[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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? .....

Music like art (or architecture, or literature), is both subjective and objective.

Subjective is merely whehter you like something or not, or how much you like it.

Objective is how something rates on a variety of parameters (different for each art form). Those of us who have more training in musical compostion or performance or history are more qualified to make those rating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbriant 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.

I agree that you can't claim that one genre of music is "better" than another -- that falls in the realm of subjective and not objective. My point above is that you can only compare musical pieces to one another within a particular genre. There are good country songs and bad, and good country musicians and bad, just like there are good concertos and bad, and good vioinists and bad. But you can't compare a country tune with a concerto in an objective sense.

 

[mbriant]

Quote:

Those of us who have more training in musical composition or performance or history are more qualified to make those rating.

I sort of see your point, but it makes me think of critics. Wine critics, movie critics, art critics, music critics, they're all much the same IMO. They influence much subjective opinion among others, but at the end of the day, no matter what their training and experience is, as "expert" as they may be, it's still their opinion. Compared to lots of other Rock compositions, most people would say the Sex Pistols' or the Ramones' volumes of work was ***** from about every perspective except raw energy. Yet, many music lovers and successful musicians ( who understand and appreciate Rock ) think their music was gifted and will admit they were influenced by it.

If music could be judged objectively, one would think a computer program could be created with input from the best musicians, teachers, and critics in any given genre, which would be able to analyze a given piece of music, and rate it as good or bad .... or even whether it would be a commercial bomb or hit.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

If music could be judged objectively, one would think a computer program could be created with input from the best musicians, teachers, and critics in any given genre, which would be able to analyze a given piece of music, and rate it as good or bad .... or even if it would be a commercial bomb or a hit.

No, you could never do that. Recording quality varries, for one thing. In addition, it would probably be too complex of an equation to come up with. And, as far as commercial estimation goes, trends change... you could never get a computer to tell you that kind of information or not.

As I said in another thread, you can like terrible music - that's your TASTE. However, QUALITY music is something that is measureable, but that by all means, you are not SUPPOSED to like it. Some people just don't have the appreciation for it and will never be able to look past dancers and poor lyrics, as most fans of pop music need some way of being able to relate to the song... and lyrics are the way that most artists choose to be able to do so. I've not heard of a single "instrumental" song/album ever being on the charts, after all.

Although, those of us that DO have the proper knowledge to be able to judge musical quality are able to see past taste. Dream Theater is an example of a band that I really dislike, but know how tallented they are and how much virtuosity it takes to perform this kind of music live. This is why I have many of their albums and have listened to them many times - because I know it's GOOD music, even though I can't necessarily get into it myself.

GOOD is subjective. QUALITY is mathematics.

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom 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).

Oh you are such an optimist! You'd be lucky if you got English.

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

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

?!?
I think some people's subjective is more subjective than others.

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbriant If music could be judged objectively, one would think a computer program could be created with input from the best musicians, teachers, and critics in any given genre, which would be able to analyze a given piece of music, and rate it as good or bad .... or even if it would be a commercial bomb or a hit.

They have been able to mathematically analyze Jackson Pollock's works and they find it so complex that they can write programs that can distinguish his work from would be forgers! I'm sure that if a mathematician is so motivated, we will learn a good deal about how music also has different levels of complexity, organization, etc. that most people understand either intuitively or after some study.

See: Order in Pollock's Chaos Scientific American, December 2002. For sale from their archives.

 

[elmoe]

Quote:

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

Because the musical theory behind the composing is more advanced and gives you a larger idea of what you are capable of composing if you know Bach well, simply. That does not mean Bach is "better" it only means it is more advanced mathematically. That isnt the only criteria to judging wether music is good or bad, IMHO.

 

[elmoe]

double post

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jashugan Because the musical theory behind the composing is more advanced and gives you a larger idea of what you are capable of composing if you know Bach well, simply. That does not mean Bach is "better" it only means it is more advanced mathematically. That isnt the only criteria to judging wether music is good or bad, IMHO.

I'm beginning to wonder about you. You certainly have a lot of critical standards in place, but for some reason you seem reluctant to trust your own judgement. It's almost as if you are apologizing for thinking that some music is better than other music. Everytime you voice an opinion, especially about Brittany Spears you apologize or qualify it as just your own subjective opinion rather than admitting that you are sharing an opinion held by many other savvy people. Give yourself a break, you clearly believe that Bach has created a better product than Limp Bizkit.

 

[asmox]

Quote:

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

musical value is subjective, technical ability is not.

 

[Mikey01]

Their all the same. One can discern more from the way they cut/style their hair ,clothing, and demeanor, than anything else. The difference between Bethoven or Bach as opposed to an Acid Rock composer is the mental state of FRENZY, in which their minds operate in.

 

[mbriant]

Quote:

musical value is subjective, technical ability is not.

Are we judging the actual song/musical piece or the performer/performance? With modern music, a writer's demo tape can sound awful, but when performed by a talented performer the same piece can sound wonderful. And a great piece of music can sound horrible when done by amateur musicians. Then again, a great performer can't always save a bad piece of music.

Perhaps using the term "music" might be too generic in this discussion. I think Aman mentioned instrumentals never making the pop charts ( not entirely true, but he's right, they very rarely do ) , so we can assume lyrics have a big influence in pop "music". Are lyrics really part of music, or are they just some sort of poetic adjunct to music? A voice is often referred to as an instrument, so it could be argued that lyrics are indeed an integral part of popular music's composition. Or are we really judging poetry when we compare popular music pieces? Or the singer's talent? Some people seem to focus on rhythm or "the beat", while for others it's the lyrics that tip the scales when judging popular music. Sometimes it's the combination of both?

What's my point? I'm not sure.

 

[CRESCENDOPOWER]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbriant What's my point? I'm not sure.

That music is such a personal, and complex entity that no one can list a set of standards to define whether a piece of music is good, or bad.

 

[elmoe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears I'm beginning to wonder about you. You certainly have a lot of critical standards in place, but for some reason you seem reluctant to trust your own judgement. It's almost as if you are apologizing for thinking that some music is better than other music. Everytime you voice an opinion, especially about Brittany Spears you apologize or qualify it as just your own subjective opinion rather than admitting that you are sharing an opinion held by many other savvy people. Give yourself a break, you clearly believe that Bach has created a better product than Limp Bizkit.

You are right and wrong. I have a hell of alot of critical standards, thats for sure, but unlike you, I can make the difference between personal appreciation and dissing a music style because I dislike it. I simply recognize that, even if I may not like it or find musicians bad etc, I can still respect the music and understand that some people like it. From this idea, I simply do not judge the music style, as I am equal to every human being and their opinions is as right as mine. Not for me alone, not for them alone, but if you take into account every single human's opinion, then their opinion has as much importance.

As for britney spears, I simply gave the example of the worst artist I know of.

As for Bach vs Limp Bizkit, no. Even if Bach's compositions are mathetically more advanced, I dislike classical music and enjoy Limp Bizkit's music thoroughly at times. I would say I prefer Limp Bizkit to Bach overall, but that doesnt mean Bach isnt superior to Limp Bizkit in mathematical composition terms. That however, isn't enough to judge for MYSELF wether a certain music is good or not.

 

[Wodgy]

I wish we could put to rest the old canard that classical music is more "mathematically complex" than rock music. The opposite is true, using your choice of either information-theoretic or Fourier analyses.