 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 314 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614103 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you really need to find a hobby. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Dude, mozart and bach were the u2 and britney spears of their time. I'm sure there were lots of underground composers who strayed from the POPular styles and therefore were under-appreciated, but still could be much better than mozart or bach. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you just became a part of it :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sure, but music back then was being made quite different, no? you actually had to know a litle bit about compposition and nowdays you don't need that. you can make likable songs without having a clue about it, but technically music is nothing alike. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
complexity does not make quality. quality is something that human beings invented to describe preferred experiences, and it's something that frequently people agree on. chocolate tastes delicious. a vibrant red sunset is pretty. the latest issue of hustler is a hum dinger. a clear and cloudless sky is blue. somewhere along the line, people forgot that quality was their own invention, and they began to believe that quality was a feature of their preferred experiences. they forgot many other important details as well, and have been arguing about it ever since. i could go on and on, and maybe i have. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i warn you, if you ever do generate a meaningful definition for quality, you will be unable to experience the pleasure of living again. if this happens, contact me and i'll help you forget the definition. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, there is such thing as quality. take for example a sweater. you can pick a quality one that won't fall appart after you wear it for 100 times and there's badly made one that will fall appart after you wear it for 10 times. doesn't that have something to do with quality? same goes for music really..maybe that complexity wasn't really a good example.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that's a false analogy. though it is true that 180 gram vinyl is employed only for quality recordings. 220 gram vinyl is just showing off. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Q: why don't you listen to that aphex twin cd anymore? A: i listened one hundred times, then the music fell apart. maybe i've gone too far. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
maybe i listened 100 times and it got boring.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
basically, music either rocks or rots and if you want to know which it is, . well, here's how i see it. there is appreciation of music and quality of music and these are two different concepts. i think we can all agree that the idea of "enjoying music" is different from the idea of "music having quality." appreciating music, and the degree to which one does it, is totally subjective and everyone is different. so as redrum says, i love loud guitar music and he doesn't. this is the subjective measure of appreciation. the quality of a music or art is something completely different. i don't think there is one rule to decide, but many factors that weigh in on a case by case basis. for instance, you can never honestly say that the quality of an entire genre is low, because it is relative (eg, "noise music is poor art", no it isn't - it's a type of art and each work within the genre is to be evaluated seperately. some of it is good and some of it is bad, and there is a multitude of degrees in between). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, it looks like the two of us are the only ones who see it that way..at least in this thread. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i can't define "quality" in music, i can only say what i do like. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
in fact, the vast majority of people agree with you. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the obvious flaw in that article is that he's referring to very traditional music and doesn't take into account anything modern. i doln't believe there's only one set of rules that applies to all forms of music. each style is different. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
piss ass cunt celebrity whore |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"art", "genre," "noise" and "music" seem to be subjective labels. more importantly, if you have a group of people who agree on the factors to be evaluated, and that agree on the importance of individual factors, and then also agree that a given work, when measured against these factors, is "good," you've parsed the problem of quality into "factors," but all you've done is brought together a group of people who agree. what happens when our music quality evaluators disagree on factors, the importance of individual factors, and then disagree whether or not a given work, when measured against these factors, is "good"? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, definitelly..i just browsed with google and came accross that..just something to back me up in proving that there is a quality term related to music as well. it's quite poorly put, but enough to stop people from saying there isn'tm such thing as quality in music :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
why do you want to stop people from saying that? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
this could be easilly tested though. all you need is some art critics and play them some tunes you think are bad and some you think are good and see what happens. ofcourse you'd have to pick the tunes those people haven't heard before.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
because it doesn't hold? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you've started to become monoid except with music... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
splendid..monoid is quality :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Good music gives you goosebumps. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
trll |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
god save us from a world in which art critics have the final say on anything... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
haha, true that :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"art", "genre," "noise" and "music" seem to be subjective labels. absolutely not. perhaps of those, you could debate the meaning of "art". the other words have very concrete definitions. they are words - they have meanings, look them up. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, anything passes as art these days. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'll bet that every single thing you think is "passing for art but isn't really" is actually real art. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Makoto Aoki is a music journalist in Japan. |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
explain how that fits into this thread or face the ban! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
art |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but is it good art? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, that is a good example of bad quality. if compared to lets say mona lisa painting. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i don't think it would be fair, though, to compare Scupper Hero, photograph, 2005 with the mona lisa. maybe compare it with other absurd internet photos arbitrarily presented as art. maybe it's actually the best of this genre. it's possible that scup_bucket has just inadvertantly revolutionized art right here in this thread. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
promotes pretentious pontification. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i realize they have dictionary definitions, roof. i suppose when someone says "this 'art' is a piece of 'music' that represents the 'genre' of 'screamo,' you run to wikipidia to see if it 'really is' screamo. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, i usually know right away when something is music. if i care to know what genre something music falls into (which i probably don't), i can either figure it out by understanding the criteria that defines the possible genres it fits into or by going to some wank music website that explains why music journalists think aphex twin is intelligent dance music. :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'll explain, but you need to ban me first. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Of course what constitutes good music is subjective. It's just that everybody has different criteria for what makes it superior to whatever else is out there. I think that there is less music of quality being made nowadays though, because people want the sort of instant gratification you can only get from MTV/interwebs/celeb gossip crap. That's just my opinion of course. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm pretty sure aphex twin makes screamo. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
How can you get instant gratification from that? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, if you're not musically 1337 like me and my cool friends. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
SCRAEMAEOM! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"what is it that made bach and mozart so appreciated?" > i don't know, but whatever it is (if it is a single, definable "thing", which is very probably isn't), i'm not sensitive to it so far anyway. “ «"art", "genre," "noise" and "music" seem to be subjective labels.» > absolutely not. perhaps of those, you could debate the meaning of "art". the other words have very concrete definitions. they are words - they have meanings, look them up. ” >> there's a very good quote from Masami Akita about this... «if noise means uncomfortable sound, then pop music is noise to me.» "it's the liking that makes the good. goodness is a subjective quality, and if you don't believe me, try to define "good" in objective terms. the experience of "good" is only in your mind, it's not a feature of the music, the stimulus, whatever. i mention this mainly because living in a world with people who believe that "goodness" is an objective quality is a pain in the ass." > i completely agree. a thing i'd like to point out in my opinion: when you think some mainstream, commercial song is "bad" but still find yourself liking it (a "guilty pleasure"), i don't think that that song is "bad objectively but good subjectively"... that would be mixing things up. rather, you like the music but dislike the "ethics" (the fact that it's mainstream and made for money) in it. both judgements being subjective (some people wouldn't have a problem with those "ethics" at all). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you all mistook my message. You see, I was wearing a pink undergarment on my face. Get it? it is most certainly not where it's supposed to go, obviously. And also it alludes to the glorification of perverted behavior through the image of a typical super hero. Actually it's avant garde |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sorry, that was supposed to be 2 jokes in one : music journalist/Emiko. sorry old man. i'm ok now, thanks. ------------------------------------------- swears : plaidzebra owned this thread already, you're late. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
in short, good music is: triosk jelinek triosk & jelinek ... yeah. that's about it for today :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
