Precisely the point. It's subjective. Nobody here is giving you the right of your argument having any credibility because we all know you are factually incorrect, except for the one idiot.
It's amazing how many arguments are constantly "You can't prove it, you can't prove it..." because proof is all your minds know how to go by. You aren't able to grasp the concept that things might truly exist beyond proof, and find reason to believe they are in fact true...ya I'm sure you don't get that.
And it's incredible that I've admitted and explained over and again how I can't prove it...but still, amazingly the SAME arguments...Way to go!
All I can do is give a list of a set of parameters to go by in figuring out (but not proving) good vs. crap music.
I've done that
I can give countless analogies...
I've done that
And I can elaborate by showing how personal insecurites (for musicians and fans alike) are a barrier for understanding such a concept...
Done that
No surprise the "one idiot" gets it, because from the get go he's recognized that sensitivity is what's stopping people from admitting they like CRAP.
But you guys...the same lame argument.
(And if you want me to quote the best of these above points for you, I gladly will...becasue the good bunch of you are obviously just dropping in and not hearing these points)
Great. Have a good life thinking that just because you like something that it's good...you're selling yourselves short into undertanding the complexities of art in favor of making yoursleves feel comfortable in your limited beliefs.
And if you're a musician, don't be surprised that people laugh at you the same way Nickleback gets laughed at because you don't recognize your music's crap.
Ooooo that felt good.
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Feb 5th, 2007 at 05:08 PM
Once upon a time there was a certan standard one had to reach to be taken seriously, be it literature, art, music, preforming arts - that is kind of disolved now.
We have some many genre's of music today, that crapness tends to correlate with your own liking.
However, if what you mean is, that in a certain genere of music, certain people do not reach standards which are kept by other artists and thus are considered crap.
For example, composers of classical music, some 400 years ago, had to not be crap to be taken seriously - but i am positive there were people who still disliked their music.
Or even literature - now our book shops are overcrowded with, what I would call utter shite of celebrities writing their biography with nothing remortely interesting to say - that i would argue is crap beyond any shadow of a doubt - but I bet you, there are some out there who will run to buy a autobiography of a celebrity whos life is more boring then thers.
While i do see where you are coming from, I doubt there will be somehing, which will be shite for everyone. On the other hand, numerous failed bands and artists could testify differently.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
When you are sitting there speaking about proving something subjective is objective, yes, proof is ultimately required to prove your point.
Many people here have proven that you are definitely and factually incorrect and stupid in your approach and argument. You, in turn, reply by saying we're not reading or we don't get it. Failing to accept the fact that you are wrong and the possibility that we all do get it, we just think you're an idiot.
Then stop claiming there is anything that is objectively crap. If you can't prove it, stop saying it.
Yes, that's called you showing us how you judge good and crap. I could do the same, anyone could.
Yes, hence why it's subjective.
Which I have used against you.
As above.
That's just presumptuous bullcrap, because you are forcing the belief that people will hide the fact that they believe something is undeniably crap, instead of accepting that there is no undeniable crap or undeniable good.
Idiocy is what's stopping YOU from admitting that "crap" is subjective. You admitting you like crap music is retarded, it's not gutsy. It's pathetic, not honourable.
You don't like crap music, you like music that you think is good and that you enjoy listening to. You like The Backstreet Boys, you do. It's no good saying you enjoy their songs but think their music is crap, that's bullshit. That's you being insecure and not having the guts to say "I like them, I think they're good.".
Oh shut up. You're the one who keeps telling us to read your post without reading anything we've said, and besides, YOU are fighting a losing battle, because you are factually and undeniably wrong.
Stop telling me I'm not reading your posts when you continually miss my point.
For the millionth time, if I like something; It's good...TO ME. That doesn't mean everybody thinks it's good or that it's factually good or bad. Are you doing this on purpose just because you've been destroyed and lack the ability to bail out?
Nickleback don't get laughed at by their fans who think their music is good. That doesn't mean it's good, it means they think it is. It doesn't mean it's crap just because we think it is.
Was there any need to the homo-erotic release? Really?
When do you suppose this standard existed? I'm curious.
Rick Astley was taken seriously by people who liked his music.
Everyone sees where he's coming from on a base level. Some things are obviously crap to a music fan, but there's a difference between being obviously crap and factually crap. Obviously crap being Britney Spears, but she's not factual crap, and it's not obvious to everyone.
Who care's if it's not obvious to everyone. Who cares if her fans like her or Nickleback's fans like them. People like crap!!!!! You like crap!!!! And you or others just might not have the ability to determine that it's actually crap. Don't ourself that that you or anyone aren't qualified to detect that something sucks..which a lot of stuff does.
And even if you could deermine it...it'd be alright to like the music you like.
You're too chicken to admit you like crap, and you're to afraid of looking bad by saying others do...but once (if ever) you realize that it's just natural that you like crap (and that it is INDEED crap you like) then you've taken the next step in understanding the big picture of objectivity in good and bad music.
Believe me, I'm just trying to help you...
No...I'm just offering you the truth.
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Feb 5th, 2007 at 07:25 PM
I'm not too chicken to admit you will undoubtedly think I like crap, or that anyone could think my bands and taste are/is crap. I don't like crap, because I don't listen to music I think is crap, therefore...I will never try to admit that it's crap if I don't believe it is, just to appeal to you.
YOU are too afraid to admit that you think The Backstreet Boys are good, it's the exact opposite. I don't care what anybody thinks of me or my taste because I like everything I listen to. None of it is objectively crap, none of it is objectively good, because it doesn't need to be. All it needs to be, to fit with my taste, is good TO ME.
It's retarded to say you like crap music. You don't like anything crap to YOU, everything you listen to, you like, or you wouldn't listen to it. Whether or not I think it's crap doesn't matter, my opinion doesn't/shouldn't matter to you.
You are just saying The Backstreet Boys are crap because you think that's what a smart music fan should do, because you believe smart music fans wouldn't like them. You do like them, so therefore you must logically be saying they are crap to make people still believe you're smart in perception and distinguishing between things.
You've been figured out, at least on that level, and I don't see any reason for you to continue embarassing yourself further.
I'd never do that. They're horrible...but I've liked them on the rare occasion.
Oh my. Man...you must have some serious inner conflict (or otherwise denial) not being able to admit things to yourslef all the time. Not cool.
For example, "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones (one of my top 10 FAVOURITE all time films) is an atrocity in filmaking. It fails on so many levels. But I love it, and I'm fine with walking that line of liking what is truly a horrible piece of movie making. And it's because I can recognize I'm human and I really have no control over what I like and don't like...(more often than not though, I tend to like stuff that just happens to be a highly respected piece of work).
You wouldn't even know where to begin to make statements like these.
Honestly, your way of thinking is truly old and outdated. You're kind are becoming dinasours in this realm of discernment.
Do yourself(ves) a favour...grab a clue! (and there's lots of them here).
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Feb 5th, 2007 at 08:09 PM
Either reply to my posts or not at all, don't pick and choose which bits you reply to just because it's always damaging to you.
So then you don't necessarily believe they're truly horrid, since you like them.
Admit what, you cretin? I don't think anything I like is crap, what's your problem? I'm not saying you can't think it's crap, I'm saying it's not crap to me. Nobody listens to things they don't like, not consistently.
Sometimes people don't have control over what they like and don't like, my point is that you wouldn't spend time listening to music you disliked, and if you do, you're an idiot. Nor would you say you find them horrible if you liked them at all.
The Star Wars analogy fails. FACTUALLY it fails on levels of filmmaking because those things can be measured and proven, that's objective. SUBJECTIVELY it doesn't stop you ENJOYING THE FINAL PRODUCT. Pure music, pure music product cannot be judged or determined in any way, hence why it's purely subjective and therefore not proveable.
For example. You could say Kurt Cobain wasn't a blistering guitarist, technically, and you'd be factually right. However, if you said "He is really bad at making music on a guitar.", that wouldn't be true or false, it'd be your opinion.
Do you get something out of being this way? What do you get out of being an oblivious moron?
No matter how old dinosaurs are, if you brought one back to life it could tear apart the most sophisticated and intelligent human.
So for me to be a dinosaur means nothing, because you're not really displaying much above caveman intellect, and I am eating your argument accordingly.
Good thing we have AC around to state the blatantly obvious...about a few dozen times now.
And what's even more amazing is that I've directly agreed with him on this point on numerous occasions.
Sorry...but you are probably the worst poster I've ever come across. No idea how argue. Do you cut and paste your previous posts? Honestly.
Actually I do...cause I'm smart enough to do so. You can't...becasue you haven't the foggiest idea of what it's all about...you've proven so time and again.
Now I dare you...I DOUBLE dare you to TRY and post something you haven't posted before (and that I haven't directly addressed).
Who here wants to make a bet he's completely incapable of it?
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Feb 5th, 2007 at 08:47 PM
hey, how come nobody's talking about the aesthetic perimeters?
i really like watching this play out.
to be fair, i will admit: i see what EP means about distinguishing quality from preference, and also i somewhat agree with him (in that, though it's "all opinion", some opinions are worth far more than others, taking them as close to the "fact" side of things as opinions can go.) this is of course my opinion.
i also see what YKF means when he says "you are a retarded goldfish. fact."
PS: back off of britney spears. "toxic" is a better song than 80% of songs in all recorded history. FACT.
__________________
Last edited by manorastroman on Feb 5th, 2007 at 08:57 PM
No, you're STUPID enough to do so. You think you are doing something correct or credible by saying there are bands you can't stand, yet simultaneously believe are great, and make good music. You think you are doing some forward thinking stuff, but you're not.
You don't see how pathetically impossible your statements are.
Considering you are the one who ignores everything I say and picks which parts to reply to because you can't say anything else, I suggest you be quiet.
I've factually proven you wrong, as has everyone else. The burden of proving your argument, or making it credible, is now on you.
Which means they're still opinions, and it is still all about opinion.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.
There's no objectively good music, I'm not sure what you're having trouble with.
The fact that you put "all opinion" and "fact" in quotation marks.
Just deal with what the words actually mean, now what people twist them to mean, and you'll see that EP is actually wrong, rather than agreeing with him as you first did.
Objective and fact mean one thing, subjective and opinion mean another. There's no need for "'s.
You: "for instance, saying 'pet sounds' is better than some shitty puddle of mudd album is 'fact'. though many might prefer puddle of mudd, there ways of measuring music aside from enjoyment.".
False, in every imaginable way.
There are no ways of measuring which music is better besides enjoyment because it's all relative. The only area music is objective would be instrumental talent and/or technical ability. Not the end product. If someone prefers Puddle of Mudd to The Beach Boys, it means they have a shit opinion in our opinion, not that they are factually wrong.
so you noticed that i put these words in quotation marks but somehow still missed the meaning? weird. i don't agree with EP, i just agree with pieces. the two i mentioned prior.
i completely understand your point, but it seems less about music and more about the words. i'm just trying to find a middle ground, one where we can keep in mind that it's all opinion and still do something constructive.
The fact is, the actual fact, no music is objectively good or bad, as he is trying to say, that's a hard fact. The debate honestly needn't go further just so we can all be nice to each other.
He can't accept that he's wrong, maybe you should be talking to him.
If you or anyone else thinks that's true, then you're a dinasour.
And I don't expect you to understand...'cause...you're a dinasour.
If you can't see the TRUTH in as bold a statement as saying Stella Artois, Apocalypse Now, and Robrert DeNiro are all truly superior to Budweiser, Pearl Harbor, and Keanue Reeves respectively, then you're an intillectual weakling.
"But you can't proooove it...waaaaaaa"
"But maybe others don't think so...waaaa"
"But maybe people like Budweiser better...waaaa"
"But some might think Pearl Harbor is good...waaaaa"
...Those arguments don't mean anything in the face of REALITY.
And if there's any of you out there that can't see that reality in these, then you're a boy playing in an arena of men I'm afraid.
That's what I'm saying...Deal with it.
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Feb 5th, 2007 at 10:27 PM
A) You accuse me of repeating myself, yet I've reduced you to "You don't get it, you don't see the truth".
B) No, there is no truth in those remarks.
People are not wrong for preferring one beer, one movie or one actor over another, they are as right or wrong as you are for liking the others.
You are just assuming that popular opinion is fact because they keep coming up. You're wrong, it's all preference, and I have reduced you to a panicking mess.
KMC Community Forums
Feb 5th, 2007 03:45 PM
