Is there any objective reason to dislike a band or genre? if so, say it

is there any objective reason to dislike a band or genre? if so, say it.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/9jqyU5oCZuQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

haha great thread

Too few good examples (if any) like Reggaeton.

idc about this thread but this picture makes me horny

I don't like that picture, is uncomfortable

some things objectively sound bad. taste is by nature subjective but it is always rooted in objectivity. if i repeat the same note 6 quintillion times at 4000 BPM with nothing else in the song it'd objectively sound like shit, but some dumbass would try to defend it and listen to it to appear "cultured". bad music is like jenkem, it's literally shit and nobody will debate that, but if you let it ferment it turns into a drug that some sub 80 IQ goobers enjoy.

if it's made by white males

THICC
H
I
C
C

t. social brainlet

The band is U2

Objective, you mean a reason that cannot involve opinion or emotion?

Well, that's a contradiction user, because the very act of 'liking' or 'disliking' something involves the use of opinions and subjective feelings. Meaning that you've set up a question that can't be answered.

If I were to try, I suppose that some music may promote immoral or unethical messages (e.g. promoting thug culture, irresponsible drug or alcohol use, or promiscuity). And due to this being an ethical issue, you could try and conflate it with what some may argue to be an 'objective' area of philosophy.

The music is bad

i guess the worst thing music can do is be boring. So it's a balance between being catchy enough to be enjoyable, but not too much to be boring or so catchy its grating, and being complex enough to be enjoyable but not too un-accessible.

waht they write isnt music

>(e.g. promoting thug culture, irresponsible drug or alcohol use, or promiscuity). And due to this being an ethical issue, you could try and conflate it with what some may argue to be an 'objective' area of philosophy.

How can one say objectively its promoting unethical messages. For instance one person could look at thug-rap ,for instance, and idolize it. While someone could look at it and see it as a satire; the character of the rapper being a product of an overly materialistic culture.

This example is a bit of a stretch, but my point is even ethical messages at their root is subjective. All art at it's core is 100% subjective.
For me the point of discussing it is to explain what one likes or dislikes about it and listen to what others have to say to broaden ones perspective.

Is there any objective reason to have a subjective opinion?

No. Cause semantics.

>being complex enough to be enjoyable but not too un-accessible.
This is solved by exposing yourself to previously unfamiliar music and listening to it multiple times. People are still debating Schoenberg's principles and music, even a hundred years after his death. This video is for you:
youtu.be/9jqyU5oCZuQ
This many be an extended example, but your view implies purism.

An extreme example*

jew owned label

Any music that's only enjoyable when high on anything

hiphop/rap is bad, because it's music for black/white racists, criminals and degenerates. if you aren't one of them you are a hardtry

yes; if it's subjectively bad

i don't think there's any objective reason to dislike a genre but there might be objective reasons to dislike artists or bands, however the objective reasons don't stop people from liking them. It's impossible to make a 100% unlikeable song
but Reggaeton is fucking great

>impossible to make a 100% unlikeable song
>See Rebecca Black - Friday

There's no "objective" reason to dislike a band or genre. That's a given. Anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot who's full of themselves in a negative way. Music is a purely subjective experience predicated by your own personal tastes developed over your lifetime. You should only listen to what you like and reject all other forms of music as a waste of your time, unless they pique your interest. That's my philosophy.

user you responded to here

Really interesting video, kind of disappointing there wasn't more. I agree with your statement but you can't expect the general music listening audience to be well versed in all walks of music. Or anything before contemporary music for that matter.

hahahha good reply i love passive aggressiveness

It corrupts the youth.

Like others have mentioned, your question falls on its own logic.

If there is a debate about what, if anything, can objectively define "bad" music/art then we'd first have to agree on what good is.

On a historic and society level good art/music should tell us something about the way we are and relate today in a way that other mediums can not, and strive to evolve the artform to new forms.

On the personal level of the artist - he/she should be driven by a certain curiosity or need to express what cannot be communicated by other means. If the artist is driven by desire for success the result is often shallow.

That said, anything can be interesting when time passes or if viewed from a certain angle, but I'd argue that half of the artwork is "made" in the viewer creating the context. Thus the rise of curators in the 2000's...

One could say that art/music that deals with emotions happy/sad/love etc, like most of pop (and most of /mu) is nothing new since we've always been sad/happy etc. It's the same old shit in different wrapping. Maybe we could all just listen to lute songs by Dowland whenever we're sad and that would be sufficient. Are these lower artforms since they just repeat the same old? I tend to agree.

You sound like those ancient romans saying hellenism is bad

it is though. ever since we evolved from apes, humans have been on a downward spiral