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

There are people who maintain that Ashlee Simpson's music is ACTUALLY as good as Jimi Hendrix's music…and think that I’m crazy for thinking her music’s actually crap. Well…I got a problem with that.

…

Upon request from the last thread where this was discussed, I have put together my argument regarding crap music.

Now it’s long, but I challenge people who have disagreed with me (like the 17 in that last poll) to read this. I also think those who have agreed with me (like the 6 people in the last poll) will find the elaboration supports the argument well…that there is crap music out there.

Now this is all stuff I’ve said before…from my basic argument to my philosophy behind it…but I have elaborated on each of the points to clear up any misunderstandings.

A few things though that I want to bring to your attention…

If you’re gonna make points…saying stuff like “you’re being an idiot” isn’t productive. I have not at all been acting like an idiot in the threads where this has recently been discussed over the past couple weeks…. I could show you people who are truly acting like idiots if you want. I have just simply been supporting my argument. If it’s me not agreeing with you it’s because I see things one way and you see them another…don’t get that confused with acting like an idiot.

Also, there was one person in particular that kept insisting “you just don’t wanna accept you’re wrong”. I wouldn’t have spent the time and energy I did writing this if it was just about not wanting to accept I’m wrong.

And finally, just because I’ve simply been arguing what I believe in doesn’t mean I should “apologize for being a fool” as someone who had just stepped into the argument had said. It’s silly to apologize ‘cause I like to talk about what I believe…and I do this in this case because I think my argument is productive, thought-proving, and worthwhile…and I never adamantly argue something if I don’t think this is the case.

Comments like that or just simply saying “this is the biggest piece of…blah, blah, blah” and that’s all, don’t offer anything, and I would have to question if you’re actually reading the posts.

So again, if you think I’m crazy for thinking Ashlee Simpson’s music is actually crap…then go for it…read this…and tell me what’s up.

That’s it…enjoy.

My argument…

There’s 2 major parts here…in part 1 I’m just gonna say what I’m arguing and give some explanation as to why…and then in part 2 I’m gonna talk about the philosophy behind what I mean when I propose this argument. So here goes…

There is truly crap music and truly non-crap music. I say Ashlee Simpson is crap, and Jimi Hendrix is not crap. I think with an example like Ashlee Simpson, it’s pretty easy to say this (even though I’ve admitted I can’t PROVE it). I’ve also said it wouldn’t be easy to say that The Rolling Stones are better than The Beatles, or Nirvana are better than The Beatles, or Led Zeppelin are better than The Beatles. When it comes to Ashlee Simpson and saying she’s crap, I think it’s easy because of how people with informed opinions on music have LARGELY described Ashlee Simpson’s music…in comparison say to how they have LARGELY described Jimi Hendrix’s music. Again, not PROVING anything.

Now, there are some things that are commonly associated with certain artists or music that people with informed opinions LARGELY consider crap. They say things like, “the music is contrived, it’s in no way innovative, it has no substance, it has no emotion, it lacks depth, the lyrics are cheesy, it has no soul, etc…” So these are commonly the things that are associated with certain artists and music which (often times), a large majority of people with informed opinions uniformly point to and say are crap. A large majority have done this with Ashlee Simpson’s music by using these determining factors.

Now, some of you will say…“well, it’s just opinion when people determine these things like cheesy lyrics or contrived melodies”…“and opinion doesn’t really mean anything, because who’s to say you’re right and I’m wrong” To that, I have a few things to say:

1) An opinion of someone who isn’t really into music…say someone who might just listen to music in his car on his way to work, or buy the odd CD/download the odd song (and there are people in the world like that), I’d say is different from someone who has an informed opinion on music. Now by informed opinion I mean, someone who might work for a major music magazine, who has listened to (or in the least heard of) the major music acts in popular music throughout the years, who is also familiar with music from different cultures or periods even if that’s not his area of expertise…(he’d know of Beethoven for example), who has a job where he critiques music (and hears a lot of other critiques of music), who might very well also be musically inclined…which a lot are (meaning he can carry a tune, or maybe play an instrument), and who… most importantly…has a record of condemning a lot of (although not ALL) the same music that a majority of others with informed opinions have condemned…and says it’s crap. And this is something a lot of people with informed opinions on music end up doing - largely agreeing with others who have informed opinions on music on certain things being crap.

I say, there’s a difference in the value of this opinion and how it approaches determining factors in music…but what do I have to back this up? Now, I’m not trying to PROVE it’s a FACT that one’s opinion matters more than another’s ( I don’ think you can actually PROVE that…and I’ve always said this) …I’m just simply supporting what I’ve said. And one reason I’m doing this is partly because people have argued that even though there are those with informed opinions who from time to time largely agree on something being crap…that this doesn’t really mean anything…it’s still “just opinion.”

So, if someone with an uniformed opinion (like the first guy) said to me “I like Ashlee Simpson” (which some people could very well say)…and then said “there’s no way Ashlee Simpson is crap because I, for one, like her”…what I would say is…“don’t you think maybe it’s possible that what you might happen to like, might not be very good?”…“and because you have a very uninformed opinion on music, you just might not recognize certain music is “truly” crap?

To which he might then answer “no”…because why would he admit to liking something that is actually crap (…even though this is something I myself do all the time).

So then I would say…“but what you happen to like is completely arbitrary. If you like the movie Blades of Glory, you like the book The DaVinci Code, and you like Ashlee Simpson more than Jimi Hendrix, then that’s just what you like. It’s what does it for you….it’s what strikes a chord. But what I’m suggesting is, apart from what you happen to just simply like, maybe you don’t have an informed enough opinion to realize that what you like is actually crap. And the reason I’m thinking this is because I often see people who DO have informed opinions who’ll often, and as a majority, consensually end up pointing to a lot of the same artists and saying that they’re crap. Now, I know that doesn’t PROVE anything, but it makes me wonder if there’s any connection between you (and the uninformed opinion you have) saying Ashlee Simpson is not crap, and them (with the informed opinions they have) LARGELY saying Ashlee Simpson is crap.”

As an aside, I’m NOT saying every critic agrees every single time an album ends up largely getting called crap. That’s ridiculous. At the end of the day, everyone’s making a decision…and those decisions will differ…and it’s quite possible that someone with an informed opinion who’s said Ashlee Simpson’s album is crap, will disagree on another occasion and be a minority when some other album is hugely trashed by people with informed opinions (and in this case should maybe consider the possibility that perhaps he’s missing something others with informed opinions have picked up on…and this is something I myself am open to when I give a decision about stuff being good that doesn’t meet the majority of others with informed opinions who say it’s crap). So again, it’ll happen that someone like the second guy I described above might not agree with a majority decision of others with informed opinions when something is largely panned or praised…but MORE OFTEN THAN NOT…and ESPECIALLY when it comes to something that ends up being determined as being “crap”, people with informed opinions (like this guy) will tend to agree with other’s with informed opinions. And there’s ENOUGH OF THEM who’ll tend to LARGELY agree on this stuff on any given occasion, where you’ll end up getting these incidences (like with Ashlee Simpson) where an album is widely panned.

2) A second thing I’d have to say regarding someone who says …“well, it’s just opinion when people determine these things like cheesy lyrics or contrived melodies” is that these informed opinions themselves regarding music, tend to gain more value as they are re-affirmed by others with informed opinions on music….ESPECALLY when considering criteria that suggests crap music…and this can happen very quickly with someone.

Again…a lot of people with informed opinions say Jimi Hendrix isn’t crap. Let’s say one of these people with an informed opinion who heard Jimi Hendrix, thought he was innovative, had soul, was a good instrumentalist, was expressive etc...went on to make the decision that Jimi Hendrix wasn’t crap music. Then he noticed that those very considerations he made and his thoughts on that music were echoed and re-affirmed by many of his other peers with informed opinions on music who also said Jimi Hendrix isn’t crap. So his opinions of what is not crap, and ESPECIALLY the reasons he’s putting forth for them, are quite often in line with a large number of others who have pointed to similar reasons for certain music WIDELY not being considered crap…(like The Beatles, Nirvana, Led Zeppelin). So this guy’s opinion itself is being more refined and gaining more value as OVER and OVER this “consensual understanding” of what isn’t crap is re-affirming the very things he usually says about the stuff that largely ends up not being considered crap. And again, it’s not like he agrees on every single occasion where there is a large agreement on certain music or a certain artist…but he does, on an individual level, gain an understanding (and rightfully so) of the value of his opinions as he starts to realize more and more (and pretty quickly) that the reasons others with informed opinions on music are giving for certain music not being crap, are very much in line with the reasons he (with his informed opinion) gives for the same stuff not being crap (and often for the same stuff as being crap)…you know…like what happens with Ashlee Simpson.

Nothing proven here of course…but how does this happen? How does it actually happen? Hmmmm…

3) My final point about someone saying something like …“well, it’s just opinion…”, or “who’s to say what I like is actually crap?”, is that if this is truly the case (that there is no crap or non-crap music), then it means that you couldn’t possibly make crap music if you tried. After all, there is no “crap” music…right? On the same token though…you couldn’t POSSIBLY, no matter how hard you tried, make good music…That’s kinda tough to swallow…

If someone tried as hard as they could to make music that even they themselves would totally hate (which, let’s say…consisted of recording themselves singing totally of tune for an hour…throwing in the occasional crash symbol every 7 minutes…coming up with the cheesiest lyrics they could think of…blatantly ripping off a melody from a well-known artist…randomly banging on the drums in no particular time structure or rhythm…you get the picture)…then the result of that couldn’t possibly be crap music…according to your argument…that IS what you’re saying. It’s a far-fetched example, but it doesn’t take away from the matter at hand with what you’re actually saying is the case about music, and how it can’t be truly crap…or not crap.

Well I disagree. I think that would be crap music. Sorry. And I think most of you also agree that would be crap music…but wait…how could you agree? Your logic doesn’t let you agree with that…because “it is all just opinion”, “there is no truly crap music”, and “who’s to say I’m right?”

Yeah.

Still though, I couldn’t PROVE this. EVEN IF that piece of music would reflect every single one of those things people with informed opinions most often associate with crap music, and EVEN THOUGH they could overwhelmingly agree that it is truly not a good example of what they hold as decent music…it still could not be crap…because I can’t prove that it is. Ahhhh.

*Well, my response to that (which has to do with part 2…the philosophical part) is, “sure, maybe you can’t PROVE certain things don’t exist…but that doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t…it just means we don’t have any proof”. Much like we don’t have PROOF God exists…so then what…therefore he doesn’t? Is that what you’re saying? He DOES NOT exist because we don’t have proof? That’s a pretty bold statement about God, but also simply about truth. But we’ll get to this stuff shortly.

Back to the last example though, to show how silly I think it is when people say something like this…“I like it…therefore who’s to say it’s not good”. There COULD very well be ONE person that actually likes that music I was just talking about (and claimed was truly crap). So again, if they like it…who’s to say it’s crap…right? People say this all the time.

But what’s even being said there?

There’s only 4 real possibilities surrounding this:

Possibility A). There IS truly crap and non-crap music…and because certain music is truly non-crap it makes people say “I like this music”…(which would then have to mean we would all have to like the same music that’s claimed as being not crap).

Possibility B). Again, there IS truly crap and non-crap music…and when people say “I like this music” it’s not because of whether or not the music itself is crap or non-crap…why they say they like it is just arbitrary…(and this is the one I believe).

Possibility C) There ISN’T truly crap and non-crap music…and when people say “I like this music”, it suggests something about the music itself…(which holds some real contradictions that I‘ll get to in a minute).

And possibility D) There ISN’T truly crap and non-crap music….and when people say “I like this music” it’s not because of whether or not the music itself is crap or non-crap….why they say they like it is just arbitrary…(sorta like possibility B)

So, first with possibility C (where there ISN’T truly crap and non-crap music) …saying “I like this music”, shouldn’t say anything about anything…should it? It can’t…because there is no crap and non-crap music for it to be saying anything about …right?

Possibility A is also just ridiculous.

Possibility B is the one I myself agree with…so therefore I’m guessing the one you all must agree with is the last one…possibility D, which says…when people say “I like this music” it’s not because of whether or not the music itself is crap or non-crap….why they say they like it is just arbitrary.

Now, just as an aside, if I ever hear any you people ever say “I like it…therefore who’s to say it’s crap” (which is an example of the flawed possibility C)...it would be a completely pointless sentence. Like in possibility C, there is an implication in this sentence that “I like…” suggests something about the music itself. But I showed how possibility C is flawed if you believe what you believe about music not being crap or non-crap. All you’re just saying with “I like it…therefore who’s to say it’s crap” is that it appeals to you in the first part of the sentence, and then completely contradicting what you’ve said you believe regarding music in the second part of the sentence.

So since possibility D is what left for you, every time you’ve posted any kind of remark about music or a band you think sucks, or music or a band you think is awesome…what are you even saying? All you COULD be saying is “I really, really like it…or I really, really hate it.”

I’m guessing that’s just bugged a lot of you right now. And the reason it’s bugged a lot of you is because you think you have a good reason for saying “this sucks” or “this freakin’ rules”.

So what…is there good and bad music or isn’t there?

If you’re starting to think there is…then again, be careful with what it means when you say “I like this music” (while agreeing there is truly crap and non-crap music). As I showed in example (A), if you think because certain music’s truly non-crap is WHY you like it, then really, we would all have to like the same music that we consider isn’t crap.

Well that’s silly.

So again, if you’re thinking there’s a good reason for saying “this band sucks” or “this band rules”…then the only other option apart from option (A) when it comes to saying “I like this music”…is option (B). And it says what you like has nothing to really do with what makes music good or not…there’s reasons for that which are separate. What you like it just arbitrary. And this is what I think is the case.

The most important thing then to remember here though is this…you have to admit you can’t possibly know or prove what music is crap or non-crap (because it can’t be proven), so then something you can go by if you believe music can be crap or not is this phenomenon of what I was talking about in the 3 examples regarding people with informed opinions LARGELY panning music they consider crap for many of the same, common reasons…and consider the value in what that’s being said regarding what you believe about music about.

So to sum up this first part of my argument…there’s all those things I showed about informed opinion that we have to consider (no facts, but quite an overwhelming occurrence) while believing in possibility B…and then…there possibility D (since A and C were duds). And what does possibility D say about ANYTHING? “I really, really like it…or I really, really hate it.” That’s all.

So, either that’s all you could really say ever again in your life regarding music (and I’m right in saying this, am I not…check it again), or you can do what I do and say…you know what…there is crap music, ad sure even though I can’t prove it…the fact that so many people with informed opinions about music often and largely point to the same reasons for music that ends up being considered crap, might just say something….as opposed to the alternative which just says “I really, really like this music”.

Yeah.

* Just as a note here, in regards to “taste” and “subjective”…when people say “taste is subjective” (if “taste” means what appeals to you)…well that’s obvious, and I’ve never argued this. Taste (in the sense mentioned above) is subjective because different people are deciding for themselves what appeals to them (and I’ve always separated what appeals to appeal from what the music is). Now, according to you, you can’t say the alternative… “taste is subjective” (if “taste” means your ability to recognize good or bad music), because according to you there is no good or bad to be recognized.

So then when people say “taste is subjective”, what does it (with stance you have with good and bad music) apart from what I just said it does?

Last thing to conclude this first part, I have always said that the band “The Police” aren’t crap…and I HATE The Police…but I would be an idiot to let my feelings and arbitrary likes and dislike get in the way of looking at the great number of redeemable qualities a band like The Police ACTUALLY have (and I’ve never even looked into what’s been said about them…although my impression is that they’ve been well received over the years). On the same token, I’ve admitted to liking a Backstreet Boys song, and lots of other music that most people consider crap. But hey…I just do. Still though, I could go on for hours about how much the Backstreet Boys’ music actually sucks.

Now, I’m not saying this is the case for all of you or making it the core of my argument, but maybe some of you might consider that why you like the music you do, is simply because you do…and consider that because you hate a band, it might not necessarily mean they suck…but that you just hate them. Still though, I think a lot of people get worried about the idea of crap and non-crap music, ‘cause then that would mean if they liked something that ends up getting widely considered crap, it says something about them or their taste…but I don’t even think that’s the case. Aging this isn’t everybody, and I’m not pointing to this as the core of my argument…I just wanted to add it in as something to think about.


INTERMISSION!

Now for part 2, the philosophical part of my argument…

As I said earlier in response to someone saying stuff like “well you can’t PROVE that there’s crap and non-crap music” or “it’s all just opinion”…then sure, I said “you can’t PROVE certain things don’t exist…but that doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t…it just means we don’t have any proof. Much like we don’t have PROOF God exists…so then what…therefore he doesn’t? Is that what you’re saying? He DOES NOT exist because we don’t have proof? That’s a pretty bold statement about God, but also simply about truth.”

So again, I’m saying certain things can be true even though they simply can’t be proven.

In this case, I think there is a truth about music. I think there is truly crap music, and non-crap music. I think that this truth about music either simply just exists, or has been created by a higher power…doesn’t matter…I think it’s there.

The idea is similar to what Plato says about “forms”.

In brief, Plato would argue that the meaning we use when we say “justice”, isn’t really what justice “truly” is”. He says that there is an “ideal form” of “justice” that exists…it exists, apart from what we experience in our world. He says that this cannot be proven, or even necessarily fully grasped, but argues that it simply must exist in reality.

Plato says that the meaning we use when we say “justice” is only just a representation of what is “truly” justice. The only “true” justice can be found in the “ideal form” of “justice”. So, the meaning we use when we say “justice” is only just a representation that’s inadequate

The reason Plato argues this is because, since there has been no example of perfect justice by any nation in the past for us to go by (since nation to nation it varies), then the meaning we use when we say “justice” can then not be perfect…’cause their simply hasn’t been a perfect example of justice to go by to define it as such

So if the meaning we use when we say “justice” can’t be perfect, it then couldn’t be used as a standard to determine something like the difference between…say…a tyrant and a saint (in how “just” they each are).

Now, just as an aside, some of you might be thinking…"who’s to say there’s a difference between a tyrant and a saint in how ‘just’ they each are…it’s all relative”…very much a sort of thing we’ve differed on in the past. This will be addressed in a bit, but for now, I just have to continue with my explanation of how the “ideal form” works.

Plato says that a difference between how “just” a tyrant and a saint are REALLY exists (even if we could never point to what exactly the difference is)…and then, something else HAS TO exist to determine this claim. The only other thing that this thing which “HAS TO exist” could be, would be the “ideal form” of “justice”…which then COULD be used (unlike the imperfect meaning we use for “justice”) as a standard to determine the difference between a tyrant and a saint. Also, because it is then the thing that can point to this difference which is said to be real…then it is real. And as I said earlier, using the “ideal form” of “justice” doesn’t mean we can “point to” what the difference is between a tyrant and a saint in how “just” they each are …it would just simply be able to give us a difference (unlike the imperfect meaning we use for “justice” could), and thus making it real, since it has proven something that is said to be real…a difference.

So…just to be clear…Plato says that the “ideal form” of “justice” HAS TO exist, otherwise a difference between a tyrant and a saint in how “just” they are wouldn’t REALLY exist (because a difference couldn’t be proven…not without the “ideal form” of “justice”). So because the difference between a tyrant and a saint has to REALLY exist (according to Plato), then the “ideal form” of “justice” which proves that difference has to really exist.

And just to quickly make a modern day comparison…if this isn’t the case, then this would mean there wouldn’t be a difference between Hitler and Mother Theresa in how “just” they each are. That’s why an ideal form” of “justice” is said to HAVE TO exist…to show that real difference that is said is there. And again, an “ideal form” doesn’t or isn’t meant to point to what exactly that difference is...but it has to simply exist just to show a difference which is said is really there and must be proven as such.

Now as I said earlier I would address....people might be having a problem with this whole idea that there even is such a thing as a difference between a tyrant and a saint in how “just” they each are…it’s relative. That’s what many of you would be arguing.

There are a lot of people who would argue there’s a difference between a tyrant and a Saint…there’s a lot of people who would argue that there is a good and bad/right and wrong…and I am one of those people. Really, the argument…the whole argument…what this all really comes down to is what we believe regarding universal truths about right and wrong/“just” and “unjust”/crap and non-crap…standards that we can go by to prove a difference that’s being argued is really there. And as was explained, the “ideal form” of something…the perfect standard…is the ONLY thing that could point to this difference.

So here’s the comparison then…much like Plato said there MUST be an “ideal form” of “justice” because there MUST be something to prove the REAL difference that exists between a tyrant and a saint (what the imperfect meaning we use for “justice” couldn’t do), I have said there has to be an “ideal form” of “music”, because something HAS TO be able to prove the REAL difference that exists between Jimi Hendrix’s and Ashlee Simpson’s music in how good/crap it is (which again, is something that simply the imperfect meaning we use for “music” can’t do). Otherwise, there IS no difference between them… and nothing apart from an “ideal form” could point to a difference…which is why I think there has to be an “ideal from”.

Now, in terms of the whole relative thing, I see it as this…it doesn’t matter if Ashlee Simpson says her music’s good. Whether it’s crap or not is a separate issue …that’s how I see it. And relating to the tyrant vs. saint example (where how “just” they each are can be argued as being relative and that there’s not even such a thing as a difference between them), I find it interesting how some people pull the “well, that person might think what they’re doing is ‘just’" card…as if THAT has any value with the matter at hand. Hitler’s actions weren’t ‘just”. I really worry when people suggest that there's actually something to be said about people who think what they're doing is ok because they see it as a good thing. People really confuse "thinking that what you're doing is good" as somehow being on par with “doing good". Well, I say there’s a difference. And because there’s a difference, there has to be an “ideal form” of “justice” to prove such a difference. It doesn’t matter what Hitler simply thought regarding how good his actions were (as he ordered people to be gassed and stuck in ovens). There’s a difference between THAT and what mother Theresa did. And to be clear…on the same token I’d have to say it doesn’t even matter what Mother Theresa thought about how good her actions were. There IS a difference between THOSE actions and Hitler’s. But…according to some of you, it’s all relative…who’s to say there’s a difference.

So just to clarify…saying there IS a difference, there then has to be a standard…one that simply exists…to prove a difference…and that’s where the “ideals forms” of things come in…to prove a difference. It doesn’t matter what Ashlee Simpson thinks regarding how good her music is. There IS a difference between her music and Jimi Hendrix’s regardless of what she thinks…that’s my argument.

Now I just want to tie this all in to the first part of my argument….

There are reasons Hitler’s actions are considered to be bad…and it is because of the many COMMON things a large majority point to and say “this is bad because of this, this, and this”. There are reasons Ashlee Simpson’s music is consider crap…and again, it is because of the many COMMON things a large majority point to and say “this is crap because of this, this, and this”.

So there are determining factors in all of these cases…but remember what I said about opinion and determining factors? So much in the same way I argue that the person who might just listen to music on their way to work or listen to the odd cd COULD very well say “Well…I don’t think Ashlee Simpson’s music is crap”, a Nazi general COULD very well say “Well…I don’t think Hitler is bad”. Those two could each say that.

Hmmm.

Now…in the end…if we are left with a split on whether or not we believe there can REALLY be a difference between good or bad, and REALLY be a difference between a tyrant and a saint, and REALLY be a difference between Jimi Hendrix and Ashlee Simpson (something I say exists and most of you would argue doesn’t because there is no proof), then what exactly is in your corner?

If you’re saying there aren’t these standards that exist because there is no proof and no facts, then as I pointed out earlier you are also really saying something like God (who could be something that creates standards of good and bad/ right and wrong) does not exist…because there is no proof. And I’m NOT saying here that there’s a God that DOES then exist simply because we can’t prove otherwise…I’m just talking about a standard simply existing in reality…as Plato says. It just “is”. But you’re essentially saying is that there is NO God BECAUSE there has to be PROOF of it. Well, that’s pretty bold. You ARE really saying that with this argument. And you are also saying all that other stuff…Ashlee Simpson’s music IS just as good as Jimi Hendrix’s (because there REALLY is no difference there), Hitler IS just as good and “just” a person as Mother Theresa (because there REALLY is no difference there), etc…And again, you ARE saying this…there’s no way you couldn’t be according to your argument.

BUT, if there IS a difference as I claim there is, then there would HAVE to also be a standard to prove a difference…(and again, not so it can point out what the differences are…but just something that would prove a difference).

There is an ideal standard of music that exists. And the point of this standard itself isn’t to determine the REASONS Ashlee Simpson’s music is crap and Jimi Hendrix’s isn’t…it’s simply to show the difference that’s there. But some people will say there is no difference there…therefore, no crap music.

…..

So…I have shown the differences regarding opinion in music…I have shown how when it comes to informed opinion there is an overwhelming agreement on the reasons why certain music is LARGELY considered crap…I have shown why these reasons themselves are best determined by those with informed opinions…and I have taken all this stuff about opinions/standard of music/determining crap and on-crap, and showed how it applies when there is a difference of opinion regarding other things (due to standards being argued for there as well). A difference is being said to exist…but admitted it can’t be proven (not without an actual standard existing). So either a standard doesn’t exist and there’s no real difference between Ashlee Simpson and Jimi Hendrix/Hitler and Mother Theresa/etc (due to no proof), or there ARE these differences.

THAT’S what I have to argue why a standard MUST exist and that music CAN be crap. And what you have is…“there’s no proof, so there’s nothing to that”….kinda like there’s no proof of God so therefore he DOES NOT exist…(which as I said earlier maybe he doesn’t…but not with reasoning).

Maybe read that bit again so it’s crystal clear.

Now, if someone was to choose between these two things, (barring they’re not omnipotent, know the answer to all things, have perfect logic, reasoning, and knowledge)…what they would have to look at is the one side that has an enormous amount of reasons why Ashlee Simpson’s music is crap, and them other side that says there’s no facts so she isn’t crap.

This is it.

And I just wanted to throw this in as a little reminder of who we're talking about here...


Jimi...


QSfm8bqUJSA

...and Ashlee...


26CN2Q_d8EU

Ok that wasn't fair...


(Actually) Ashlee...


5zmtH4sPBmo

So take 'er away then folks...


...(and I'm just guessing that a certain someone in particular is gonna use every sneaky tactic and make every rude comment he can think of to try and show people he's right all the time as he usually does...so...here's hopin' it's a good discussion...meaning, tone it down.)


Thanks

And if you want the quick version:


Saying something doesn't exist because there isn't proof, is like saying God DOES NOT exist becasue there isn't proof. Maybe he doesn't...but no with THAT reasoning.

Crap music exists, even if there isn't proof.



So...I think I'll stay out of it until everyone has said their piece

If you expect me to read all that then you're crazy.

Sorry...it was requested...and demanded.

I only read the first few sentences before I realised that no matter what you've typed, I disagree with it because you make me cringe like no other man or woman could.

Holy shit, I want to saw my finger-nails off.

EPIIIBITES is a freak

I don't even have to read all that just to say this:

Does music have to be top quality to like it? This is like trying to tell people they have guilty pleasures all over again. People are going to have opinions, educated or not. Some will hold water, some won't. Either way, they won't tarnish an artists legacy, change anyone's personal basis for their opinion or make a huge impact in any regard.

Let people think how they want and move on. Stop trying to figure people's thought processes out. It's a waste of time.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo



Holy shit, I want to saw my finger-nails off.

uIo AkLeRtwErAsDftYu sDfuIosDf

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
And if you want the quick version:


Saying something doesn't exist because there isn't proof, is like saying God DOES NOT exist becasue there isn't proof. Maybe he doesn't...but no with THAT reasoning.

Crap music exists, even if there isn't proof.



So...I think I'll stay out of it until everyone has said their piece

Undoubtedly people will probably vote for you and against you because you did post all that, not me.

Well, I read everything you've had to say and admittedly I do find it a feat that you went to the effort to type all that, but I feel sorry for you also, because quite simply; Nothing has changed.

Your argument revolves around you believing one man is factually and truthfully wrong for liking Ashlee Simpson's music, and saying it's good, and the answer is; He's not.

I agree on the point above, actually. I am agnostic, I don't say God doesn't exist because I don't have the proof to make such a statement, I don't say he does because of the same reasons, which you are effectively doing. You're not saying "There might be an objective standard that we can't prove.", you're saying "There is, and you're all wrong for disagreeing.", which places YOU on the unfortunate end of the argument, the wrong side.

What YOU are doing is basing your entire argument around a "higher power" or something like that having the ability to judge music. Crap music only exists as far as the person's ability to think it's crap. You said yourself, your belief that there is an objective standard comes from the idea of a higher power making the call. The belief in such a power ITSELF is subjective, let alone the call it would be making. Do you not see that?

If someone thinks Ashlee Simpson is good, no matter how many of us agree on the fact that we think she's shit (Because that's all it mean, that we agree that we think she's shit.), it doesn't make him wrong.

You have the inability to consider the fact that, despite posting all of that, you are still debating from the factually incorrect point.

You posted so much, then summarised your argument, and it's still wrong.

The fact that I can type what I am, with proof, as we all have, proves my point. You keep ending lines with "That's how I see it.", and we're aware, but just like Ashlee Simpson saying her music is good doesn't make it factually so, YOU saying that you see it a certain way, because you somehow believe you are on par with Plato, does not mean that's how it is.

There is no objective standard of quality in music, and putting a video next to another video is just propaganda. EVERYONE will say Jimi over Ashlee, everyone, almost. That does not prove your point, and it's a misleading, sly tactic. The MUSIC is not factually or truthfully, or objectively (Whichever word you wanna use.) in either case.

You need to accept the fact that you can't tell people "Accept what you like is crap, even though you like it.", and it's just a ridiculously non-sensical argument. If you like something, you do not think it's crap, and the reason YOU, EPIIIBITES, say these things is simple; You want to beat people to the punch. You want to be respected and feel as if you say that, we'll all go "Oh well at least he thinks she's crap.", well you're wrong.

You like whatever you like, and liking something doesn't make it objectively good, it makes it subjectively so, which is all there is. So when all is said and done, you posted a mammoth argument and it's nothing but an exercise in futility, because there will never be objectively good music, it will always be down to taste.

I've read what you've wrote, and it should be said, to lesser readers, the fact that he wrote a lot does not make him right.

So where will we go from here? Back to; "No, you don't get it.", "Yes we do, *Proof you're wrong*.", "Still don't understand."? You're wrong, Ep. That's one thing that's NOT subjective, you are wrong.

For all your posting (Which I did read.), you still gave us your OWN quick version, YOUR OWN, and in both cases, you provide a sorely and fatally weak argument void of any proof, but full of floppy explanations, for someone who's trying to proof a non-existent undeniable truth.

If people do agree with you, the chances are because they haven't thought about it, and I've proven that twice here. Anyone taking it into account will not be so ridiculous, because you're on the wrong end of the stick. I see what you're trying to say, but it's wrong.

You're precisely right when you say our logic is why we disagree, because it's illogical and very stupid to suggest anything otherwise. Don't get me wrong, I CAN see why people, without thinking, would agree with you. Jimi Vs Ashlee? Psh, right? But no. Because if you actually get into it, as we have all proven, it's totally subjective, not matter how CLOSE to a fact it appears to be, it never is. Ever.

Also, when you inevitably reply rehashing the same thing again, please have the decency to reply to all of what we've said, or nothing at all, because if you expect people to fully read what you've posted, you owe it to afford attention to every part of a reply, not quote and reply to that which you like.

-AC

The essential problem is that you use lack of proof of a negative, and Plato's forms argument as your main backing. One is worthless, the other is just an idea.

You apply them to the idea of music; namely that there is an ideal form of music. That is a silly idea, and Plato's version of it is just as improbable.

Music is an art. Art is completely based upon critical reaction. Those critical reactions are often largely congruous, but that comes down to political, social, educational and cultural factors. Nothing factual. Agreement by shared experience, not by magically pointing at a Platonic form of music.

Have you ever seen Dadaist art? If not, you should think about the following point you made in relation to it: Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
If someone tried as hard as they could to make music that even they themselves would totally hate (which, let’s say…consisted of recording themselves singing totally of tune for an hour…throwing in the occasional crash symbol every 7 minutes…coming up with the cheesiest lyrics they could think of…blatantly ripping off a melody from a well-known artist…randomly banging on the drums in no particular time structure or rhythm…you get the picture)…then the result of that couldn’t possibly be crap music…according to your argument…that IS what you’re saying. It’s a far-fetched example, but it doesn’t take away from the matter at hand with what you’re actually saying is the case about music, and how it can’t be truly crap…or not crap.

Well I disagree. I think that would be crap music. Sorry. And I think most of you also agree that would be crap music…but wait…how could you agree? Your logic doesn’t let you agree with that…because “it is all just opinion”, “there is no truly crap music”, and “who’s to say I’m right?”

The dynamics of art involve the consumer, and as such it can never be objectively good or bad, because there is no ideal consumer. There are only tides of consensus.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
So either a standard doesn’t exist and there’s no real difference between Ashlee Simpson and Jimi Hendrix/Hitler and Mother Theresa/etc (due to no proof), or there ARE these differences.

This point is one that I wanted to particularly address when going back over your posts.

That's not what anybody is saying and you're proving that ironically, YOU do not understand.

Nobody is saying anybody is factually as good as anybody else, that is the point. Nobody is trying to match your claims and say Ashlee Simpson is factually as good as Hendrix.

What's being argued is that it is entirely up to the listener to decide if they think it's good music or crap music, for themselves. You said that OUTSIDE OF TASTE there is an objective standard, there isn't. Nobody is saying what you suggested, you got it all twisted.

I'd never saying Ashlee Simpson's music is as good as Hendrix's, but someone might, and they aren't wrong, nor are they right. It's all opinion, which YOU seem to think we're saying just to be nice, but that's not true either, it's just the way things go.

It's all to easy to see the name "Hendrix", being compared with "Ashlee Simpson" and instantly knee-jerk and go "Oh well it's a fact that...", no, it's not. The man is a factually more talented musician, that does not mean Foxy Lady is factually better than La La to every listener.

As for the poll, it doesn't prove anything. It didn't prove anything when I created it, it proves nothing now. The fact that people might click "Agree." doesn't mean anything to the debate, because the one and only CRUCIAL, ESSENTIAL truth here, is that you are in the wrong, EP. I commend you for trying, but really now...

-AC

Originally posted by jaden101
uIo AkLeRtwErAsDftYu sDfuIosDf

Exactly, with bells on.

Just a quick excerpt from my argument, to get people thinking abut what their argument REALLY means...

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
...every time you’ve posted any kind of remark about music or a band you think sucks, or music or a band you think is awesome…what are you even saying? All you COULD be saying is “I really, really like it…or I really, really hate it.”

I’m guessing that’s just bugged a lot of you right now. And the reason it’s bugged a lot of you is because you think you have a good reason for saying “this sucks” or “this freakin’ rules”.

Now to respond to the feedback...1 person voted “Agreed”!!...which is all I really expected (and no, it wasn’t me).


First off…
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I only read the first few sentences before I realised that no matter what you've typed, I disagree with it because you make me cringe like no other man or woman could.
How I can respect the reasoning behind what you just said if you’re simply ignoring what I’m saying?


Second…
Originally posted by Cory Chaos
I don't even have to read all that just to say this:

Does music have to be top quality to like it?
Well, there’s actually about a dozen places in my argument that says “no, you don’t” and that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. You’ll find the answer to that and some other of your questions I’m sure if you read it…otherwise, like above, I can’t really respect your reasoning against my argument…because you don’t even really know my argument.


As a note here, I’ve said my piece…I’m quite comfortable with it…and apart from answering a couple more of the replies that have been given, I think I’ll pretty much let it rest shortly after that…’cause honestly, I‘m just kinda sick of trying to prove it. I’ll discuss it for a bit…but I think everyone will agree any more discussion on this would be pointless.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
EVERYONE will say Jimi over Ashlee, everyone, almost.
Well, did you (or others) ever stop to wonder WHY??? I’m explaining why!

----

AC I’ll start with you…and I wanna say thanks for not calling me an idiot once in your post (at least I don’t think you did), and for toning it down.

I’ll quickly start with your second post ‘cause it’s kind of important. You had a problem with this…

“So either a standard doesn’t exist and there’s no real difference between Ashlee Simpson and Jimi Hendrix/Hitler and Mother Theresa/etc (due to no proof), or there ARE these differences.”

…and I can see you had a problem with it because you people aren’t even saying a standard exists in the first place…so why would I be making an argument about it…right? I very much understand that, AND there were a COUPLE times where I said this very thing about how some you will say “who says there even IS a difference between a tyrant and a saint?” I did that, a couple times.

BUT, you gotta understand the process here. After I pointed out this counter-argument to mine that I just mentioned, I said that I will continue with my argument. And the reason I’m including that there might not be a difference between a tyrant(Hitler) and a saint(mother Theresa) ACCORDING to my argument, is to simply try and show the ridiculousness of that idea…the idea of there not being a difference between them….even if I KNOW you might disagree with the reasoning behind it. I’m trying to simply show an obviousness that I say there (Hitler being less “just” than Mother Theresa)…in hopes that you re-examine your very reasoning with this (while also having taken into account everything else I said that supported my reasoning…such as the whole “It doesn’t matter if Ashlee Simpson THINKS her music is good” stuff regarding things being relative). I used it ACCORDING to my argument to prove a bold point I think is worth making…and I can do that. Be clear on the method there.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Your argument revolves around you believing one man is factually and truthfully wrong for liking Ashlee Simpson's music, and saying it's good, and the answer is; He's not.
Careful. I said truthfully…NOT factually wrong …and I went to show why facts AREN’T necessary for something to be true, and that truth might exist apart from facts (like the God example, where it might be true God is real, regardless if there are no facts to show that). You seem to have said you understand this very simple and logical concept…then please apply it to what you’re suggesting I’m saying about things being “factually” right and wrong.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You're not saying "There might be an objective standard that we can't prove.", you're saying "There is, and you're all wrong for disagreeing.", which places YOU on the unfortunate end of the argument, the wrong side.
Not quite. I’m saying there is an objective standard…even though I can’t prove there is…but the reasoning I have for my argument on my side, far outweighs the reasoning you have for your argument on the other side about something none of can even prove. And I think what I have on my side points to things that are so obvious, that if you had to decide on which side is true (since we can’t PROVE one is more true the other…which isn’t really necessary) than any reasonable person would side with what I have to support my side of the argument…because there really isn’t anything on the other side…all there is, is “if you can’t prove it…it’s not true”. That really IS all there is if you look at it.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You said yourself, your belief that there is an objective standard comes from the idea of a higher power making the call.
No, that’s NOT what I said…AT ALL. I said a standard might simply just exist (which is what Plato says)…and whether it’s God or not doesn’t matter. But even more than that…I NEVER said the standard itself makes the call. Please go back and read it again. I said the standard itself is ONLY there to prove a difference that we claim HAS TO exist (by arguing Hitler is different than Mother Theresa…which is a very reasonable argument). But if we say there’s a difference there, we have to prove so…and THAT’S what a standard exists…it doesn’t say make a call about anything regarding WHY there is a difference between them. It simply acts to prove a difference.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you like something, you do not think it's crap
I JUST showed in my “4 possibilities” section how what you said here is contradicting your very argument. You don’t think there is a “crap” and “non-crap” to being with…so you’re not really saying anything with what you said. All you EVER could be saying with your stance on the argument is “I like something”. THAT’S IT! If I ever hear you say “this sucks” or “this rules”, all it will ever mean to me is “I really, really hate this” or “I really, really like this”…because that’s ALL you’re saying by going with your argument. Be clear on that.

But I think different…and I DO think I can say “Even though I like it…I think this sucks”...because that’s the way I think about music. And it’s got nothing to do with what I fear people will say about my judgment regarding music. I see music as crap and non-crap. And I said, I’m always open to the possibility that I might be a minority when a majority of people with informed opinions say certain music is crap…because that happens. But what tends to happen a lot more that I (and others with informed opinions) largely agree on stuff that is either widely panned, or widely praised…it just happens. Maybe it doesn’t happen for you, but it happens for me.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Ep. That's one thing that's NOT subjective, you are wrong.
Well, statements like that really don’t help your case…because there’s nothing to them. I’ve shown how you can’t PROVE I’m wrong…and you seem to have agreed. Other than that, all you’re left to do is say…”you’re just wrong…because you are”. I’ve explained why I’m right…all you and others have done is harp on what YOU say is the truth about “truth”…which I also argued isn’t nearly as simple as you suggest it is.

these stupid ridiculous jabs between AC and EPIII is the reason this forum sucks now

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Well, did you (or others) ever stop to wonder WHY??? I’m explaining why!

Yes, because one is Jimi Hendrix, someone who is agreed by many to make better music, the other is Ashlee Simpson. That's why, you are explaining WHY you THINK, not why it's actually happening. It does not prove your point.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
…and I can see you had a problem with it because you people aren’t even saying a standard exists in the first place…so why would I be making an argument about it…right? I very much understand that, AND there were a COUPLE times where I said this very thing about how some you will say “who says there even IS a difference between a tyrant and a saint?” I did that, a couple times.

See what I mean? We prove you wrong and you say "You're having a problem with it because you're saying a standard doesn't exist.". It doesn't, it's not a matter of me having a problem, or anybody having a problem. It's a matter of you not accepting than an objective standard is non-existent.

You still think that by replying you're in the debate, you're not. You don't understand that you are undeniably wrong. NOTHING changes that, you replying does not alter that.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
BUT, you gotta understand the process here. After I pointed out this counter-argument to mine that I just mentioned, I said that I will continue with my argument. And the reason I’m including that there might not be a difference between a tyrant(Hitler) and a saint(mother Theresa) ACCORDING to my argument, is to simply try and show the ridiculousness of that idea…the idea of there not being a difference between them….even if I KNOW you might disagree with the reasoning behind it. I’m trying to simply show an obviousness that I say there (Hitler being less “just” than Mother Theresa)…in hopes that you re-examine your very reasoning with this (while also having taken into account everything else I said that supported my reasoning…such as the whole “It doesn’t matter if Ashlee Simpson THINKS her music is good” stuff regarding things being relative). I used it ACCORDING to my argument to prove a bold point I think is worth making…and I can do that. Be clear on the method there.

I'm entirely clear on the method, EP. You refuse to accept this because I'm not agreeing. What you fail to see is once again, you are wrong.

You keep going on about Hitler, Mother Theresa, Plato, so what? The FACT is, Ashlee Simpson's music is not objectively better than Hendrix's music. I don't think he music's better, many don't, but that's opinion.

It's all relative. You aren't proving anything beyond "I believe this, this is why.", and faith isn't enough.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Careful. I said truthfully…NOT factually wrong …and I went to show why facts AREN’T necessary for something to be true, and that truth might exist apart from facts (like the God example, where it might be true God is real, regardless if there are no facts to show that). You seem to have said you understand this very simple and logical concept…then please apply it to what you’re suggesting I’m saying about things being “factually” right and wrong.

TRUTHFULLY = FACTUALLY. This is another thing you don't accept, and it's why you believe you're still in this debate, it's really stupid and pedantic, EP. FACT is this: Truth is fact. You refuse to admit this because you know it means loss, but I do not need you to admit it for you to lose, you've lost already.

You can't keep bringing up God, God's existence is subjective. You cannot prove that he does or doesn't exist, where as many others and I have proven that music is subjective in the sense being discussed.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Not quite. I’m saying there is an objective standard…even though I can’t prove there is…but the reasoning I have for my argument on my side, far outweighs the reasoning you have for your argument on the other side about something none of can even prove. And I think what I have on my side points to things that are so obvious, that if you had to decide on which side is true (since we can’t PROVE one is more true the other…which isn’t really necessary) than any reasonable person would side with what I have to support my side of the argument…because there really isn’t anything on the other side…all there is, is “if you can’t prove it…it’s not true”. That really IS all there is if you look at it.

But there isn't an objective standard. All your 9 pages were for nothing, because here we are, you saying I don't get it because you are oblivious to fact and too pig-headed to admit defeat, EP. That's all this is.

You cannot prove a thing, I can, I have. So have others, but you ignore us because you are simply ignorant.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
No, that’s NOT what I said…AT ALL. I said a standard might simply just exist (which is what Plato says)…and whether it’s God or not doesn’t matter. But even more than that…I NEVER said the standard itself makes the call. Please go back and read it again. I said the standard itself is ONLY there to prove a difference that we claim HAS TO exist (by arguing Hitler is different than Mother Theresa…which is a very reasonable argument). But if we say there’s a difference there, we have to prove so…and THAT’S what a standard exists…it doesn’t say make a call about anything regarding WHY there is a difference between them. It simply acts to prove a difference.

A standard might? You are ASSUMING it does, you are telling us it does. You're not saying it might, you're saying it does, and you are wrong.

You are arguing lack of proof of a negative, and it doesn't work that way. There is a difference between artists, so what? THE MUSIC QUALITY does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT, have an objective standard.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I JUST showed in my “4 possibilities” section how what you said here is contradicting your very argument. You don’t think there is a “crap” and “non-crap” to being with…so you’re not really saying anything with what you said. All you EVER could be saying with your stance on the argument is “I like something”. THAT’S IT! If I ever hear you say “this sucks” or “this rules”, all it will ever mean to me is “I really, really hate this” or “I really, really like this”…because that’s ALL you’re saying by going with your argument. Be clear on that.

Nothing is contradicting my argument, you actually believe you have a chance of proving me and everyone wrong? You don't, EP. That's why this is entirely futile and fruitless, because for all your faith, you are factually and truthfully (They are the same.) incorrect.

My argument is true; Saying you like or dislike something is the only standard there is. PERSONAL standards, SUBJECTIVE ones, not objective ones.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
But I think different…and I DO think I can say “Even though I like it…I think this sucks”...because that’s the way I think about music. And it’s got nothing to do with what I fear people will say about my judgment regarding music. I see music as crap and non-crap. And I said, I’m always open to the possibility that I might be a minority when a majority of people with informed opinions say certain music is crap…because that happens. But what tends to happen a lot more that I (and others with informed opinions) largely agree on stuff that is either widely panned, or widely praised…it just happens. Maybe it doesn’t happen for you, but it happens for me.

What you THINK does not matter, because it is based on many fallacies and ignoring fact, EP. You think that because you have the right to think it, you have an automatically credible debate, that is not the case.

You see it as crap and non-crap, that's your own peculiar, inane choice. Your own thought process does not indicate an objective standard, consensus does not indicate an objective standard. YOU are running on pure faith and ignorance of truth/fact. Largely agreeing means largely agreeing on an opinion, nothing more at ALL.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Well, statements like that really don’t help your case…because there’s nothing to them. I’ve shown how you can’t PROVE I’m wrong…and you seem to have agreed. Other than that, all you’re left to do is say…”you’re just wrong…because you are”. I’ve explained why I’m right…all you and others have done is harp on what YOU say is the truth about “truth”…which I also argued isn’t nearly as simple as you suggest it is.

I have prove you are wrong, so has everyone here. Me, VVD, Morgoths, Eis, Kramer. What more do you want? You're just going to keep posting, keep ignoring and keep rehashing, because the bottom line is, you won't ever admit you are wrong, or worse, don't believe you are.

You've explained why you THINK you are right, and we have come up with endless analogies, proof and holes in your argument to show why you are factually, truthfully wrong. That's what's puzzling to me, you just keep on in the face of being incorrect.

All we can DO at this point is keep saying what we do, because we do not require your agreement, you are wrong. Whether you like it or not.

-AC

shouldn't there be an option for "y'all are both retarded" on the poll?

truth =/= fact, though. you don't even have to get philosophical on it. for isntance, if i say: "you two monkies are bugging the crap out of me, and that's the truth." is that the truth? doesn't it need to be proven somehow, like fact? if so, how can you possibly prove it? if you can't prove it, is it not still a truthful statement (assuming i'm honest)?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
It certainly may be true that there are truths that cannot be proven by us. A truth doesn't need to be proven before it is true. However, this isn't relevant to an argument that is so clearly based upon preference.

You have made a false link.

That explains it in short form, and EPIIIBITES still doesn't get it. Either way, he's factually incorrect, and he doesn't see it.

So, realising this a little later than I should, I'm going to leave him to have the last word and his own devices, because I've lost all sense of what we're proving here. We've proven things, he keeps ignoring them. Waste of my time and his.

-AC

All there is to say is that you can't prove an opinion, nor someone's personal conviction wrong. You can disagree all you want, browbeat them, their basis, or the lack there of, in the end..it's all still an opinion. Popular opinion, with a shared popular basis is still just that, and not factual. Why is it so incredibly important that you keep coming back to us for re-affirmations when we've all spoke our minds?

This monthly charade has really brought the music forums down, and it's always the same end result. It's like a mouse going for the baited trap. Never learning.

Ashlee Simpson vs Jimi Hendrix..Buddy Holly vs Billy Joe Armstrong..whatever the case may be. It's just a waste of time trying to understand people's reasoning. Just let it be. There are more people than not who'll think what they want to think and not have it questioned, and nobody will be any wiser or in this case, more perturbed.

Originally posted by StinkFist462
these stupid ridiculous jabs between AC and EPIII is the reason this forum sucks now Well if you're saying that the jabbing carried outside the couple threads the discussion was in, it's simply because I was being hounded...and there wasn't really jabbing on my part to begin with...I was just defending my argument.


Just so you know, this full explanation and elaboration was requested by someone...and also demanded by someone else.

So I obliged.

As I said earlier, I am kind of sick of the argument and there really is no point debating it any further (although I know "you know who" is gonna accuse me of chickening out...or something). But no one cares it seems, so we should just let it die.

Cheers for reading

Is musicality a factor in this? That's usually what "good vs. crap" music is based on.

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Is musicality a factor in this? That's usually what "good vs. crap" music is based on.

No not all. He's saying that theres an objective standard for how enjoyable music is. That its somehow possible to test/prove that one peice of music undeniably better than another.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No not all. He's saying that theres an objective standard for how enjoyable music is. That its somehow possible to test/prove that one peice of music undeniably better than another.
Well then, he is totally wrong.

To be fair to him, I don't think that is what he is saying.

...

After an hour of reading the initial arguement...

Regardless of all of the crap you typed, people are entitled to their own opinions about music. I agree that putting Ashlee Simpson in the same catagory as Jimi Hendrix is wrong on like 1,000,000 different levels, but if people want to praise her and her *cough* musical talent then they can.

If this debate is going to continue, can people stop focusing on Ashlee Simpson Vs Jimi Hendrix and who they think they should name, or like more (Since that has nothing to do with the debate.), and start focusing on the fact that it's not Hendrix Vs Simpson, it's Hendrix's music Vs Simpson's music and is one or the other objectively better? The answer is no.

Not that this argument is able to be salvaged anyway.

-AC

everyone has it's own taste.

Jesus Christ enough already...how many more threads of the same pointless arguement are we going to have?

either you two...and we all know who i'm refering to...need to take this debate to pm's or give it rest...you dont agree with each other...you're never going to convince each other...i thought that would be perfectly clear by now...

Progress could be made if one actually understood what the other was saying instead of jumping to conclusions.

One? Why are people acting like this is between me and him, some kind of personal vendetta, just because he happens to always mention me by name?

The fact that he feels I take this personally and keeps suggesting that we have some kind of war going on, doesn't mean there is. I have nothing against him, I don't even know the guy.

As for the debate, it's been him vs everyone else in every other thread because he's wrong. We all understand what he's saying, he just keeps repeating it cos he wants/wanted to continue posting.

I already PMed him personally and said I see no point in continuing the debate because of this, and he took it the wrong way. If you're going to accuse anybody, try accusing the guy who created this thread and posted about 6 posts worth of debate on something because he couldn't keep it to one thread.

I've said I don't want any more part, and in EP's defense, so did he. So maybe people should stop coming in and bumping it to say nothing even relevant to the thread. If you don't like it, as we have grown not to, then let it go.

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
To be fair to him, I don't think that is what he is saying. THANK YOU!


...and for the MILLIONTH time...this was a request. I was asked to go into detail and elaborate on my argument...and the person who asked me was very appreciative that I did.

I do see EP is saying, and he is right on a a couple things, (after reading a bit more closely) but you can't really judge if one artist is better than another without specific criteria.

I've said that several times, in several threads.


Which things do you agree with? Don't leave us hanging.

Originally posted by manorastroman
shouldn't there be an option for "y'all are both retarded" on the poll?

Hahahahahahahhahahahaha

Originally posted by manorastroman
truth =/= fact, though. you don't even have to get philosophical on it. for isntance, if i say: "you two monkies are bugging the crap out of me, and that's the truth." is that the truth? doesn't it need to be proven somehow, like fact? if so, how can you possibly prove it? if you can't prove it, is it not still a truthful statement (assuming i'm honest)?

They are quite linked though, for example the example you brought up is both truth and fact...


And just to be clear, I was laughing at you...not with you.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I've said that several times, in several threads.


Which things do you agree with? Don't leave us hanging. Well, there was actually only one thing that I saw that I pretty much agreed with, but I said "a couple" to leave it open in case there were more, since I didn't read the whole thing. I agreed with a minor point; the part that was somewhere along the line of:

You may know an artist isn't very good, but still like them. Or the vice-versa: You may know an artist is very good, but still dislike them.

Yes, and although that's still nonsensical, he's also saying there is a standard of music that is undeniably good and also undeniably bad.

This is false, as you've said, as anyone with sense, has said. Fruitless debate.

-AC

and later



great...he believes that...you dont...and neither to most of the people on the board...but either you both, childishly, want to get the last word out of the debate or you're baiting him...at least that's what appears to be the case

the entire debate is irrelevant anyway...people like what people like...you either have the same taste or you dont...great

conclusion of the argument?

there's no accounting for taste...

hardly the most original and profound conclusion but it sums up 3 threads of debate reasonably well

I'm not baiting him. He said I'd accuse him of chickening out and I'm not, regardless of who's right or wrong, he's tired of it, as am I, but if this thread is to continue, then at least people should be correct about what his argument, or all our opposing arguments, are about.

If people are going to keep bumping the thread, then at least be productive, because the reason it's getting complaints is due to it becoming stagnant. If there's life left in it, contribute, don't keep bumping it to say "This thread sucks and needs to end.". That's nonsense. I think that's a reasonable request. If it bothers everyone so much, let's all request to get it locked, shall we?

-AC

i never mentioned anything about it being a personal vendetta by anyone against anyone...i just dont see how there is a need for 3 threads with 2 polls about the same thing

the 2 of you have just repeated you're arguments to each other over and over...you dont agree...and that's it.

people chime in and out on your side occasionally but primarily it's you and EPIIIBITES having a circular debate

whats the point?

you want me to be on topic?

i like the music i like...other people like the music they like...so ****...which is essentially me agreeing with you...music is opinion...music is subjective

can someone be a technically better musician than someone else?...obviously...does this make them automatically make better music?...no

unless we want to rip the emotion out of music and argue which is phonetically, scientifically better....as in better sound quality and production values then no...one piece of music cant be proven to be better than another...

However, music can be objectively appreciated. There is a lot of music I objectively appreciate without loving subjectively. That would be stuff like Liszt and Yngwie Malmsteen and Steve Vai.

Seeing as we're back on topic: No, Nell, that would be talent. Once again, you confuse the issue.

I appreciate Malmsteen's talent, because that's undeniable. His music, in my opinion, is shit.

MUSICIANS can be objectively appreciated and better than one another, their music, however, cannot.

-AC

That is where you are wrong. The music is the notation, the rhythm, the key signature, the melody, the beat all rolled into one. I can spend hours looking over Liszt compositions and appreciating the music, not the musician, nor his talent. Looking at the progression of scales and the variations, the song structure and the harmonizing of the instruments. That is all music and I can appreciate the music.

Originally posted by Nellinator
That is where you are wrong. The music is the notation, the rhythm, the key signature, the melody, the beat all rolled into one. I can spend hours looking over Liszt compositions and appreciating the music, not the musician, nor his talent. Looking at the progression of scales and the variations, the song structure and the harmonizing of the instruments. That is all music and I can appreciate the music.

You're appreciating the technical ability and quality of what was written, so no, that's where YOU are wrong. We're not discussing written music, neither was EP, we're discussing; Is there an objective/factual/truthful standard that transcends taste, regarding JUST the music (Sound wise). Not technique, not writing anything like that. Sound, just sound.

It doesn't matter what is WRITTEN, if someone does not like the music that Liszt produces, they are not wrong to say "I don't like this music. I don't like the way it sounds, I just don't enjoy it. I don't think it's good.". They would be wrong to say "This isn't a talented man, he isn't a good musician.".

You cannot show anyone a Liszt piece and say "If interpret this song as music that isn't good, you are wrong.", because that wouldn't be true. Case in point: You like 30 Seconds to Mars and Coldplay, I think their music is shit, you think it's good. Who's wrong and right?

Neither.

-AC

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~


You may know an artist isn't very good, but still like them. Or the vice-versa: You may know an artist is very good, but still dislike them.

That is a problem with the flexible nature of the word 'good'.

If you like them, you think they are good.

What you are really saying is you may like music, but have either reason to believe the artist aren't capable or competent, or skilled; or, you believe that consensus opinion means they probably aren't good, though you think they are.

The latter of course being invalid.

Hey folks...

Just wanted to quote something that I think contributes well to EXACTLY what you guys are talking about. Not getting my nose dirty...just wanted to help along your discussion.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Back to the last example though, to show how silly I think it is when people say something like this…“I like it…therefore who’s to say it’s not good”....

But what’s even being said there?

There’s only 4 real possibilities surrounding this:

Possibility A). There IS truly crap and non-crap music…and because certain music is truly non-crap it makes people say “I like this music”…(which would then have to mean we would all have to like the same music that’s claimed as being not crap).

Possibility B). Again, there IS truly crap and non-crap music…and when people say “I like this music” it’s not because of whether or not the music itself is crap or non-crap…why they say they like it is just arbitrary…(and this is the one I believe).

Possibility C) There ISN’T truly crap and non-crap music…and when people say “I like this music”, it suggests something about the music itself…(which holds some real contradictions that I‘ll get to in a minute).

And possibility D) There ISN’T truly crap and non-crap music….and when people say “I like this music” it’s not because of whether or not the music itself is crap or non-crap….why they say they like it is just arbitrary…(sorta like possibility B)

So, first with possibility C (where there ISN’T truly crap and non-crap music) …saying “I like this music”, shouldn’t say anything about anything…should it? It can’t…because there is no crap and non-crap music for it to be saying anything about …right?

Possibility A is also just ridiculous.

Possibility B is the one I myself agree with…so therefore I’m guessing the one you all must agree with is the last one…possibility D, which says…when people say “I like this music” it’s not because of whether or not the music itself is crap or non-crap….why they say they like it is just arbitrary.

Now, just as an aside, if I ever hear any you people ever say “I like it…therefore who’s to say it’s crap” (which is an example of the flawed possibility C)...it would be a completely pointless sentence. Like in possibility C, there is an implication in this sentence that “I like…” suggests something about the music itself. But I showed how possibility C is flawed if you believe what you believe about music not being crap or non-crap. All you’re just saying with “I like it…therefore who’s to say it’s crap” is that it appeals to you in the first part of the sentence, and then completely contradicting what you’ve said you believe regarding music in the second part of the sentence.

So since possibility D is what left for you, every time you’ve posted any kind of remark about music or a band you think sucks, or music or a band you think is awesome…what are you even saying? All you COULD be saying is “I really, really like it…or I really, really hate it.”

I’m guessing that’s just bugged a lot of you right now. And the reason it’s bugged a lot of you is because you think you have a good reason for saying “this sucks” or “this freakin’ rules”.

So what…is there good and bad music or isn’t there?

See, this is what I'm talking about. That's a load of nonsense.

You just pipe up and post a quote because we "Don't get it" or are "Missing the point.". You're just wrong, EP. It's nothing personal, you just are.

To answer the last question in your quote, is there good or bad music? Yes, there is.

The difference is, it's factually/truthfully/objectively (Pick one, any.) that this is subjective, not objective. What's good and bad music is entirely up to you, r.e; What a person hears. You assume that because I'm saying nobody is "wrong", that I am saying they are right for suggesting say, The Cheeky Girls are better than The Who. I'm not, I'm saying whatever you think is good or bad, is good or bad to you, and that's all there is. Stop saying we have no authority to be sure of what we mean or any of that, stop speaking for others. People like what they like, and if it's good to them, it's good to them, if it's bad to them, it's bad to them. THAT'S IT.

Don't keep pasting shit as if to say "Look, I said this, you must not have read it because you're not agreeing.". We disagree cos you're wrong, and you should stop quoting people when they "appear" to back you, and skip their posts when they discredit you. That's selective, and quite bs.

You make up possibilities as if that's the only possible answers. If someone says "I like it, who's to say it's crap?", it doesn't necessarily mean they are trying to objectively push their choice of music as good, they are questioning your authority to say it's shit, and rightly so. Why? Because you have none, and neither does anybody else. Opinion? Sure. Consensus? Sure. Professional opinion? Sure. None prove anything objectively.

You do not accept this, and you are wrong, fact. I have also come to accept that you are never, ever going to concede, despite this. Thankfully, our (Because it is "Our" argument doesn't require that.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You're appreciating the technical ability and quality of what was written, so no, that's where YOU are wrong. We're not discussing written music, neither was EP, we're discussing; Is there an objective/factual/truthful standard that transcends taste, regarding JUST the music (Sound wise). Not technique, not writing anything like that. Sound, just sound.

It doesn't matter what is WRITTEN, if someone does not like the music that Liszt produces, they are not wrong to say "I don't like this music. I don't like the way it sounds, I just don't enjoy it. I don't think it's good.". They would be wrong to say "This isn't a talented man, he isn't a good musician.".

You cannot show anyone a Liszt piece and say "If interpret this song as music that isn't good, you are wrong.", because that wouldn't be true. Case in point: You like 30 Seconds to Mars and Coldplay, I think their music is shit, you think it's good. Who's wrong and right?

Neither.

-AC You fail hear because I did talk about the sound, if you don't know where then I question your knowledge of music.

Also, objectively I think both Coldplay and 30 Seconds to Mars are crap. Actually, I only subjectively like a few songs by either. You see, there is a difference between what I like objectively and subjectively.

Originally posted by Nellinator
You fail hear because I did talk about the sound, if you don't know where then I question your knowledge of music.

Also, objectively I think both Coldplay and 30 Seconds to Mars are crap. Actually, I only subjectively like a few songs by either. You see, there is a difference between what I like objectively and subjectively.

There was another post to reply to also, try not to dodge everything.

Secondly, I don't fail, for one simple reason:

You making the choice to say "I objectively think they are crap, but I subjectively like a few songs." does not prove the point you nor EPIIIBITES are trying to make, to be true. It proves you just lack sense enough to believe it's a valid statement.

If you like their songs, you like their music, so you can't actually think the songs are crap if you admit to liking them.

You are confusing accepting a band are less credible than another, and still liking their music, and a band making objectively bad music, but still liking it. The latter is non-existent.

There is no objectively good music, or bad music. Fact. You have the burden of proof, so let's see you come up with something EP hasn't.

Tell me why you think the pure sound of music can be objectively good or bad, extending way beyond personal subjective taste (You're wrong, but let's hear it.).

Don't cite technical ability, it doesn't apply.

-AC

I'm not sure what other post you want me to respond to. Also, I am not making the same point as EPIIIBITES. Furthermore, I never said anything about music being objectively good or bad. It can be objectively appreciated in both sound and writing. There is a big difference. Therefore I cannot be wrong because you are off on a tangent that has little to do with what I said.

And yes, I can think that songs are crap while still liking them. I know this because I do. I think Coldplay are untalented and compostional weak, however, a few of their songs have catchy parts which I like. Therefore objectively I think that the music they produce is crap while I can still listen to them rather happily. And it is the same the other way around. I can objectively appreciate bands like Dream Theater without ever wanting to actually listen to them.
An example of this would be that I listen to their music and study their notation to see and learn about the compositional things they have mastered while at the same time thinking they are uninspired shred (which I don't think about every song, but in general). The first part is objective, the second is subjective.

On a side note: I removed 30 Seconds From Mars because well they suck both subjectively (imo) and objectively.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I'm not sure what other post you want me to respond to. Also, I am not making the same point as EPIIIBITES. Furthermore, I never said anything about music being objectively good or bad. It can be objectively appreciated in both sound and writing. There is a big difference. Therefore I cannot be wrong because you are off on a tangent that has little to do with what I said.

And you're off on a discussion that has little to do with the point that this debate revolves around. Precisely, you never said anything about music being objectively good or bad, so maybe you should think about doing that, as it's the topic, but I can't force you.

Originally posted by Nellinator
And yes, I can think that songs are crap while still liking them. I know this because I do. I think Coldplay are untalented and compostional weak, however, a few of their songs have catchy parts which I like. Therefore objectively I think that the music they produce is crap while I can still listen to them rather happily. And it is the same the other way around. I can objectively appreciate bands like Dream Theater without ever wanting to actually listen to them.
An example of this would be that I listen to their music and study their notation to see and learn about the compositional things they have mastered while at the same time thinking they are uninspired shred (which I don't think about every song, but in general). The first part is objective, the second is subjective.

You can LITERALLY say you do, but it's a statement void of all logic and reason, you realise.

What you should have said is; "I think Coldplay have mostly crap songs, but there are some parts to the songs I enjoy.", not "I like their songs, but I think they are crap.". That makes no sense.

Also, you're arguing against the very point you're making. You say Coldplay are crap and untalented in many ways, including composition, yet you then say you find their songs to have some catchy parts. So, what's your argument? What are you supposedly objectively appreciating? The music alone? If that's the case, you're enjoying it subjectively, it's not objectively good, and if you find it catchy, that suggests liking it. If it's not the music alone, it MUST be the technical side; the composition, the arrangements, but you have specifically said you dislike that.

So...I'm not finding any sense in what you're saying, or any relevance to the topic for that matter.

I've made the point about Dream Theater before, and I told you not to cite technical ability, it's not relevant. I appreciate Avenged Sevenfold's guitarist as a talent, but I'd rather watch paint dry than listen to any of their work, though. That's appreciating talent, but saying "I think it's bad music.". Proving that you can appreciate talent, because talent is proveable, measurable and to a point, undeniable on a technical level. Music produced, however, is not objective, it's subjective. If you tell me whether you agree or disagree on the idea of a universal truth and standard regarding objective music, we can move on.

Originally posted by Nellinator
On a side note: I removed 30 Seconds From Mars because well they suck both subjectively (imo) and objectively.

How do they suck objectively? Subjectively I assume you mean your opinion of their music?

-AC

Yes, I am off-topic which is cool with me.

It makes sense because objectively Coldplay lacks talent, compositional ability, they have generic chord progressions, poor harmonizing selection, etc. That is why they objectively suck. Subjectively I like the sound they produce in some of their songs. I don't objectively appreciate anything about Coldplay. My liking of some Coldplay is purely subjective... Coldplay is really a bad example because they are near the very bottom of everyone on my list...

Instead of using Dream Theater I will use classical music as an example of being objectively appreciated. Classical music uses certain techniques to express emotion. These techniques, when used, are objectively understood to mean something once you have been trained to hear. Classical music is objectively appreciated for what it is objectively doing, not necessarily the sound. An example of this would be Beethoven's 9th symphany being an interpretation of Friedrich Schiller's poem "Ode to Joy". All this can be measured objectively, not subjectively, meaning that is can be appreciated outside of talent and subjectivity.

30 Second of Mars sucks in my opinion because I don't like how they sound. That is the subjective part. Objectivity their music is nothing special either. That is why they double suck.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes, I am off-topic which is cool with me.

Then you're void of the right to complain about anybody "going off" anywhere, sunshine.

Originally posted by Nellinator
It makes sense because objectively Coldplay lacks talent, compositional ability, they have generic chord progressions, poor harmonizing selection, etc.

They lack significant or noteworthy talent. They have the ability to actually play their instruments to the generic standard you'd expect of them. So they aren't talentLESS.

Originally posted by Nellinator
That is why they objectively suck.

No, that's why they are objectively not great musicians, or innovative songwriters. "Poor" selection is subjective. Those things do not prove they objectively suck in any other way than technically, and as I have said before, we're not discussing technicality, and as you said "I'm not.", so now you've proven you are.

I understand you're cool with being off-topic, but don't come in and just spontaneously expect someone to follow you.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Subjectively I like the sound they produce in some of their songs. I don't objectively appreciate anything about Coldplay. My liking of some Coldplay is purely subjective... Coldplay is really a bad example because they are near the very bottom of everyone on my list...

So you think objectively they are way below, technically speaking, and you're correct. Subjectively you like some of their elements musically, as in sound, so your stance is in agreement with me.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Instead of using Dream Theater I will use classical music as an example of being objectively appreciated. Classical music uses certain techniques to express emotion. These techniques, when used, are objectively understood to mean something once you have been trained to hear. Classical music is objectively appreciated for what it is objectively doing, not necessarily the sound. An example of this would be Beethoven's 9th symphany being an interpretation of Friedrich Schiller's poem "Ode to Joy". All this can be measured objectively, not subjectively, meaning that is can be appreciated outside of talent and subjectivity.

I've said, time and time again, yes, outside of subjectivity in music (Liking the actual music, or it being good or bad.) there is objectivity (Ability, instrumental talent etc, things that can be measured.). The objective parts do NOT coincide with this debate, they have nothing to do with it, and you're not making any points I haven't made.

You've came in, off-topic, making points about how music CAN be objectively appreciated, I said "Yes, technically. Measurable elements." you say "No, not technically.", "So what, then?", "Things that can be measured.". Why? Waste of your time, and mine.

Originally posted by Nellinator
30 Second of Mars sucks in my opinion because I don't like how they sound. That is the subjective part. Objectivity their music is nothing special either. That is why they double suck.

So you agree with our points, not EPIIIBITES' points.

The rest of your posts just were not needed. Nobody denied objective ability, it was never being discussed. I'm still at a loss as to why you came in and even brought it up.

"Yeah, but music can be appreciated outside of subjectivity as it can be measured.". Yes? So what? Who's denying it? It's not even relevant.

-AC

The emotional component is something that is outside instrumental or objective talent. It can be objectively measured how well a movement in classical music conveys an emotion simply by listening to it with a trained ear or looking at the notation. It can be done and the same thing can be done with jazz and the a lot of blues. Sadly, rock fails to utilize it most of the time.

Originally posted by Nellinator
The emotional component is something that is outside instrumental or objective talent. It can be objectively measured how well a movement in classical music conveys an emotion simply by listening to it with a trained ear or looking at the notation. It can be done and the same thing can be done with jazz and the a lot of blues. Sadly, rock fails to utilize it most of the time.

It can't, because not everyone can read music. You don't need a trained ear to judge emotion, hence why you get people crying with happiness at Coldplay shows. I hate the band, but if they're making people's lives better for a moment, and I don't have to listen to them, it's obvious that it doesn't matter that their compositional skills are lapse.

Either way, it's not part of this debate.

-AC

Filtering out the countless threads that were not necessary to this "debate" is probably going to take more time then actually posting in the thread.

However, discovering the root of this debate was simple. And, after reading through the four pages of posts, one constant truth remains. Music is objective. Objective to those who think "It is good." Just because a large margin of people agree on one thing, does not mean it is so. However, the same can be applied in the opposite: Just because a few believe something does not make it false. That is why it is called a belief, and not fact. (Bare in mind the word believe can be substituted for "like," or any other synonym should you so desire.)

Regardless of how much EPIIIBITES may seem to think that without a way to prove that "Crap" music exists, I hate to be the barer of bad news: You cannot prove that. simply because a large margin seem to think that most pop artists are horrible (myself included) some people seem to disagree with you. That is how you will never prove your point. Then you get into the labelling of music by genre, which makes things harder. Some people will class Atreyu as Emo, some say Nu Metal, some say Hardcore... and need I continue?

Now lets look at the other side of the debate. Take some examples of some more widely admired bands: some think AC/DC are horrible. I would say overrated, but not horrible. Personally, I would much rather have a Smashing Pumpkins, or even an Our Lady Peace marathon then have to listen to Dave Evans or Bon Scott for more then two songs at a time. And Raine Maida and Billy Corgan are two of the worst vocalists out there. Am I wrong for saying such things? Most will probably say I am, but I am not. It is a personal opinion.

EPIIIBITES, you can take all of the tallies you want, post as many arguments trying to solidify your stance, and you will still be wrong. Why? You cannot disprove somebodies PERSONAL OPINION.

Sadly, those people obviously aren't crying because of the musical expression of the emotion. More likely they are giddy teenagers or find the lyrics expressive. Classical music, and those who use the techniques in other forms of music, objectively express emotions.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Sadly, those people obviously aren't crying because of the musical expression of the emotion. More likely they are giddy teenagers or find the lyrics expressive. Classical music, and those who use the techniques in other forms of music, objectively express emotions.

Of course those more trained in said field will have a greater appreciation for "more expressive" forms of music then an American Idol winner that only became famous because they have a decent voice and will sell because they are attractive.

However, that is like going to the Luvre and saying that somebody who has never been to an art museum cannot like a certain painting because it is horrible and they are not trained to appreciate real art.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Sadly, those people obviously aren't crying because of the musical expression of the emotion. More likely they are giddy teenagers or find the lyrics expressive. Classical music, and those who use the techniques in other forms of music, objectively express emotions.

Words on a page do not exhibit emotion, neither do notes. People interpret them with or without emotion.

The fact is, you're debating something irrelevant.

Why are you still stuck on technique? Who's debating that? Not me. I've specifically said technique is measurable and therefore objective, we're not discussing that. You wanna discuss it? Create a thread or something. Don't come into a thread with a set criteria for debate and try to expect everyone to adhere to yours.

-AC

Notes do express emotion objectively in classical music when in certain sequences. It is the way it works. I don't want to make another thread. This one is dead anyways and this debate won't be much longer.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Sadly, those people obviously aren't crying because of the musical expression of the emotion. More likely they are giddy teenagers or find the lyrics expressive. Classical music, and those who use the techniques in other forms of music, objectively express emotions.

the person writing the music may be trying to convey an entirely different emotion than what it invokes in any particular individual...and it is precisely that which makes music subjective...how the individual percieves the piece of music

And a trained ear should be able to read it objectively and appreciate it at that level. There are different levels of appreciation.

Though that is the technique side of things.

It doesn't really alter the parameters of the current debate.

VVD...did you read the argument? You and Nellinator are the only people that seem to really know what the arguement is actually about. Not necessarily suggesting you agree...but at least you know what's going on.

I'd like to add something here...but last time I tried to simply point to something that could contribute to the discussion I was attacked by AC again...so I won't even do that.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
VVD...did you read the argument? You and Nellinator are the only people that seem to really know what the arguement is actually about. Not necessarily suggesting you agree...but at least you know what's going on.


dont flatter yourself by presuming that you're argument is above people...its simplistic...everyone gets it...trying to back yourself up by claiming that the only people who understand your point are those who either agree or aren't entirely against it is weak

I don't think it's above people...I just asked if two of them had read it because they seemed to have understood some of the points.

But from the things you and others are saying it's clear you don't understand the argument, as it even contradicts what VVD and Nellinator are saying.

Whatever, that's my perception of it...and I'm not gonna discuss the argument itself as it pointless...I was just wondering if they read it...and was curious who voted they "agreed".

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
That is a problem with the flexible nature of the word 'good'.

If you like them, you think they are good.

What you are really saying is you may like music, but have either reason to believe the artist aren't capable or competent, or skilled; or, you believe that consensus opinion means they probably aren't good, though you think they are.

The latter of course being invalid. I'm not sure what you mean by this. I may enjoy listening to an artist that I acknowledge as being bad. Or, the music sounds good, but I acknowledge that it isn't good based on certain criteria.

I forgot to say that you seem to understand the argument somewhat as well Flamboyant...( although may not agree with it)...because you seem to be suggesting a bad or good is at least there. Did you read the argument?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I forgot to say that you seem to understand the argument somewhat as well Flamboyant...although may not agree with it. Did you read the argument? I read part of it, but I disagree that some music is undeniably good, and undeniably crap. Based on really nothing.

I was just wondering, 'cause you're mentioning that you're acknowledging good and bad music...and there is actually a lot about "criteria" in my argument...(that's pretty much what supports it). I think you'd find it interesting.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
VVD...did you read the argument?

Yes.

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I may enjoy listening to an artist that I acknowledge as being bad. Or, the music sounds good, but I acknowledge that it isn't good based on certain criteria.

So you like it, but you feel that by reference to some criteria it isn't 'good'.

The thing is, if you like it, then you could say it is good.

That's the problem I was pointing out with the wording.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I was just wondering, 'cause you're mentioning that you're acknowledging good and bad music...and there is actually a lot about "criteria" in my argument...(that's pretty much what supports it). I think you'd find it interesting.

See the quoted post below.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom

I've explained how this works many times, yet people still argue over the words objective, subjective, facts and opinions.

The problem is actually the word 'better'. It has no clear, formal meaning. If we define the criteria by which we are determining which music is better, then it is actually possible to make a factual determination.

EPIIIBITES, because everyone disagrees with your overall point, don't start acting as if we've all missed parts. You seem to praise anyone who remotely says "I understand what he's saying." and ignore the fact that they actually disagree with your main point, as anyone with sense would.

Flamboyant is just saying they he can like music (Subjective, not objective.) yet admit it's bad within certain criteria, i.e: Technical areas, but he's not saying that there is undeniably good and bad music, he disagrees with that.

Stop acting like I'm attacking you.

You're wrong and everybody here sees it, you are the only one who truly doesn't get it.

-AC

I'll just ignore that bait.


VVD thanks for reading. I didn't quite understand the difference between that quote you gave me and my quote...but oh well...whatever.

I'll put it in layman terms for you;

If you define the criteria which you are using to determine better music or worse music, which you have, we can then reach a factual conclusion. None of your criteria prove your point.

Also why do you keep insisting I'm baiting you? Because you don't like my posts? At least I came back to debate the topic, what did you come back for? Oh, I know. To suggest that we don't get it because we disagree.

Deal with it or leave, you're wrong. You're the only one who wanted this debate, this thread, everything. EVERY time you have been on an overwhelming losing side, because you're wrong. So if you don't like the answers, stop asking the questions.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I was just wondering, 'cause you're mentioning that you're acknowledging good and bad music...and there is actually a lot about "criteria" in my argument...(that's pretty much what supports it). I think you'd find it interesting.

you dont base your appreciation of music on fixed criteria though do you?...you base it on what you like and if you're taste is varied then clearly using a set of criteria wouldn't allow that variation

we all agree that if the techincal ability were the criteria certain music is factually better than other pieces of music.

we all agree that one piece of music can be produced to a higher standard than another and thus is "better"

but in terms of whether it's good music is the discern of the person listening to it.

take your point about someone deliberately setting out to make crap music...what if someone liked it?...it wouldn't be crap to them

to use your god analogy

you can prove religion exists...you can prove one church is better than another mosque from an architectural view...but you cant prove god(s) exist(s) or doesn't and whether you believe this to be the case or not is arbitrary.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I'll just ignore that bait.


VVD thanks for reading. I didn't quite understand the difference between that quote you gave me and my quote...but oh well...whatever.

Well, yes. I posted similar things throughout, but people went on regardless.

You tended to deviate from that idea in elucidating your argument, hence the never-ending conflicts.

cool

I haven't read it, it's too long for me to want to read. But I think I understand what you are trying to say from the other thread and some skimming.

cool

We all understand what he's saying, Nell.

-AC

I don't think you do. I really don't. You may not agree, but I don't think you fully understand what he is implying.

A) I do, others do. Bottom line: He's saying there's an objective standard of music, fact is, there's not any objectivity outside of technicality.

B) Even IF I didn't, it doesn't change a thing does it? He's still wrong, isn't he? There's no objective standard of good and bad regarding what we hear and ONLY what we hear. You "understand" him according to himself, and you still disagree, because he's wrong.

Here:

Originally posted by Nellinator
30 Second of Mars sucks in my opinion because I don't like how they sound. That is the subjective part.

He's saying you're wrong. That a band's music can be truthfully and objectively bad no matter what anyone says or who likes them. He's saying if you like a band that make "crap" music and think they make good music, and don't say "But it's crap music.", you'd be wrong, regarding music that he thinks is "crap".

-AC

He never said that you can't subjectively like an objectively bad band.

Originally posted by Nellinator
He never said that you can't subjectively like an objectively bad band.

I didn't say he did, did I? Keep up.

You think 30 Seconds to Mars are nothing special objectively; And with regards to talent, a measurable factor, you're correct.

We're not talking about "bad" or "good" in terms of technical ability, we're discussing music. JUST music, not ability, not technical ability, nothing technical. Just the music, that's all. Not notation, not anything to do with anything technical.

If someone says "I don't think this is good music." about a song you like by say, Metallica, they are not right or wrong, it's just their opinion. There is no factually, truthfully, or objectively (Same thing, but EP likes to pick his words.) bad OR good MUSIC. If someone said "I don't think James Hetfield is a good guitarist." they'd be wrong, because it can be proven, objectively, that he is. Music is subjective, in terms of what's good and bad.

Nobody is wrong or right for thinking something is just good or bad music. Their opinion might not be all that, but they're not wrong or right. When someone says "This is bad music.", they aren't necessarily saying it's badly constructed (Technical anything.) or whatever, they are simply saying they don't like it.

You are too hung up on "I can appreciate music technically even if I don't like it.", so should anyone be able to. That's not the issue.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


If someone says "I don't think this is good music." about a song you like by say, Metallica, they are not right or wrong, it's just their opinion. There is no factually, truthfully, or objectively (Same thing, but EP likes to pick his words.) bad OR good MUSIC. If someone said "I don't think James Hetfield is a good guitarist." they'd be wrong, because it can be proven, objectively, that he is. Music is subjective, in terms of what's good and bad.

Technically they are similar areas; the difference is that 'good guitarist' seems more rooted in criteria than music. Both could be proven, both disproven.

The word 'good', as always.

Yeah, probably should have said "Good technical guitarist.", because "Good guitarist." could just mean good at making good music with a guitar.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I didn't say he did, did I? Keep up.

You think 30 Seconds to Mars are nothing special objectively; And with regards to talent, a measurable factor, you're correct.

We're not talking about "bad" or "good" in terms of technical ability, we're discussing music. JUST music, not ability, not technical ability, nothing technical. Just the music, that's all. Not notation, not anything to do with anything technical.

If someone says "I don't think this is good music." about a song you like by say, Metallica, they are not right or wrong, it's just their opinion. There is no factually, truthfully, or objectively (Same thing, but EP likes to pick his words.) bad OR good MUSIC. If someone said "I don't think James Hetfield is a good guitarist." they'd be wrong, because it can be proven, objectively, that he is. Music is subjective, in terms of what's good and bad.

Nobody is wrong or right for thinking something is just good or bad music. Their opinion might not be all that, but they're not wrong or right. When someone says "This is bad music.", they aren't necessarily saying it's badly constructed (Technical anything.) or whatever, they are simply saying they don't like it.

You are too hung up on "I can appreciate music technically even if I don't like it.", so should anyone be able to. That's not the issue.

-AC I'm confused why your trying to convince me of this, I haven't disagreed with you.