As requested - The argument about crap music...and a (fair) poll

Started by EPIIIBITES23 pages

So saying "this band sucks" or "that music's crap" doesn't really mean anything? (apart from implying that you simply don't like it and it doesn't appeal to you?)

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
So saying "this band sucks" or "that music's crap" doesn't really mean anything? (apart from implying that you simply don't like it and it doesn't appeal to you?)

It means it sucks compared to whatever standards you use to judge music against. Like, when you said earlier you hated every note that Creed uses. That's not really true. You don't hate the A note or F# or C notes, etc. You don't really hate every single word they use because they use your standard english lexicon that everyone uses. When you break it down to those fundamental parts you see there is no element called "suck."

If you really think there's some objective truth to what makes music good or bad you're going to have to prove the existence of this objective standard.

He can't. He just likes going around saying it definitely exists, we're all wrong to disagree, but he hasn't got an ounce of legitimate proof, and has three threads of unanimous whooping against him.

He just likes the freedom of saying "We can't prove it, we can just go by what there is, lots of opinions and criteria I made up myself.".

He's an idiot.

-AC

Originally posted by Ytse
If you really think there's some objective truth to what makes music good or bad you're going to have to prove the existence of this objective standard.
Ok. Just...wait a sec. You said...

"...Whether they suck or not, it's not a matter of objectivity".

So in light of that, just answer what I asked...

When I say "this song is crap" or "this artist's music isn't any good", or "that album sucks" what am I saying...according to you?

I love how you also thought chillmeistergen was being serious, he was imitating you.

You are our laughing stock in this forum.

-AC

...says Alpha Centauri

As with everything else...you didn't get what I said...yet again. Its beyond comprehension...

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
And btw...I'm only GUESSING chillmeistergen knows he's actually onto something by what he said...but judging from his past comments, I doubt it...so that's why I had to group him in with the rest...

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
When I say "this song is crap" or "this artist's music isn't any good", or "that album sucks" what am I saying...according to you?

"It means it sucks compared to whatever standards you use to judge music against."

If there was an objective standard to go by then there would be no arguing because you could just measure. Just like noone argues that light goes 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum...because you can measure it.

BUT YOU JUST SAID THERE IS NO OBJECTIVITY WHEN IT COMES TO MUSIC SUCKCING!!!

AAARRGGH!

So, I'll ask you again...when I say..."THIS MUSIC SUCKS"...what on EARTH can I possibly be saying?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
So, I'll ask you again...when I say..."THIS MUSIC SUCKS"...what on EARTH can I possibly be saying?

I answered that. What is so confusing about my response?

No you didn't...you said "it sucks compared to..."

But there's NOTHING to compare it to is there??? Because there is no standard is there???

So...according to you, making a statement like "this music sucks" would be pointless because it's comparing it to NOTHING...right?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
But there's NOTHING to compare it to is there???

Because there is no standard is there???

You compare it to whatever presuppositions you make about what constitutes "good" music.

OOOOMMMMMGGGG

BUT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOOD MUSIC!!!!

YOU SAID SO YOURSELF!

RIGHT???

UNBELIEVABLE!

Do you think there IS good music now?...(meaning there would also have to be an objective standard that exists to prove whether it's good or not?)

...it seems you were saying there isn't objectively any music that sucks.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
...says Alpha Centauri

As with everything else...you didn't get what I said...yet again. Its beyond comprehension...

...says EPIIIBITES. You don't get to decide what people mean, do you not understand that? Who do you think you are?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
OOOOMMMMMGGGG

BUT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOOD MUSIC!!!!
YOU SAID SO YOURSELF!

RIGHT???

UNBELIEVABLE!

No OBJECTIVELY GOOD MUSIC, OR BAD.

What part are you not getting? Good or bad exists, it's just entirely subjective. The notion of good and bad music exists, but WHAT is good and bad music is subjective, not OBJECTIVE.

Settle down, you moron.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
...(meaning there would also have to be an objective standard that exists to prove whether it's good or not?)

There isn't. There are only subjective standards to decide what music we all decide is good or bad to US.

I've told you this a billion times. If you can't prove the standard exists, then don't try to. You're trying to get everyone to blindly believe as you do, when you're wrong. You're going against all proof and evidence, truth and fact (Which, by the way Ytse, EP thinks are separate.) and everything else.

-AC

I think I know your argument quite well by now AC...I'd like to know what someone else has to say.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
BUT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOOD MUSIC!!!!
YOU SAID SO YOURSELF!

RIGHT???

No. I said there were no objective standards for that kind of thing. "Good" is a subjective term unto itself in the first place.

Do you think there IS good music now...(meaning there would also have to be an objective standard that exists to prove whether it's good or not?)

I'm not answering that question if you're adding a silly stipulation like that to it.

He's actually convinced himself he is right, Ytse.

It's beyond reasoning, he just thinks everyone ever is wrong, unless they agree.

He can't prove it, back it up, provide evidence or what have you, but he does expect us to all just agree with theories we're proving wrong just by being here.

-AC

Originally posted by Ytse
I'm not answering that question if you're adding a silly stipulation like that to it.
How on earth is that stipulation silly?

If you were to somehow make a claim that music is "good" or "bad" you would HAVE TO have an objective standard with which to measure it by...would you not? Otherwise...what would it be good (or bad) compared to?

And it what you DID say was...

"...Whether they suck or not, it's not a matter of objectivity"

Oh my AC...You're just hanging around this thread...and interrupting discussion (like you ALWAYS do)...because of fears that someome might disagree with you or agree with me about something.

Get real!

Oh stop crying. You were the one who bumped the thread to reply to me, you cretin. You won't reply cos you know I tear you to pieces, yet you'll run off and hide, bump this thread next month and reply to me again. I'm discussing the topic, you have no reason not to reply to me, considering you're replying to others saying the same.

People disagree cos you're wrong and an idiot, nothing to do with me.

How's the stipulation silly? Because it's wrong, that's how it's silly.

What are you on about? You don't have to have proof if you're not claiming something to be fact/true.

If someone says something is good or bad, and you say "You have to prove it.", that's dumb. Unlike you, we don't live in a world where objective truths apply to subjective issues, like this.

All you can do is prove what your OWN criteria are for judging, you cannot prove something is good undeniably.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
How on earth is that stipulation silly.

Because it assumes that good/bad music is objective when that's the very issue at hand.

If you were to somehow make a claim that music is "good" or "bad" you would HAVE TO have an objective standard with which to measure it by...would you not?

The only cases where I would call something objectivlely good is if God does and that moves our argument to a different topic anyway.

So, I would answer this qustion almost always with "no." For instance if a sommelier rates one particular wine as being the best in the world and you take a drink of it and think it tastes terrible then does that just mean your tastebuds are defective?