definitely, factually good? Nobody. I'm saying that me liking it means it's good to me, not to everyone else. If I listen to a song, or make something myself and think or say "This is really good!", I'm not saying that factually, I'm not saying it in a way that forces my opinion on you, because I cannot do that. I factually cannot, like you cannot.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
...And as a result, we get freakin' Nickleback.

I think Nickleback are shit, so do you, but neither of us are factually correct, just like Nickleback aren't factually correct for saying their own music is good.

It's good to them, shit to us. It's SUBJECTIVE. What part of this are you not getting?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
A band who haven't the foggiest idea of how bad their music IN FACT is. And RIGHT HERE is where people get sensitive about subjectivity...and say "if I like Nickleback, then that means I'm listening too bad music. Well that can't be, I'm smarter than that!"

People who admit they listen to bad music are idiots. Nobody listens to music they hate or dislike, everybody likes the music they continually listen to or they wouldn't listen to it. It defies sense and logic to suggest absolutely anything else.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Who cares. Join the club. That's fine.

But...again...I'm sure some of you don't undertand what's being said here.

You're a fool with a very stupid argument, one that is undeniably false and wrong, yet you keep pushing it because you're an idiot.

-AC

You are all over the place!!!

Almost every point you made in that last post didn't have any bearing on what I said.

Of course TASTE is subjective. Of course nobody listens to music they HATE. What are you on about? Are you joking?

People like what they like...and that's fine in every way.

But I think it's possible to like something that's TRULY crap.

You don't. You don't even get the concept...and I've even explained why you don't get the concept, but you don't get that either.

That's where we differ.

Don't complicate things any more than that.

In essence what you're saying is, I couldn't make bad music even if I wanted to. I guarantee that if I put my mind to it, I could make music so bad that NOBODY in the world would like...in fact, it would make people cover their ears and run away. I really think I could make music that is TRULY bad if I tried.

With your logic though, there's no way I could..."becasue there is no good or bad...uuuuuuuuuuuh. It's all a matter of taste...yeah"


And with that, I'm off...

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
But I think it's possible to like something that's TRULY crap.

From what perspective though? It's possible for people to listen to music that I think is utter crap, but that doesn't factually mean the music itself is utter crap. It just means I think it is.

It doesn't mean it's good cos they like it, it means they think it is.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You don't. You don't even get the concept...and I've even explained why you don't get the concept, but you don't get that either.

Stop telling me I don't get it, I get everything you're saying, you just don't make any sense and you ignore everything that is being said.

I do believe it's possible, but not factually. I think Lily Allen is utter crap, but you don't, do you? It's crap to me, not to you.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
In essence what you're saying is, I couldn't even make bad music if I wanted to. i guarantee that if I put my mind to it, that I could make music that NOBODY in the world would like...in fact, it would make people cover their ears or run away.

You can't make a guarantee that covers many billions of people. The sheer audacity of that claim is sickening.

And no, that's not what I'm saying. You may write a song you end up hating, but that doesn't mean it's bad to everyone.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I think I could make music that's TRULY bad if I tried. With your logic, there's no way I could..."becasue there is no good or bad...uuuuuuuuuuuh"

For crying out loud.

THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE good or bad, there is only SUBJECTIVE good and bad.

THAT is what I'm saying. You could make music that you thought was truly bad, I'm sure. You could make music that lots of people hated, but you cannot guarantee everybody would, because it's subjective.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You're right. Maybe I should be embarassed because I'm belaboring a point and making a complete mockery of my very own argument, and could be leading people that already aren't getting it into thinking it's totally ridiculous.

Wait a sec...who cares. It's fun as hell!

Oh, I get it...You're being embarrassing because you're embarrassing. Nice. Funny. Sofistamakated.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Speaking of embarassing...



Good one Ya Krunk'd!

And I'm not laughing at you for syaing what you just did. I think it's cool. But in the context of your "embarrasing" comment it's pretty darn funny.

What I posted there really is a fact. No doubt about it, so don't speak; you know what I'm saying.

How does one prove - as in factually prove - that something is crap?

They don't, hence the point.

-AC

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
What I posted there really is a fact. No doubt about it, so don't speak; you know what I'm saying.
Hey, no arguments here...

Originally posted by Lana
How does one prove - as in factually prove - that something is crap?
I don't claim to know that...but it's funny how you know stuff is crap, isn't it?

BTW, I checked out your stuff 'casue your sig looked cool.

You say you're a "self-proclaimed genius"...do you know what most people would say to that?

But hey, for all I know you might very well be. I think your stuff absolutely rocks btw, but I honetsly don't know enough or have a good enough grasp on what is good or bad visual art to suggest whether or not you are a genius.

But I got no problems with you thinking you are...and maybe you're smart enough and talented enough to know that it's true.


Keep up the good work.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I don't claim to know that...but it's funny how you know stuff is crap, isn't it?

BTW, I checked out your stuff 'casue your sig looked cool.

You say you're a "self-proclaimed genius"...do you know what most people would say to that?

But hey, for all I know you might very well be. I think your stuff absolutely rocks btw, but I honetsly don't know enough or have a good enough grasp on what is good or bad visual art to suggest whether or not you are a genius.

But I got no problems with you thinking you are...and maybe you're smart enough and talented enough to know that it's true.


Keep up the good work.

Grow a pair, that's my advice to you.

She doesn't know what is FACTUALLY CRAP, she knows what she thinks is crap. WHAT PART OF THAT are you not understanding?

Seriously. Tell me what you are finding so hard to grasp.

-AC

Originally posted by Lana
How does one prove - as in factually prove - that something is crap?

Compare color and smell. If it stinks and is brown, well...you know.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Grow a pair, that's my advice to you.

She doesn't know what is FACTUALLY CRAP, she knows what she thinks is crap. WHAT PART OF THAT are you not understanding?
...I don't understand why it bothers you so much that I disagree with you about things not being objectively good or bad. You think they aren't, I think they are. Gimme a break. What she thinks is crap, might in fact be crap...and that's regardless of her opinion.

She's probably seen hundreds of pieces of art that she thinks are crap, that actually ARE crap. But like myself, she probably couldn't prove it to you...but just because you can't prove something to be true doesn't mean it's not true in reality. I don't think that concept makes sense to you...that's why you keep arguing the same point..."just cause you THINK so, doesn't mean...blah blah bah"

I get your point dude...it's not that deep. She might not KNOW it's crap, as in she's got evidence that points to truth in knowledge...but...she knows.

Maybe this statement will make things easier on you...

- I can't PROVE that Brittney Spears is factually crap, and I don't KNOW that she is crap, I just THINK she's crap...but...she IS CRAP!

Originally posted by BackFire
Compare color and smell. If it stinks and is brown, well...you know.

Hahaha! Brilliant!

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Maybe this statement will make things easier on you...

- I can't PROVE that Brittney Spears is factually crap, and I don't KNOW that she is crap, I just THINK she's crap...but...she IS CRAP!

You're like a retarded goldfish with no eyes. Fact.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
...I don't understand why it bothers you so much that I disagree with you about things not being objectively good or bad. You think they aren't, I think they are. Gimme a break. What she thinks is crap, might in fact be crap...and that's regardless of her opinion.

You are quite an amazing idiot.

You think something can be 'crap', in spite of opinion?

Define 'crap', then. At least have some basis for what you are saying.

Define 'crap', and then apply the criteria to a piece of music, in a way that no-one's opinion can refute.

Or, just keep posting the same point and claiming no-one gets it.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES

- I can't PROVE that Brittney Spears is factually crap, and I don't KNOW that she is crap, I just THINK she's crap...but...she IS CRAP!

Hahahahaha. I get it. You're just pretending to be single-celled.

You really know that that is the most impressively faecal comment of all time, and you are trying to entertain us all.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
What she thinks is crap, might in fact be crap...and that's regardless of her opinion.

Nothing pertaining to art can be factual or "in fact", because there's no means by which to measure it. It was never intended for you to critique, given it's a piece of personal expression. You can't hold a public opinion in higher regard than personal conviction, just because more people believe it to be so.



You can't prove an opinion pertaining to something that epitomizes subjectivity, simple as that. It doesn't make any sense, because it can't be done. Perception can't reflect a collective reality. If that were the case, it wouldn't be a perception, now would it? You're just incredible naive to think you can prove an opinion, singular or collective/popular.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I don't claim to know that...but it's funny how you know stuff is crap, isn't it?

BTW, I checked out your stuff 'casue your sig looked cool.

You say you're a "self-proclaimed genius"...do you know what most people would say to that?

But hey, for all I know you might very well be. I think your stuff absolutely rocks btw, but I honetsly don't know enough or have a good enough grasp on what is good or bad visual art to suggest whether or not you are a genius.

But I got no problems with you thinking you are...and maybe you're smart enough and talented enough to know that it's true.


Keep up the good work.

Right, here we go.

Okay. You say you don't know how to prove it, but it's true. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

I don't claim to know that something is crap. I think a lot of things are, but does that make it so? No, because that's my opinion. Opinion.

There is no such thing as good or bad visual art. There can be things that many people think to be good, and things that many people think to be bad - but that does not make the good good and the bad bad. It just means that that's the widely held opinion on something.

Now, there is a such thing as technical skill, and this CAN be measured. However, someone can master all the techniques and be incredibly skilled...and this STILL wouldn't necessarily make them a good artist or musicisian or what have you. You can have all the skill and talent in the world, but people can still dislike what you make. But that doesn't make you crap, nor does it make you good just because you have the skill. Just because someone looks at or listens to something and goes "Oh, that's garbage" or "Oh, that's great" does not make it factually so, because that is simply nothing but their opinion.

Now, if you want to prove something to be true, you need to provide cold, hard evidence. And a hell of a lot of it. Opinions are not evidence, they are opinion. Technical still could be evidence, but as everyone knows, being skilled does not necessarily mean you will create something that everyone will think to be good. So unless you can provide this evidence - and actual evidence; opinion polls and top 10 lists are nothing but opinions and prove nothing - you cannot prove anything to be fact.

Seriously. Take a look at science and how hard it is for something to be declared fact there. And take note of the fact that it's always with the caveat that even though evidence has shown this to be true, there is still a small chance that it might not be.

Oh, and the self-proclaimed genius thing? That's been there as long as I've been on the site. Friend of mine set that years ago and I left it because I found it amusing. Doesn't necessarily mean a damn thing.

You cannot prove that something is shit, public opinion is the best way of determining how good art is. But - Britney Spears doesn't write her own songs thus she isn't an artist.

She still crafted her voice, and singing is art. I mean, even if she moans to mimic a whore, that's art. It's an expression.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You think they aren't, I think they are. Gimme a break.

Precisely the point. It's subjective. Nobody here is giving you the right of your argument having any credibility because we all know you are factually incorrect, except for the one idiot.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I can't PROVE that Brittney Spears is factually crap, and I don't KNOW that she is crap, I just THINK she's crap...but...she IS CRAP!

That's just idiotic though.

Originally posted by Lana
Right, here we go.

Okay. You say you don't know how to prove it, but it's true. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

I don't claim to know that something is crap. I think a lot of things are, but does that make it so? No, because that's my opinion. Opinion.

There is no such thing as good or bad visual art. There can be things that many people think to be good, and things that many people think to be bad - but that does not make the good good and the bad bad. It just means that that's the widely held opinion on something.

Now, there is a such thing as technical skill, and this CAN be measured. However, someone can master all the techniques and be incredibly skilled...and this STILL wouldn't necessarily make them a good artist or musicisian or what have you. You can have all the skill and talent in the world, but people can still dislike what you make. But that doesn't make you crap, nor does it make you good just because you have the skill. Just because someone looks at or listens to something and goes "Oh, that's garbage" or "Oh, that's great" does not make it factually so, because that is simply nothing but their opinion.

Now, if you want to prove something to be true, you need to provide cold, hard evidence. And a hell of a lot of it. Opinions are not evidence, they are opinion. Technical still could be evidence, but as everyone knows, being skilled does not necessarily mean you will create something that everyone will think to be good. So unless you can provide this evidence - and actual evidence; opinion polls and top 10 lists are nothing but opinions and prove nothing - you cannot prove anything to be fact.

Which is what I've been saying this whole time.

-AC

Wawawa... Hilarious.

It's amazing how many arguments are constantly "You can't prove it, you can't prove it..." because proof is all your minds know how to go by. You aren't able to grasp the concept that things might truly exist beyond proof, and find reason to believe they are in fact true...ya I'm sure you don't get that.

And it's incredible that I've admitted and explained over and again how I can't prove it...but still, amazingly the SAME arguments...Way to go!

All I can do is give a list of a set of parameters to go by in figuring out (but not proving) good vs. crap music.

I've done that

I can give countless analogies...

I've done that

And I can elaborate by showing how personal insecurites (for musicians and fans alike) are a barrier for understanding such a concept...

Done that

No surprise the "one idiot" gets it, because from the get go he's recognized that sensitivity is what's stopping people from admitting they like CRAP.

But you guys...the same lame argument.

(And if you want me to quote the best of these above points for you, I gladly will...becasue the good bunch of you are obviously just dropping in and not hearing these points)

Great. Have a good life thinking that just because you like something that it's good...you're selling yourselves short into undertanding the complexities of art in favor of making yoursleves feel comfortable in your limited beliefs.

And if you're a musician, don't be surprised that people laugh at you the same way Nickleback gets laughed at because you don't recognize your music's crap.

Ooooo that felt good.

And before you reply, try actually reading what I just said!!!

Once upon a time there was a certan standard one had to reach to be taken seriously, be it literature, art, music, preforming arts - that is kind of disolved now.

We have some many genre's of music today, that crapness tends to correlate with your own liking.

However, if what you mean is, that in a certain genere of music, certain people do not reach standards which are kept by other artists and thus are considered crap.
For example, composers of classical music, some 400 years ago, had to not be crap to be taken seriously - but i am positive there were people who still disliked their music.

Or even literature - now our book shops are overcrowded with, what I would call utter shite of celebrities writing their biography with nothing remortely interesting to say - that i would argue is crap beyond any shadow of a doubt - but I bet you, there are some out there who will run to buy a autobiography of a celebrity whos life is more boring then thers.

While i do see where you are coming from, I doubt there will be somehing, which will be shite for everyone. On the other hand, numerous failed bands and artists could testify differently.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
It's amazing how many arguments are constantly "You can't prove it, you can't prove it..." because proof is all your minds know how to go by. You aren't able to grasp the concept that things might truly exist beyond proof, and find reason to believe they are in fact true...ya I'm sure you don't get that.

When you are sitting there speaking about proving something subjective is objective, yes, proof is ultimately required to prove your point.

Many people here have proven that you are definitely and factually incorrect and stupid in your approach and argument. You, in turn, reply by saying we're not reading or we don't get it. Failing to accept the fact that you are wrong and the possibility that we all do get it, we just think you're an idiot.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
And it's incredible that I've admitted and explained over and again how I can't prove it...but still, amazingly the SAME arguments...Way to go!

Then stop claiming there is anything that is objectively crap. If you can't prove it, stop saying it.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
All I can do is give a list of a set of parameters to go by in figuring out (but not proving) good vs. crap music.

Yes, that's called you showing us how you judge good and crap. I could do the same, anyone could.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I've done that

Yes, hence why it's subjective.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I can give countless analogies...

Which I have used against you.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I've done that

As above.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
And I can elaborate by showing how personal insecurites (for musicians and fans alike) are a barrier for understanding such a concept...

Done that

That's just presumptuous bullcrap, because you are forcing the belief that people will hide the fact that they believe something is undeniably crap, instead of accepting that there is no undeniable crap or undeniable good.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
No surprise the "one idiot" gets it, because from the get go he's recognized that sensitivity is what's stopping people from admitting they like CRAP.

Idiocy is what's stopping YOU from admitting that "crap" is subjective. You admitting you like crap music is retarded, it's not gutsy. It's pathetic, not honourable.

You don't like crap music, you like music that you think is good and that you enjoy listening to. You like The Backstreet Boys, you do. It's no good saying you enjoy their songs but think their music is crap, that's bullshit. That's you being insecure and not having the guts to say "I like them, I think they're good.".

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
But you guys...the same lame argument.

(And if you want me to quote the best of these above points for you, I gladly will...becasue the good bunch of you are obviously just dropping in and not hearing these points)

Oh shut up. You're the one who keeps telling us to read your post without reading anything we've said, and besides, YOU are fighting a losing battle, because you are factually and undeniably wrong.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Great. Have a good life thinking that just because you like something that it's good...you're selling yourselves short into undertanding the complexities of art in favor of making yoursleves feel comfortable in your limited beliefs.

Stop telling me I'm not reading your posts when you continually miss my point.

For the millionth time, if I like something; It's good...TO ME. That doesn't mean everybody thinks it's good or that it's factually good or bad. Are you doing this on purpose just because you've been destroyed and lack the ability to bail out?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
And if you're a musician, don't be surprised that people laugh at you the same way Nickleback gets laughed at because you don't recognize your music's crap.

Nickleback don't get laughed at by their fans who think their music is good. That doesn't mean it's good, it means they think it is. It doesn't mean it's crap just because we think it is.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Ooooo that felt good.

Was there any need to the homo-erotic release? Really?

-AC

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Once upon a time there was a certan standard one had to reach to be taken seriously, be it literature, art, music, preforming arts - that is kind of disolved now.

When do you suppose this standard existed? I'm curious.

Rick Astley was taken seriously by people who liked his music.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
While i do see where you are coming from, I doubt there will be somehing, which will be shite for everyone.

Everyone sees where he's coming from on a base level. Some things are obviously crap to a music fan, but there's a difference between being obviously crap and factually crap. Obviously crap being Britney Spears, but she's not factual crap, and it's not obvious to everyone.

-AC

Still...clueless.

Who care's if it's not obvious to everyone. Who cares if her fans like her or Nickleback's fans like them. People like crap!!!!! You like crap!!!! And you or others just might not have the ability to determine that it's actually crap. Don't ourself that that you or anyone aren't qualified to detect that something sucks..which a lot of stuff does.

And even if you could deermine it...it'd be alright to like the music you like.

You're too chicken to admit you like crap, and you're to afraid of looking bad by saying others do...but once (if ever) you realize that it's just natural that you like crap (and that it is INDEED crap you like) then you've taken the next step in understanding the big picture of objectivity in good and bad music.

Believe me, I'm just trying to help you...

No...I'm just offering you the truth.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Still...clueless.

Who care's if it's not obvious to everyone. Who cares if her fans like her or Nickleback's fans like them. People like crap!!!!! You like crap!!!! And you or others just might not have the ability to determine that. And even if you could deermine it...it'd be alright to lole the music you like.

You're too chicken to admit you like crap, and you're to afraid of looking bad by saying others do...but once (if ever) you realize that it's just natural that you like crap (and that it is INDEED crap you like) then you've taken the next step in understanding the big picture of objectivity in good and bad music.

Believe me, I'm just trying to help you...

No...I'm just offering you the truth.

Actually the biggest idiot on this music forum.

I'm not too chicken to admit you will undoubtedly think I like crap, or that anyone could think my bands and taste are/is crap. I don't like crap, because I don't listen to music I think is crap, therefore...I will never try to admit that it's crap if I don't believe it is, just to appeal to you.

YOU are too afraid to admit that you think The Backstreet Boys are good, it's the exact opposite. I don't care what anybody thinks of me or my taste because I like everything I listen to. None of it is objectively crap, none of it is objectively good, because it doesn't need to be. All it needs to be, to fit with my taste, is good TO ME.

It's retarded to say you like crap music. You don't like anything crap to YOU, everything you listen to, you like, or you wouldn't listen to it. Whether or not I think it's crap doesn't matter, my opinion doesn't/shouldn't matter to you.

You are just saying The Backstreet Boys are crap because you think that's what a smart music fan should do, because you believe smart music fans wouldn't like them. You do like them, so therefore you must logically be saying they are crap to make people still believe you're smart in perception and distinguishing between things.

You've been figured out, at least on that level, and I don't see any reason for you to continue embarassing yourself further.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's retarded to say you like crap music. You don't like anything crap to YOU, everything you listen to, you like, or you wouldn't listen to it.
You're truly lost. Man i'm glad I'm not as shortsighted as you. But it's ok...it's seems you're in "good" company.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
YOU are too afraid to admit that you think The Backstreet Boys are good
I'd never do that. They're horrible...but I've liked them on the rare occasion.

Oh my. Man...you must have some serious inner conflict (or otherwise denial) not being able to admit things to yourslef all the time. Not cool.

For example, "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones (one of my top 10 FAVOURITE all time films) is an atrocity in filmaking. It fails on so many levels. But I love it, and I'm fine with walking that line of liking what is truly a horrible piece of movie making. And it's because I can recognize I'm human and I really have no control over what I like and don't like...(more often than not though, I tend to like stuff that just happens to be a highly respected piece of work).

You wouldn't even know where to begin to make statements like these.

Honestly, your way of thinking is truly old and outdated. You're kind are becoming dinasours in this realm of discernment.

Do yourself(ves) a favour...grab a clue! (and there's lots of them here).