[trains are bad]

Anyone care to disagree? Attempting to assign objectivity to music is completely pointless.

Bach !> Limp Bizkit.

Objectively.

 

[catachresis]

Bach does 10 -- Limp Bizkit goes up to 11.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trains are bad Anyone care to disagree? Attempting to assign objectivity to music is completely pointless.

Fair enough... Barry Manilow is just as good a composer as Beethoven.

 

[funnytimes]

You have made a profound observation!

 

[elrod-tom]

I know that it's difficult to reach objective conclusions about stuff like this, and there isn't really a right or wrong answer. However, I do think that there is an issue regarding talent.

I tend to think of it this way: if you put 1,000,000 monkeys at typewriters, and let them type long enough, eventually you'll get Shakespere (though it might take a VERY long time). Similarly, if you give 1,000,000 Fred Dursts pen, paper, and instruments, eventually you'll get Bach (well, you might, anyway).

 

[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trains are bad Anyone care to disagree? Attempting to assign objectivity to music is completely pointless. Bach !> Limp Bizkit. Objectively.

I disagree.

I think there are both subjective and objective components, especially with jazz and classical.

Skim this thread: http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showt...t=39634&page=7

 

[shplorgh]

Of course you can't.

But Limp Bizkit still sucks.

 

[Elec]

What about something like this?: http://slashdot.org/articles/03/11/2...id=141&tid=188

 

[PinkFloyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fewtch Fair enough... Barry Manilow is just as good a composer as Beethoven.

Yes, I just love Barry's Rhapsody symphony in F sharp... it's up there with anything Ludwig ever composed

 

[saint.panda]

Why do people at conservatories study Bach instead of Limp Bizkit? Maybe they're all big barock fans.

Taste is taste but it's not all subjective once you cross over from the realms of personal taste over to a public discussion and evaluation.

There's always objectivity within a given set of standards. One could argue that such a set of standards doesn't exist but then you could also argue that culture is more or less irrelevant. Surely, music has advanced a bit since ancient folks used bones to make sound by hitting against each other.

But I agree that it's difficult to say that one piece of music is "better" than another because it really depends on how you define better. If good and better are associated with musical enjoyment alone, I'm sure Limp Bizkit is a lot better than Bach in the eyes of many people.

 

[Aman]

Dictionary reference to the word 'better' (referenced back to "good"):

Quote:

Having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing

Dictionary reference to the word 'music':

Quote:

The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.

(Some word bolded for emphasis)

The bolded words are qualities in music that are desirable and distinguishable. The words given italics are descriptions of music that are subjective. However, those in bold can be measured under the defintion of the word 'good'/'better'. Stop trying to be politically correct now, then, because even the dictionary agrees that music can be varying in quality, regardless of musical taste.

 

[Zanth]

Excellent post Tom! Monkeys !> Durst, or well, subjectively anyway

 

[trains are bad]

Sure, there are things about music that can be analyzed objectively. You can do that to your heart's content. But to me, it's actual artistic merit is how much someone likes it, something that is impossible to objectively define. You can, like, beforehand agree to align your tastes with certain objective qualities. Or your tastes may happen to agree with certain types of melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.

But its being good, is a function of your liking it, not of its objective qualities. Chicken and egg.

 

[mbriant]

Like art, IMO, music is a subjective thing. How does one measure "better" in music? By popularity? .... Can those millions of Achy-Breaky buyers be all wrong? By gendre? .... Is it an undisputed fact that Classical is better than Country? By complexity of it's stucture? .... There's a lot to be said for a simple melody and/or lyrics. Or by the amount of technical skill it takes to perform it? .... Is it an undisputed fact that "Bethovan's 5th" is better music than "You Are My Sunshine" ?

It's easy to say that Bach has lasted centuries so he has to be great .... but we don't know what the future holds for more recent composers. Perhaps "My Sharona" will still be getting airplay in the year 2300. We can speculate, but we can't say for sure.

 

[CRESCENDOPOWER]

I was wondering, which one of you will give me your e-mail address so I can ask which albums to throw away?