asmox
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2004
- Posts
- 1,833
- Likes
- 15
Quote:
To get this out of the way - my personal tastes have nothing to do with anything that I'm trying to say.
I recall a thread in this forum a while back asking something along the lines of "what makes music bad?" I don't view music as inherently good or bad. That is a judgement which is valid in only one place - behind the ears of the listener. I don't think there's a best way to judge good or bad in music, nor do I think there should be any way to objectively judge such a quality. Judge technicality, judge creativity, judge innovation, judge historical importance, judge poetic aptitude, judge those things which are tangible about a piece of music... but in the end, understand that all of these elements will mean different things to different people and the culmination of those elements in a verdict of either "good" or "bad" will depend on the person making that judgement.
I don't like 'In the Court of the Crimson King'. I much prefer 'Discipline'-era King Crimson and forward. I do not doubt the impact that ITCOTCK had on the development of progressive rock, but I personally don't think that it was a masterpiece. Captain Beefheart's 'Trout Mask Replica' is much more representative of a masterpiece than KC's debut, I think (which, for the record, is also an album that I don't really like, but think is full of pretty incredible music). Cynic's 'Focus' is another album that I think was extremely important for the progression of the relevant genres, and I love that album to death... however, I never really looked at it as any sort of masterpiece so much as a necessary aural journey. I think that 'Sol Niger Within' from Fredrik Thordendal's Special Defects is one of the most important albums released in recent history and a masterpiece of art, though the sheer amount of people who are either unaware of and/or want nothing to do with the album might make you think otherwise. Does that make me wrong?
I like to think that I have a firm grip on the disparity between albums that I enjoy and albums that are "important". The albums that I enjoy are obviously albums that I believe are good, but at the same time I am well aware that there are people who will not share my outlook - and that's fine. As long as their opinions on the album are educated and reasonable, I don't mind that they think it's a bad album.
The albums that are important... well... sometimes you just can't argue the impact that a given album had on whatever it is that the album had an impact on. Though, like I said earlier, that doesn't make it good or bad. That's using an objective and historical fact to try and rationalize a subjective observation.
In the case of ITCOTKC... it was an important album. The rest is not written in stone.
| Originally Posted by Aman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Which is exactly why objective standpoints, such as historical importance, are the best way to judge something as "good" or "bad". Everybody has opinions, so why make THOSE the basis of "good" or "bad" in art? You can enjoy all you want, but too many people today confuse what they enjoy with "what is good". Sometimes the two collide, but not always. I have examples that go both ways. It's close-minded to use opinions for the basis of "good" or "bad" in music, because then you shut away music that is truly excellent, enjoyable, and important because your own opinions get in the way. I always attempt to keep what I enjoy separate from what is "good", because the two ARE different. What you enjoy is subjective - what's good is objective. I don't know how to make this any clearer. Music - all art - has historical contexts, and since time is objective, it is the relative use for judging the words "good" and "bad". Using "good" to describe enjoyment makes just as much sense as calling a desk a "balloon". You're just using the completely wrong definition to describe what you're thinking. |
To get this out of the way - my personal tastes have nothing to do with anything that I'm trying to say.
I recall a thread in this forum a while back asking something along the lines of "what makes music bad?" I don't view music as inherently good or bad. That is a judgement which is valid in only one place - behind the ears of the listener. I don't think there's a best way to judge good or bad in music, nor do I think there should be any way to objectively judge such a quality. Judge technicality, judge creativity, judge innovation, judge historical importance, judge poetic aptitude, judge those things which are tangible about a piece of music... but in the end, understand that all of these elements will mean different things to different people and the culmination of those elements in a verdict of either "good" or "bad" will depend on the person making that judgement.
I don't like 'In the Court of the Crimson King'. I much prefer 'Discipline'-era King Crimson and forward. I do not doubt the impact that ITCOTCK had on the development of progressive rock, but I personally don't think that it was a masterpiece. Captain Beefheart's 'Trout Mask Replica' is much more representative of a masterpiece than KC's debut, I think (which, for the record, is also an album that I don't really like, but think is full of pretty incredible music). Cynic's 'Focus' is another album that I think was extremely important for the progression of the relevant genres, and I love that album to death... however, I never really looked at it as any sort of masterpiece so much as a necessary aural journey. I think that 'Sol Niger Within' from Fredrik Thordendal's Special Defects is one of the most important albums released in recent history and a masterpiece of art, though the sheer amount of people who are either unaware of and/or want nothing to do with the album might make you think otherwise. Does that make me wrong?
I like to think that I have a firm grip on the disparity between albums that I enjoy and albums that are "important". The albums that I enjoy are obviously albums that I believe are good, but at the same time I am well aware that there are people who will not share my outlook - and that's fine. As long as their opinions on the album are educated and reasonable, I don't mind that they think it's a bad album.
The albums that are important... well... sometimes you just can't argue the impact that a given album had on whatever it is that the album had an impact on. Though, like I said earlier, that doesn't make it good or bad. That's using an objective and historical fact to try and rationalize a subjective observation.
In the case of ITCOTKC... it was an important album. The rest is not written in stone.
