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

Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes, I am off-topic which is cool with me.

Then you're void of the right to complain about anybody "going off" anywhere, sunshine.

Originally posted by Nellinator
It makes sense because objectively Coldplay lacks talent, compositional ability, they have generic chord progressions, poor harmonizing selection, etc.

They lack significant or noteworthy talent. They have the ability to actually play their instruments to the generic standard you'd expect of them. So they aren't talentLESS.

Originally posted by Nellinator
That is why they objectively suck.

No, that's why they are objectively not great musicians, or innovative songwriters. "Poor" selection is subjective. Those things do not prove they objectively suck in any other way than technically, and as I have said before, we're not discussing technicality, and as you said "I'm not.", so now you've proven you are.

I understand you're cool with being off-topic, but don't come in and just spontaneously expect someone to follow you.

Originally posted by Nellinator
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...

So you think objectively they are way below, technically speaking, and you're correct. Subjectively you like some of their elements musically, as in sound, so your stance is in agreement with me.

Originally posted by Nellinator
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.

I've said, time and time again, yes, outside of subjectivity in music (Liking the actual music, or it being good or bad.) there is objectivity (Ability, instrumental talent etc, things that can be measured.). The objective parts do NOT coincide with this debate, they have nothing to do with it, and you're not making any points I haven't made.

You've came in, off-topic, making points about how music CAN be objectively appreciated, I said "Yes, technically. Measurable elements." you say "No, not technically.", "So what, then?", "Things that can be measured.". Why? Waste of your time, and mine.

Originally posted by Nellinator
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.

So you agree with our points, not EPIIIBITES' points.

The rest of your posts just were not needed. Nobody denied objective ability, it was never being discussed. I'm still at a loss as to why you came in and even brought it up.

"Yeah, but music can be appreciated outside of subjectivity as it can be measured.". Yes? So what? Who's denying it? It's not even relevant.

-AC

The emotional component is something that is outside instrumental or objective talent. It can be objectively measured how well a movement in classical music conveys an emotion simply by listening to it with a trained ear or looking at the notation. It can be done and the same thing can be done with jazz and the a lot of blues. Sadly, rock fails to utilize it most of the time.

Originally posted by Nellinator
The emotional component is something that is outside instrumental or objective talent. It can be objectively measured how well a movement in classical music conveys an emotion simply by listening to it with a trained ear or looking at the notation. It can be done and the same thing can be done with jazz and the a lot of blues. Sadly, rock fails to utilize it most of the time.

It can't, because not everyone can read music. You don't need a trained ear to judge emotion, hence why you get people crying with happiness at Coldplay shows. I hate the band, but if they're making people's lives better for a moment, and I don't have to listen to them, it's obvious that it doesn't matter that their compositional skills are lapse.

Either way, it's not part of this debate.

-AC

Filtering out the countless threads that were not necessary to this "debate" is probably going to take more time then actually posting in the thread.

However, discovering the root of this debate was simple. And, after reading through the four pages of posts, one constant truth remains. Music is objective. Objective to those who think "It is good." Just because a large margin of people agree on one thing, does not mean it is so. However, the same can be applied in the opposite: Just because a few believe something does not make it false. That is why it is called a belief, and not fact. (Bare in mind the word believe can be substituted for "like," or any other synonym should you so desire.)

Regardless of how much EPIIIBITES may seem to think that without a way to prove that "Crap" music exists, I hate to be the barer of bad news: You cannot prove that. simply because a large margin seem to think that most pop artists are horrible (myself included) some people seem to disagree with you. That is how you will never prove your point. Then you get into the labelling of music by genre, which makes things harder. Some people will class Atreyu as Emo, some say Nu Metal, some say Hardcore... and need I continue?

Now lets look at the other side of the debate. Take some examples of some more widely admired bands: some think AC/DC are horrible. I would say overrated, but not horrible. Personally, I would much rather have a Smashing Pumpkins, or even an Our Lady Peace marathon then have to listen to Dave Evans or Bon Scott for more then two songs at a time. And Raine Maida and Billy Corgan are two of the worst vocalists out there. Am I wrong for saying such things? Most will probably say I am, but I am not. It is a personal opinion.

EPIIIBITES, you can take all of the tallies you want, post as many arguments trying to solidify your stance, and you will still be wrong. Why? You cannot disprove somebodies PERSONAL OPINION.

Sadly, those people obviously aren't crying because of the musical expression of the emotion. More likely they are giddy teenagers or find the lyrics expressive. Classical music, and those who use the techniques in other forms of music, objectively express emotions.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Sadly, those people obviously aren't crying because of the musical expression of the emotion. More likely they are giddy teenagers or find the lyrics expressive. Classical music, and those who use the techniques in other forms of music, objectively express emotions.

Of course those more trained in said field will have a greater appreciation for "more expressive" forms of music then an American Idol winner that only became famous because they have a decent voice and will sell because they are attractive.

However, that is like going to the Luvre and saying that somebody who has never been to an art museum cannot like a certain painting because it is horrible and they are not trained to appreciate real art.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Sadly, those people obviously aren't crying because of the musical expression of the emotion. More likely they are giddy teenagers or find the lyrics expressive. Classical music, and those who use the techniques in other forms of music, objectively express emotions.

Words on a page do not exhibit emotion, neither do notes. People interpret them with or without emotion.

The fact is, you're debating something irrelevant.

Why are you still stuck on technique? Who's debating that? Not me. I've specifically said technique is measurable and therefore objective, we're not discussing that. You wanna discuss it? Create a thread or something. Don't come into a thread with a set criteria for debate and try to expect everyone to adhere to yours.

-AC

Notes do express emotion objectively in classical music when in certain sequences. It is the way it works. I don't want to make another thread. This one is dead anyways and this debate won't be much longer.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Sadly, those people obviously aren't crying because of the musical expression of the emotion. More likely they are giddy teenagers or find the lyrics expressive. Classical music, and those who use the techniques in other forms of music, objectively express emotions.

the person writing the music may be trying to convey an entirely different emotion than what it invokes in any particular individual...and it is precisely that which makes music subjective...how the individual percieves the piece of music

And a trained ear should be able to read it objectively and appreciate it at that level. There are different levels of appreciation.

Though that is the technique side of things.

It doesn't really alter the parameters of the current debate.

VVD...did you read the argument? You and Nellinator are the only people that seem to really know what the arguement is actually about. Not necessarily suggesting you agree...but at least you know what's going on.

I'd like to add something here...but last time I tried to simply point to something that could contribute to the discussion I was attacked by AC again...so I won't even do that.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
VVD...did you read the argument? You and Nellinator are the only people that seem to really know what the arguement is actually about. Not necessarily suggesting you agree...but at least you know what's going on.

dont flatter yourself by presuming that you're argument is above people...its simplistic...everyone gets it...trying to back yourself up by claiming that the only people who understand your point are those who either agree or aren't entirely against it is weak

I don't think it's above people...I just asked if two of them had read it because they seemed to have understood some of the points.

But from the things you and others are saying it's clear you don't understand the argument, as it even contradicts what VVD and Nellinator are saying.

Whatever, that's my perception of it...and I'm not gonna discuss the argument itself as it pointless...I was just wondering if they read it...and was curious who voted they "agreed".

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
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.

I forgot to say that you seem to understand the argument somewhat as well Flamboyant...( although may not agree with it)...because you seem to be suggesting a bad or good is at least there. Did you read the argument?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I forgot to say that you seem to understand the argument somewhat as well Flamboyant...although may not agree with it. Did you read the argument?

I was just wondering, 'cause you're mentioning that you're acknowledging good and bad music...and there is actually a lot about "criteria" in my argument...(that's pretty much what supports it). I think you'd find it interesting.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
VVD...did you read the argument?

Yes.

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I may enjoy listening to an artist that I acknowledge as being bad. Or, the music sounds good, but I acknowledge that it isn't good based on certain criteria.

So you like it, but you feel that by reference to some criteria it isn't 'good'.

The thing is, if you like it, then you could say it is good.

That's the problem I was pointing out with the wording.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I was just wondering, 'cause you're mentioning that you're acknowledging good and bad music...and there is actually a lot about "criteria" in my argument...(that's pretty much what supports it). I think you'd find it interesting.

See the quoted post below.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom

I've explained how this works many times, yet people still argue over the words objective, subjective, facts and opinions.

The problem is actually the word 'better'. It has no clear, formal meaning. If we define the criteria by which we are determining which music is better, then it is actually possible to make a factual determination.

EPIIIBITES, because everyone disagrees with your overall point, don't start acting as if we've all missed parts. You seem to praise anyone who remotely says "I understand what he's saying." and ignore the fact that they actually disagree with your main point, as anyone with sense would.

Flamboyant is just saying they he can like music (Subjective, not objective.) yet admit it's bad within certain criteria, i.e: Technical areas, but he's not saying that there is undeniably good and bad music, he disagrees with that.

Stop acting like I'm attacking you.

You're wrong and everybody here sees it, you are the only one who truly doesn't get it.

-AC