Do you like bad music? If So WhyMusic

[BobK]

...[repetition]...

Aww, c'mon... "Nobody But Me" by the Human Beinz is a great song!

 

[RTSolvalou]

By the time Gangnam Style started making the news we were already sick of it and of course have had to put up with it for a while as 'the masses' started embracing it. Hate it when that happens but it's unavoidable.

Someone put me onto this, It's whack but I kinda love it:


People seem to hate on Let's Groove by CDB, not sure why.

 

[Slash]

This type of thinking doesn't apply to every song like you think it does. If your chorus only consists of 1 line, & then gets repeated 16 times in 3 different points in a 3 minute-long song, that is not musical talent. Any idiot can write "music" like that by repeating 1 line throughout a song as long as you have a beat. But, even with such a simplistic line, some critics still said her vocals were still heavily tuned.

Willow Smith's singing "career" is only out there because her parents (father really) are high profile celebrities & in today's society, the celebrity kids try to follow in their parent's footsteps. I'm more amazed this is one of Jay-Z's proteges, but then again, he compared her to Stevie Wonder & Jackson just because she was young. :facepalm:

But that doesn't mean it's "bad". Like I've said. Bad music is subjective.

 

[jcm]

But that doesn't mean it's "bad". Like I've said. Bad music is subjective.

Agreed 👍

(If you don't want to read the whole post there is a tl;dr version at the bottom )

If there's one thing that defines art, it's that art is impossible to look at objectively. There is no right or wrong answer to how something should sound, look, or feel, everything is entirely in the eye (or ear) of the beholder. Saying that something 'is' bad is just an opinion, it doesn't actually mean it's bad.

For anyone who thinks that out of tune music can objectively be considered bad, I'd just like to point out that almost no music is in perfect music. The tuning system used by almost all western music is called equal temperment, and the dissonance from a simple major chord is enough to bother people with very strong, well trained ears.

When you compare music in just intonation (perfect harmony, can be acheived on fretless instruments/computers) with music in 12-tone equal temperment (a piano, guitar, and many others use this, is what is taught in basically all music theory books (possibly not so at a university level)), often people will say they prefer music in equal temperment. Perfect harmony just isn't as intresting for many people, and the dissonance generated from your average chord can be quite appealing to most people, it makes the music feel more real, and kinda gives it personality and character.

Most people like a small amount of dissonance (so, basically they'll like the sound of a major chord on a piano/guitar). When the amount of dissonance is increased (as with diminished, augmented, or out-of-tune instruments), a lot of people don't like it. However, I feel like you have to respect that since almost all music considered 'good' is a little bit out-of-tune, music which is very out-of-tune could also be considered good.

That's not to say this thread is a bad idea though. I will sometimes listen to music which I consider to be 'bad' in social or guitar hero situations, and very occasionally simply to hear what it sounds like. That doesn't make the music 'bad', it's just what I (subjectively) consider 'bad'. And even then, often there are many good atributes in music I consider to be 'bad'. For example, Avenged Sevenfold. They have some really fun riffs to play on guitar, and I sometimes listen to them, but I find an extremely large amount of their music to be annoying, something I call the A7X syndrome. Where you take some great riffs, and while turning these riffs into songs you inject them with the A7X syndrome and the songs as a whole comes out being annoying. This leads to me sometimes playing these songs on guitar / guitar hero, but never listening to them on their own because I consider it 'bad' and annoying

If you've made it this far through this block of text, then you might as well read the tl;dr version as it includes my basic answer to the OPs question, sorry for making you read so much

And sorry if this is grammatically incorrect in places, as I suspect it very much has


tl;dr version:

Music is a form of art, and can only be looked at subjectively. What one person likes isn't nessecarily what is 'good'. That doesn't mean this thread is a bad one though. Perhaps just make it clear in the OP, that the question is something like this: Do you listen to music that you consider bad? And then my answer would be something like this: Though I don't typically listen to music I consider bad, when with friends or playing guitar hero my I will go so far as to listen to music I wouldn't listen to otherwise, such as Nickelback and Avenged Sevenfold .

 

[Slash]

Agreed 👍

(If you don't want to read the whole post there is a tl;dr version at the bottom )

If there's one thing that defines art, it's that art is impossible to look at objectively. There is no right or wrong answer to how something should sound, look, or feel, everything is entirely in the eye (or ear) of the beholder. Saying that something 'is' bad is just an opinion, it doesn't actually mean it's bad.

For anyone who thinks that out of tune music can objectively be considered bad, I'd just like to point out that almost no music is in perfect music. The tuning system used by almost all western music is called equal temperment, and the dissonance from a simple major chord is enough to bother people with very strong, well trained ears.

When you compare music in just intonation (perfect harmony, can be acheived on fretless instruments/computers) with music in 12-tone equal temperment (a piano, guitar, and many others use this, is what is taught in basically all music theory books (possibly not so at a university level)), often people will say they prefer music in equal temperment. Perfect harmony just isn't as intresting for many people, and the dissonance generated from your average chord can be quite appealing to most people, it makes the music feel more real, and kinda gives it personality and character.

Most people like a small amount of dissonance (so, basically they'll like the sound of a major chord on a piano/guitar). When the amount of dissonance is increased (as with diminished, augmented, or out-of-tune instruments), a lot of people don't like it. However, I feel like you have to respect that since almost all music considered 'good' is a little bit out-of-tune, music which is very out-of-tune could also be considered good.

That's not to say this thread is a bad idea though. I will sometimes listen to music which I consider to be 'bad' in social or guitar hero situations, and very occasionally simply to hear what it sounds like. That doesn't make the music 'bad', it's just what I (subjectively) consider 'bad'. And even then, often there are many good atributes in music I consider to be 'bad'. For example, Avenged Sevenfold. They have some really fun riffs to play on guitar, and I sometimes listen to them, but I find an extremely large amount of their music to be annoying, something I call the A7X syndrome. Where you take some great riffs, and while turning these riffs into songs you inject them with the A7X syndrome and the songs as a whole comes out being annoying. This leads to me sometimes playing these songs on guitar / guitar hero, but never listening to them on their own because I consider it 'bad' and annoying

If you've made it this far through this block of text, then you might as well read the tl;dr version as it includes my basic answer to the OPs question, sorry for making you read so much

And sorry if this is grammatically incorrect in places, as I suspect it very much has


tl;dr version:

Music is a form of art, and can only be looked at subjectively. What one person likes isn't nessecarily what is 'good'. That doesn't mean this thread is a bad one though. Perhaps just make it clear in the OP, that the question is something like this: Do you listen to music that you consider bad? And then my answer would be something like this: Though I don't typically listen to music I consider bad, when with friends or playing guitar hero my I will go so far as to listen to music I wouldn't listen to otherwise, such as Nickelback and Avenged Sevenfold .

This is what I've been getting at.

 

[RVDNuT374]

LANGUAGE WARNING: NSFW




Two songs from artists many people consider horrible that I like for some reason.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Agreed 👍

(If you don't want to read the whole post there is a tl;dr version at the bottom )

If there's one thing that defines art, it's that art is impossible to look at objectively. There is no right or wrong answer to how something should sound, look, or feel, everything is entirely in the eye (or ear) of the beholder. Saying that something 'is' bad is just an opinion, it doesn't actually mean it's bad.

For anyone who thinks that out of tune music can objectively be considered bad, I'd just like to point out that almost no music is in perfect music. The tuning system used by almost all western music is called equal temperment, and the dissonance from a simple major chord is enough to bother people with very strong, well trained ears.

When you compare music in just intonation (perfect harmony, can be acheived on fretless instruments/computers) with music in 12-tone equal temperment (a piano, guitar, and many others use this, is what is taught in basically all music theory books (possibly not so at a university level)), often people will say they prefer music in equal temperment. Perfect harmony just isn't as intresting for many people, and the dissonance generated from your average chord can be quite appealing to most people, it makes the music feel more real, and kinda gives it personality and character.

Most people like a small amount of dissonance (so, basically they'll like the sound of a major chord on a piano/guitar). When the amount of dissonance is increased (as with diminished, augmented, or out-of-tune instruments), a lot of people don't like it. However, I feel like you have to respect that since almost all music considered 'good' is a little bit out-of-tune, music which is very out-of-tune could also be considered good.

That's not to say this thread is a bad idea though. I will sometimes listen to music which I consider to be 'bad' in social or guitar hero situations, and very occasionally simply to hear what it sounds like. That doesn't make the music 'bad', it's just what I (subjectively) consider 'bad'. And even then, often there are many good atributes in music I consider to be 'bad'. For example, Avenged Sevenfold. They have some really fun riffs to play on guitar, and I sometimes listen to them, but I find an extremely large amount of their music to be annoying, something I call the A7X syndrome. Where you take some great riffs, and while turning these riffs into songs you inject them with the A7X syndrome and the songs as a whole comes out being annoying. This leads to me sometimes playing these songs on guitar / guitar hero, but never listening to them on their own because I consider it 'bad' and annoying

If you've made it this far through this block of text, then you might as well read the tl;dr version as it includes my basic answer to the OPs question, sorry for making you read so much

And sorry if this is grammatically incorrect in places, as I suspect it very much has


tl;dr version:

Music is a form of art, and can only be looked at subjectively. What one person likes isn't nessecarily what is 'good'. That doesn't mean this thread is a bad one though. Perhaps just make it clear in the OP, that the question is something like this: Do you listen to music that you consider bad? And then my answer would be something like this: Though I don't typically listen to music I consider bad, when with friends or playing guitar hero my I will go so far as to listen to music I wouldn't listen to otherwise, such as Nickelback and Avenged Sevenfold .

I don't agree. I think there's both a subjective and objective side to music. Subjective is what you like, and objective the quality/skill of musicianship. Just like other artforms.

Now, one could obviously argue that the subjective part is more important, and in a way it is, as there's no point listening to music you don't enjoy.

I still think that you shouldn't call music you simply don't like bad unless it is musicaly. Giant steps isn't bad no matter how much you dislike it.

 

[jcm]

I don't agree. I think there's both a subjective and objective side to music. Subjective is what you like, and objective the quality/skill of musicianship. Just like other artforms.

Now, one could obviously argue that the subjective part is more important, and in a way it is, as there's no point listening to music you don't enjoy.

I still think that you shouldn't call music you simply don't like bad unless it is musicaly. Giant steps isn't bad no matter how much you dislike it.

You agree, you just don't realise it yet

Deciding what is good/bad is entirely subjective. Even if you make it as objective as possible, deciding what takes 'skill' is subjective, and deciding what is a demonstration of quality musicianship is also subjective. Anytime you ever see a list or ranking of top # of songs/bands/musicians it has always been decided subjectively. Saying Giant Steps is good (while I agree) is subjective, it's just an opinion.

Simply put, you can't go into any functioning court of law and conclusively prove that any individual piece of music is good/bad so that you can use it as evidence in a case. If it is possible to do that, then the court is not functioning properly

It's just a disagreement over definitions really, when it comes to art you just can't objectively say something is better or worse then something else. Yes, you can objectively follow certain criteria to determine what song is 'good' and what song is 'bad', but deciding what criteria to follow is subjective.

So simply put, we all agree about everything except a couple definitions, and hopefully you have now been convinced that all music has to be judged subjectively, and you can't just say something is bad, but rather that it is bad in your opinion, and yet you still listen to it

I have a song I consider bad that I listen too anyway that I'd like to post, but it has a music video too so I'll wait until I'm on a computer and then I will post it

 

[FordMKIVJ5]

Surely if you like a piece of music, then by definition, it can't be "bad" (in your opinion)?

 

[D3ATHS1NBUNCH3S]

If you're considering "bad" music to be like most of the stuff you hear on mainstream radio today, then no, I don't listen to it. Why? Because they often lack originality, since love or drugs or whatever it is is way overused. Also, most don't write their own lyrics. For example: Beyonce needed 6 songwriters to create the song "Run the World" (which only has two lines that repeat over and over), while Freddie Mercury wrote Bohemian Rhapsody, arguably one of the greatest songs...EVER, by himself.

 

[Encyclopedia]

You agree, you just don't realise it yet

Deciding what is good/bad is entirely subjective. Even if you make it as objective as possible, deciding what takes 'skill' is subjective, and deciding what is a demonstration of quality musicianship is also subjective. Anytime you ever see a list or ranking of top # of songs/bands/musicians it has always been decided subjectively. Saying Giant Steps is good (while I agree) is subjective, it's just an opinion.

No it isn't subjective. Deciding what you like is however. You don't decide what takes skill. Skill is something that's developed. What is good music from a musical standpoint, is not subjective.


I feel that we're talking about different things here. Also Top rankings have rarely got anything to do with skill. They tend to be about popularity. And popularity is usualy based on subjectiveness.

Simply put, you can't go into any functioning court of law and conclusively prove that any individual piece of music is good/bad so that you can use it as evidence in a case. If it is possible to do that, then the court is not functioning properly

You could, if you went by an objective definition of good (skilled). Not the one most commonly used (like). Music is largely mathematics. It is more than that obviously that but still, there's an objective base.

It's just a disagreement over definitions really, when it comes to art you just can't objectively say something is better or worse then something else. Yes, you can objectively follow certain criteria to determine what song is 'good' and what song is 'bad', but deciding what criteria to follow is subjective.

I suppose it is a disagreement over definitions in a ways. To me good= skilled, talented etc. And that goes for basically anything.
Likeable is a much better word to use for music that might not be good from that standpoint but which you enjoy anyway. In my opinion.

So simply put, we all agree about everything except a couple definitions, and hopefully you have now been convinced that all music has to be judged subjectively, and you can't just say something is bad, but rather that it is bad in your opinion, and yet you still listen to it

I can still say it is musicaly bad (lacking skill or requiring little to no skill). But again the subjective opinion, the like, may be the most important one.

I have a song I consider bad that I listen too anyway that I'd like to post, but it has a music video too so I'll wait until I'm on a computer and then I will post it

Because you like it?

 

[Lucas]

I like some of the music I consider "bad", such as Friday. Some songs are so bad I find them funny, which is why I listen to them when I feel sad.

 

[McLaren]

But that doesn't mean it's "bad". Like I've said. Bad music is subjective.

It's bad in the sense there's no form of talent or "art" behind it. It's a child singing a chorus line over and over and over and over to a beat. That is not music. If it was, we'd all be musicians.

If you're considering "bad" music to be like most of the stuff you hear on mainstream radio today, then no, I don't listen to it. Why? Because they often lack originality, since love or drugs or whatever it is is way overused. Also, most don't write their own lyrics. For example: Beyonce needed 6 songwriters to create the song "Run the World" (which only has two lines that repeat over and over), while Freddie Mercury wrote Bohemian Rhapsody, arguably one of the greatest songs...EVER, by himself.

Songs about love or drugs have been "overdone" since the 1970's to be fair. They not be the most original topic to write about, but all that matters really is how the song is written & sometimes, the meaning behind it.

Rick Ross' "9 Piece" is about how he's a drug dealer. There's no personal meaning behind such stupid lyrics because Rick Ross doesn't sell dope. He just writes whatever he thinks sounds good. If you were to look at "A-Team" though, it's another song about drugs, but it tells the story of a girl who fell into it & what she does to keep buying it. As far as originality goes, there is none, but the "A-Team" is at least more catchy & a sad song that people can actually relate to instead of Ross who just says he sells dope straight off the iPhone. If we go one step beyond & look at my favorite song, "Kickstart My Heart", it's about doing drugs as well. Again, another overdone topic, esp. for being written in the 80's, & I admit that I really like it for how it's performed than for the lyrics. But, at least the meaning behind the song describes how Sixx felt every time he did drugs & how "kickstart my heart" refers back to him needing 2 adrenaline shots to the heart to revive him after overdosing. No real originality in the song, but at least there's real meaning behind the lyrics.

BTW, not saying you're wrong or critiquing you, just giving some examples that over used topics still lead to classic songs.

And I agree with you on the song writers these days.

 

[Slash]

It's bad in the sense there's no form of talent or "art" behind it. It's a child singing a chorus line over and over and over and over to a beat. That is not music. If it was, we'd all be musicians.

To you that's not music. I think it is, therefore I can choose wether or not it appeals to me. And therefore that doesn't make it "bad". You don't need to have the the title of a musician to be one. Just because there is no art or talent behind it still doesn't qualify it as music. Birds chirping could be music to my ears for all I care. Music is an organization and title that we put to certain sounds. We all percieve sounds a different way.

 

[D3ATHS1NBUNCH3S]

Songs about love or drugs have been "overdone" since the 1970's to be fair. They not be the most original topic to write about, but all that matters really is how the song is written & sometimes, the meaning behind it.

Rick Ross' "9 Piece" is about how he's a drug dealer. There's no personal meaning behind such stupid lyrics because Rick Ross doesn't sell dope. He just writes whatever he thinks sounds good. If you were to look at "A-Team" though, it's another song about drugs, but it tells the story of a girl who fell into it & what she does to keep buying it. As far as originality goes, there is none, but the "A-Team" is at least more catchy & a sad song that people can actually relate to instead of Ross who just says he sells dope straight off the iPhone. If we go one step beyond & look at my favorite song, "Kickstart My Heart", it's about doing drugs as well. Again, another overdone topic, esp. for being written in the 80's, & I admit that I really like it for how it's performed than for the lyrics. But, at least the meaning behind the song describes how Sixx felt every time he did drugs & how "kickstart my heart" refers back to him needing 2 adrenaline shots to the heart to revive him after overdosing. No real originality in the song, but at least there's real meaning behind the lyrics.

BTW, not saying you're wrong or critiquing you, just giving some examples that over used topics still lead to classic songs.

And I agree with you on the song writers these days.

I can agree with you on the over usage of topics of music. I just hate how in music today that some songs will glorify sex or drugs, brainwashing teenagers that these shall do you no harm. I have no problem with a simple love song, as I have several favorites myself, but when you bring these types of lyrics to a teenager just hitting puberty, they'll want to rebel and try these new things.

As for mainstream stuff, I mainly just listen to Coldplay. How stuff like Lil Wayne, Drake, or Nicki Minaj gets that high in music charts is beyond me.

 

[McLaren]

To you that's not music. I think it is, therefore I can choose wether or not it appeals to me. And therefore that doesn't make it "bad". You don't need to have the the title of a musician to be one. Just because there is no art or talent behind it still doesn't qualify it as music. Birds chirping could be music to my ears for all I care. Music is an organization and title that we put to certain sounds. We all percieve sounds a different way.

You can argue the subjective line all you want. As Encyclopedia put it perfectly, when you look at music from a musical standpoint, Willow Smith's song is not good music.

 

[Slash]

You can argue the subjective line all you want. As Encyclopedia put it perfectly, when you look at music from a musical standpoint, Willow Smith's song is not good music.

Who says that you have to look at it from a musical standpoint?

 

[McLaren]

Who says that you have to look at it from a musical standpoint?

Where did I say you have to to begin with? From the general public's perspective, it's good/bad. From a technical standpoint, it's not good music.

It's the same thing with art. People can look at a 10 year old's drawing & call it good/bad. From an artistic standpoint though, it's not good art because from that view, it's judged based on the fundamentals that make art.

There's no way to debate what is fact from that viewpoint.

 

[Skython]

Surely if you like a piece of music, then by definition, it can't be "bad" (in your opinion)?

This is correct. If the thread title was, "Do you like poorly produced music? If so why?" Then it would make more sense in the lines of the discussion that has broken out. But that wasn't the question of the thread, so to match the thread's intended discussion, it would be along the lines of, "Do you like mainstream music? If so, why?"

 

[jcm]

Another long post

I'd just like to make it clear that talking about being 100% objective. The reason it's impossible with regard to skill is because you can't precisely define a musicians skill, because there are so many things going on at what time, tiny little individual skills collaborating to form sound waves which we enjoy listening to. From the thoughts in the brain sending signals down through the body to the muscles used to play any given notes(s), all while doing this on some kind of rythym, it's truly quite incredible when you think about everything that's going on. Skill in any task is something that you can't perfectly quantify, because there are far too many little individual things going on at once, and also not to mention the millions of variables which go beyond even a molecular level.

To perhaps better explain what I'm getting at, I've created a hypothetical situation: A music related example of this would be to get two guitarists to play a certain song, and whoever was playing the exact same notes at the exact same time as the original - within 1cent of a semitone of the pitch - would be considered a 'better' guitarist. So, guitarist A practices for weeks, and come test day he acheives a solid 96%. Guitarist B practices for a couple of hours prior, and acheives a decent 94%. So, who is a better guitarist? Common sense would suggest guitarist A is better, as he is better at playing this peice of music than guitarist B. But what if I said that wasn't the case?
What if, we changed to a differant song, something much more difficult? Guitarist A practices for weeks, and can barely manage to hit 52% of the notes, and because he couldn't get the pitch bends to within 1cent of the intended pitch, his final score was a very poor 38%. Guitarist B put in a couple hours of practice for a few days prior, and scores a very impressive 92%. Now that suggests that guitarist B is more skilled. Guitarist B's average score was higher than guitarists A's, so it is safe too asume that guitarist B is better, right?
To better represent the complexity of the situation, let's say that both of these guitarists have successful solo careers. One career however, is more commercially successfull than the other. Guitarist A has created 20 albums, selling an average of 16million copies each, for a total of 320million albums sold. Guitarist B has created 4 albums, and on average has sold 8million copies for each, a total of 32million. Both guitarists create music in the same genre of music. Now this would suggest that guitarist A is better when it comes to applying his creativity on a guitar, while guitarist B is better at shredding the fretboard and generally just playing any piece of music you put in front of him.

So, the question is who is a more skilled musician?

The only possible way to decide who is a more skilled musician is by having an opinion about how you, a person, define skill with regard to being a musician. What skills do you value more, being able to play any piece of music, or being able to compose music that pleases people and something other more capable guitarists can play. Which of those inividual skills is more important to you is what is used to decide who you think is more skilled. It's just a subjective opinion, not any more right wrong then any other, it can coexist with anyone elses opinion regardlesss of whether they agree or disagree about who is more skilled

Although yes, it is possible to be extremely objective about things like this, if you want to be truly 100% perfectly objective you have to consider all the variables, and that just isn't practical, and also somewhat impossible. The easy thing to do is just have your own subjective opinion and listen to some music you enjoy listening to




Since I haven't yet been on computer, I won't worry about linking to youtube for this one, though there is an official music video for this song. It's called 'According To You' by Orianthi. While she is a very good guitarist, personally I always ask myself why I even bought this song, as creatively I don't find it to be a great masterpiece of music. A decent song, but I suspect the only reason I listen to it is because the shredding in the song is kinda impressive She's a very skilled guitarist, but in my opinion her songwriting skills could use some work.

 

[Skython]

Another long post

I'd just like to make it clear that talking about being 100% objective. The reason it's impossible with regard to skill is because you can't precisely define a musicians skill, because there are so many things going on at what time, tiny little individual skills collaborating to form sound waves which we enjoy listening to. From the thoughts in the brain sending signals down through the body to the muscles used to play any given notes(s), all while doing this on some kind of rythym, it's truly quite incredible when you think about everything that's going on. Skill in any task is something that you can't perfectly quantify, because there are far too many little individual things going on at once, and also not to mention the millions of variables which go beyond even a molecular level.

I see what you're saying, however if you compare John Petrucci of Dream Theater with Chris Degarmo of Queensryche, you'll find that John is the better guitarist by far. So you're point isn't entirely correct, but it has some correct parts.

To perhaps better explain what I'm getting at, I've created a hypothetical situation: A music related example of this would be to get two guitarists to play a certain song, and whoever was playing the exact same notes at the exact same time as the original - within 1 percent of a semitone of the pitch - would be considered a 'better' guitarist. So, guitarist A practices for weeks, and come test day he achieves a solid 96%. Guitarist B practices for a couple of hours prior, and achieves a decent 94%. So, who is a better guitarist? Common sense would suggest guitarist A is better, as he is better at playing this piece of music than guitarist B. But what if I said that wasn't the case?

What if, we changed to a different song, something much more difficult? Guitarist A practices for weeks, and can barely manage to hit 52% of the notes, and because he couldn't get the pitch bends to within 1 percent of the intended pitch, his final score was a very poor 38%. Guitarist B put in a couple hours of practice for a few days prior, and scores a very impressive 92%. Now that suggests that guitarist B is more skilled. Guitarist B's average score was higher than guitarists A's, so it is safe too assume that guitarist B is better, right?

To better represent the complexity of the situation, let's say that both of these guitarists have successful solo careers. One career however, is more commercially successful than the other. Guitarist A has created 20 albums, selling an average of 16 million copies each, for a total of 320 million albums sold. Guitarist B has created 4 albums, and on average has sold 8 million copies for each, a total of 32 million. Both guitarists create music in the same genre of music. Now this would suggest that guitarist A is better when it comes to applying his creativity on a guitar, while guitarist B is better at shredding the fret board and generally just playing any piece of music you put in front of him.

So, the question is who is a more skilled musician?

Guitarist B is still the better guitarist. What you just said is hinting at something like saying that one of those pop star singers with autotune is a better musician than the musicians all over the world who work their butts off into playing music, just because the pop start sold more records. But the fact is that a musician like Tobias Sammet writes 90% of his music on his own, and gathers musicians from all over the world to join him in Avantasia, and creates music to fit their individual styles. And then goes on tour playing the music live with musicians who are human. But the supposedly more successful pop star is apparently a better musician because they got 5 or so people to write them a song, and then they sung the lines, edited the hell out of them and made a dance for the song. And then took off on a tour around the world dancing to a backing track of said song and lip syncing. Where's the musicianship from said pop star?

The only possible way to decide who is a more skilled musician is by having an opinion about how you, a person, define skill with regard to being a musician. What skills do you value more, being able to play any piece of music, or being able to compose music that pleases people and something other more capable guitarists can play. Which of those individual skills is more important to you is what is used to decide who you think is more skilled. It's just a subjective opinion, not any more right wrong then any other, it can coexist with anyone else's opinion regardless of whether they agree or disagree about who is more skilled

Selling records is nothing to do with music, it's business. Mainstream is successful because of people who don't know much about music. Teenagers really.

Though in your defense, a musician's style can often be a factor, and while they don't have the same amount of skill, they have a different sound, and this is where opinion comes in. If you like that style, you will prefer it. Even though there are probably instrumentalists who are a lot better at said instrument. And I may prefer stylistic musicians, but others may prefer technical musicians.

TL;DR: Style is a key thing, but they may not have the same skill as the technical not so stylistic musician. The technical musician has more skill, but the other musician has more style, which gets listeners. And then there's some who sit in the middle taking both style and ability.

Pop stars make money, everyone else makes music.

 

[jcm]

Perhaps I should've made it clearer that guitarist A is not your stereotypical pop musician. These are two guitarists who live in a hypothetical world where business is not relevant, and the only determining factor to album sales is how good the music sounds (yes impossible, but let's just suppose this hypothetical world is a paradise or something). Though it's irrelevant what genre music they play, let's just say that both guitarists have had 20 year careers, and guitarist A is this paradises equivilant of Iron Maiden while guitarist B is more of an equivilent to Dragonforce. Guitarist A can write great music, but can't play as good as guitarist B, while guitarist B can play ridiculously well but can't write very good music . Now that I've made that clearer re-read it, or punch a wall in fury of how much I've made people read in this thread

And to be clear, my only point is that deciding what is and isn't good music is subjective, just a matter of opinion. And even if everyone in the world agrees with an opinion, it doesn't make the opinion a fact (though in metaphorical sense, you could say it was a 'fact', kinda like the 'if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound'. Of course the tree does make a sound, but if no one heard it then it's basically irrelevant. It's a similar concept).

I hope this clears it up a bit

 

[rap129]

"It ain't real music without guitar..."

A quote from one of my favorite bands Hinder. I agree with that statement completely. The pop "music" today is complete trash, in my opinion.

Skython- I agree %110 on that last statement

 

[Slash]

Where did I say you have to to begin with? From the general public's perspective, it's good/bad. From a technical standpoint, it's not good music.

It's the same thing with art. People can look at a 10 year old's drawing & call it good/bad. From an artistic standpoint though, it's not good art because from that view, it's judged based on the fundamentals that make art.

There's no way to debate what is fact from that viewpoint.

They can call it whatever they want. It's their opinion. That doesn't make it bad. Even if everyone says so.

 

[McLaren]

They can call it whatever they want. It's their opinion. That doesn't make it bad. Even if everyone says so.

It's not an opinion from a technical standpoint. Done arguing this with you, since you want to argue over something that is not subjective.

 

[Slash]

It's not an opinion from a technical standpoint. Done arguing this with you, since you want to argue over something that is not subjective.

I just have a feeling you aren't understanding where I'm coming from. No matter, it was good having this debate with you 👍

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

I think "obscure" might be a better word. Or, perhaps, popular music, since (in my opinion) popular music is bad music.





That's a song I like. Everyone will take it differently, I like it. It's obscure, though, seeing as CoMa's the singer (the main reason I like the song) and it's heavy chillstep.


But, the main reason to like music like this: It actually has emotions.

Arkasia's grandmother passed away, and this is the song he wrote for her.


And, it helps, that I also like classical/orchestral music:

Arkasia's music fronts a level of maturity and understanding all too rarely seen in the EDM world. A sublime sense of space, structure and flow gives his sound a refreshing point of difference. His musical calling came at the tender age of five when he mastered the violin, and continued well into his teens, where he was composing mini-operas by age 15. Since, he has played in both orchestras and metal bands and this experience is evident throughout his compositions.

...

A revolutionary at heart, Arkasia is known by his fans for creating beautiful, uplifting tracks. Make no mistake - this is bass-heavy music, overflowing with as much pure adrenaline as it is raw emotion. The conscious roots of his compositions don't detract from the hard-nosed feel of his biggest tracks. Instead, the signature lyrics and the samples he painstakingly chooses, reinforce every heartfelt message as his tunes shatter dance floors at clubs and festivals the world over.

...

Recently hailed by dubstep.net as "the king of orchestral dubstep", Arkasia's productions are in high demand...

So, for anyone who doubted dubstep's creative elements, a lot of its elements are actually rooted in thousands of years of musical knowledge.


Why do I choose to listen to orchestral dubstep? Chillstep? Melodic dubstep?


I choose to, because the people who make it are talented classical musicians, not just people who sing well, or have a record label despite having little talent.

 

[Encyclopedia]

It boils down to the usage of the word good to me. I think enjoyable is a much more descriptive word when meaning what you like. Less chance for misunderstanding etc.

But I'll say it again. There's both an objective and an subjective side to music. If you say that music is only subjective, then the term loses it's meaning. Music is something. Not just random noises.

 

[rosckolove]

Are you guys for real? Encyclopedia is entirely right in what he is saying bout subjective and objective opinions.. I read the majority of slashfan and jcm's posts (skipped the novels) that were in disagreement.

I just have a feeling you aren't understanding where I'm coming from. No matter, it was good having this debate with you 👍

actually its funny you said that, its exactly why I chose to reply to this. You guys are entirely failing to grasp what he is saying... (unless that part was in jcm's novel I skipped, sorry if it was)



Subjective Do you like that? If you did, to you it is good music. That is your opinion. It doesn't make it good music, or bad music. Its just your musically unlearned opinion.

Objective Studied musicians would probably want to swallow rat poison before listening to that entire song, because its musically bad. This makes it Actual bad music (even if people like it) It doesn't follow musical method correctly.

You say there isn't set methods in music? Please show me anything you enjoy listening to (actually enjoy) and I will bet my testicles that it is following some type of musical method. Even Primus abides by some type of musical rules. Some guys do it better than others.

That is sort of what Encyclopedia was saying I think.

That Willow Smith song musically speaking, is a bad song compared to this. Regardless of you're like, or dislike for either one.



Will we hear that Willow Smith song on the radio in 50 years? No. Good music has longevity (another chapter to this conversation) to it, there is literally a science to all of it. Thats why people are popping out hit songs every other day that only stick around for a few weeks/months. They have the catchy hook part all figured out.


Bad drag racers don't stay in between the lines. Same goes for bad musicians.. Bad musicians drive fords and barely make it down the track. Good musicians drive chevy's and go down the track again and again and again till the end of time.

Sorry about the last part. I'm a chevy guy. I was just trying to put it in perspective for you

cheers.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

It boils down to the usage of the word good to me. I think enjoyable is a much more descriptive word when meaning what you like. Less chance for misunderstanding etc.

But I'll say it again. There's both an objective and an subjective side to music. If you say that music is only subjective, then the term loses it's meaning. Music is something. Not just random noises.

True. The definition of music is, essentially, organized/rhythmic noises. This validates just about any repeated sound as music. Like, if I really liked the sound of beer bottles hitting each other, that could be classified as music. So, in a way, music is random noises.

In fact, I do like the percussive usage of beer bottles...




Skip to 0:40 in that video... Hear beer bottles hitting each other. Be amazed. That's actually a beautiful song.