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

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Thank you...so very, very much. I'm gonna quote the crap out of this post...just to prove my point...especially the second sentence regarding "Angels."

...

Bardock42...it's time.

THAT is what AC means when he says "this band sucks" etc.... So, I'm gonne give you one last chance to point out how you differ from what he's saying...and if you really don't think you differ from what he's saying, then oh boy...this is gonna be harder than I thought.

EDIT: I just read your last post...and again...that's NOT what he's saying. Just LOOK at what he's saying above...especially the second part.

It's not the same dude. Sorry...I know how much you love AC, but it's not the same. Check it out.

That is what he is saying though.

He thinks it is shit = he doesn't like it or he thinks it doesn't fit certain subjective criteria.

BUT THERE ARE NO SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA!!!!!! ARE THERE? (according to you people).

THANK YOU!

Why do you insist on agreeing with the guy when he's saying stuff like...

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You HATE me saying that because you know it's true, and there's nothing you can do about it.

He DOES NOT understand his own argument.

2D, the opposite is actually happening, he's not arguing with those people.

He's arguing with people who agree with his opinion on her and others like her, but he's trying to say people are wrong for saying "She makes good music.". They're not wrong, they just have less than favourable opinions.

It's not a fact or truth that they are incorrect.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
BUT THERE ARE NO SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA!!!!!! ARE THERE?

THANK YOU!

Why do you insist on agreeing with the guy when he's saying stuff like "

I'm saying exactly what Bardock said I'm saying.

Technical skill can be proven, but that's not what's being discussed. We're discussing the end product and only the end product, that's all that's ever been discussed, and it will always be subjective. There is no objectively good or bad music, it's all opinion.

You are making a false connection between technically good methods and the music made by those methods. One being good does not mean the other is.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
BUT THERE ARE NO SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA!!!!!! ARE THERE? (according to you people).

THANK YOU!

Why do you insist on agreeing with the guy when he's saying stuff like ...
...regarding the song "Angels" that I think is ACTUALLY a great song (because I, ME...I think in those terms.

He DOES NOT understand his own argument.

No, there are subjective criteria according to our side. Do you maybe not know what subjective means?

You can think Angels is a great song, that means it is, to you, not to me. Your opinion and my opinion, that's it.

It's not objectively great or shit, it's subjective.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, there are subjective criteria according to our side. Do you maybe not know what subjective means?

YOU'VE SAID THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOOD OR BAD MUSIC...therefore...NO CRITERIA FOR GOOD AND BAD MUSIC...BECAUSE THERE'S NOOOOO SUUUUCH THIIIING!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Bardock42
But you can only really say that you like their music better.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
When I say those things I mean all of those things in my opinion. E.g: Robbie Williams' Angels is shit, in my opinion. Opeth rule, in my opinion. Just like Robbie Williams' Angels is a good song in your opinion.

You HATE me saying that because you know it's true, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Come on Bardock...I know you can do it...

No OBJECTIVE criteria.

Get with it, please.

There's subjective criteria for judging what music is good and bad to US, and it's subjective because it comes from us alone and applies only to our opinion of that music.

We each have our own standards regarding how we determine what we think is good or bad. There is no objective standard to judge or confirm what is good and bad for everyone, why? Because there's no objectively good or bad music, you idiot.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
THAT'S what you said...that's not what he said.

They both mean the same thing.

We are both saying that all anybody can do is say "I like this music better than that." or "This is bad, that is good.". You can never PROVE either, because there is no objective truth to good or bad music.

-AC

Really, the only thing objective about music is when you look at the notation those certain notes, when played, will produce certain frequencies. This is objective because it can be physically measured.

This has all been said and done, Ytse.

He, ironically, doesn't understand anything at all. Or he does, and is just posting to keep himself involved.

-AC

Originally posted by Ytse
Really, the only thing objective about music is when you look at the notation those certain notes, when played, will produce certain frequencies. This is objective because it can be physically measured.

As far as objectivity in music is concerned though...the problem here is that AC doesn't undertand his own argument...let alone mine.

This has been suggested by others as well...and in time, will be shown all the more.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Nope.

Unless you can prove that music is, objectively speaking, something other than sound energy then you certainly cannot begin to prove that music has inherent properties.

Notation is just symbols.

Symbols which represent certain sonic frequencies. Frequencies which can be measured and reproduced.

Look at my post again...I edited it.

The problem is that no matter what, you keep saying nobody who disagrees, understands.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Look at my post again...I edited it.

Yeah, it doesn't really interact with what I was saying. Perhaps because I wasn't clear enough. Music is an arrangement of particular sonic frequencies. This is what notation represents. There are tools to measure this frequency. There aren't tools to measure the "goodness" of music. It's all judged by presuppositions the listener makes in regards to which arrangement of these frequencies is most appealing.

Why are we arguing technicalities?

-AC

Originally posted by Ytse
Music is an arrangement of particular sonic frequencies. This is what notation represents. There are tools to measure this frequency. There aren't tools to measure the "goodness" of music. It's all judged by presuppositions the listener makes in regards to which arrangement of these frequencies is most appealing.

What tools do you speak of that measure this frequency?

And why don't people find emotion expressed through music appealing, and just the frequencies?

...as an aside, music can exist before it's ever noted down or played out. It's created in someone's mind. The melody, sounds, and even harmony and chord progression can be there. The music exists...just like a joke might exist before the peron has ever ever told it or written it down. And even at that state, I say that music can possibly be crap.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Interesting...but I'm not clear on a couple things.

What tools do you speak of that measure this frequency?

And why don't people find emotion expressed through music appealing, and just the frequencies?

Why does it matter?

Your proposal: Objective standard of good and bad music (Nothing technical.).

Answer: There isn't one.

That should be /thread.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why are we arguing technicalities?

-AC

My point is that music itself is illusory. Music as it exists only exists because enough people agree that there are these certain things which distinguish music from noise or sound in general. There is nothing inherent in sound energy which either makes it musical or non-musical.

Why is that even necessary to this thread?

See my last post. This thread exists because he believes that proposal is true, and anyone who rightfully disagrees, doesn't get it.

-AC

Originally posted by Ytse
There is nothing inherent in sound energy which either makes it musical or non-musical.