Why do people get so self conscious and ass blasted when you think the music they like is shit?

Why do people get so self conscious and ass blasted when you think the music they like is shit?

Cause good music is personal and subjective

There is no "good music"

I hate that goddamn person's appearance. FUCK.

jimmy neutron grown up?

This is the usual argument, but I've found more and more I disagree with it. The real reason more, though by no means all or even a majority, of people feel they can objectively value film, is because everyone at least feels they understand the process by which a film is made, even if they really don't. They understand that there's acting, directing, editing etc.... It's kind of like how everyone thinks they understand politics, and thus have a strong opinion about it.
Music, on the other hand, most people seem to think is magic. It's some nebulous art springing forth from the artist's soul, untranslatable into our mortal ways of determining quality. This ignores that much of music making is actually a very mechanical, sloggish, process. It ignores the actual, quantifiable processes of production, and if you don't think lyrics/poetry can be be placed on a continuum between good and bad, I suggest reading some T.S. Elliot and then reading some of the poetry I wrote in middle school.

1/2

>1/2

Nu-tron*

2/2

The fact is most people have little to no education in music or in poetry past high school, and got a pretty shit one while there. They don't understand music, poetry, or art, and so the only level they can appreciate it on, is how it makes them feel. Which, right away I should mention is a completely valid and important way to experience and appreciate art. It's just not objective. Once you add in the fact that music more than anything else, tends to have a deeper personal connection and role in the process of self-identification, particularly when young music can feel like a part of you, it makes it incredibly difficult to have objective conversations about music, but that's not to say it's impossible.
Even if you disagree with all the above, I'd hope you'd agree with this, that the argument of "It's all subjective, and everyone likes what they like and there's no such thing as good or bad," has been taken much too far in music. Subjectivity is of course always going to be a factor in enjoyment, but to apply this standard uncritically is to flatten everything into the same homogenous nothing. The Beatles are no better than Nickleback, Silento is as vital as Kendrick Lamar, commercial jingles are as artistically valid as Stravinsky, etc.... We've taken subjectivity to an extreme, in part to validate everyone's personal attachment to the music they love, but this really does ignore the fact that some people really do just have shit taste.

damn...

In this post post modern world we live in, people believe that your taste in music is intrinsically tied into your character and personality. To insult your taste is to insult you as a person, and the butthurt that follows is basically a defense of your sensibilities

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

AAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

this is extremely true, to someone who's braindead after surviving meningitis they might find my grade 2 stick figure drawings to be stimulating art. Where as in the rest of us with brains fully intact, we'd clearly see that it is objectively garbage.

So what it comes down to, the people who like shitty music like Swans , anco, radiohead etc aren't as developed mentally.

Both of these posts are literally just a veiled whinge-wank about you wanting to flaunt your "superior" taste in music.

saved. This is the new copy pasta

I love this pasta because it falls apart when you realize that if I like the poetry that you wrote in middle school more than Elliot's poetry, then it will always be good to me and there is absolutely nothing you can do to change it.

It will remain good to me regardless of how you try to approach the argument because I genuinely enjoyed it a great deal. There is nothing you can do to dissuade me and thus, ultimately, art remains subjective to me and my opinion is ultimately all that matters to me.

>I love this pasta because it falls apart when you realize that if I like the poetry that you wrote in middle school more than Elliot's poetry, then it will always be good to me and there is absolutely nothing you can do to change it.


No one wants to try and change your shit taste tho. The only people who care about having shit taste are the people who have shit taste

Maybe people are just upset that you didn't like their music because they expected it to be significant to you?
I tried showing somebody the music I meditated to and they thought it was boring and horrible sounding. Never talked about music since.

What was the music?

But I don't care if you think my taste is shit. That's the entire point of my post.

We're discussing the subjectivity of art, not my taste specifically. I haven't cited the specifics of my taste in the least.

Just tibetan chant and european renaissance plainchant + polyphony.
In retrospect I don't even know why I thought somebody would like it.

subjective is a euphemism so that people with shit taste don't feel like nit-wits

Lets find out:

classical tho

Sounds like a bad choice for sharing unless you know their taste really well.

And that's an empty cop-out that doesn't actually make any kind of argument against what I'm saying. You're saying it's an excuse for my not feeling like a nit-wit but you're not explaining why what I'm saying isn't credible.

If I think something is shit, it will remain shit to me regardless of what every learned critic or musician says.

Why is there anything wrong with art being subjective, anyway? Why is it so important to you to validate your own taste against what other people do or do not like? It's a really petty sort of argument to make in the first place, pure insecurity.

>Why is it so important to you to validate your own taste against what other people do or do not like?

It's' literally not, I don't care if you think my taste is shit, or if your taste is shit. I was just simply pointing out if I tell someone I think their taste is shit they get assblasted, and if music really is subjective you shouldn't get so butthurt

I wouldn't but the post I was replying to was trying to attack the credibility of subjectivity in art as a whole.

imagine misunderstanding objectivity this much and thinking you were intelligent

have you tried using google

literally just google the word "objective" and see what you get

wew

Me farting into a trumpet, vs one of Mozart symphonies

Try to use your art subjectivity argument with that. Both are art because i called it, but one is objectively and literally shitty, and if you like it you're either a. try hard. or b. Mentally retarded.

It doesn't matter if we think someone who likes it is mentally retarded. If their retardation facilitates finding greater enjoyment and artistic value in your farting into a trumpet, then their opinion is as valid as anyone else's.

how are you this dumb

Nice argument. I can see you clearly have nothing and you're talking because you're bored and want (you)'s.
Sure why not. Glass half full kinda guy aren't you.

I don't, because I know they're wrong

I'm just shocked dude

I don't feel the need to make an argument because even the most preliminary effort on your part to find out what the words "subjective" and "objective" actually literally mean would completely invalidate everything you're saying

It's moronic

>Sure why not. Glass half full kinda guy aren't you.
I don't think it's a matter of having an optimistic view. I just don't believe my own opinion, or anyone else's for that matter, should chart the course for how everyone in the world should enjoy art. It is what it is.

Why are classicalfags like you the absolute fucking worst?

There's not good or bad music, you either like it ot not. There's no objectivity in art.

Because the music they love becomes part of their identity. When others trash their beloved albums, it's like they're trashing their personality.

I swear I never come to this fucking place because of shit like this. Good job at trolling these assholes. I never come to this place because the first goddamn thread I see has some kind of channel related buzzword between whether music and art is subjectively good or objectively good. The fact that you ass hats will sit here and argue this much over this tired argument is astounding. You sound like a bunch of pretentious assholes who, in reality, are probably losers that are extremely insecure.

Intonation is quantifiable
Counterpoint is quantifiable
Holding of interest is quantifiable

Liking the middle school poetry more, or even middle school music does not change the place it holds. You can't measure music in terms of how enjoyable it is, but there are metrics that allow you to compare construction and performance. Those are objective.

Then there are components of music that can't really be measured (maybe just individually, idfk). Is 4/4 better than 3/4?

You can definitely differentiate between what is good and what's enjoyable, but it's also not always so clear when there isn't a drastic difference in tallent.

It's a fallacy to judge art on complexity because, in itself, complexity does not equal good. Even outside of the realm of art, some of the most brilliant scientific solutions went undiscovered for decades due to scientists in the field seeking overly complex solutions to problems that are ultimately simple.

I understand what you're saying regarding some music being infinitely more complex than other music but that doesn't have anything to do with its intrinsic artistic value. It's an abstract, more or less. There is no way to simply quantify something as 'good' in the artistic realm.

Without a way to judge performance, there is no way or reason to aim for self improvement.

The fact that you can compare a child's performance with his older self shows that a metric exists and should be used.

Yes, you're right. Improvement doesn't necessarily mean complexity.

>complexity does not equal good.

It does, though.

usually people use music to fill-in for a lack of personality via identification with a scene in an attempt to make them more interesting people

they take it as a personal attack

>There's no objectivity in art.
(not true by the way)

Over time people tend to come to a consensus on what was great. Some figures are polarizing, but most of the time people agree.

For example: Palestrina is great, Bach is great, Beethoven is great, Bartok is great. Its only once we get the 20th century that there are so many individual styles and once the 50s come around the word "art" becomes meaningless with Duchamp. In the age of individualism, it seems like anything could be seen to be "great" by anyone, but you'll find that over time that absolute trash is accepted as trash, and the actual great stuff comes to the surface.

Brian Ferneyhough is good in small doses, but I wouldn't want to listen to him exclusively. Its not so much that complexity is good, rather that holding interest and high replay value is good. The music doesn't have to be complex to do that.

It seems like critics prefer uniqueness in general. Same with Movies.

How objective is holding of interest when some people get bored immediately and others can listen for hours?

>How objective is holding of interest
depends on your target audience. If you're writing for the radio, you need a chorus within 30 seconds or 1 minute at the very latest.
If you're writing for the concert hall you have much more freedom, but people still expect to be engaged the whole way and not get bored.
If you're writing for a contemporary classical crowd, you have even more freedom to play with time and allow people to experience very little.

Most people have a similair attention span, its more about whether they are engaged by the music. Even a 4 year old would enjoy a contemporary classical piece if it was engaging the whole way.

i wanna kill him

>In retrospect I don't even know why I thought somebody would like it.

You're right you should think harder about that next time.

Are you saying that holding of interest is objective, but subjective to the target audience?

Doesn't that mean that some of these metrics change to do group subjectivity?

all of this subjectivity/objectivity stuff doesn't really answer the question though. the reason people get ass blasted is because that's what happened, they opened their ass to you, they shared something about themselves and it's a sensitive area and it's rude to just blast it like that if they're someone you care about.

this post just ruined my life

It depends on how the topic is brought up

If some dude comes up to you with the new skrillex album all hyped and asks you what you think, then rages when you say no, it's on him.

true there's no reason to hold back on something like that, but if that's happening you still need to ask yourself why random skrillex fans are coming up to you asking what you think about his work. I can't imagine why that would happen unless you're deadmau5,

That's what children do and Sup Forums is mostly children.

Jimmy Numale

nu-males out

this guy in OPpic is more alpha than 90% mutants

>If I think something is shit, it will remain shit to me regardless of what every learned critic or musician says.

Why so stubborn? And I hope you don't think that everyone thinks this way. Just because some album is lauded by critics doesn't mean you should like it but for me at least it means that there's something to like about it, something I haven't found yet so I relisten to the album countless times..

Well I do this with every album to be fair. I don't know how people can expect to like every album on the first try and not come back to it

That's just wrong.

He has a hot girlfriend, so I'd say you're right.

Im not that user but I think this is kinda what hes getting at:
Statistically you could say that something commercially successful isn't shit because it was successful but a lot of rap music that comes out is garbage but it's still successful.

TLDR: Just because someone else likes it and says it good no matter how many people say so doesn't change a thing unless you go by majority rule

This kinda topic could go on forever so it's best to just accept the differences and move on

>Jimmy Neutron's dad in college

Do they?