Breaking News: Music is Subjective!

A big pet peeve of mine (which I am guilty of as well) is to assume that the music I like is "great" and the music I can't stand "sucks." I think everyone is guilty of this to some degree.

Some however, seem more proficient at this than others. I call them "Music snobs" and they can be fans of any genre, from rap to metal to country. I am most familiar with "Indy" music snobs, who sometimes seem to be the worst, because they seem to think that there is an inverse relationship between the quality of a band and the number of people who have heard of them.

They don't accept that someone could possibly have a different taste in music than they do, and therefore everyone who doesn't agree with them has a crappy taste in music.

They will assume that you have simply not listened to the band before you say you don't like them, then they will either:

A. Tell you that you have to listen to the whole CD rather than just a couple of songs. I would respond by saying I don't have to hear the whole Paris Hilton CD to tell you it sucks.

or B. Tell you that you have to "learn" to enjoy their music. If the music is so great, shouldn't I recognize it instantly?

Thats right every body has different taste . And if you dont agree with me that merely means you have bad taste

It depends - how much I like a band is subjective;

how musically skilled, innovative and technically sound they are is to an extent measurable.

For example, there are no bad jazz musicians.

For example, there are no bad jazz musicians.

You never heard me play

Speaking of this, Has anyone heard of that guy who tried to prove what music is scientifically (I think he just based his stuff on Music theory) Good and Bad ?

Originally Posted by the_mango55

or B. Tell you that you have to "learn" to enjoy their music. If the music is so great, shouldn't I recognize it instantly?

Well speaking from an electronic background.

Yes there is some music that is deep and you have to listen to stuff for a while to get into it.

HOWEVER if the music is so good.. then theres gonna be crap(or good) musicians who try and copy it but with more catchy and simpler rythmns.

That has happened from everything from classical to jazz to trance to rock

So unless we're talking something abstract here I call ********.

Well you can't really prove scientificly (probably at least) that certain music is better then others.

But the general understanding between snobs is the deeper stuff is the better it is so that means techno wins for electronic genres. I was going to say classical... but tbh I'm not sure you'd describe it as deep. There certainly plenty of classical snobs though.

Wheras certain types of metal would probably win the deepness war in terms of rocky genres (excluding maybe progressive rock).

Oh, there's plenty of bad music, that by liking automatically gives you bad taste. I mean, some music out there clearly is trash. Everyone in the world could like a certain piece of music when in reality it could actually be terrible music.

Simple point is, just because music is likable, doesn't mean it's actually good.

Originally Posted by Stalins Ghost

Oh, there's plenty of bad music, that by liking automatically gives you bad taste. I mean, some music out there clearly is trash. Everyone in the world could like a certain piece of music when in reality it could actually be terrible music.

Simple point is, just because music is likable, doesn't mean it's actually good.

And what criteria do you use to determine whether music is good or bad?

Originally Posted by the_mango55

And what criteria do you use to determine whether music is good or bad?

Simple. Music with very little dynamics, progression with repetition for the sake of filling the gap is bad. Poorly/tiredly structured music is bad. Lyrics that barely accomplish little more than rhyme and rhythm, sung by someone with little singing ability (though perhaps with just enough to fit todays standards...) is bad. Generally most popular music is quite bad music really. Normally bereft of any kind of complex structure. I don't mean Progressive levels of complexity even... just simple musical mechanics would suffice, rather than cobbling together a few chords/beats/riffs etc and slapping down some lyrics. Simple really! Doesn't mean you can't like it... it's just bad music.

I suppose I'm taking the title of the thread literally... While music can be objectively judged, music taste is in reality yes. Subjective.

Originally Posted by Stalins Ghost

Simple. Music with very little dynamics, progression with repetition for the sake of filling the gap is bad. Poorly/tiredly structured music is bad. Lyrics that barely accomplish little more than rhyme and rhythm, sung by someone with little singing ability (though perhaps with just enough to fit todays standards...) is bad. Generally most popular music is quite bad music really. Normally bereft of any kind of complex structure. I don't mean Progressive levels of complexity even... just simple musical mechanics would suffice, rather than cobbling together a few chords/beats/riffs etc and slapping down some lyrics. Simple really! Doesn't mean you can't like it... it's just bad music.

I suppose I'm taking the title of the thread literally... While music can be objectively judged, music taste is in reality yes. Subjective.

Is the point of music to be complex and dynamic now?

I have heard some progressive music that I'm sure was plenty complex, but I thought just sounded like total crap. I would label that as "bad music" while some music that seems very repetitive and is sung by a singer who few would call great is quite good, The Strokes for instance.

And what criteria do you use to determine whether music is good or bad?

Does it move you? Of course whats good to you may be bad to me.

Originally Posted by the_mango55

Is the point of music to be complex and dynamic now?

I have heard some progressive music that I'm sure was plenty complex, but I thought just sounded like total crap. I would label that as "bad music" while some music that seems very repetitive and is sung by a singer who few would call great is quite good, The Strokes for instance.

My point exactly. I like the Strokes, but I'm not going to try to claim they're really that great musically. They're entertaining, but not hugely talented compared to some other artists.

I am most familiar with "Indy" music snobs, who sometimes seem to be the worst, because they seem to think that there is an inverse relationship between the quality of a band and the number of people who have heard of them.

some of my best friends are like this, i had a huge argument with a guy because he was saying radiohead is definately better than some shite pop song and i was saying its subjective and technically even a **** pop song must be good if it becomes extrememly popular because after all music is designed to be enjoyed and popularity is in many ways a measure of how much it is enjoyed.

he wouldnt accept either of those points

though i do understand that some music takes 'getting used to' i hated some of my favourite bands when i first heard them. it does piss me off imensely though when i say 'sorry mate i just think it sucks' and he comes back with 'you havent listened to it enough' or something similar

Let's just put it this way... if there was no money involved then chances are there would be quite a few artists who produced deeper music (even more if everything was eqaully popular... some people like fame).

Also... the fact is piracy has caused an increase in electronic music tickets and in some cases sales.

Simple. Music with very little dynamics, progression with repetition for the sake of filling the gap is bad.

What about the blues? That's usually the same few chords strummed over and over. Is that bad music?

no because the feeling behind the music is also important, shred guitar is more complex with more notes but dammit sometimes one note can be the most powerful thing in the world.


i generally judge a band by whether they actually know what that note is, whilst it doesnt rule out some really bad music it does instantly do away with a large percentage of todays 'artists'.

i mean my music theory is shocking but i can at least tell you what key my own bloody songs are in
drop c...all of them B-)

Originally Posted by Gary88

no because the feeling behind the music is also important, shred guitar is more complex with more notes but dammit sometimes one note can be the most powerful thing in the world.

Like King Crimson's "Starless" solo

just like that

Originally Posted by Gary88

i mean my music theory is shocking but i can at least tell you what key my own bloody songs are in
drop c...all of them B-)

It's funny how much better albums sound when they are actually arranged according to key(or at least pay some attention to it... I.E. know that it's there... it's more of a guide then a rule).

Most albums that I own do this but I know a lot of pop music albums don't... not even compilations.

All art is subjective, open to interpretation and more acceptable with more exposure to it. Many folks do not appreciate Monet, Picasso, Giacometti and others. I do not appreciate Emin and the majority of the British 'modern art' movement, just as I do not understand sugar pop and mainstream dance music or county.
Thankfully we live in a world where everyone is different. If you all thought how I did it would be a wonderful place - if somewhat predictable.