By that I mean, you can definietly seperate bad from good....crap from "non-crap". And although it's harder to determine what "non-crap" is better, I still say it's not subjective.
If good music was subjective, then Brittney Spears would be considered good...after all lots of people think she's good. Brittney Spears is NOT good...it's crap...and if you say "it's good if people like it" then...oh boy.
So what if I take a band like Stone Temple Pilots and weigh them up against Nirvana, (although I personally have my own opinion as to which one is better...and I think it's no contest) it'd be kinda hard to make a case for which one is best because I don't think either are crap.
Now how about Nickelback compared to Stone Temple Pilots? Both not crap (although with one of these I'd say we're getting pretty close).
I'll be as bold as to say that if you said STP over Nirvana for the first one...you're wrong...and if you said Nickleback over STP for the second one...you're dead wrong. But I wouldn't say that the least of those in each comparison is crap...(although...with Nickleback...I dunno).
The thing is, some people just don't have the capacity to determine what's better (and even worse...what's "crap")...and that's hard for a lot of people to accept.
If you think I'm wrong, then I'd love for you to explain in this thread how STP is better than Nirvana and worse than Nickleback...
You cannot factually, beyond all deniability, prove one piece of music to be better and more enjoyable than another, or of better quality.
It's obvious that Jimi Hendrix made better music in the truest sense than say, Britney Spears, but that's not factual. As shit as it is, it's not a fact.
I'd love to hear someone explain how they think Nickleback make better music than Nirvana, but that's simply because it's a ridiculous belief, it doesn't make them wrong.
You can be as bold as you want, no music taste is objective. If you think so, you're wrong.
Why? Ok, let's try it.
Prove to us all that Nirvana produce factually better music than Fall Out Boy. For the sake of the argument, I'll defend Fall Out Boy.
Fall Out Boy make better music (Better being personally subjective term, we're talking about what music is made, not how). I like it more.
^^^ Prove that statement factually incorrect and you win a cookie. Don't just say I'm wrong and stupid, prove it factually incorrect so nobody could deny it. Prove any piece of music to be better in terms of enjoyment or subjective experience.
You don't know half as much as you think you do, and I can tell you're already frequenting this forum as if you run the place. Might as well stop now.
Oh my. I can't...one, becasue I'm laughing too hard (you put up a good fight), and two, because...I don't know if you even need to.
You know Nirvana is better than Fall Out Boy the same way you know a rose is prettier than a peice of s#@%. There's no explanation needed. Sure, you'll get some people saying the s#@% is nicer (and if it was packaged and presented the same way some crap music is, then you can understand why)...but at the end of the day...it's still s#@%...and there's a lot of us who can even smell it from a mile away if you know what I mean.
I think it is possible to explain how to seperate the two...I just don't know how to do it. If there was a God of music...then he'd know how. But they can be seperated.
There's your anwer...
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Feb 3rd, 2007 at 10:09 PM
Yeah, to me. Not to someone who likes Fall Out Boy or shit better than Nirvana and roses.
Fall Out Boy don't make good music to me just because someone thinks it's good. They make good music to THEM because they think it's good. It's entirely opinion. You cannot prove that Nirvana make better music, objectively. I agree with you, but that's all. We agree, we're not "right".
Yeah, you're too stupid to say "Ok, you like shit. It's shit to me, but it's not to you. I still think it's shit, but that doesn't mean I'm right. You think it's good, but that doesn't make you right.". It's up to the listener to decide what output they believe is good or not good, based solely on taste, it's subjective.
Some opinions may be more credible than others, but they are still opinions.
You didn't give me an answer that carried any weight. You just said "But they're wrong, cos it's shit. I mean, it's SHIT!". Aka, I don't see why they'd like it, and they're shit for liking it, so it's wrong.
No, you're stupid.
I think Alice in Chains were worlds ahead of Nirvana, musically. Prove me wrong. Don't say "I can't, they're both great bands.", but we both know that you only separate what YOU think is crap from what YOU think is shit.
You have a Star Wars sig, therefore your taste in movies is already off on a bad foot to me. Does it mean I'm right? No, it means our opinions differ.
I think you're afraid of admitting something you can't prove...which is silly.
I'm not talking about political parties here...I'm saying Marvin Gaye rules and K-Fed sucks. If you don't have the balls to say, "ya...that's a fact", and admit that it is proveable (although as humans, we don't have the capacity to explain exactly how)...then go home.
Who care's what K-Fed thinks about his music...and who cares what a dog thinks about another dog's butthole...whether they like or not, it's still CRAP.
This'll help you see the bigger picture. Maybe you're just afraid that you like something that's as crap as K-Fed and don't recognize it as being bad. The thing is though...there's nothing wrong with liking bad stuff. If you like, you like it. You can't help it. But people are scared to admit that...and that's the problem.
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Feb 3rd, 2007 at 10:46 PM
It's not a fact, though. It's as close to fact as you can get without being one, but it's not a fact.
It's nothing to do with balls or guts, it's the way it is. It's not an undeniable truth that his music sucks objectively. People like it, so they think it's good. What's their opinion worth? Zero, but it doesn't mean they are wrong.
The funny thing is, you are factually wrong. The fact that you can't prove it means it's not proveable, you idiot. It's not a matter of us not being able to individually, it's impossible.
To you and anyone with a decent sense of taste, but it's still opinion that it's crap.
Go to the dictionary and look up "Fact". It's proveable, undeniable, objective truth. Oxygen exists, fact. Kevin Federline sucks, opinion. Kevin Federline is good, opinion. One of those opinions is less credible, but it's still an opinion.
You are unbelievably stupid.
People who admit they like music they think is "bad" are dumb, because they obviously don't think it's bad if they like it.
Second, it's not a matter of my taste. I'm not afraid to admit anything I like, I'm proud of my taste, but my taste isn't factually good. It's good to me, it's good to many others, but it's not factual.
Music TASTE is entirely subjective. It doesn't mean a Britney fan has an opinion as credible as a Jimi Hendrix fan, it doesn't mean we're all equal, it means it's not proveable either way.
What part of this are you not getting? It's not a matter of having guts. If I think something is shit, I say it's shit. You only need ask anybody here that knows me, but I won't say it's a fact because it's simply not, THAT'S a fact.
Don't give me that cop out bs of "I can't prove it, but it's a fact.". It's not a fact if it can't be proven.
It's not true that it's "fact" that "Pet Sounds" is better than "Come Clean" or false that here's no way of measuring music aside from enjoyment?
Popular opinion, no matter how popular, is still opinion. The word fact doesn't even come into play, there. Personally, I'll respect Beach Boys' contribution, but still don't have a preference between they and Puddle of Mudd.
Last edited by Cory Chaos on Feb 4th, 2007 at 01:24 AM
why isn't the second true? it's no different than saying a jeremy michael weiss is better than some crappy snapshot, or saying saul bellow is better than clive cussler, or taxi driver is better than not another teen movie...
though some may prefer the latter, it's kind of ridiculous not to admit that the former is a superior example of the craft.
It's still not a "fact", is his point. See my last post.
Personally, I think "Taxi Driver" is terribly overrated, dated, and only enjoyable in the last 10 minutes. "Not Another Teen Movie" on the other hand, while a little too "gratuitous" with the goods, considering the demographic, is a brilliant, scathing parody.