I don't even understand why the government would fake photographs lol. What is their rationale for why the government would do that? Why would they care if people believe the Earth is round or flat?
I bet these people think we didn't land on the moon either lol. Probably one of those people going "herp derp we saw the flag moving!".
Originally posted by Bashar TegNo, it's not. The general overall thing of how people interpret music, yes, in a way, but generally I considered my music taste to be better than theirs not by what I listened to, but how. I force myself to listen to lots of music, and often get into bands or artists I would have hated a few years back. The other person basically just "liked what they like". So my taste was a lot better developed, and as such, my taste was 'better', because what else are we going to base it on? We can't base it on the music itself, because that IS subjective (to a degree).
musical opinion is by definition subjective.
It all came from them saying MCR are one of the greatest bands on the 2000s, and I basically was just like lolno, and then they got offended, and I asked them "Well, what bands are you judging them against? How much do you even know about 2000s bands, and how can you claim MCR to be one of the greatest when you don't know most of the other bands they'd be up against?
To come back to the idea of having a better 'taste' in music, if you know about music generally, you have a more informed and deeper opinion on it – I'm talking theory here, at least a tiny bit of it – then in my eyes, that makes your opinion more valid than someone else's. But not always, definitely not always.
It's a touchy subject and I s2g people flip out whenever I try to explain it because they're acting like I'm saying I'm 'better' somehow, which isn't the point.
So someone likes MCR. Does that make their taste shit? Not inherently (in fact I think they're a decent, if mediocre band), but if they only listen to MCR, Fall Out Boy, Funeral for a Friend et al, and nothing else? Then yeah, their taste is shit. It's incredibly limited and shows their lack of overall interest in the craft.
Originally posted by Scribble
No, it's not. The general overall thing of how people interpret music, yes, in a way, but generally I considered my music taste to be better than theirs not by what I listened to, but how. I force myself to listen to lots of music, and often get into bands or artists I would have hated a few years back. The other person basically just "liked what they like". So my taste was a lot better developed, and as such, my taste was 'better', because what else are we going to base it on? We can't base it on the music itself, because that IS subjective (to a degree).It all came from them saying MCR are one of the greatest bands on the 2000s, and I basically was just like lolno, and then they got offended, and I asked them "Well, what bands are you judging them against? How much do you even know about 2000s bands, and how can you claim MCR to be one of the greatest when you don't know most of the other bands they'd be up against?
To come back to the idea of having a better 'taste' in music, if you know about music generally, you have a more informed and deeper opinion on it – I'm talking theory here, at least a tiny bit of it – then in my eyes, that makes your opinion more valid than someone else's. But not always, definitely not always.
It's a touchy subject and I s2g people flip out whenever I try to explain it because they're acting like I'm saying I'm 'better' somehow, which isn't the point.
So someone likes MCR. Does that make their taste shit? Not inherently (in fact I think they're a decent, if mediocre band), but if they only listen to MCR, Fall Out Boy, Funeral for a Friend et al, and nothing else? Then yeah, their taste is shit. It's incredibly limited and shows their lack of overall interest in the craft.
Wouldn't knowing a lot about music merely make one qualified to judge the quality of the playing? By this I mean, not judging the song itself, but judging how skillfully the members in the band play their instruments.
Originally posted by SurturIt can do that, but can also inform the quality of the craft of the music. Use of keys and time signatures, chord changes, timbres, point and counterpoint, all that shit.
Wouldn't knowing a lot about music merely make one qualified to judge the quality of the playing? By this I mean, not judging the song itself, but judging how skillfully the members in the band play their instruments.
Learning an instrument and a bit of theory definitely opened me up to more music and allowed me to enjoy and appreciate it more.
But people who base their opinion on music purely by that stuff are usually assholes. "This son only has four chords, bleh." **** those people!
Originally posted by Scribble
It can do that, but can also inform the quality of the craft of the music. Use of keys and time signatures, chord changes, timbres, point and counterpoint, all that shit.Learning an instrument and a bit of theory definitely opened me up to more music and allowed me to enjoy and appreciate it more.
But people who base their opinion on music purely by that stuff are usually assholes. "This son only has four chords, bleh." **** those people!
You must hate most of the current music. A lot of it seems like shit.
Originally posted by Scribble
No, it's not. The general overall thing of how people interpret music, yes, in a way, but generally I considered my music taste to be better than theirs not by what I listened to, but how. I force myself to listen to lots of music, and often get into bands or artists I would have hated a few years back. The other person basically just "liked what they like". So my taste was a lot better developed, and as such, my taste was 'better', because what else are we going to base it on? We can't base it on the music itself, because that IS subjective (to a degree).It all came from them saying MCR are one of the greatest bands on the 2000s, and I basically was just like lolno, and then they got offended, and I asked them "Well, what bands are you judging them against? How much do you even know about 2000s bands, and how can you claim MCR to be one of the greatest when you don't know most of the other bands they'd be up against?
To come back to the idea of having a better 'taste' in music, if you know about music generally, you have a more informed and deeper opinion on it – I'm talking theory here, at least a tiny bit of it – then in my eyes, that makes your opinion more valid than someone else's. But not always, definitely not always.
It's a touchy subject and I s2g people flip out whenever I try to explain it because they're acting like I'm saying I'm 'better' somehow, which isn't the point.
So someone likes MCR. Does that make their taste shit? Not inherently (in fact I think they're a decent, if mediocre band), but if they only listen to MCR, Fall Out Boy, Funeral for a Friend et al, and nothing else? Then yeah, their taste is shit. It's incredibly limited and shows their lack of overall interest in the craft.
there can be wrong opinions. growing up i had plenty of old blues snobs telling me that my favorite bands were not "real music". however if they just said "i think it sounds awful", that is just as valid an opinion as a positive review. all depends on the context.
also the key word is "opinion" and all art is subjective.
The difference though is that saying "MCR are one of the greatest bands of the 2000s" is presenting itself as objective, as if it's a fact, and it belies a lack of deep knowledge about music in the 2000s. Saying "MCR are my favourite band of the 2000s" is a completely subjective opinion and even if they did know more bands, maybe MCR would still be their favourite band, which is obviously totally fine.
Like my top 100 albums isn't a list of the greatest albums of all time (although they are all great achievements of some form or other), they're just my own curated collection that I particularly enjoy. I can actually distinguish the difference between what I really enjoy and what is an objectively great achievement do you feel me yet