Does "good music" actually exist?

Does "good music" actually exist?
Or is music only considered "good" or "acceptable" when it's pretentious, current, indie tripe that wankers with skinny jeans and countless expensive meaningless tattoos "listen" to/"understand"?

Other urls found in this thread:

rbt.asia/mu/thread/S69013005#p69016275
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_music
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_music
scaruffi.com/music/criteria.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

made me think

You seem troubled.

There is no such thing as good or bad music, only music that you did or didn't expect

Good music exists, what complicates everything is the lack of proper classification withing music; instead of having terminology to distinguish between a work made with regard to conceptual integrity, a work made with none and a work made entirely as a product for purchase. What complicates everything further is the massive number of people who now have a platform to rant about things thay don't understand while spamming the word 'subjective' - a word they don't actually understand - as a cop-out in lieu of an actual explanation of why whatever they have stated is valid (which is never is).

There's plenty of good music under varying criteria, what is important is to understand what criteria you're looking at it through and whether or not you understand anything enough for 'good' as a word to matter.

Liking things is a decision, though, and you can like what ever you want.

Heavy Metal is the last remaining genre of music with artistic integrity and real talent, prove me wrong.

>prove me wrong
it's shit.

An unrepulsable argument with clear evidence to support it.
How about you think before you shitpost you fucking retard? Stating your biased opinion is not proof for anything you absolute retard.

>pop shite
>ever good

>Heavy Metal is the last remaining genre of music with artistic integrity
>genre
>artistic integrity
Doesn't make sense.
A genre and adhering to a genre is inherently working with derivatives and adopting themes and concepts as opposed to making something for a specific purpose.
There are tropes and such born from metal and it's countless sub-genres/micro-genres that are great for their connotations because of their being from a limited genre, but a work that is based in any genre is creatively stunted automatically, especially in terms of metal since the entire genre is made up of sounds meant to depict satanic ideas and so on.

>How about you think before you shitpost you fucking retard? Stating your biased opinion is not proof for anything you absolute retard.
Maybe you should take your own advice, mate. You've clearly no understanding of conceptual analysis, criticism or integrity of any kind.

The only comprehensive response

That's what I do, though one out of every three times I get shitposted at by a sperglord who will prove the
>spamming the word 'subjective' - a word they don't actually understand - as a cop-out in lieu of an actual explanation of why whatever they have stated is valid (which it never is)
part, but be completely oblivious of their doing it because there's this culture of not actually reading posts but searching through them for buzzwords and retaliating.

I presume they bring the same approach to engaging with music (or film, photography, literature, Pokemon, whatever) which is why discussion on this website has become next to impossible.

I also phrase everything in a really cool way that makes people think I'm being condescending because they're shit at reading, which is always fun.

I think it does, but for truly getting around to it critical analysis is required.

It's never simple and one sided. Can't just look at trendiness because once a new trend comes in the music stops being good. Can't just look at unique gimmicks because style doesn't necessarily equate to good substance. Can't just look at the sheer composition itself either because if someone creates a good work, then someone else can just copy paste and then get his own good work super easy.

I think it's like a combo of some of the above. Like I'll give death metal band Morbid Angel's album Altars Of Madness as an example. It came out in 1989. Overall feel wise it is a far more technical and savage take on the fast paced style music made by Slayer and Dark Angel before. Trey Azagthoth found a way to have more variety of riffs while having a high riff count akin to Slayer's Reign In Blood. Pete Sandoval changes up drum parts every few measures giving many forms of intensity in many tempos, while also bringing in pinpoint blast beats to metal. So it's got all this going on where it's actually very well made and also changed the game.

BUT, years later there's some new band, and it's very obviously influenced directly by Altars Of Madness. So these guys aren't really innovating a super new sound that's alright, but the questions are either 1. What are they adding to what was done before? and 2. How are they approaching it? If they are practically copy pasting Altars, then maybe it's still Morbid Angel and Altars that deserves the praise not this new album. But if there's a new way they approached the music, how does that change things.

Keep in mind that this idea's far more malleable and not super pinpoint either. You get dickheads like Adorno otherwise.

Also a lot of this gets completely irrelevant if the subjective aspect of music is taken into consideration. The idea that "how this music makes me feel personally is what matters the most."

I mean

>but he didn't actually bring anything new

that's a weird shitpost, are you ok?

>conceptual integrity
I do not understand what you mean by this. The rest of the post is very good.

>I also phrase everything in a really cool way that makes people think I'm being condescending because they're shit at reading
This speaks to me.

>I do not understand what you mean by [conceptual integrity]
Alright, erm... When you make something it is for a reason; to communicate something very specific that would otherwise be impossible/beyond the limits of basic language. If something has conceptual integrity then it contains no superfluous elements; there's nothing added in for the sake of pandering to the audience/increasing sales that effectively distracts from the concept.
As a really weak example, because I can't think of any good ones, when someone rerecords their track so it can be played on the radio or releases a censored version of an album, that's a lack of conceptual integrity.

>there's nothing added in for the sake of pandering to the audience/increasing sales that effectively distracts from the concept.
Communication // reaching a wider audience isn't a valid concept ?

No idea what you're on about. If you make something it is with the intention of conveying a concept. If you're good and understand what you're doing then every little thing about it will contribute to fully portraying that concept. That's it. If you compromise the concept by adding counter-intuitive elements for the sake or marketability or for any reason then you lack integrity. It's straight-forward.

>that one guy who can't get over people he doesn't like listening to music he doesn't like
You are a sad man OP, and you have my pity.

>No idea what you're on about.
If you are operating under the notion that music must be programmatic in nature (an incorrect assumption, but I'll cover that later) then you must decide what is and is not a valid concept to propel a piece of music. Much of today's pop music is centered around intentionally simple and vague lyrics designed to appeal directly to someone's emotions and allow them to fill in the blanks in order to empathize. I had a similar discussion about this last night. rbt.asia/mu/thread/S69013005#p69016275
The point I am making is that doing something like censoring language in order to get radio play is consistent in principle with the identified "concept". Reducing music to a vehicle for ideas creates more cognitive dissonance than it is worth.

>If you make something it is with the intention of conveying a concept.
This is factually untrue.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_music
In absolute music, form is function. There is nothing going into the music outside of musical ideas, no expressed purpose except to exist for its own sake.

>If you're good and understand what you're doing then every little thing about it will contribute to fully portraying that concept.
This ability (pruning a piece until only what is essential remains) is much rarer than you realize. Even some of the greatest art music composers struggled with this. I doubt there are many (if any) popular music / jazz composers who have mastered this.

>countless expensive meaningless tattoos
>countless
learn to count, god damn.

>you must decide what is and is not a valid concept to propel a piece of music
What? A concept is fine so long as it can be communicated via the medium and the person executing its communication is competent in doing so. That's it, you're reading things that no one wrote, no idea how you've managed to do that.

>Much of today's pop music is centered around intentionally simple and vague lyrics designed to appeal directly to someone's emotions and allow them to fill in the blanks in order to empathize
Actually, it's made based on a formula for the sake of profit, more often than not. You're giving too many people too much credit.

>doing something like censoring language in order to get radio play is consistent in principle with the identified "concept"
I don't think you understand at all. I also noted it was a bad example when I used that.

>Reducing music to a vehicle for ideas creates more cognitive dissonance than it is worth
Contemporary music and the entire notion behind recording albums is based in post-modernity and the approach to communicating something beyond conventional means. That's a fact. I mentioned in my first post that there are different criteria for every release and some performers have unrelated goals.

>In absolute music, form is function.
That is an idea and it is what's being conveyed.

>Even some of the greatest art music composers struggled with this.
Maybe you have no idea what you're trying to discuss. Just because people make stuff doesn't mean everything made is perfect. How many objective 10/10s do you think there are? Also 'art music', what are you on about? Don't use the word 'Art; unless you can name a currently active artist and don't discuss critical theory and the like unless you know how to.

Music is "good" when you like it.

>That's it, you're reading things that no one wrote, no idea how you've managed to do that.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, I can stop doing that if you'd like but this conversation will be less pleasant for you.
>A concept is fine so long as it can be communicated via the medium and the person executing its communication is competent in doing so. That's it, you're reading things that no one wrote, no idea how you've managed to do that.
This claim refutes your example here >when someone rerecords their track so it can be played on the radio or releases a censored version of an album
Based on what I have demonstrated here >The point I am making is that doing something like censoring language in order to get radio play is consistent in principle with the identified "concept".
I know that you said it was a bad example, but I believe that it perfectly expresses your ideas. You are welcome to replace it with another example if you don't think so.

If their concept is valid on the basis of being a concept (according to your quote "A concept is fine so long as it can be communicated via the medium and the person executing its communication is competent in doing so.") then you must concede that a profit motive (which is an extra-musical concept dependent on the content of the music anyways) is just as valid; to suggest otherwise is not consistent with the principles you have expressed. The people creating this music are masters of their craft, make no mistake. Their understanding of musical composition and human psychology likely dwarfs both of ours. They are likely more competent at what they do than your (or my) favorite popular acts.

>I don't think you understand at all.
I am not known for having poor reading comprehension so I am forced to assume that this is more your fault than mine.

1/2

No, music appeals to you when you like it. Your preference is not an objective qualifier.

I like the Clash, and the Pogues, and the Men They Couldn't Hang.

...

2/2

>Contemporary music and the entire notion behind recording albums is based in post-modernity
No, it is not. Music has been crafted for the sole purpose of making money for centuries. The problem you appear to have is that this process has become streamlined and studied to a science, which apparently gives you cognitive dissonance.

>That is an idea and it is what's being conveyed.
That's a legitimate cop-out. The entire purpose of absolute music is to exist outside of being a vehicle for a concept. You need to revise either your premise or the way in which you explain it, because neither appears to be effective right now.

>Maybe you have no idea what you're trying to discuss.
No, I'm fully aware of what I'm talking about. If you are struggling to get someone to understand your view, it is possible that the problem lies with the way in which you are communicating it.

>Just because people make stuff doesn't mean everything made is perfect
Nobody has said // implied otherwise, as I understand it.

>How many objective 10/10s do you think there are?
Exactly zero.

>Also 'art music', what are you on about?
Are you joking ? This isn't even MUSH-101 level knowledge.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_music

> Don't use the word 'Art; unless you can name a currently active artist
I do not understand your reasoning for typing this.

>and don't discuss critical theory and the like unless you know how to.
I could, but likely not well // intelligible enough to be useful to either us or anyone viewing this conversation.

Stop. "Good" is an intrinsically subjective concept which disqualifies "objectivity" altogether. "Objectively good" is an oxymoron. "Good" cannot exist without an observer to bestow the qualifier.

>I can stop doing that if you'd like but this conversation will be less pleasant for you
Calm down there El Hijo Del Autismo Magnifico, I wouldn't want you to unleash you keyboard skills on the innocent Sup Forums userbase.

>This claim refutes your example here
No it doesn't

>Based on what I have demonstrated here
what are you on about, lad? You're applying no explanations, no context, you're just making random statements based on a blatant and intentional misinterpretation of what I have written (and hilariously, I made light of people on this website doing that in my first post so you're making such a huge fool of yourself).

You surely don't understand what a concept is. If you make music to make money, but the music in and of itself isn't conveying that ideology but is instead just a pop song geared for profit but claiming otherwise (often, in fact almost always the case) then you're not working with a concept and communicating it, you're just dishing out shite to consumers. It's not complicated, mate.

There's something very wrong with you if you saw my posts and came to these conclusions. Especially considering my first post.

>for centuries
Contemporary means things being made now, retard.

>The entire purpose of absolute music is to exist outside of being a vehicle for a concept.
Everything cultural is based in concepts, it is impossible to act culturally without working with concepts.

>No, I'm fully aware of what I'm talking about.
No, you're not.

>Exactly zero.
Anything that does what it is meant to is a 10/10 objectively.

>Are you joking ?
You're an idiot. I am a professional art-maker and you're an insane sperglord.

>I could, but likely not well // intelligible enough to be useful to either us or anyone viewing this conversation.
not even intelligible.

>Good" cannot exist without an observer to bestow the qualifier.
Things are made for an audience. You mong.

This is why I seldom share what I like with others. Music is too personal for me to just flaunt like everyone else seems to do.

yeah it exists do u wanna here my album

>No it doesn't
Ineffectual rhetoric. I explained my reasoning, if you cannot challenge it then you are obligated to either concede the point or admit that you are out of your depth.
>what are you on about, lad?
You don't actually know what you are talking about, do you ?

I will break it down for you.

You identified here ( to communicate something very specific that would otherwise be impossible/beyond the limits of basic language.) what you identified as a "concept" and clarified further here that a concept was fine "...so long as it can be communicated via the medium and the person executing its communication is competent in doing so". I made the assertion here that a "concept" within pop music is "centered around intentionally simple and vague lyrics designed to appeal directly to someone's emotions and allow them to fill in the blanks in order to empathize". This is a concept which, as I pointed out here (The people creating this music are masters of their craft) is being carried out by people who are competent. Thus, your qualifiers (can be communicated via the medium & executed by a competent individual) are both met. I cited your example here (when someone rerecords their track so it can be played on the radio or releases a censored version of an album, that's a lack of conceptual integrity.) as being consistent in principle with a concept (appeal directly to emotions) because it does not conflict with that concept in any way; in fact it augments it by delivering it to a wider audience.

QED

>intentional misinterpretation of what I have written
It appears that you are not as proficient a communicator as you had previously believed.

> (and hilariously, I made light of people on this website doing that in my first post so you're making such a huge fool of yourself).
Ineffectual rhetoric. Your ignorance does not make me look silly.

There's something wrong with you, fella. I wrote a very straight-forward explanation and you're sperging out like a madman making baseless arguments that you dreamed up out of nowhere.

> that a "concept" within pop music is "centered around intentionally simple and vague lyrics designed to appeal directly to someone's emotions and allow them to fill in the blanks in order to empathize"
Again, since I've already explained this twice, if a thing has conceptual integrity then everything about it is geared towards getting that across. If you make something with the intent to make money, that's not a concept, it's a goal. If you have the concept to communicate that pop music is about making money and you release a single like that Jessie J song price tag then you're, again, contradicting yourself. How broken is your mind that you need this re-explained so many times, let alone need it explained to begin with? You don't have half a clue about critical theory.

>It appears that you are not as proficient a communicator as you had previously believed.
No, you're literally retarded and it's beyond challenging trying to figure out what the fuck you're trying to say, especially since it's some maniacal bullshit you pulled out of your ass and started posting.

>Ineffectual rhetoric. Your ignorance does not make me look silly.
>the fact that you predicted that I'd come in an unironically prove your first post by misreading posts for the sake of posting an argument despite not having any informed stance on the subject.
I wonder if it's always just you, a single idiot doing this that I am unfortunate enough to encounter so often on this board, or if there are more people in this world as unbelievably deluded as you are. It's not ok to be this unaware.

>You surely don't understand what a concept is.
No, I'm well aware. You are de-contextualizing the word "concept" to a level in which it becomes completely meaningless. You are doing this because your central premise is flawed, and instead of correctly addressing your cognitive dissonance you are doubling down by stretching your flawed idea past what most people would be able to tolerate.

There is a reason that you are slowly turning to playground banter and personal attacks instead of addressing my points directly.

> If you make music to make money
I must ask: do you look down your nose at Mozart because he partook in the patronage system ?

>you're just dishing out shite to consumers.
AKA literally all music, ever.

>It's not complicated, mate.
The only one making this complicated is you with what appear to be astounding mental gymnastics.

>There's something very wrong with you if you saw my posts and came to these conclusions.
non sequitur

>Contemporary means things being made now,
This is irrelevant. The central point to that statement was that functionally the system (money in exchange for music) has not radically changed. The method of distribution and creation has changed with technology, but the driving force (money in exchange for music) has not changed. You have yet to support your assertion that Popular music being driven by profit is somehow a post-modern concept (or at the least a result of a post-modern zeitgeist) as opposed to more of the same with bells and whistles.
>retard.
Playground insults are ineffectual rhetoric, you have no need to sink that low.

>Everything cultural is based in concepts, it is impossible to act culturally without working with concepts.
I have already addressed this. The way in which you use language is fundamentally incoherent to anyone who isn't you.

>No, you're not.
Demonstrably false.

my god, pure ideology

>Anything that does what it is meant to is a 10/10 objectively.
You are uninformed. Please take a basic music, psychology, or philosophy class. Any of these three will dispel this idea you have.
ÜBERMENSCH TIP: "Objectivity" is a concept exclusive to an observer outside of both that which is being observed and the frame on which observation is taking place, AKA a "wholly other". Do not continue to use this phrase if you want to be taken seriously.

>You're an idiot. I am a professional art-maker
I am inclined to disbelieve you because I seriously doubt that any "professional art-maker" would get upset over someone using correct musical terminology in a discussion pertaining to music.
>and you're an insane sperglord.
More playground insults.

>not even intelligible.
I see that you have admired my word selection. As amusing as that is, the sentence is clear.
I will re-iterate: I can discuss the topic of critical theory, but it's a moot point because nobody would learn anything from me that they could not learn more effectively from a Google search.

>Things are made for an audience.
This is true and also irrelevant.
>You mong.
More playground insults.

>You are de-contextualizing the word "concept" to a level in which it becomes completely meaningless.
No I am not. A concept is an idea. When you make something it is because you have an idea. You make the thing to get that idea across. Sometimes the idea is great, sometimes the idea is 'America sure is great', sometimes the idea is 'I want to make a song, making songs is cool', the last one being Grimes' core concept.
You're just misreading things like a lunatic.

>There is a reason that you are slowly turning to playground banter and personal attacks instead of addressing my points directly.
Yeah, it's that I made a point and someone lunatic is arguing nonsense at me and I'm hardly going to take someone like that seriously.

>I must ask: do you look down your nose at Mozart because he partook in the patronage system ?
>AKA literally all music, ever.
>The only one making this complicated is you with what appear to be astounding mental gymnastics.
>non sequitur
So much unrelated, hoop-jumping nonsense. Are you able to read?

>This is irrelevant.
No it is not, 'Contemporary music' is a specific thing that I was specifically addressing, mate.

>The way in which you use language is fundamentally incoherent to anyone who isn't you.
Painful irony, lad.

Here's how it works, again, since you're having such a hard time.

Have idea - decide to communicate it - make something with the intent of communicating it - it is successful or isn't. That's it.

>You are uninformed.
No, this is central to my career and I'm well versed in it.

Here I predicted your arrival You replied to this very post. I can't comprehend how you managed to come to the conclusions you have, but you're clearly not engaging with what is written and just looking for an excuse to rant like an idiot.

nice spooky quotes
what i kind of really hate is the sort of cognitive dissonance between "i like it" and the ideologically based or culturally forced "this is good" that a lot of people express as "guilty pleasures", so i use "good" as "engaging" or "effective" in both a very visceral way or a conceptual/thematic one (the latter of which is more relevant to narrative media i believe - just "what did you take away from it?")
what or what isn't "good" music by any other way of thinking about it is only relevant in dealing with social settings

fucking losers itt

>I wrote a very straight-forward explanation
This is what I am talking about. Your explanations are straight-forward to you because you have a mental image of what you "mean" by your words. However, the way in which you communicate these ideas does not effectively convey the meaning which drives them. While my posts can be dense or irritating to parse, they are constructed in such a way that the meaning is clear. If not, I can always re-word them for you.

>if a thing has conceptual integrity then everything about it is geared towards getting that across.
This boils down to a "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Your belief that something supports a premise does not necessarily coincide with the opinion of the creator of the piece or even other listeners. You dislike subjectivity as a cop-out, but in this case it effectively refutes your premise. Nobody who knows what they are talking about seriously believes in objectivity in the sense that you appear to. This is why I question whether or not you understand what you are speaking on.

>If you make something with the intent to make money, that's not a concept, it's a goal.
Identify what differentiates a "concept" from a "goal".

>How broken is your mind that you need this re-explained so many times, let alone need it explained to begin with? You don't have half a clue about critical theory.
I am beginning to think that you are actually pretentious.

>No, you're literally retarded
More playground insults. Is having an adult discussion really this difficult for you ?

>especially since it's some maniacal bullshit you pulled out of your ass and started posting.
Nothing that I am saying should be controversial. Nothing that I am saying should be hard to understand past a 10th grade reading level at the very highest. Perhaps you are not as intelligent as you have previously believed yourself to be.

but you have no idea what the intent was in a ton of cases, it's the other way round, you're forming an interpretation or based on the material at hand and anything "superfluous" might aswell be attributed to you ignoring certain aspects of the work because it fits your own narrative better

I'm done, mate. I can't help someone who refuses to understand basic English.

>but you have no idea what the intent was in a ton of cases
Then their efforts are unsuccessful. In a lot of cases there are ideas that are far beyond linguistic interpretation, it's always a case by case situation.

>anything "superfluous" might aswell be attributed to you ignoring certain aspects of the work because it fits your own narrative better
No, you take it all in and if something counter-acts the intention then it's brought up in the critique. Generally speaking there's always a couple issues, especially in music since there's a history of adhering to genres and stuff and the primary focus of the industry is to entertain, sell recordings or encourage people to attend shows, so the message is watered down from the outset in most cases. There are exceptions, of course. You judge things with respect to the thing itself and what it intends to be. That's as complicated as it gets.

>for the sake of posting an argument despite not having any informed stance on the subject.
I demonstrably understand the subject matter more than you do. Keep in mind, you actually tried to argue that "objectively good" is a valid term.
>idiot
Further proof that you cannot sustain an adult conversation.

>No I am not.
Yes, you are. I understand that it is uncomfortable for your self-image to be contradicted, but you are in error.
>When you make something it is because you have an idea. You make the thing to get that idea across.
In the context of absolute music, the "thing" is the idea itself. Form is function. There is not an idea getting "across", just an interpretation of form. This is why it is referred to as absolute music. Post-modern platitudes do not cover up for ignorance. Please, for the class: explain what the concept behind "Die Kunst Der Fugue" is, and explain how this is distinct from a goal.
>You're just misreading things
No, I am not.
>like a lunatic.
Further proof that you cannot sustain an adult conversation.

>lunatic
Further proof that you cannot sustain an adult conversation.

>unrelated
You appear to have poor reading comprehension if you cannot understand how my comments relate to yours. Explain specifically where you are struggling, perhaps I can help.

>No it is not, 'Contemporary music' is a specific thing that I was specifically addressing, mate.
This is irrelevant. Do I need to repeat my question ?

>Painful irony, lad.
The reason people get upset about you affecting a condescending demeanor likely has more to do with you acting this way when you have no grounds to. Such as right now.

>Have idea - decide to communicate it - make something with the intent of communicating it - it is successful or isn't.
"Music solely as communication of an idea" is an outdated concept. You should know this. "it is successful or isn't" is nonsensical as well.

>No, this is central to my career and I'm well versed in it.
Demonstrably false. You are repeating outdated platitudes and appear completely incapable of addressing any points made without resorting to personal attacks. You are gnostic in your beliefs as a result of your inability to cope with your cognitive dissonance in a healthy way.

Because you are clearly not learned in basic art / music history, I do not hold your ignorance against you. What I find distasteful is your posturing and desire to lash out against people challenging your ideas.

If you were as informed as you want to believe you are, you would be able to explain your points without resorting to such childish nonsense.

>Here I predicted your arrival
Nothing you said in that post applies to me. I understand subjectivty from a biological, psychological, and philosophical perspective. I would say that I understand subjectivity (and the implications thereof) better than yourself (based on your incorrect use of the term "objectively")
> I can't comprehend how you managed to come to the conclusions you have
This is because you are ignorant of the subject matter outside of your oddly specific bubble. What use is critical theory to you if you don't know basic music history, psychology or philosophy? You have zero ability to look outside of your original perspective.

>I'm done, mate.
I accept your concession. If your pride hasn't been hurt too much, you are welcome to try again later.

differentiating between how good various good music is is mostly bullshit, but there is definitely some music that is good and other music that is not

Mate, I've hidden you. I'm not wasting my time trying to explain basic critical theory to someone who refuses to read beyond glossing over something for buzzwords to sperg out about.
Go be a pathetic, desperate for attention tripfag on your own time; I'm not being paid to babysit you so I'm not doing it.

Please calm down, there is no need to continue lashing out. I do not hold your ignorance against you.

i'm just saying there's always room for error and miscommunication in anything you say, and it's better to think in terms of your impression as coming from you, which is the case, than projecting it on the artist

something could counteract the intention and be well within the conceptual realm of the work as a sort of contrasting idea that ultimately adds to it but that's another case-by-case thing

genres are a framework of convention just like language, you couldn't communicate anything without an established something like that first, so "pandering" is really not a "flaw" but a necessity. looking at music from a sort of sociological angle is interesting too ykno, rather than reducing it to this sender->reciever model like you're doing

> looking at music from a sort of sociological angle is interesting too ykno, rather than reducing it to this sender->reciever model like you're doing
I wonder if he will attempt to argue that the sender->receiver model (as opposed to music as a mirror for the totality of an observer's life experience) _IS_ a sociological angle.

You're diving too far, I get what you're riffing on though.

>projecting it on the artist
Recording musicians are performers, I never understood calling them 'artists'. I work specifically in art, though, and this whole critical thing is central to making stuff and engaging with stuff. Of course, some music is made with a different goal in mind; while one act will approach their output with the intent of getting ideas across, someone else will approach theirs with a different goal in mind (though at the core, there will be a concept underlying it so the same approach is ultimately applied).

>you couldn't communicate anything without an established something like that first
Yah, absolutely. We work with languages and genres all have their own languages, tropes and so on. John Maus interviews etc.

>looking at music from a sort of sociological angle is interesting too ykno, rather than reducing it to this sender->reciever model like you're doing
See, I think you're jumping a little too far. Ultimately the thing is made to be experienced (in this case listened to) by an audience. The message is to be understood by the audience, that's the intention. Sometimes that idea is a grand affair, sometimes it's simple, sometimes it's 'music played really well'. It could be anything, but you don't make something unless you have an idea in the first place and that work is a construction of that idea.

dude you sound like a fucking clown lmao
both of these guys have ethered you multiple times
you don't know shit about art

Turn (you)r trip back on, Friendo, you autistic loser.

I do not drop tripcode.

>hurr durrr anyone who thinks im dumb is a tripfag in disguise

(not true, by the way)

(true, by the way)

"no"

Go away, Moonshake.

>God Tier
Traditional
Jazz

>High Tier
Classical
Metal

>Mid Tier
Dance
Hip-Hop
Punk

>Low Tier
Rock
Pop
Alternative

>Shit Tier
Meme genres

Traditional and jazz above classical ? For what reason ?

If you have to ask, you'll never know.

Can't argue with that.

Scaruffi's opinion on this is kind of interesting.

scaruffi.com/music/criteria.html

>I have no idea how I judge music.
The most honest music appreciator I have ever witnessed.