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 DoomWell, 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:
I've said that several times, in several threads.Which things do you agree with? Don't leave us hanging.
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.
I've said I don't want any more part
and later
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.
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...
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[s] 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.
Hey folks...
Just wanted to quote something that I think contributes well to EXACTLY what you guys are talking about. Not getting my nose dirty...just wanted to help along your discussion.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Back to the last example though, to show how silly I think it is when people say something like this…“I like it…therefore who’s to say it’s not good”....But what’s even being said there?
There’s only 4 real possibilities surrounding this:
Possibility A). There IS truly crap and non-crap music…and because certain music is truly non-crap it makes people say “I like this music”…(which would then have to mean we would all have to like the same music that’s claimed as being not crap).
Possibility B). Again, there IS truly crap and non-crap music…and when people say “I like this music” it’s not because of whether or not the music itself is crap or non-crap…why they say they like it is just arbitrary…(and this is the one I believe).
Possibility C) There ISN’T truly crap and non-crap music…and when people say “I like this music”, it suggests something about the music itself…(which holds some real contradictions that I‘ll get to in a minute).
And possibility D) There ISN’T truly crap and non-crap music….and when people say “I like this music” it’s not because of whether or not the music itself is crap or non-crap….why they say they like it is just arbitrary…(sorta like possibility B)
So, first with possibility C (where there ISN’T truly crap and non-crap music) …saying “I like this music”, shouldn’t say anything about anything…should it? It can’t…because there is no crap and non-crap music for it to be saying anything about …right?
Possibility A is also just ridiculous.
Possibility B is the one I myself agree with…so therefore I’m guessing the one you all must agree with is the last one…possibility D, which says…when people say “I like this music” it’s not because of whether or not the music itself is crap or non-crap….why they say they like it is just arbitrary.
Now, just as an aside, if I ever hear any you people ever say “I like it…therefore who’s to say it’s crap” (which is an example of the flawed possibility C)...it would be a completely pointless sentence. Like in possibility C, there is an implication in this sentence that “I like…” suggests something about the music itself. But I showed how possibility C is flawed if you believe what you believe about music not being crap or non-crap. All you’re just saying with “I like it…therefore who’s to say it’s crap” is that it appeals to you in the first part of the sentence, and then completely contradicting what you’ve said you believe regarding music in the second part of the sentence.
So since possibility D is what left for you, every time you’ve posted any kind of remark about music or a band you think sucks, or music or a band you think is awesome…what are you even saying? All you COULD be saying is “I really, really like it…or I really, really hate it.”
I’m guessing that’s just bugged a lot of you right now. And the reason it’s bugged a lot of you is because you think you have a good reason for saying “this sucks” or “this freakin’ rules”.
So what…is there good and bad music or isn’t there?
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 CentauriYou fail hear because I did talk about the sound, if you don't know where then I question your knowledge of 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
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.