What is 'good' music?

I am honestly sickened by those who make a point to stick their little noses up in the air when musicians whom they don't take so favorably are mentioned, going so far as to labeling them without hesitation, "bad music."

Fact of the matter is this. just because the sound of something doesn't appeal to you, doesn't mean its necessarily inferior. Music is versatile. But then so are the tastes of many fellow people inhabiting this earth. The quality of music goes above and beyond a simple, "rock is better than pop" argument. 🙄

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
I am honestly sickened by those who make a point to stick their little noses up in the air when musicians whom they don't take so favorably are mentioned, going so far as to labeling them without hesitation, "bad music."

Fact of the matter is this. just because the sound of something doesn't appeal to you, doesn't mean its necessarily superior. Music is versatile. But then so are the tastes of many fellow people inhabiting this earth. The quality of music goes above and beyond a simple, "rock is better than pop" argument. 🙄

well the little matter of having musical talent does tend to make the difference between what some people believe is good music and what good music actually is

hence the fact that Jeff Buckley will never be surpassed by bands like embrace and coldplay...because Jeff could play better....and sing better than those 2 bands could ever hope to achieve

and its also the reason why didn't need big light shows and all the other crap to give a truely beautiful performance

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9006141501152795211&q=jeff+buckley

Originally posted by jaden101
well the little matter of having musical talent does tend to make the difference between what some people believe is good music and what good music actually is

'Some people' is the key word here. Most of those who initiate those 'bad music' arguments do so baselessly.

hence the fact that Jeff Buckley will never be surpassed by bands like embrace and coldplay...because Jeff could play better....and sing better than those 2 bands could ever hope to achieve

That is a totally subjective statement. 😉 The talent inherently present in him may be a fact, but whether or not he performs better or worse than the above mentioned bands will more often than not remain an opinion.

and its also the reason why didn't need big light shows and all the other crap to give a truely beautiful performance

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9006141501152795211&q=jeff+buckley

That video was lovely. But your assumption that most people take flamboyant stage decorations be the only thing that makes a good performance is not. In fact, stage accesorizing could very well have been used to improve this performance up a few notches. Because like it or not, appearance counts. Big time.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
In fact, stage accesorizing could very well have been used to improve this performance up a few notches. Because like it or not, appearance counts. Big time.

It bears not on the issue of good or bad music, though.

That is a totally subjective statement. wink The talent inherently present in him may be a fact, but whether or not he performs better or worse than the above mentioned bands will more often than not remain an opinion.

there is absolutely nothing subjective about Jeff Buckley performing better live than embrace...Danny McNamara is unquestionably a completely rotten vocalist who relies on a ridiculously huge amount of production to make him scrape about the level of shit pub band in their studio recordings

appearance counts. Big time.

appearance counts far more to talentless bands than they do to people with talent...

hence people may come away from a coldplay performance being amazed at the "show" as opposed to the music

because the fact remains that Jeff Buckley was astounding without the background extras...coldplay would look flat, bland and boring without their huge stage shows...which means that they are actually flat, bland and boring

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
It bears not on the issue of good or bad music, though.

Technically, no. But being a musician, especially when out on stage like that, is about making use of every possible resource so that the final effect is beautiful in every possible way.

Had his mic. or guitar not been working properly, the fact that he has a beautiful voice would far from have saved his performance. Similarly the lighting, or lack of an appropriate amount of it didn't add much to enchance his talent, if anything at all.

Originally posted by jaden101
there is absolutely nothing subjective about Jeff Buckley performing better live than embrace...Danny McNamara is unquestionably a completely rotten vocalist who relies on a ridiculously huge amount of production to make him scrape about the level of shit pub band in their studio recordings

appearance counts far more to talentless bands than they do to people with talent...

hence people may come away from a coldplay performance being amazed at the "show" as opposed to the music

because the fact remains that Jeff Buckley was astounding without the background extras...coldplay would look flat, bland and boring without their huge stage shows...which means that they are actually flat, bland and boring

Since you are talking about a performance, here I assume its a full blown public one most likely on some stage. There Coldplay do themselves a favor by satisfying their audience in all ways. As an avid fan, I know for a fact that their performances range from big stagelighted events to small music only emphasized gatherings. They realize that a 'performance' is comprised of much more than mere musical talent. That he can sing, for instance will not make up for his lack of an amiable character for instance. Which would be off putting to the audience and you have yourself a not so pretty performance.

Point beingfor a performance of ANY scale to be successful, more than just vocals and musical ability is needed.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
Technically, no. But being a musician, especially when out on stage like that, is about making use of every possible resource so that the final effect is beautiful in every possible way.

Had his mic. or guitar not been working properly, the fact that he has a beautiful voice would far from have saved his performance. Similarly the lighting, or lack of an appropriate amount of it didn't add much to enchance his talent, if anything at all.

Well, yes, but...what I originally said.

Let's also realise that Coldplay simply have to have a flashy stage show, because musically they contain all the excitement of watching paint dry in deathly hot Sun.

Having a good stage show is nothing more than an aside if you are a great band or musician. Any great band or musician can get up on stage with or without a stage show and blow their crowd away. Kiss couldn't stroll into a club and make everyone go mad without all their lights and pyro. Rammstein could. It's also not about making use of everything possible, image or whatever. Some bands go out and do nothing but play their instruments.

I've seen bands in tiny venues with nothing but their instruments and they get more honest reactions than shitty Coldplay with their massive "COLDPLAY" in lights, and hanging orbs. All the image in the world won't change the fact that you have shit music. Coldplay could have Rammstein's onstage set-up, they'd still be shit. Being a musician is about doing it for yourself, making sure it satisfies you first, not your fans. If you're in a band and you think "Shit, we better have lights and pyro incase our fans leave disappointed" then you're an idiot. Go out and play how you want, perform how YOU want.

As for good/bad music, you'll never hear me claim that I can factually prove Jeff Buckley is better than Britney Spears, but it's what I like to call a borderline fact to anyone with sense, and some opinions are more credible than others.

Coldplay are shit, but because it's a man with a high voice playing a piano, people think they have good taste for liking them. Generally, people who have problems with the idea of music fans saying "This is good, that is bad" are those with shit taste. I don't give a shit what people say about the bands I like, I'm confident enough in my taste. You, liking Coldplay, obviously aren't.

-AC

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
Technically, no. But being a musician, especially when out on stage like that, is about making use of every possible resource so that the final effect is beautiful in every possible way.

Had his mic. or guitar not been working properly, the fact that he has a beautiful voice would far from have saved his performance. Similarly the lighting, or lack of an appropriate amount of it didn't add much to enchance his talent, if anything at all.

so why is it that the live music performances regarded as being truely brilliant didn't need the extras to make them so...alice in chains unplugged...hendrix at woodstock...joni mitchell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_aJETSQD10&search=alice%20in%20chains%20unplugged

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGz_s-l5zEs&search=hendrix%20woodstock

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOqZ9lCDcm0&mode=related&search=joni%20mitchell%20river

there are also far more talented musicians that get no recognition and still dont need extras to blow people away with their ability

trace bundy

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8950987166990414376&q=trace+bundy

then again there are talented musicians who do benefit and are indeed renouned for their massive shows...jean michel jarre being one of the people who's stage shows were widely praised although for the life of me i cant think why

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-syxUrh45eM&search=jean%20michel%20jarre

"good" music is subjective. some people may think music is "good" because they like the sound. for example, i personally hate Nickleback. i think they're crap. i know there are hoards of people who will rush to disagree but thats not the point.
If you love a band that aren't the most technically proficient band in the world, more power to you, you think its "good" music, i think its "shit" music. you will never get everyone to agree to what is "good" music.
it's like starting a thread called "which is the best religion" you'll never get people to agree.

oh and i think a good stage show can make a good band seem better, but in the end if the music sucks, you cant gloss it over with pretty lights and some fireworks. as my Yr 12 English teacher said, "You can't polish a turd"

Originally posted by tabby999
"You can't polish a turd"

😆 Classic

The only people who seemingly have problems with the idea of music being called shit, are those with insecure tastes. Me and Jaden have scrapped over each other's tastes, but he doesn't give a shit what I think, and nor do I care what he thinks of mine.

The fact is, people who say "You shouldn't say that!" are generally insecure with their own taste.

-AC

Originally posted by tabby999
"good" music is subjective. some people may think music is "good" because they like the sound. for example, i personally hate Nickleback. i think they're crap. i know there are hoards of people who will rush to disagree but thats not the point.
If you love a band that aren't the most technically proficient band in the world, more power to you, you think its "good" music, i think its "shit" music. you will never get everyone to agree to what is "good" music.
it's like starting a thread called "which is the best religion" you'll never get people to agree.

oh and i think a good stage show can make a good band seem better, but in the end if the music sucks, you cant gloss it over with pretty lights and some fireworks. as my Yr 12 English teacher said, "You can't polish a turd"

true that it's subjective but the only explanation for it is that people who like bland mainstream bands haven't bothered their ass to go and look for something better that isn't chucked in their faces by the media

if i havn't seen a band on a ipod commercial they're not worth knowing

i'll just interject here:

in my personal opinion, the only thing things that make music good are:

a wide audience who are interested in them. how are they gonna continue making a name (and money!) for themselves if no one knows who they are?

good lyrics. a lot of people i know are interested in some types of music solely because they either like the lyrics or can relate to them.

a catchy beat. again, there are a lot of people i know who like listening to certain music because it has a very catchy beat or rhythm to it.

i think thats it. if there's anything else that you think...

Lyrics have no effect on how good the music is or not.

-AC

ditto to the size of their audiences. the spice girls are one of the biggest selling groups of all time, dosn't make them good. tons of people liked milli vanilli, they were crap too.

Whatever you, as an individual, happen to like. That's what.

If someone likes Ashlee Simpson, that's up to them, but to call it good music is a bit of a claim. A subjective one, but a stretch nonetheless.

-AC