EPTPeople need to listen to real music - Page 3
| Forum Index > Closed |
Waxangel
United States33707 Posts
| ||
|
ProTech_MediC
United States498 Posts
On May 17 2010 20:33 Finskie wrote: It's all about taste. You can't say "X is better than Y" because in someone elses ears it will sound completely different. Sure you can. It is no different than judging the taste of two burgers: one that I made vs one that a successful chef made. One burger is made by someone who has spent years learning the intricacies of how to blend various ingredients to create a wonderful tasting experience. The other burger is made by a guy that can barely start a grill. You may enjoy the simple, cheap, lowbrow burger that I made for you... but there are others that pay extra close attention to how their burgers taste, that will obviously prefer the other. | ||
|
Nytefish
United Kingdom4282 Posts
What now bitch? | ||
|
ella_guru
Canada1741 Posts
I'm really glad you said that you _can_ say some music is better, because I think it really can be, it just largely depends on what you need it for. | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
Edit: Also, you are just defining music in such a way that the music you listen to is the 'best'. To me that seems like an oversimplification. | ||
|
KNICK
Germany248 Posts
So, does that mean you are the prime example of an arrogant tone-deaf? | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11567 Posts
| ||
|
Divinek
Canada4045 Posts
On May 18 2010 00:36 ProTech_MediC wrote: Sure you can. It is no different than judging the taste of two burgers: one that I made vs one that a successful chef made. One burger is made by someone who has spent years learning the intricacies of how to blend various ingredients to create a wonderful tasting experience. The other burger is made by a guy that can barely start a grill. You may enjoy the simple, cheap, lowbrow burger that I made for you... but there are others that pay extra close attention to how their burgers taste, that will obviously prefer the other. that comparison doesn't really apply but i guesssssssss if they big clause is the word can then whatever the comparison is doesn't really matter since it's opinion lol | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
Lemnowalrus pointed out a few major problems. The other thing I don't like is the classical-music-lover's favorite argument of "we're listening to it 200+ years later" and yet there's never any attempt to show that a die hard following proves superiority. You've got to prove that that means something. There are plenty of examples of large groups of people being wrong for hundreds of years. I'm sure some sociologists and psychologists could go on and on about why classical music has the status it does today and their explanations would have nothing to do with the music being superior to all else. The attack on rap also kinda hurts. It's really ignorant of the genre and, to the extent that rappers do try to be poetic, I bet their success rate is similar to that of poets. If you want to participate in an exercise that will challenge your willpower, seek out some poetry web sites (I mean where anyone can submit their poetry) and try to read as much of that shit as you can without swearing off poetry for the rest of your life. Anyway, how much do you know about poetry? Have you ever had a PhD teach you any poetry? Even if you did, did you study much from 20th century? Poetry has evolved quite a bit. While poetic rappers aren't writing poetry, they're certainly doing things that are legitimate in poetry. | ||
|
ProTech_MediC
United States498 Posts
On May 18 2010 02:01 Divinek wrote: that's a poor comparison that doesn't really apply to music, even if food does incorporate the word taste as well! Of course it works. You can apply the same analogy to any of the arts. The point is that there is an artist that has more talent, more experience, more creativity than me - and he made a better burger. Sure, which burger you prefer is up to you... but a knowledgeable critic can judge the quality. For the record, I do not agree with the OP. I think he's completely clueless. On May 17 2010 19:59 SoManyDeadLings wrote: Let's start with R.A.P. music, but since everyone already knows about the Retards Attempting Poetry, I rest my case. How do you expect people to take you seriously when you write off an entire genre? Are you trying to tell me that you've scoured the earth for quality rap and weren't able to find any? Here are some good albums from last year in case you ever take your head out of the sand: Raekwon - Only Built 4 Cuban Linx, Pt. 2 The People Under the Stairs - Carried Away Doom - Born Like This Madlib - Beat Konducta Vol. 5-6: A Tribute to... Dälek - Gutter Tactics On May 17 2010 19:59 SoManyDeadLings wrote: Heavy metal, in general, puts a heavy emphasis on the speed of the music, mashes in a bunch of the simplest chords (the majority of power cords are merely just one interval, normally just the perfect fifth), employs hideously repetitive melodies and rhythms throughout entire songs and sings about the same and boring musical themes (often death, violence, and aggression). You are so incredibly ignorant its hilarious. Metal is all about the speed of the music? Well which genre? There are LOTS of different types of metal. Drone, Sludge, or Doom are all usually slower paced. Sunn O))) has songs at 5 BPM. Most subgenres of metal employ violent or agressive themes, but not all. And there are definately acts out there with arrangements that would pique a classical composer's interest. Quite honestly, you sound like the very person you despise: someone without much knowledge or interest in good music. | ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
On May 18 2010 02:29 ProTech_MediC wrote: Of course it works. You can apply the same analogy to any of the arts. The point is that there is an artist that has more talent, more experience, more creativity than me - and he made a better burger. Sure, which burger you prefer is up to you... but a knowledgeable critic can judge the quality. For the record, I do not agree with the OP. I think he's completely clueless. But you can't objectively say that the Mona Lisa was a better painting then Starry Night. Or any painting for that matter. It can be more realistic, more abstract, more complicated, more skillfully painted, more this, more that - but that's all it is. It is not "better" unless you consider those the tenets of a good painting. What everyone considers makes a "good" painting is different, and as such "good" cannot be objectively defined. | ||
|
Squeegy
Finland1166 Posts
On May 18 2010 03:39 seppolevne wrote: But you can't objectively say that the Mona Lisa was a better painting then Starry Night. Or any painting for that matter. It can be more realistic, more abstract, more complicated, more skillfully painted, more this, more that - but that's all it is. It is not "better" unless you consider those the tenets of a good painting. What everyone considers makes a "good" painting is different, and as such "good" cannot be objectively defined. I tried writing the same thing, but I ended up not posting. You said it way better than I would have! | ||
|
ironchef
Canada1350 Posts
Umm I like classical music too, but I think you've too hastily dismissed every other genre. Good quality timeless music occur that trump shallow bs occur everywhere. | ||
|
jon arbuckle
Canada443 Posts
On May 17 2010 19:59 SoManyDeadLings wrote: Let's start with R.A.P. music, but since everyone already knows about the Retards Attempting Poetry, I rest my case. You know less about poetry than you do about hip-hop and I would gladly pay for your immediate castration. | ||
|
jon arbuckle
Canada443 Posts
| ||
|
phosphorylation
United States2935 Posts
While I agree with the OP that classical music is vastly superior to other forms of music, trying to prove that objectively/logically to people with far less exposure to classical music is going to be extremely difficult and something that even seasoned thinkers would struggle to. But there is a problem with notion that everything in art is subjective and "up to taste." While personal experiences would predispose people to certain flavors of music, there is also a distinct and objective aspect of judging the merit of art (is it important? is it "good" art?) | ||
|
Divinek
Canada4045 Posts
On May 18 2010 03:39 seppolevne wrote: But you can't objectively say that the Mona Lisa was a better painting then Starry Night. Or any painting for that matter. It can be more realistic, more abstract, more complicated, more skillfully painted, more this, more that - but that's all it is. It is not "better" unless you consider those the tenets of a good painting. What everyone considers makes a "good" painting is different, and as such "good" cannot be objectively defined. yes thank you that was my point | ||
|
Xenocide_Knight
Korea (South)2625 Posts
On May 18 2010 03:39 seppolevne wrote: But you can't objectively say that the Mona Lisa was a better painting then Starry Night. Or any painting for that matter. It can be more realistic, more abstract, more complicated, more skillfully painted, more this, more that - but that's all it is. It is not "better" unless you consider those the tenets of a good painting. What everyone considers makes a "good" painting is different, and as such "good" cannot be objectively defined. Comparing classical to modern pop is like comparing the Mona Lisa to the art portfolio i made in 1st grade. It's not really a matter of opinion, one is just more complex than the other. And I feel like the OP's sc2/BW comparison makes perfect sense. Stop drinkin the hatorade, all music has intrinsic value and should be loved by someone, somewhere | ||
|
Weasel-
Canada1556 Posts
Don't you think there's something wrong with that? | ||
|
ProTech_MediC
United States498 Posts
On May 18 2010 03:39 seppolevne wrote: But you can't objectively say that the Mona Lisa was a better painting then Starry Night. Or any painting for that matter. It can be more realistic, more abstract, more complicated, more skillfully painted, more this, more that - but that's all it is. It is not "better" unless you consider those the tenets of a good painting. What everyone considers makes a "good" painting is different, and as such "good" cannot be objectively defined. I agree that it is very much subjective when comparing two of the greatest pieces of art that humanity has produced. What answer did you expect from me? But let me ask you this... why is the Mona Lisa on display at the Louvre museum in Paris within climate controlled conditions in a bullet-proof glass case - while your own crayon portrait of the family dog is hung on the fridge at your private residence? It is difficult (and perhaps impossible) to compare da Vinci and van Gogh, but it becomes easier to distinguish in cases when the gap in quality is greater. Burial - Untrue is "BETTER" than Wondergirls - So Hot Maybe your definition of "better" does not exactly match mine... but the Louvre museum agrees with me more. | ||
| ||
