How do I differentiate good music from bad music...

How do I differentiate good music from bad music? It is easy to know when a film is badly directed or a book is poorly written, but when is music bad?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=9yAxIdkF2Qo
youtube.com/watch?v=CuGMXFOQiyY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

You'll get there eventually

I mean music is just sound.

paintings are just globs of paint on some cloth

Far right one is best.

But you have to follow the rules of color theory, get the right perspective, etc., so that picture will be exactly as the artist imagine. Music is just continuous sound and if there are lyrics, they are poorly written.

you're saying musically and lyrically this

youtube.com/watch?v=9yAxIdkF2Qo

is equal to this

youtube.com/watch?v=CuGMXFOQiyY
?

You can like anything if you listen to it enough.

such poor quality bait it makes me want to remove my toe nails with a screwdriver

>you have to follow the rules

depends on what your criteria of what good music is

in my experience, good music is creative, inspired, engaging
bad music is anything that sounds overly familiar. like rappers constantly talking about money or a psych band just laying on the flanger.

...

yes
they're both shit

The type of art you're probably thinking of, which is realism, has a set of standards that establish how "good" it is, or how close to reality it is. More abstract forms of art, however, don't have those set standards to follow. Music is like that, there isn't really a particular standard to follow to determine "good" music. Some people consider music's worth based on it's composition and complexity, others consider it based on the emotions that it evokes. And others just think some music sounds "good" and other music doesn't sound "good".

Music is extremely subjective. In my opinion, music that is "good" should strike a balance between the three things I mentioned.

"creative, inspired" just means "I don't know where they stole this from"

Thanks for your post
.

no, it doesn't. it means they can mix their influences in a way that hasn't really been done before and create something unique in the process. and by inspired i just mean that the artist had an overall idea for an album, and executes the songs in such a way that shows how passionate they are about conveying this concept or idea.

There's two ways; the first is too study up on music theory, learn a lot about various instruments so you can 'objectively' state how Neil Peart is such a great drummer, how Satrani is the best guitar player, Les Claypool is the best bassist, etc.

But fuck that, just judge music by how it makes you feel. I DGAF about any technical standard or popularity or whatever - if I listen to it and it moves me in some manner - it's good music

this is so true. I don't know how many shitty dadrock songs I used to hate have actually become enjoyable just out of sheer familiarity after hearing them for the past 20 years

Middle one is best

This post speaks the truth. This is basically how I got into noise and ambient as a genre. I saw them posted a lot and wanted to get into more avant type stuff, so I forced myself to listen to it. After a while, I actually started to enjoy it and grew preferences for experimental music.

This post is also true, dad rock is catchy.

You're very welcome. All forms of art are extremely subjective, so it's impossible to define what exactly makes art have objective value or worth. The most you can do is recognize that art is a loose term, and just enjoy whatever music you enjoy listening to.

"hasn't been done before and unique" just means "I don't know where they stole this from"

music is bad when it sounds like trash

usually experimental music is trash

music such as the death grips or noise music, people that claim to enjoy trash music only do so to seem like they understand something most people don't get, basically people pretend to like trash music to look cool

>cynicism is always right
just stop. being influenced isn't stealing. there are a lot of musical hacks who just ride the coattails of others but that's not everyone. if an artist takes influences from enough disparate places, they can definitely make a combination of sounds that has yet to be explored. just because you're a shitty musician that can't form your own coherent thoughts doesn't mean everyone else is too.
but please, just say "i don't know where they stole this from" again, it's doing a good job of proving how capable of analytical thinking you are.

And let me guess, Death Grips in your mind falls somewhere under either "experimental" or "noise?"

How about this:

If you like it or if it even makes you feel emotional, it's good music.

I think music is mostly subjective in preference but can always have it's objective qualities criticized (e.g. it's lyricism, experimentation etc.). When I look at a music artist, I just generally want to hear something interesting and unique but not everyone does the same. A lot of people just want to hear something fun or gave some other kind of criteria they're looking for in a track. I think people are entitled to listen to what they listen to, what I tend to try and gauge in people is their taste. Are you putting out an effort, discovering your own artists and what most strongly resonates with you? Or are you just taking whatever is on the radio as gospel and never really giving music a further thought? I think that question is a more relevant discussion than just trying to argue good vs bad music because at some point it's always inarguable.

>muh postmodernism!

you might be able to support an argument for that being the case in music today (especially in established genres like jazz, blues country or rock) but there is no way you can support an argument for that being the case always.

It's easy as hell to go back and listen to music and say 'hear that? that was the first time anyone ever recorded anything like that, and it influenced a lot after it'

>usually experimental music is trash

well duh. I mean how is it an experiment if its guaranteed to work? If an 'experimental' artist isn't failing most of the time, they aren't pushing the envelope hard enough

If this were true there would never be new music, so using this logic I can only assume that shoegaze was enjoyed by my forefathers.

Do I like it? Then it's good. Do I not like it? Then it's bad.

Yes because that is what the music falls under.

They are both crap

You probably think Autechre is just noise too by that standard

>people are this shallow

S T I C K T O T H E F O R M U L A
T
I
C
K

T
O

T
H
E

F
O
R
M
U
L
A