or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › You Know You're an Audiophile When.. Version 2!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

You Know You're an Audiophile When.. Version 2! - Page 337

post #5041 of 6051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Alchemist View Post

 

 If you simply say you don't like it in subjective terms, instead of saying it's bad in objective terms, that's fine.

  Wow, Arrogant much? I'll say what I think thanks, it's called free speech, I don't need your permission. I haven't broken any rules, here. As someone who saw her debacle in 2011 at the O2, turning up late and sounding worse than a drunken karaoke singer, I'm entitled to my opinion. My ex was with with me that night and went to 2 of her other gigs and they were exactly the same. Some people love her, cool, good for them, that's their opinion, I have no problem with that.  Your point about the production is however, bang on point. The music that night was awesome, but she drowned in it, frankly. Hell, I'm 43, I can remember when music was about gigs and talent not production. I sang in a band for 17 years and supported The Manic Street Preachers back in 1986 (Hell, now I feel old) and  saw how MSP worked for every bit of success they've had and wrote all of their own material. Rihanna has bucket loads of charisma, but in my opinion, that's all she has. Others will disagree. Cool. Good for them.

post #5042 of 6051
Quote:
Originally Posted by taffy2207 View Post
 

  Wow, Arrogant much? I'll say what I think thanks, it's called free speech, I don't need your permission. I haven't broken any rules, here. As someone who saw her debacle in 2011 at the O2, turning up late and sounding worse than a drunken karaoke singer, I'm entitled to my opinion. My ex was with with me that night and went to 2 of her other gigs and they were exactly the same. Some people love her, cool, good for them, that's their opinion, I have no problem with that.  Your point about the production is however, bang on point. The music that night was awesome, but she drowned in it, frankly. Hell, I'm 43, I can remember when music was about gigs and talent not production. I sang in a band for 17 years and supported The Manic Street Preachers back in 1986 (Hell, now I feel old) and  saw how MSP worked for every bit of success they've had and wrote all of their own material. Rihanna has bucket loads of charisma, but in my opinion, that's all she has. Others will disagree. Cool. Good for them.

 

Not arrogant at all. I am saying that saying any artist is bad objectively is not okay at all, because it is simply false. It is subjective. I thought we were just talking about music, though, not artists' personal lives and how they act at concerts.

post #5043 of 6051
No. I think she's a very talented singer. She has a beautiful voice. I just don't really care the the music she puts out. Wasn't putting anyone down. Just joking around. But I'm kind of hipster/pretentious about my music tastes, so there's that. I don't listen to more mainstream music so of course I'm not really going to like a mainstream pop artist
Quote:
Originally Posted by taffy2207 View Post

  and wrote all of their own material... I can remember when music was about gigs and talent not production.
Yeah, I do like it a lot more when artists create their own music, not have someone else do it for them. Makes it more personal, like they put forth more effort and emotionality into it.
Gigs and talent are a big part of it. Production is also important too. Ever heard an album that was badly produced? Yeah, takes away from the talent. Gigs are important too. Adds to the feel of a band. Yeah, you can have your opinion on a singer. Just pointing out my own opinions on other stuff.
Edited by kcdkjqqr - 4/13/15 at 6:39pm
post #5044 of 6051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Alchemist View Post
 

 

Not arrogant at all. I am saying that saying any artist is bad objectively is not okay at all, because it is simply false. It is subjective. I thought we were just talking about music, though, not artists' personal lives and how they act at concerts.

 

No. There is some "art" out there that is, by consensus, considered to be objectively bad. There are bad composers, bad singers, bad writers, bad musicians. This can be stated in objective terms.

 

I don't necessarily agree about Rihanna being a bad singer, but that has more to do with me being indifferent to her talent or lack thereof. I honestly couldn't care less whether Rihanna is any good at singing or not, because there are others who are better and whose music is considerably more interesting.

 

Objectively. :D

 

Also, a singer showing up to a performance, in no condition to perform (rather than canceling and rescheduling the date), reflects somewhat poorly on them in a number of ways. If an artist were to make a habit of such behaviors, that would probably make him/her a pretty bad artists. My $0.02.

post #5045 of 6051
Quote:
Originally Posted by C.C.S. View Post
 

No. There is some "art" out there that is, by consensus, considered to be objectively bad. There are bad composers, bad singers, bad writers, bad musicians. This can be stated in objective terms.

 

I don't necessarily agree about Rihanna being a bad singer, but that has more to do with me being indifferent to her talent or lack thereof. I honestly couldn't care less whether Rihanna is any good at singing or not, because there are others who are better and whose music is considerably more interesting.

 

Objectively. :D

 

Also, a singer showing up to a performance, in no condition to perform (rather than canceling and rescheduling the date), reflects somewhat poorly on them in a number of ways. If an artist were to make a habit of such behaviors, that would probably make him/her a pretty bad artists. My $0.02.

 

Consensus just means most people out of a certain group agree upon something. It is still subjective, because it is just opinions. I'm not a huge fan of Rihanna or anything, but it would be very dishonest to say that her music is objectively bad. I agree with you that there are countless better artists out there, but that is just my subjective opinion. For some people, she could be the best artist in the world, for them. Music is far too complex of a topic to say anything objective about it aside from things that can be objectively measured, scientifically. Even when you are comparing the composition of one musical piece to another, in a technical sense, it is still pretty subjective when you switch from technicalities to opinions about quality.

post #5046 of 6051
I agree, liking music is a subjective decision.
post #5047 of 6051

So the composer(s) who worked on old Hannah Barbera cartoons, in an objective sense, were artists that could stand side by side with Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Liszt, Mendelssohn, Schoenberg?

 

No.

 

You can like certain artists more than superior artists, but in some cases, objective statements of quality can be applied to the arts, including music.

post #5048 of 6051
Quote:
Originally Posted by C.C.S. View Post
 

So the composer(s) who worked on old Hannah Barbera cartoons, in an objective sense, were artists that could stand side by side with Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Liszt, Mendelssohn, Schoenberg?

 

No.

 

You can like certain artists more than superior artists, but in some cases, objective statements of quality can be applied to the arts, including music.

 

Objectively superior at what exactly? Better at certain things, yes, that goes without saying. But you must first specify what you are even talking about. Goofy cartoon music is better at goofy cartoon music, for example. Music with violins is going to be better at "music with violins" than music without violins, obviously. To even examine something in a scientific manner, you must first ask a question -- a specific one. Until then, a meaningful statement hasn't even been made. Also, you are confusing composers with compositions. Just because someone composes goofy cartoon music does not mean they are incapable of composing more serious music.

post #5049 of 6051

By the way, HQPlayer really is objectively superior in terms of accurate audio reproduction. ^_^

 

It almost sounds like upgrading to better headphones! (Compared to foobar2000, iTunes, Winamp, the old JPLAY, etc.) Add Fidelizer and the sound quality gets even better!

post #5050 of 6051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Alchemist View Post
 

 

Objectively superior at what exactly? Better at certain things, yes, that goes without saying. But you must first specify what you are even talking about. Goofy cartoon music is better at goofy cartoon music, for example. Music with violins is going to be better at "music with violins" than music without violins, obviously. To even examine something in a scientific manner, you must first ask a question -- a specific one. Until then, a meaningful statement hasn't even been made. Also, you are confusing composers with compositions. Just because someone composes goofy cartoon music does not mean they are incapable of composing more serious music.

 

Until they have written a quality composition other than goofy cartoon music, I have no other basis upon which to judge their art, though. Perhaps a more apt comparison would be someone like Danny Elfman, who has no doubt written some cartoony music (Simpsons), but who is also responsible for composing the scores to some fantastic films and musicals.

 

I would also argue that versatility plays a large factor in all of this. Most classical and orchestral composers write pieces in different styles, for different ensembles, utilizing different stylistic and theoretical techniques, while cartoon music is simply cartoon music. And if you've ever listened to some of Liszt's goofier compositions, I'd argue that he composes cartoons better than composers for cartoons as well.

 

Of course, we also have to determine whether compositions for cartoons can even be considered "art" in any way, and many who study and critique art would argue that they are not, making great composers superior artists, simply by being artists.

 

At any rate, I feel we've taken this thread quite off topic, so if you want to get more specific or discuss with me some more, we should take it to PM instead of ruining this thread.

 

I apologize for OT discussion, everybody.

post #5051 of 6051
Quote:
Originally Posted by C.C.S. View Post
 

Until they have written a quality composition other than goofy cartoon music, I have no other basis upon which to judge their art, though. Perhaps a more apt comparison would be someone like Danny Elfman, who has no doubt written some cartoony music (Simpsons), but who is also responsible for composing the scores to some fantastic films and musicals.

 

I would also argue that versatility plays a large factor in all of this. Most classical and orchestral composers write pieces in different styles, for different ensembles, utilizing different stylistic and theoretical techniques, while cartoon music is simply cartoon music. And if you've ever listened to some of Liszt's goofier compositions, I'd argue that he composes cartoons better than composers for cartoons as well.

 

Of course, we also have to determine whether compositions for cartoons can even be considered "art" in any way, and many who study and critique art would argue that they are not, making great composers superior artists, simply by being artists.

 

At any rate, I feel we've taken this thread quite off topic, so if you want to get more specific or discuss with me some more, we should take it to PM instead of ruining this thread.

 

I apologize for OT discussion, everybody.

 

I think fish are better. No wait, tigers. Or perhaps planets. See how meaningless discussions of objective quality are when you don't qualify your statement by specifying exactly what you are referring to? First make a specific statement or ask a specific question -- and then it may be able to be analyzed objectively.

 

What makes a quality composition? Such a phrase is incredibly vague and, on its own, subject to opinion.

 

And lol. Virtually every style of music has been used in cartoons. Again, vague statements get us nowhere.

 

You probably haven't seen many cartoons at all if you go so far as to say music in cartoons is not art. Do you have any idea how insulting that is?! There are plenty of cartoons (and other animation, such as anime) that have music in them that I personally consider to be infinitely superior to classical music. This is merely my opinion, for my own tastes.

 

So far, none of your statements have even said anything, really. All you are really saying is that you prefer classical music.

 

YKYAAW you know that music is subjective. Period. The only objective aspects are things that can be measured and demonstrated scientifically, and only after specifying exactly what you are referring to. So for example, musical fidelity of a device can be measured and demonstrated via various methods.

post #5052 of 6051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Alchemist View Post
 

 

I think fish are better. No wait, tigers. Or perhaps planets. See how meaningless discussions of objective quality are when you don't qualify your statement by specifying exactly what you are referring to? First make a specific statement or ask a specific question -- and then it may be able to be analyzed objectively.

 

What makes a quality composition? Such a phrase is incredibly vague and, on its own, subject to opinion.

 

And lol. Virtually every style of music has been used in cartoons. Again, vague statements get us nowhere.

 

You probably haven't seen many cartoons at all if you go so far as to say music in cartoons is not art. Do you have any idea how insulting that is?! There are plenty of cartoons (and other animation, such as anime) that have music in them that I personally consider to be infinitely superior to classical music. This is merely my opinion, for my own tastes.

 

So far, none of your statements have even said anything, really. All you are really saying is that you prefer classical music.

 

YKYAAW you know that music is subjective. Period. The only objective aspects are things that can be measured and demonstrated scientifically, and only after specifying exactly what you are referring to. So for example, musical fidelity of a device can be measured and demonstrated via various methods.

 

Please PM me to continue this discussion. We got off topic. Not continuing it here.

post #5053 of 6051
Quote:
Originally Posted by C.C.S. View Post
 

Please PM me to continue this discussion. We got off topic. Not continuing it here.

 

Don't worry, this thread is partially the Music Alchemist fan club. ^_^

 

You have my blessing to make any arguments you wish -- but please do so with meaningful statements, not vague ones.

 

In case you haven't followed the thread much, many of the posts here are about things like homework, girls, video games, and practically anything else. This conversation is far more relevant to the thread. However, NO music is objectively better than any other music "overall" unless you specify what it's better at.

 

If you want to look down at other people for liking music other than classical, that is an attitude that is highly insulting to music fans everywhere.

 

There is no doubt that classical music is superior to other music in many ways, but to simply say that it is better is meaningless, because it does not specify what it is better at. All sorts of other music are also better at the things they excel at.

 

And for what it's worth, many of those "goofy" cartoons have music in them that is practically classical, though not in the strict historical sense of the term.


Edited by Music Alchemist - 4/13/15 at 8:26pm
post #5054 of 6051

For a while i was a metal head who would strongly reject most mainstream and other generas of music. That was one of the direst mistakes possible. Head-fi is about the gear, not the music. Or, at least, there is an area for music, and that is it. Discussing music is very very wrong, if it is not from a technical recording point of view. 

 

Now, let me say this: rihanna is way better recorded than many. Instrumentals are quite well done, composition wise it works with her voice and it is even better recorded.

 

I used to listen to some of the poor recorded music, and i was very happy with it, but it was poor recorded, like.. painted in exile, metallica, slayer. Metallica and slayer are known by many to be great, but they never recorded saint anger not death magnetic in an audiophile envoirment.

 

Composition of music, voices, instruments, etc. have no place to be discussed on head-fi. 

 

Dynamic range, clipping, stereo and soundstage, crispiness of sound, how deep the bass is, or how good the instruments are recorded particulary are the way to go for head-fi.

 

I really regret not listening to classical, symphonic, post hardcore, electronic music earlier, because of a poor understood theory which never lied behind anything; 

I am not much within any "style" given by the teenagers consensus, but i listen to more indie rock and indie music than most hipsters, given for example that i change songs between bands " The hush now, cold war kids, tiger lillies, jill tracy, sirenia, eminem, dorlene love, billy talent, sonata arctica, maroon 5, la dispute, protest the hero, all the way to classical compositions from George Enescu, Bach, James Galway, Milor Karadaglic"

You could loose a lot due to having prejudices when listening to music.

 

All of these do not stand in the way of right of express one's right, but it is extremely wrong to say that something is objectively bad, because you subjectively do not like it.

post #5055 of 6051
Quote:
Originally Posted by skerry2006aj View Post
 

For a while i was a metal head who would strongly reject most mainstream and other generas of music. That was one of the direst mistakes possible. Head-fi is about the gear, not the music. Or, at least, there is an area for music, and that is it. Discussing music is very very wrong, if it is not from a technical recording point of view. 

 

Now, let me say this: rihanna is way better recorded than many. Instrumentals are quite well done, composition wise it works with her voice and it is even better recorded.

 

I used to listen to some of the poor recorded music, and i was very happy with it, but it was poor recorded, like.. painted in exile, metallica, slayer. Metallica and slayer are known by many to be great, but they never recorded saint anger not death magnetic in an audiophile envoirment.

 

Composition of music, voices, instruments, etc. have no place to be discussed on head-fi. 

 

Dynamic range, clipping, stereo and soundstage, crispiness of sound, how deep the bass is, or how good the instruments are recorded particulary are the way to go for head-fi.

 

I really regret not listening to classical, symphonic, post hardcore, electronic music earlier, because of a poor understood theory which never lied behind anything; 

I am not much within any "style" given by the teenagers consensus, but i listen to more indie rock and indie music than most hipsters, given for example that i change songs between bands " The hush now, cold war kids, tiger lillies, jill tracy, sirenia, eminem, dorlene love, billy talent, sonata arctica, maroon 5, la dispute, protest the hero, all the way to classical compositions from George Enescu, Bach, James Galway, Milor Karadaglic"

You could loose a lot due to having prejudices when listening to music.

 

All of these do not stand in the way of right of express one's right, but it is extremely wrong to say that something is objectively bad, because you subjectively do not like it.

 

This is a site about headphones, and therefore also music. Discussion of music is inevitable and should be encouraged, not stifled. There is even a music section on the site! The only problem arises when someone says X music is objectively better than Y music, without qualifying the statement by explaining in what way it is better. I agree with that last sentence. I listen to and enjoy nearly all types of music, so it bothers me when someone tries to put a genre down simply because they don't like it. I can't stand most country music, and precisely because of that, it is not my place to speak about the genre with authority.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › You Know You're an Audiophile When.. Version 2!