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

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

Originally posted by jaden101
uIo AkLeRtwErAsDftYu sDfuIosDf

Exactly, with bells on.

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

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.

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.

Then you'll see understanding his methods is irrelevant.

I do, but even if I didn't, he's still wrong. Not sure what "understanding" would add or take away.

-AC

-Conversation with song titles?...(boy we did a great job with that one)

-What song are you listening to NOW??...("now" as in every 5 minutes??)

-Hi ...I like music???

Are these the threads that have taken over?

...

It was only a matter of time....and it's time.

Alpha Centauri, you don't get it...and neither do others.

WHAT did you just say in that last quoted post?

You (and others) STILL don't get the fundamental flaw that you all keep making...how can you DARE say...

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.

...you CAN'T say that! According to you there IS NO SUCH THING as good or bad music...let alone an opinion on it! So the ONLY thing you could POSSIBLY tell the person is that they've just made an opinion about NOTHING.

There is NO "opinion" regarding good or bad music according to you...because good or bad music doesn't exist...right? So DON'T say "it's just their opinion"...as if that might mean something.

That'd be like me saying, "That tree is smart...that's just my opinion".

What? But there isn't such a thing as smart or dumb trees...so I've just made an opinion about nothing.

THAT'S basically the kind of reaction you should ALL have regarding music...

...but you don't.

And the reason you don't is because...

a) You STILL don't even understand your own argument (even though I keep posting the ONLY thing it could possibly mean)

b) You agree with me, but just don't know it.

Don't ANY of you EVER say "this band sucks" or "this band rules" because it means NOTHING...(according to you)...NOTHING. Not that you might be wrong about the band or that it's "just your opinion"...it means NOTHING. And the reason MANY of you aren't prepared to accept this is because you haven't really thought this stuff through yet...even your own argument.


So you think I'm wrong?...let's have 'er.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Alpha Centauri, you don't get it...and neither do others.

Again.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You (and others) STILL don't get the fundamental flaw that you all keep making...how can you DARE say...

And again.

You are the one who doesn't get it. You believe that if you keep posting, you're still in it, and it's so, so sad. Really it is. It's tragic, honestly.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
...you CAN'T say that! According to you there IS NO SUCH THING as good or bad music...let alone an opinion on it! So the ONLY thing you could POSSIBLY tell the person is that they've just made an opinion about NOTHING.

There is NO "opinion" regarding good or bad music according to you...because good or bad music doesn't exist...right? So DON'T say "it's just their opinion"...as if that might mean something.

That'd be like me saying, "That tree is smart...that's just my opinion".

There's no OBJECTIVELY good or bad music. If you still don't get that after all this time, then you truly are beyond saving. Everyone has an opinion about what music is good or bad, and that's all there is. I can't believe it still needs to be told to you.

And no, it wouldn't be like that because trees aren't conscious, unless you're now planning to argue that they are.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
What? But there isn't such a thing as smart or dumb trees...so I've just made an opinion about nothing.

No, what you did there was make a factually incorrect statement, just to prove a point, and failed. Like you are believing and pushing an incorrect belief in this thread, just to keep going.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
THAT'S basically the kind of reaction you should ALL have regarding music...

Don't tell people what reaction they should have. Then again, you did once say you were such a great philosopher that you deserved to be held in company of Plato.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
...but you don't.

There are a lot of things you don't do; Admit you're wrong, for one, which is why this thread died, because nobody cared enough to keep saying things they didn't need to.

You dodge every single reply I throw at you, only to pop up weeks later and try again, ignoring everything that came before.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
And the reason you don't is because...

a) You STILL don't even understand your own argument (even though I keep posting the ONLY thing it could possibly mean)

b) You agree with me, but just don't know it.

Now I'm starting to believe this thread has honestly driven you insane.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Don't ANY of you EVER say "this band sucks" or "this band rules" because it means NOTHING...(according to you)...NOTHING. Not that you might be wrong about the band or that it's "just your opinion"...it means NOTHING. And the reason MANY of you aren't prepared to accept this is because you haven't really thought this stuff through yet...even your own argument.

It does, it means we, as individuals, believe a band's music sucks or rules. We're not saying it as fact, because it isn't.


Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
So you think I'm wrong?...let's have 'er.

No, we know you are. That's what you don't understand, for the millionth time. You still believe this is a debate, it's not. It's you being wrong and continually posting because you don't want to let it die, you feel "If I keep posting it means the debate is still going.", and it doesn't.

Here's the deal, EP;

If your desperate, pathetic crusade has genuinely reached the point of convincing yourself that we know we're wrong and just don't know it, then you truly need not only mental help, but to leave this thread, because it'll never go anywhere. You've reached such a pit that you now convince yourself you're right, that we know you're right and that we agree with you.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Everyone has an opinion about what music is good or bad, and that's all there is. I can't believe it still needs to be told to you.... Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
...we, as individuals, believe a band's music sucks or rules. We're not saying it as fact, because it isn't. Haha!

THIS is the person you people have been agreeing with all this time.

He doesn't get it. He DOES NOT get it, and he WILL NOT get it...

I just spent a whole post solely explaining how it's not possible for him to say what just said...and he still said it.

....

Anyway, sitting back and watching some of the stuff discussed was a bit painful.

At this point, I'm just curious to see how many people can understand this simple point I'm making...(I know one person can't...and I think a lot of you have caught on that he can't, although he'll try and get the last word in EVERY time and try to make it out that everyone is in agreement with him...just watch).

So, I'll post it again, and let's see if in fact you ALL understand what I'm saying...
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You (and others) STILL don't get the fundamental flaw that you all keep making...how can you DARE say...


-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.


...you CAN'T say that! According to you there IS NO SUCH THING as good or bad music...let alone an opinion on it! So the ONLY thing you could POSSIBLY tell the person is that they've just made an opinion about NOTHING.

There is NO "opinion" regarding good or bad music according to you...because good or bad music doesn't exist...right? So DON'T say "it's just their opinion"...as if that might mean something.

That'd be like me saying, "That tree is smart...that's just my opinion".

What? But there isn't such a thing as smart or dumb trees...so I've just made an opinion about nothing.

THAT'S basically the kind of reaction you should ALL have regarding music...

...but you don't.

And the reason you don't is because...

a) You STILL don't even understand your own argument (even though I keep posting the ONLY thing it could possibly mean)

b) You agree with me, but just don't know it.

Don't ANY of you EVER say "this band sucks" or "this band rules" because it means NOTHING...(according to you)...NOTHING. Not that you might be wrong about the band or that it's "just your opinion"...it means NOTHING. And the reason MANY of you aren't prepared to accept this is because you haven't really thought this stuff through yet...even your own argument.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Haha!

THIS is the person you people have been agreeing with all this time.

He doesn't get it. He DOES NOT get it, and he WILL NOT get it...

I just spent a whole post solely explaining how it's not possible for him to say what just said...and he still said it.

....

Anyway...I sat back and watched some of you people discuss this stuff for a while and a lot of it was absolutley painful.

At this point, I'm just curious to see how many people can understand this simple point I'm making...(I know one person can't...and I think a lot of you have caught on that he can't, although he'll try and get the last word in EVERY time and try to make it out that everyone is in agreement with him...just watch).

What do you not understand? You spent a day or four creating an argument for something you are wrong about, that's what made it hilarious and also sad. It was an exercise in futility.

You keep asking us to understand, but by understand you mean agree, because we all understand, you're just wrong.

I'm not trying to get the last word, I was more than prepared to let this thread pass, but YOU are the one who bumped it replying to me, so I replied to you. You wouldn't reply to anything else I said, so why not?

You are the one who keeps pasting your posts again and again in an attempt to keep the thread alive, without contributing anything beyond "They don't get it, HE doesn't get it.", then trying to slyly get people on your side by saying "I think you do, AC is just dumb.".

No, you're an idiot. I've accepted your disposition, but you won't accept that this is how it is. Accept you're wrong or not, you do need to accept that it's not going to happen for you, no matter how much you whine, ass kiss, or make polls.

It's just not going to happen. I can rest in the fact that I am right, hence why I had the ability to let the thread go, you can never, because you're wrong and you know it, and you believe if you keep bumping it, it's still going.

So you can have the last post, we'll see how much interest your bump creates.

-AC

I bumped this thread because some of the threads out there these days were just ridiculous.

And I didn't say you're dumb...you just don't get a lot of the logic in this particular argument...as don't others. Some do, some don't, that's why some tended to agree with me in the polls, and some didn't.


Anyway...let's see what others think of this last point I've made, shall we?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
-Conversation with song titles?...(boy we did a great job with that one)

-What song are you listening to NOW??...("now" as in every 5 minutes??)

-Hi ...I like music???

Are these the threads that have taken over?

...

It was only a matter of time....and it's time.

Alpha Centauri, you don't get it...and neither do others.

WHAT did you just say in that last quoted post?

You (and others) STILL don't get the fundamental flaw that you all keep making...how can you DARE say...

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.

...you CAN'T say that! According to you there IS NO SUCH THING as good or bad music...let alone an opinion on it! So the ONLY thing you could POSSIBLY tell the person is that they've just made an opinion about NOTHING.

There is NO "opinion" regarding good or bad music according to you...because good or bad music doesn't exist...right? So DON'T say "it's just their opinion"...as if that might mean something.

That'd be like me saying, "That tree is smart...that's just my opinion".

What? But there isn't such a thing as smart or dumb trees...so I've just made an opinion about nothing.

THAT'S basically the kind of reaction you should ALL have regarding music...

...but you don't.

And the reason you don't is because...

a) You STILL don't even understand your own argument (even though I keep posting the ONLY thing it could possibly mean)

b) You agree with me, but just don't know it.

Don't ANY of you EVER say "this band sucks" or "this band rules" because it means NOTHING...(according to you)...NOTHING. Not that you might be wrong about the band or that it's "just your opinion"...it means NOTHING. And the reason MANY of you aren't prepared to accept this is because you haven't really thought this stuff through yet...even your own argument.


So you think I'm wrong?...let's have 'er.

Maybe, just maybe it is time for suicide?

Right.

If you actually did read what you've just quoted and don't agree with it, then congratulations...you've put yourself in some great company.

What happened to letting people post what they think, EP? Or is it only ok when you keep posting? Because you couldn't POSSIBLY want the last word...

Either drop it and let people give their debates of their own accord, or stop telling others to let others post.

Nobody cares anymore, EP. Just you, Mr. I'm in the company of Plato.

-AC

Someone posted and I replied...that's how it works. Go ahead and reply to his post as well if you like.


...company of Plato?

You did say, once, that you were in the company of Plato regarding your philosophical views and intellect.

Don't deny it, or I will go grab the quote, then you will say "How sad, he's digging up old quotes.", and it's boring.

-AC

Find the quote...wanna see what I said. Hee hee

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Right.

If you actually did read what you've just quoted and don't agree with it, then congratulations...you've put yourself in some great company.

Well, your reasoning is inaccurate, so who cares.

Yeah...LOVE to see you explain how.

Here's the quote:

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
So you would ban Plato and other great ancient Greek philosophers becasue you can't comprehend what they meant by objective truths (including beauty). Yeah...that's right...I'm in that company.

Yet, you say things like: "I can't prove Britney is crap, I don't KNOW that she is, it's not a FACT that she is...but she IS CRAP.".

Yes, you're in the company of Plato...

We've all explained how, YOU have explained how. You just bury your head in your ass and suggest we all don't get it, but anyone who says "I understand you, even though I disagree.", you fellate.

Understanding isn't necessary, because your ultimate point is "There's an objective standard of good and bad.", and there's not.

YOU are wrong, EP. Why do you keep posting? What exactly are you trying to achieve? I'm honestly curious here. Are you trying to convert people? Are you trying to trick people? What's the deal?

You'll always be wrong.

So take time out from voting for yourself as if polls matter (Because I've honestly only ever see one person agree with your INITIAL point.), and do what you claim you want to do, let people reply if they desire to. They don't, though, because we've all grown to hate this thread, as it's just constant whooping, like the other thread, and the thread before that.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, your reasoning is inaccurate, so who cares.
So then I guess you agree with the accuracy of this reasoning...


Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Everyone has an opinion about what music is good or bad, and that's all there is. I can't believe it still needs to be told to you. Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
...we, as individuals, believe a band's music sucks or rules.

...even though you're saying there's NO SUCH THING as good or bad music...


Makes TONS of sense! Oh yeah.

Everyone does, EP.

"Understanding" you or not, nobody actually agrees with your proposal of an objective standard.

-AC

As for the Plato thing...I said I'm in the company of people who comprehend what he said about objective truths...I didn't say "I'm as smart as Plato."

Gimme a break...way to misquote me.

I didn't misquote you, that is the exact quote.

Everyone understands what an objective truth is, EP. Everyone except you, because you think there is one in music quality, i.e: The music we hear.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Everyone except you, because you think there is one in music quality, i.e: The music we hear. What...music we hear?

What are you on about...is this you trying to make up some wishy-washy differentiation about the music we hear and the music that "IS".

AC...I can tell by your posts that you don't know a whole lot about music...you don't know about writing music, you don't know about inspiration, composition and notation regarding music...and I can bet you don't know about production of music.

What's this "what we hear" stuff you're pushing now to try and sway the argument your way?

Amazing.

Do you honestly intend to babble until the trumpets sound or something?

Music, you know, that stuff we listen to. You believe there's an objective good and bad standard, you're wrong. It's not come to the point that I have to explain what we're discussing.

You can assume whatever you like about my knowledge, it's of no concern to me that some random idiot is trying to tell ME I know nothing of music, knowing nothing himself.

Notation, composition etc, these are technical aspects, they do not, in anyway, add or contribute to your point about good and bad music being true. Neither does inspiration.

Why? Because for the millionth time, music quality is entirely subjective. Good and bad music, based solely on what we personally perceive, nothing technical, is entirely subjective.

You'll keep ignoring it, people will keep whooping you, you'll keep being presumptuous, ignorant and annoying, and around we go.

-AC

*You do know what notation is don't you? It's simply the markings musicians use to write music..they're really isn't any provable good or bad "notation"...unless you've been drinking or something and you're writing's all over the place. What ARE you on about?


*And composition...the composition IS the music...being thought up and/or written out

If I say a piece of music is crap, I'm obviously also saying the thought up composition is crap...because that's the music. As far as the actual compostion being written out, what's been expressed by the writing can be crap (because again, what's being expressed is the actual msuic), but not the writing itself.

But again, you're saying composition (as in the writing itself) can be proved bad or good. And again, no it can't.


*And inspiration is something that I've always used as a determiner...so what are you talking about there?



You know what...honestly...for your sake and mine, you should maybe go find a thread that involves stuff you know something about...because explaining every single thing and having you blindly argue it is getting kind of hard.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You do know what notation is don't you? It's simply the markings musicians use to write music..they're really isn't any provable good or bad "notation"...unless you've been drinking or something and you're writing's all over the place. What ARE you on about?

And composition...the composition IS the music...being thought up and/or written out

How dumb can you possibly get...?

It doesn't matter what's being written, if someone doesn't like how it sounds and say "That's bad music.", they're saying they think it sounds bad, not that it isn't technically good. Technical talent doesn't equate to good music.

Why are you now moving onto notation? Nobody here was ever discussing technique or writing, that's not what the debate is about, it was about sound, how music sounds, not what's written.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
If I say a piece of music is crap, I'm obviously also saying the thought up composition is crap. As far as the actual compostion being written out, what's been expressed by the writing can be crap, but not the writing itself.

Again, you're saying composition (in the writing itself) can be proved bad or good. And again, no it can't.

What the hell? Why are you talking about composition now?

The debate was about an objective standard in what is good or bad music; yes or no? The answer is no, there's not. It was never about composition or technique, or writing, or anything like that.

Stop trying to change your debate, Panic Boy.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
And inspiration is something that I've always used as a determiner...what are you talking about?

I know you have, it doesn't mean it helps prove your point.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You know what...honestly...for your sake, you should maybe go find a thread that involves stuff you know something about...because explaining every single thing and having you blindly argue it is getting kind of hard.

I could leave and then everyone else would just do the same thing, so I think I'll stay.

You don't understand that it's not me, it's you.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
So then I guess you agree with the accuracy of this reasoning...




...even though you're saying there's NO SUCH THING as good or bad music...


Makes TONS of sense! Oh yeah. I think if I'd perform brain surgery with a pencil in the dark on you, it could only improve.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What the hell? Why are you talking about composition now? What the discussion is about is just "music". And to be clear...music is not only sound (as you say), it's a composition that's been created and exists (apart from its written form) in the writer's mind...much like a movie can exist in the writer's mind without ever having been filmed.

A musical composition does NOT always refer to something written out. A composition can often refer to the actual music itself that's been thought-up...it's essence.

Saying "this is crap music" is referring to both things...the aural representation of what's been created (which is just an audible reflection of what's been thought up) and the creation itself...the thought-up composition.

Just like saying "this is a crappy movie" is referring to the visual representation of what's been created (which is just a visible reflection of what's been thought up) and the creation itself...what's been thought-up.

Saying "I hate Oops I Did It Again" means you hate the essence of "Oops I Did It Again"...not just the way it "sounds".

Saying "I hate Pirates of the Carribean" means you hate the essense of "Pirates of the Carribean"...not just the way it "looks."

So what's all this talk about how it "sounds"?


I'm just talking about a piece of "music". It's essence (the composition)...and it's audible representation (obviously).

There is more to music than how it "sounds"...you do know that...(and no, it's NOT just the notation and "written" composition).

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think if I'd perform brain surgery with a pencil in the dark on you, it could only improve.
Good explanation of your argument.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Good explanation of your argument.

Okay.

There is no such thing as factually good or bad music. So far so good?

Okay.

There are opinions on music. There are. Good?

Okay.

Now, there might be opinions that say music is good or bad. Like yours. But that doesn't mean music is good or bad. It means you like the music or not or you think that it is good for whatever reasons though there is no absolute reason why it is. Good?

Get it?

Going to stop throwing around logical fallacies?

Okay?

Also:

I think if I'd perform brain surgery with a pencil in the dark on you, it could only improve. (You are an idiot)

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
What the discussion is about is just "music". And to be clear...music is not only sound (as you say), it's a composition that's been created and exists (apart from its written form) in the writer's mind...much like a movie can exist in the writer's mind without ever having been filmed.

A musical composition does NOT always refer to something written out. A composition can often refer to the actual music itself that's been thought-up...it's essence.

This should be funny, go on...

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Saying "this is crap music" is referring to both things...the aural representation of what's been created (which is just an audible reflection of what's been thought up) and the creation itself...the thought-up composition.

Who are you to decide what people are referring to when they say "This is crap music."? Fact is, most people who say it aren't necessarily musically inclined enough to know what would be good composition or bad composition on a technical level anyway, so they are referring to...on a base level, what they hear.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Just like saying "this is a crappy movie" is referring to the visual representation of what's been created (which is just a visible reflection of what's been thought up) and the creation itself...what's been thought-up.

What the hell are you flapping about? You're struggling even worse than you were before.

If I say "This movie is crappy." I mean the end product and only the end product. Spider-Man 3 has some technically well shot scenes, but I dislike the final product. It's entirely subjective.

The technique, composition and writing of music means nothing to this debate, all that matters is the end product; Is there an objectively good or bad end product, i.e; The music? Answer: No.

And before you suggest that technically good musicianship means the end product is also good, no it doesn't. Dream Theater prove that, Yngwie Malmsteen proves that.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Saying "I hate Oops I Did It Again" means you hate the essence of "Oops I Did It Again"...not just the way it "sounds".

Of course it doesn't, you idiot. As if everyone is thinking "Hmm, I really don't like this song, but also on a level of writing and composition.", yes. That's definitely what people always think, isn't it? Fool.

You're not even on thin ice anymore, you're actually drowning.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Saying "I hate Pirates of the Carribean" means you hate the essense of "Pirates of the Carribean"...not just the way it "looks."

Do you want to get back on topic? Or are you that done for?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
So what's all this talk about how it "sounds"?

We're discussing music as an end product, not movies, not tv shows, not books, not anything technical. Hence why I'm discussing sound.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I'm just talking about a piece of "music". It's essence (the composition)...and it's audible representation (obviously).

Yeah, it's audible representation is no good or bad, objectively. It's all subjective. That's all that was being discussed, the end product.

You were the one who brought in the pathetic idea of "People also mean it's crap on a compositional side.", because you're trying to get any possible reason to post.

Nobody is discussing composition or anything, that was never, ever the debate. It was ALWAYS about JUST the end product, so stop trying to shift your debate.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
Now, there might be opinions that say music is good or bad. Like yours. But that doesn't mean music is good or bad. It means you like the music or not or you think that it is good for whatever reasons though there is no absolute reason why it is. Good? Bravo...thanks. Well, I think YOU maybe get it from the sounds of it...but what you just said doesn't jive with the two AC quotes I presented you with...(which were in contrast to my main post)...
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Everyone has an opinion about what music is good or bad, and that's all there is. Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
...we, as individuals, believe a band's music sucks or rules.
I'll give bonus points if you point out where he's missing the argument...(quick, before he tries to make it seem like you do agree with him).


EDIT: Here's a hint...according to you people there's NO SUCH THING as good or bad music/music that sucks or rules...now, look at his quotes again.

I'm clearly not missing the argument am I, you idiot.

You believe there is an objective standard/truth of what is good and bad, regarding the end product; Music. JUST the music, JUST what we hear. That was always your debate up until now, when you started bringing composition into it.

The answer, like it or not, is no, there is not.

It doesn't matter if anyone understands HOW you are presenting this belief or not, because at the end of it, that is what your belief is, the objective truth of a subjective medium, and it's bullshit.

I understand it, but my point is, I don't need to, nobody needs to understand further than your main point.

Oh, and stop this bs of saying I'm brainwashing people just because everyone whoops you. You're a mug.

-AC

A mug?

Back to the other stuff...

First if all, you CAN'T say "I hate Oops I Did It Again" without referring to the essence of the song (the composition). Thing is, you still don't understand what a composition is...that's why you're saying stuff like "WhAT? Nobody knows about technical stuff!!!"

They don't know about...but that's what they're referring to when they say "I hate this song"...they're talking about the creation...not just the way it "sounds".

Seconf of all, when people say "I didn't like that movie" they're talking about what's been created...not just the way it "looks".


This is hard...really.

What point are you trying to make?

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Bravo...thanks. Well, I think YOU maybe get it from the sounds of it...but what you just said doesn't jive with the two AC quotes I presented you with...(which were in contrast to my main post)...

I'll give bonus points if you point out where he's missing the argument...(quick, before he tries to make it seem like you do agree with him).


EDIT: Here's a hint...according to you people there's NO SUCH THING as good or bad music/music that sucks or rules...now, look at his quotes again.

Y-yes? He says that people believe that people's music sucks or doesn't. Not that it actually does. He is correct.

Ok, then I said you can't make a statement like this one here...and then you both disagreed...
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.
...But wait, there isn't even good or bad music to have an opinion about right?... so the ONLY thing YOU people could say regarding a person who says this about a Metallica song is "he's just made an opinion about NOTHING"...not, "well, that's just his opinion". And AC so responded with...

"Everyone has an opinion about what music is good or bad, and that's all there is."

"...we, as individuals, believe a band's music sucks or rules."

If he really understood what I said, he wouldn't have responded with this stuff.

Get it?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Ok, then I said you can't make a statement like this...

...because the ONLY thing you could say about a person who said this about a Metallica song is "you've just made an opinion about NOTHING"...and then you both disagreed. And AC responded with

"Everyone has an opinion about what music is good or bad, and that's all there is."

"...we, as individuals, believe a band's music sucks or rules."

What the hell are you talking about?

It means their opinion isn't right or wrong, not that they have no opinion or that they have an opinion on nothing.

It's not right or wrong, that's why it's called an opinion.

It's like a car crash; Reading your posts. I should stop, but it's just too horrific to look away.

-AC

AC...say it...their opinion is "pointless".

You still haven't said ANYTHING that comes close to this...and that's why I'm convinced you don't even FULLY understand your own argument.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
AC...say it...their opinion is "pointless".

You still haven't said ANYTHING that comes close to this...and that's why I'm convinced you don't even FULLY understand your own argument.

Convince yourself of whatever you want, it's what you've been doing this whole time, it doesn't matter to me. Tell yourself Santa has a condo on the Moon if it makes you sleep. It becomes a problem when you convince yourself and then ignore everything else, whilst trying to force your convince belief on us, despite it being wrong.

Their opinion isn't pointless, at all. They think Metallica make good or bad music, that's their opinion. It's point is to exist, for them to have it.

I'm not sure if you're doing this on purpose or you really are that depressed that nothing you say can hold any water, but it's getting sad. I'd suggest salvaging dignity and letting the thread die, but to you, that would mean losing.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What the hell are you talking about?

It means their opinion isn't right or wrong, not that they have no opinion or that they have an opinion on nothing.

It's not right or wrong, that's why it's called an opinion.

It's like a car crash; Reading your posts. I should stop, but it's just too horrific to look away.

-AC

Yes, that's basically the mental picture I was searching for.

You're still maintaining you agree with him, huh? And you can't see what he's doing now can you?

...


AC...when you say "this band sucks"..."Opeth rule" or "Lily Allen sucks"...or "Angels is s***" or "Michael Jackson made one of the best albums ever" or whatever...what do you mean?

Just answer this question......but first remember, you did say...


"Everyone has an opinion about what music is good or bad, and that's all there is."

"...we, as individuals, believe a band's music sucks or rules."


...so, your answer...






...(and don't you dare say what I think you're gonna say...because to THAT I'll have "Moonlight Sonata" prepared...I'll explain).

Nobody is saying it's worth listening to, I don't think it is, I think Ashlee Simpson's music is shit, but obviously, 2D, EPIIIBITES will love you now.

He's on the end of such an overwhelming backlash that he values anybody that remotely sides with him, even though he's wrong.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
AC...when you say "this band sucks"..."Opeth rule" or "Lily Allen sucks"...or "Angels is s***" or "Michael Jackson made one of the best albums ever" or whatever...what do you mean?

Just answer this question......but first remember, you did say...


"Everyone has an opinion about what music is good or bad, and that's all there is."

"...we, as individuals, believe a band's music sucks or rules."


...so, your answer...






...(and don't you dare say what I think you're gonna say...because to THAT I'll have "Moonlight Sonata" prepared...I'll explain).

I'll say what I want, and my answer is the same as it always has been:

When I say those things I mean all of those things in my opinion. E.g: Robbie Williams' Angels is shit, in my opinion. Opeth rule, in my opinion. Just like Robbie Williams' Angels is a good song in your opinion.

You HATE me saying that because you know it's true, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Moonlight Sonata? Oooh scary. What? I love that song, but someone else might think it sounds horrible, they're not wrong. The Moonlight Sonata is not an exception just because it's famous and acclaimed, it's still subjected to the rules of musical perception.

There, now say something like "Oh my god! I can't believe you all agree with this guy!" so we can just get it over with. Not everyone does agree with the way I say things, actually. Everyone just disagrees with you cos you're wrong.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You're still maintaining you agree with him, huh? And you can't see what he's doing now can you?

...


AC...when you say "this band sucks"..."Opeth rule" or "Lily Allen sucks"...or "Angels is s***" or "Michael Jackson made one of the best albums ever" or whatever...what do you mean?

Just answer this question......but first remember, you did say...


"Everyone has an opinion about what music is good or bad, and that's all there is."

"...we, as individuals, believe a band's music sucks or rules."


...so, your answer...






...(and don't you dare say what I think you're gonna say...because to THAT I'll have "Moonlight Sonata" prepared...I'll explain).

Because he is correct. It is about liking one more than the other.

If it is about specifics, like, "Joe Satriani is a better guitar player than Avril Lavigne for the following reasons..." is different.

But you can only really say that you like their music better.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
When I say those things I mean all of those things in my opinion. E.g: Robbie Williams' Angels is shit, in my opinion. Opeth rule, in my opinion. Just like Robbie Williams' Angels is a good song in your opinion.

You HATE me saying that because you know it's true, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Thank you...so very, very much. I'm gonna quote the crap out of this post...just to prove my point.

...

Bardock42...it's time.

THAT is what AC means when he says "this band sucks" etc.... So, I'm gonne give you one last chance to point out how you differ from what he's saying...and if you really don't think you differ from what he's saying, then oh boy...this is gonna be harder than I thought.



EDIT: I just read your last post...and again...that's NOT what he's saying. Just LOOK at what he's saying above...especially the second part.

It's not the same dude. Sorry...I know how much you love AC, but it's not the same. Check it out.

You say that as if it's genuinely meant to intimidate me, when anything you say is bullshit and I prove it wrong every time.

There's a reason everybody disagrees with you, EP.

Then "Oh boy..." what? Suffer the fate of EPIIIBITES not giving you his approved nod?

How will any of us sleep at night?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Nobody is saying it's worth listening to, I don't think it is, I think Ashlee Simpson's music is shit, but obviously, 2D, EPIIIBITES will love you now.

He's on the end of such an overwhelming backlash that he values anybody that remotely sides with him, even though he's wrong.

-AC

Well im not sideing with him. I think it's sad that he would try to argue with people who are THAT BLIND, rather.. THAT DEAF. Besides, I'm not trying to make friends, most people on this forum are fawking nit- witts anyways...

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Thank you...so very, very much. I'm gonna quote the crap out of this post...just to prove my point...especially the second sentence regarding "Angels."

...

Bardock42...it's time.

THAT is what AC means when he says "this band sucks" etc.... So, I'm gonne give you one last chance to point out how you differ from what he's saying...and if you really don't think you differ from what he's saying, then oh boy...this is gonna be harder than I thought.



EDIT: I just read your last post...and again...that's NOT what he's saying. Just LOOK at what he's saying above...especially the second part.

It's not the same dude. Sorry...I know how much you love AC, but it's not the same. Check it out.

That is what he is saying though.

He thinks it is shit = he doesn't like it or he thinks it doesn't fit certain subjective criteria.

BUT THERE ARE NO SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA!!!!!! ARE THERE? (according to you people).

THANK YOU!

Why do you insist on agreeing with the guy when he's saying stuff like...Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You HATE me saying that because you know it's true, and there's nothing you can do about it. ...which he said in referrence to the song "Angels" that I think is ACTUALLY a great song (because I, ME...I think in those terms).


He DOES NOT understand his own argument.

2D, the opposite is actually happening, he's not arguing with those people.

He's arguing with people who agree with his opinion on her and others like her, but he's trying to say people are wrong for saying "She makes good music.". They're not wrong, they just have less than favourable opinions.

It's not a fact or truth that they are incorrect.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
BUT THERE ARE NO SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA!!!!!! ARE THERE?

THANK YOU!

Why do you insist on agreeing with the guy when he's saying stuff like "

I'm saying exactly what Bardock said I'm saying.

Technical skill can be proven, but that's not what's being discussed. We're discussing the end product and only the end product, that's all that's ever been discussed, and it will always be subjective. There is no objectively good or bad music, it's all opinion.

You are making a false connection between technically good methods and the music made by those methods. One being good does not mean the other is.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
BUT THERE ARE NO SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA!!!!!! ARE THERE? (according to you people).

THANK YOU!

Why do you insist on agreeing with the guy when he's saying stuff like ...
...regarding the song "Angels" that I think is ACTUALLY a great song (because I, ME...I think in those terms.


He DOES NOT understand his own argument.

No, there are subjective criteria according to our side. Do you maybe not know what subjective means?

You can think Angels is a great song, that means it is, to you, not to me. Your opinion and my opinion, that's it.

It's not objectively great or shit, it's subjective.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, there are subjective criteria according to our side. Do you maybe not know what subjective means? OMG. This is incredible.

YOU'VE SAID THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOOD OR BAD MUSIC...therefore...NO CRITERIA FOR GOOD AND BAD MUSIC...BECAUSE THERE'S NOOOOO SUUUUCH THIIIING!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Bardock42
But you can only really say that you like their music better.
THAT'S what YOU said...that's not what he said. THIS is what he said...Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
When I say those things I mean all of those things in my opinion. E.g: Robbie Williams' Angels is shit, in my opinion. Opeth rule, in my opinion. Just like Robbie Williams' Angels is a good song in your opinion.

You HATE me saying that because you know it's true, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Come on Bardock...I know you can do it...

No OBJECTIVE criteria.

Get with it, please.

There's subjective criteria for judging what music is good and bad to US, and it's subjective because it comes from us alone and applies only to our opinion of that music.

We each have our own standards regarding how we determine what we think is good or bad. There is no objective standard to judge or confirm what is good and bad for everyone, why? Because there's no objectively good or bad music, you idiot.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
THAT'S what you said...that's not what he said.

They both mean the same thing.

We are both saying that all anybody can do is say "I like this music better than that." or "This is bad, that is good.". You can never PROVE either, because there is no objective truth to good or bad music.

-AC

Really, the only thing objective about music is when you look at the notation those certain notes, when played, will produce certain frequencies. This is objective because it can be physically measured.

This has all been said and done, Ytse.

He, ironically, doesn't understand anything at all. Or he does, and is just posting to keep himself involved.

-AC

Originally posted by Ytse
Really, the only thing objective about music is when you look at the notation those certain notes, when played, will produce certain frequencies. This is objective because it can be physically measured. If you mean someone might "play" the wrong notes, then yes...that can be measured.

As far as objectivity in music is concerned though...the problem here is that AC doesn't undertand his own argument...let alone mine.

This has been suggested by others as well...and in time, will be shown all the more.