Reminder...

reminder, i declared war on the anti-intellectual crowd by reminding you TASTE IS OBJECTIVE AND YOUR TASTE FUCKING SUCKS.

my thread died for your sins morons.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=hgAF8Vu8G0w&t=533s
youtube.com/watch?v=jamkS4qoXK8
youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=iPmaJseV63E
youtube.com/watch?v=vTgoVcP3YDs
youtube.com/watch?time_continue=90&v=mGDYjj0mbMw
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

i SAVED the board from itself and your don't even realize because YOU'RE unsophisticated MORONS

I SUPPORT THIS

SUCK MY AMERICOCK, AMERIKEKS

actually - taste is entirely subjective.

quality, however, is not.

finally ONE person who gets it.

>5
hey i got my filter back!

AMERIKEKS

A M E R I C U C K S

May you show me an example of good quality music vs bad?

interesting request

lemme think

youtube.com/watch?v=hgAF8Vu8G0w&t=533s

larry david, frank zappa, and bob dylan are my spirit animal. who are yours?

make more threads

go ban yourself

Finally a thread for us intellectuals to gather

Take your time. I'm relaxing for the next 40 minutes. I'm primarily interested because I had a conversation with an user days ago about good vs bad music. It got to a point where his criteria for bad music was so specific, that he couldn't give me an example of bad music.

the fire rises.

why

how does one go about banning oneself?

i know amirite?

...so if Sup Forums is filled with smart people pretending to be retarded and retarded people pretending to be smart, which camp does that put you in, zoot?

What about you? May you show me an example of good quality music vs bad?

retards who just be themselves?

YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WOMEN. BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WOMEN. CHILD.

i've got nothing to prove to you, loser. you can read my words and tell i know what the fuck im talking about asshole. stop thinking you know more than everyone else. YOU DON'T

I asked you a question. A question as casual as "How's the weather in California?" I'm not out to murder you.

youtube.com/watch?v=jamkS4qoXK8

this is gonna be tough because its basically asking me to spend time trying to find music i think is bad which im disinclined to do. why spend any of my time doing that?

one example came to mind tho . . .whats that new normie jazz guy that gets memed on here ..name starts with a K i think . . . . When i first saw a thread about it, i took a listen, but could tell it was gonna be background music. SO i could dig that up and listen to it and try to explain my initial reaction....but i dont want to bother listening to it ever again.

what might be a better way to go about it?

lemme think

Is background music inherently bad?

is it inherently back?

torture is inherently bad.

who writes it? for what end? exploring what ideas, even if the idea is to be somewhat in the background? which makes it conceptual already...

youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=iPmaJseV63E


youtube.com/watch?v=vTgoVcP3YDs

inherently bad?

lets say that you can aim here or there, high or low. where would you like to aim?

here:

i googled boom tiss: youtube.com/watch?time_continue=90&v=mGDYjj0mbMw

this isnt even good background music.

>is it inherently back?
Huh?
>torture is inherently bad.
I've listened to a lot of music over the years as I'm sure you have. I don't think I've ever listened to music I'd equate with getting your shins kicked out with a baton and then being forced to stand up only to be kicked out again.
>who writes it?
All you'd have to do is look at the artist's name.
>for what end?
Does it matter? I don't know why Steve Roach created Structures From Silence. It's just great and consistent.
>Links
Is one of these supposed to be bad or?
What's wrong with it? It's not something I'd listen to since I prefer listening to albums at a time, but I don't detect anything inherently wrong with it. The worst I could say about it is that it's simple. But that isn't an indicator of bad quality. Not only that, given that it is a live recording we are no doubt missing things in the guy's vocals like lyrics and such.

a: obvious typo cunt
b: missed the point, "inherently bad" was leading on the part of the question
c: dont be a twat
d:you should be able to figure out something. listen harder.
e: try thinking
f: its shit mate. dont defend shit for the sake of argument.

I didn't know it was a typo to be honest. Wasn't trying to be twat, you're the one who asked who writes it. I'm not sure what d has to do with:
>Does it matter? I don't know why Steve Roach created Structures From Silence. It's just great and consistent.
>e: try thinking
They both sound fine to me. I suppose I should come up front and say I don't think music can be objectively bad, and whenever I ask someone to define why a piece of music is bad, nobody can ever give me a reason that doesn't fall under subjectivity. Like what you're doing now. I'm not defending anything for the sake of argument, I'm after knowledge. The most common "music is bad" I find is actually "This piece isn't for me." Which is what it sounds like that live track is.

thats like saying potty humor is the equivalent of proust if you had a good time.

one of these we are going to engrave in gold and send into space as a human achievement.

the other we are not.

I don't compare music like that because music should be taken on their own merits. I don't compare Slint and June Of 44 in terms of quality just because they're in the same city. It's nice to ponder on how Jeff Mueller's voice is far more booming than Brian McMahan's, but that's purely food for thought and not an indicator of quality.
That's fine but you still haven't defined why that track up there is bad. This is what I'm after. And more and more it just seems like that track isn't for you but you're trying to pass it off as bad.

To put it another way: If you cannot explain something in plain language then you don't truly understand it.

if you cant hear it for yourself, what do you understand?

Im not sure I want to hash out all the qualities and factors for determination right now, frankly.

how plain is plain language when you have to get into qualities that range from lyrical content to harmony and rhythm and musicianship and creative effort or lack of? it gets pretty esoteric pretty fast. plain language is "its bad."

>I don't compare music like that

you have to. thats a significant actual difference.

is this plain language?:

it lacks anything of any musical or lyrical or literary or artistic interest or creativity save for the fact that rhythmic subdivision (unn tiss) is of an almost universal enjoyment, so much so that even the most idiotic and lackluster bit of music can be considered acceptable for having said quality.

thats pretty plain.

>if you cant hear it for yourself, what do you understand?
I understand enough about music that the only thing that truly matters to me is whether or not an album is consistent in terms of sound, theme, or recurring motifs. If an album is consistent in all, or one, or two of these things, it keeps you engrossed in the album's content. That makes it good. Anything else as markers of "quality" are completely subjective, as evidenced by you being the umpteenth person unable to define what makes music "bad." Just some word that gets thrown around in lieu of "that track wasn't for me."
> that range from lyrical content
Another subjective thing. People have tried to tell me lyrics don't matter, people have tried to tell me certain lyrics by June Of 44 are bad. The fact is, again, nobody can say why with any sort of objectivity.
>to harmony
So when some music relies on syncopation and doesn't have harmony it is bad?
>and rhythm
Noise music lacks rhythm. Is it inherently bad? Don't answer that.
>and creative effort or lack of?
Examples?
>you have to.
Not in the least. I have no reason to compare Boredoms and Boris just because they're both Japanese noise rock bands. They both do enough things different that comparing them in terms of "quality," whatever that could possibly mean at this point, is uninteresting. It's more interesting to examine what they do as bands, how they do it.

>or lyrical
That live track, right? You can't even understand the lyrics so what are you talking about?
>or literary
Again, you can't understand it.
>artistic interest
What does this mean? That it didn't aim high enough that it is bad? That doesn't make it bad. All you can say is that they didn't aim high enough and you don't appreciate that.
>so much so that even the most idiotic and lackluster bit of music can be considered acceptable for having said quality.
But it's idiotic to you and not to people who enjoy it.

My taste > your taste

people enjoy jokes about being kicked in the nuts.

come on.

you can vevo the video, hear the lyrics.

its trash mate.

you are forest for the trees m8 and its not worth addressing.

you want to name drop all your june of 44 and you ask for examples of a creative rhythm section? search your soul.

not in the least?
yes you do. dont give me your noise name dropping like you can skip answering the question. one gets engraved in gold as a human achievement. one does not.

you take it from there. seems obvious enough to the nerds at nasa.

>save for the fact that rhythmic subdivision (unn tiss) is of an almost universal enjoyment, so much so that even the most idiotic and lackluster bit of music can be considered acceptable for having said quality.
And about this: The most you can say is that it is a simple rhythm and not boundary pushing which makes it uninteresting to you. But that doesn't make it bad unless you have already decided that bad music is music that doesn't push boundaries. Which isn't true. Many purport that neoclassical doesn't do anything that classical hasn't already. Even if that were the case, that doesn't make neoclassical bad.

We're not talking about getting kicked in the nuts. We're talking about music. There is no music equivalent of getting kicked in the nuts.
>you can vevo the video, hear the lyrics.
So you purposely picked a live performance where the lyrics were obscured? And then you have the gall to call the lyrics bad?
>its trash mate.
You have not qualified how or why.
> you are forest for the trees m8 and its not worth addressing.
I think you are simply unable, as many before you and many after you won't be.
>you want to name drop all your june of 44 and you ask for examples of a creative rhythm section? search your soul.
Your punctuation here is strange and I'm not sure what you're saying.
>yes you do
No you do not. I have already explained why and you just went "no" without qualifying. I think we're done here, you don't want to talk about this. You want to waste time.
>dont give me your noise name dropping
Don't give you examples? Lol wut.
>one gets engraved in gold as a human achievement. one does not.
Wow we made a full circle. Here, I'll just copy/paste what I said last time:
>That's fine but you still haven't defined why that track up there is bad. This is what I'm after. And more and more it just seems like that track isn't for you but you're trying to pass it off as bad.
>you take it from there.
The only unfortunate thing I can take from all this is that nobody can actually define what bad music is, yet you all hold fast to it when called out that you don't know what it actually means.

>The most you can say is
the most i need to say i plainly already said.
you'll notice it says nothing about simplicity.
if i had a negative comment about simplicity, i would have made one.

there is the musical equivalent of a dick joke.

whats your excuse for being so ignorant?

i randomly picked random shit. fuck your projection.

i did. plainly.

stop looking to see if the commas are in the right spots and read the fucking sentence.

>Your punctuation here is strange and I'm not sure what you're saying.

lol literally forest for trees

yes you do.

ctrl c ctrl v ctrl whatever. pay me some tuition and we can continue.