Help me with a debate....

Sawyer

...a friend and I got into it about music. He claims music is subjective, and one cannot classify certain music as better than others. Personal preference was a claim. I realize music invokes feelings in people, but certain music is clearly head and shoulders technically above others. What makes music, music for you?

Pontikas

does "technically" really make a difference ?

dasvidana

I'm going with the subjective......can't always quantify beautiful art.

81

Pontikas wrote:

does "technically" really make a difference ?

clearly, you've never heard me play the guitar

mbangel10

Sawyer wrote:

...a friend and I got into it about music. He claims music is subjective, and one cannot classify certain music as better than others. Personal preference was a claim. I realize music invokes feelings in people, but certain music is clearly head and shoulders technically above others. What makes music, music for you?

Music is nothing but noise, technically. It can be pleasant, melodic and patterned so that it is soothing to the ears and enjoyable to listen to. Good vocals can be added to give it that extra something special. Maybe one can relate to those lyrics, and then it becomes not only enjoyable but relatable as well.

Music can also be harsh, abrasive, and painful to listen to but technically arranged near perfection. Music IS subjective... Some can find the beauty in the abrasive while others think it IS just noise created to destroy their eardrums.

People like different kinds of music... whether it is pop, metal, rock, avant garde, or classical (and many more styles to list) and there is someone out there who is going to love something that is pure evil to another persons ears.

Yes, there is music that is technically superior to others, but that comparison is lost to the majority of the people in the world. They are just going to like what they like no matter how technically superior another piece of music may be.

What makes music, music to me? It's simple, music to me is noise that I enjoy.

I've gotten into this discussion before on other boards, and this is my favorite example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPsXRiV6yo4

Technically, this is pure awesome. A composed piece of music by John Zorn repeated without error several times by Mike Patton. However, it is PAINFUL to my ears... and yet I find an appreciation for it because it is a great composition. This is music. It's just not music I would blare from my car stereo on my way through downtown Pittsburgh (unless I wanted to seriously freak people out, which is fun in its own right).

Wobbie

"can you dance to it?"



edit: wtf is up with that microphone????? :shock:

smarchee

the microphone

tinkerbell

Music is totally subjective. Otherwise how would country music survive!!!!! I would rather listen to nails down a chalk board!!!

tinkerbell

imalive wrote:

edit: wtf is up with that microphone????? :shock:

It's like a mixture of a recorder and a dildo! And look how the girl to the left is staring at it

PearlOfAGirl

tinkerbell wrote:

imalive wrote:

edit: wtf is up with that microphone????? :shock:

It's like a mixture of a recorder and a dildo! And look how the girl to the left is staring at it

It does look like a dildo!!

jimed14

Your friend is right, IMO.

Phantom Pain

A dick holding a dildo ?

:eh: :problem:

jimed14

No one can top the Gene Rayburn mic ...

Hitch-Hiker

Tonight I saw Mark Knopfler play. From an artistic and technical standpoint, this is better than everything in the world. It is all we need.



Also, i got a free can of coke.

justam

Sawyer wrote:

...a friend and I got into it about music. He claims music is subjective, and one cannot classify certain music as better than others. Personal preference was a claim. I realize music invokes feelings in people, but certain music is clearly head and shoulders technically above others. What makes music, music for you?

Music has a lot of components.

You were right. Music is not only personal taste. Some is actually better. (!)

People may have different tastes when it comes to the components of good form, but it needs to be there in some way. The best music has all these elements in it--> emotional expression, a good performance that projects the parts clearly, and good musical form that is noticable.

Good form will be something that tells a story in sound. It might be something like an introduction followed by an active part and a resolution (the three part form). It might be something like an idea that recurs and is developed or varied in an interesting way (a Rondo or variation). It might be a unique quality of sound that is developed or exaggerated straight through.

But, it must have both an emotional AND an intellectual component to be the best type of music.

I say this because I've studied music and performance and form for the last forty years.

Wobbie

tinkerbell wrote:

It's like a mixture of a recorder and a dildo! And look how the girl to the left is staring at it

HeartShapedBox wrote:

It does look like a dildo!!

the two women confirm it looks like a dildo! :shock:

sorry to get off topic.

justam

That's an awfully skinny dildo if you ask me. :?

Wobbie

justam wrote:

That's a awfully skinny dildo if you ask me. :?

hey now! I already caused one thread to get locked today! :shifty:

justam

:geek:

norm

imalive wrote:

justam wrote:

That's a awfully skinny dildo if you ask me. :?

hey now! I already caused one thread to get locked today! :shifty:

whoa!!! i've been traveling all day...point me to this thread :think:


as for the topic at hand, art is subjective so what i think is crap might be Mozart to some one else

enjoy what you enjoy and don't concern yourself with what others may think about it

Wobbie

norm wrote:

whoa!!! i've been traveling all day...point me to this thread :think:

go to bed, norm. :angel:

you can find the thread w/o my help.

norm

imalive wrote:

norm wrote:

whoa!!! i've been traveling all day...point me to this thread :think:

go to bed, norm. :angel:

you can find the thread w/o my help.

yeah this whole 'earth is round and if you travel east you lose 3 hours' thing is annoying...alright it's midnight so i'll go to bed but i'll be on the lookout for the controversy you started

Wobbie

norm wrote:

alright it's midnight so i'll go to bed but i'll be on the lookout for the controversy you started

finished....not "started"

norm

imalive wrote:

norm wrote:

alright it's midnight so i'll go to bed but i'll be on the lookout for the controversy you started

finished....not "started"

yeah i found it


people need to learn not to even link to anything that has that 'word' in it :shock:

dcfaithful

jimed14 wrote:

Your friend is right, IMO.

Yeah, I have to agree that I think it's subjective as well.

As someone said earlier; technically, all music is is noise...noise that is orchestrated very, very well.

dcfaithful

justam wrote:

That's an awfully skinny dildo if you ask me. :?

.......

lukin2006

Sawyer wrote:

...a friend and I got into it about music. He claims music is subjective, and one cannot classify certain music as better than others. Personal preference was a claim. I realize music invokes feelings in people, but certain music is clearly head and shoulders technically above others. What makes music, music for you?

I think music is subjective to the listener...music that I like sounds good to me...but not to others. I listen to what I like and don't worry about what others listen to.

redrock

Music is more subjective. What is 'better' is what touches you and stirs emotions. That will be different for everyone.

Yes, certain music may be more 'advanced' technically (ie more complex) but that doesn't mean it's better to the listener. My daughter is learning 3 different instruments - violin, piano and saxophone. If she plays the same piece of music with each instrument, technically, the composition for violin is the most difficult and complex but subjectively, the sounds coming out of her piano and saxophone are just as good seeing SHE is the one playing the instruments and giving the music it's soul. There are 'rules' of composition though which lead to a piece that should flow and be pleasing to the ear. Nothing different to the 'rules' of writing an essay or even a piece of art. There are certain conventions (for lack of better word) when it comes to drawing/painting as well. Example, perspective... if not correct in a painting, our brain feels something is not quite right.

There are pieces of music which may be technically perfect but can leave you cold. Same with a technically 'below average' piece played with soul - the emotion is there but there may be something lacking - you just can't pinpoint what it is.

Which is better? Depends on the perspective you look at this piece.

dunkman

its subjective.

Wishlist is one of the most beautiful and simplest songs of PJ's to play on guitar... it's such a lovely little song.

look up Yngwie Malmsteen on youtube... he is a far more technically proficient guitarist than both EV and Mike and Stone... but his music is also extremely shit. Which shows that technical music ability is no match for the emotion a simple tune can produce.

here endeth the debate.

Dissidentman

dunkman wrote:

its subjective.

Wishlist is one of the most beautiful and simplest songs of PJ's to play on guitar... it's such a lovely little song.

look up Yngwie Malmsteen on youtube... he is a far more technically proficient guitarist than both EV and Mike and Stone... but his music is also extremely shit. Which shows that technical music ability is no match for the emotion a simple tune can produce.

here endeth the debate.

Scotland invented master-debaters.

dunkman

Dissidentman wrote:

dunkman wrote:

its subjective.

Wishlist is one of the most beautiful and simplest songs of PJ's to play on guitar... it's such a lovely little song.

look up Yngwie Malmsteen on youtube... he is a far more technically proficient guitarist than both EV and Mike and Stone... but his music is also extremely shit. Which shows that technical music ability is no match for the emotion a simple tune can produce.

here endeth the debate.

Scotland invented master-debaters.

did not.


see.. that'll have crushed him and he won't even know how to reply to that nugget of genius debate.