Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?

[npiazza91]

Music is completely subjective, there is no "bad" music. Saying something is "good" is COMPLETELY PERSONAL OPINION, meaning if you actually like something, it will be "good" TO YOU. Saying you like something but also saying it's "bad" makes it sound like a guilty pleasure to you, which is wrong.

Liking and disliking are opinions.  Good and bad are fact.  If the best runner in the world runs a 20minute mile on purpose, he's still the best runner, because he already proved it, but this particular performance was terrible, just like how the best guitarists can right terrible songs on purpose, or for fun, it's still a terrible song.

Something like the taste of food is entirely subjective, because it varies from person to person.  It's simply taste, nothing else.  What I'm trying to get at here is that when it comes to music, there's are two main things going on.  The person making the music and the person receiving the music.  The person receiving the music can form an opinion on whether he/she likes it or not, but whether it's actually good or bad depends on the person making the music.  I don't know if anyone here watches Survivor, but take Russell Hantz.  I like him a lot, he's a great villain and very entertaining.  Anyone can like/dislike him, it's an opinion,  but it is a fact that he is a terrible player.

Dubstep is bad purely based on the fact of what it is trying to achieve.  It's simply not music.  You can't judge it based on anything else, because it claims to be a genre of music, which is incorrect.  A computer is not an instrument.  Music has harmonies and actual notes.  So I guess it's bad by default.  Like I said, I like it, but I don't pretend it's music for a second.

[hefdaddy42]

That post is wrong on so many levels.

First of all, Russell Hantz is one of the best Survivor players ever.  No, he's never won the game, but finished runner-up once and second runner-up once.  He was even one of the first five players inducted into the Survivor Hall of Fame.

Secondly, you can't just say dubstep isn't music.  It is, in fact, music.  I don't have to pretend it's music.  It is music.

[Lucien]

Liking and disliking are opinions.  Good and bad are fact.

Not in music they aren't. Music is artistic expression, not trying to run a god damn mile in 7 minutes. There is no good or bad in music. Virtuosity is simply embellishment, it doesn't need to be there, and it doesn't prove ANYTHING. It sounds cool. Who cares if you can play 32nd notes at 200 beats on the quarter note? It has nothing to do with emotional expression, which is what music was made for, not to prove you're better than someone else. There IS no "better".

[Zantera]

Yeah there's just as much validity to Dubstep being music as Progressive Rock being music. Whether you like or dislike the genre, it just comes off as incredibly narrow-minded to dismiss it completely.

[TioJorge]

No guys. Stahp. He's right and you're wrong. Opinions? Shmominions.

So let it be written, let it be done. UPDATE THE WIKI!





  God damn, I hope that post was a well played troll.
(PSSSSSSSST, NOW IS YOUR CHANCE. HERE, USE THIS!)

[npiazza91]

That post is wrong on so many levels.

First of all, Russell Hantz is one of the best Survivor players ever.  No, he's never won the game, but finished runner-up once and second runner-up once.  He was even one of the first five players inducted into the Survivor Hall of Fame.

Secondly, you can't just say dubstep isn't music.  It is, in fact, music.  I don't have to pretend it's music.  It is music.

I understand I'm rubbing people the wrongw ay and I apologize.  I came off as arrogant when I could have handled it better.  Let's just agree to disagree then with the music thing.

However, I am interested in discussing why you think Russell is one of the best.  He has zero social game.  I admit, his strategic game is fantastic, and him orchestrating Tyson voting himself out was GENIUS.  However, Russell himself has even said that he doesn't care about the jury.  The jury is the whole point of the game.  It doesn't matter how far you make it, whether it's 20th place or 2nd place.  A lot of people get brought to the end just because everyone knows they can beat them.  Phillip came in second, is he a good player?  Hell no, Boston Rob brought Phillip because he's terrible.  That's why Russell will never win.  He's a goat that everyone wants to bring to the end.  Survivor is a social experiment, the social aspect is more important that anything else.  If the whole point of the game is to vote everyone out, Russell will be the best.  But the point is to make it to the end, while being able to balance voting people out and having them vote for you in the end.  Russell doesn't focus on any of this and instead chooses to be a bulldozer and screw over everyone.  If you're playing chess and just try to eliminate every piece the opponent has without protecting your King, you will lose.  Russell COULD be a good player if he just chills out a bit and thinks more about what he's doing.  But he lost to Sandra, who didn't do anything the whole game, that's pretty bad.

[TioJorge]

EYYYYE just really love that this thread answers the thread title perfectly.

It's good stuff. Because it's just peeps. Some people are. Some people aren't. Some people are one day and aren't the next. SOME PEOPLE are actually just highly destructive bots that have formed a mind of their own and are just trying to get by.

[Jaq]

EYYYYE just really love that this thread answers the thread title perfectly.

This.

[Bolsters]

It's simply not music.  You can't judge it based on anything else, because it claims to be a genre of music, which is incorrect.  A computer is not an instrument.  Music has harmonies and actual notes.  So I guess it's bad by default.  Like I said, I like it, but I don't pretend it's music for a second.

[Implode]

Someone is either troll or they have their head so far up their own ass, they can't see straight.

[orcus116]

Like all genres, a lot of dubstep is shit but I've heard some great tracks. And like a lot of genres there is a LOT of variations and artists of the genre that you don't hear about a lot that come out with fantastic music. One example that comes to mind is Burial's Untrue which is dubstep but sounds nothing like what a causal listener would think of dubstep.

[Fluffy Lothario]

I tend to lump prog fans into three groups.

When most if not all people get into prog, they're going through a phase where technicality and talent and complex, lengthy composition are huge factors in their taste, and it hits the right spot, and it's a glorious thing.

For Group 1ers, this phase never ends, and with relatively few exceptions in their listening, they just adore prog, and a few "neighbouring" genres, like classical or power metal or more technical metal, for life. Those characteristics of music I mentioned before continue to be extremely important to them.

For Group 2ers, this phase cools, and they will be able to continue to, or return to, or start appreciating music without quite so lofty ambitions as well as that with them. They stretch out, though mostly remaining in rock/metal territory, and while those prog qualities continue to play a big part in their taste, they don't dominate or define it. (I would say a fair majority of DTFers are Group 2ers).

And then there's Group 3ers, whose "affiliations" with prog eventually become very distant, a minute angle in their overall taste, or cease to exist at all (in which case they obviously become an ex-fan). They traverse a shit-ton of genres, and some will become (though most simply like to think they've become) ultra-enlightened consumers of any music regardless of genre.

In terms of personality, I see no reason to think there are more or less assholes or good sorts in any group over any other, or over people with no interest in prog. Not to the extent that I'd generalise about it, anyway. Obviously, when it comes to music, the groups become more and more open-minded, not that that makes any group better than the other. Music ain't a competition, it's something you put on to amuse yourself and pass time, and as long as you aren't an ass about it, I don't really care what you listen to.

TL;DR:

[erwinrafael]

I think people who appreciate prog are quite open-minded about hearing different styles, breaking musical conventions, and pushing the boundaries of music. At the same time, however, exposure to prog music makes one appreciate technique, so I would imagine that like my case, we are not quite open-minded about lousy musicianship.

[MoraWintersoul]

For Group 1ers, this phase never ends, and with relatively few exceptions in their listening, they just adore prog, and a few "neighbouring" genres, like classical or power metal or more technical metal, for life. Those characteristics of music I mentioned before continue to be extremely important to them.

For Group 2ers, this phase cools, and they will be able to continue to, or return to, or start appreciating music without quite so lofty ambitions as well as that with them. They stretch out, though mostly remaining in rock/metal territory, and while those prog qualities continue to play a big part in their taste, they don't dominate or define it. (I would say a fair majority of DTFers are Group 2ers).

And then there's Group 3ers, whose "affiliations" with prog eventually become very distant, a minute angle in their overall taste, or cease to exist at all (in which case they obviously become an ex-fan). They traverse a shit-ton of genres, and some will become (though most simply like to think they've become) ultra-enlightened consumers of any music regardless of genre.

In terms of personality, I see no reason to think there are more or less assholes or good sorts in any group over any other, or over people with no interest in prog. Not to the extent that I'd generalise about it, anyway. Obviously, when it comes to music, the groups become more and more open-minded, not that that makes any group better than the other. Music ain't a competition, it's something you put on to amuse yourself and pass time, and as long as you aren't an ass about it, I don't really care what you listen to.

I think this goes, more or less, for the musical trajectory of any people who start listening to one genre and get very attached to it, at least in rock/metal circles.

[hefdaddy42]

I am interested in discussing why you think Russell is one of the best.  He has zero social game.  I admit, his strategic game is fantastic, and him orchestrating Tyson voting himself out was GENIUS.  However, Russell himself has even said that he doesn't care about the jury.  The jury is the whole point of the game.  It doesn't matter how far you make it, whether it's 20th place or 2nd place.  A lot of people get brought to the end just because everyone knows they can beat them.  Phillip came in second, is he a good player?  Hell no, Boston Rob brought Phillip because he's terrible.  That's why Russell will never win.  He's a goat that everyone wants to bring to the end.  Survivor is a social experiment, the social aspect is more important that anything else.  If the whole point of the game is to vote everyone out, Russell will be the best.  But the point is to make it to the end, while being able to balance voting people out and having them vote for you in the end.  Russell doesn't focus on any of this and instead chooses to be a bulldozer and screw over everyone.  If you're playing chess and just try to eliminate every piece the opponent has without protecting your King, you will lose.  Russell COULD be a good player if he just chills out a bit and thinks more about what he's doing.  But he lost to Sandra, who didn't do anything the whole game, that's pretty bad.

Right, he has no social game.  That's how he was able to make it to the finals twice, because that can be done without a social game.

Dude, everyone is entitled to their opinion.  I guess.

[Sacul]

It's simply not music.  You can't judge it based on anything else, because it claims to be a genre of music, which is incorrect.  A computer is not an instrument.  Music has harmonies and actual notes.  So I guess it's bad by default.  Like I said, I like it, but I don't pretend it's music for a second.

[Fluffy Lothario]

I think this goes, more or less, for the musical trajectory of any people who start listening to one genre and get very attached to it, at least in rock/metal circles.

You're probably right, actually.

[Anguyen92]

Dubstep is bad purely based on the fact of what it is trying to achieve.  It's simply not music.  You can't judge it based on anything else, because it claims to be a genre of music, which is incorrect. A computer is not an instrument.  Music has harmonies and actual notes.  So I guess it's bad by default.  Like I said, I like it, but I don't pretend it's music for a second.

The funny thing about technology is that I'm sure there is some kind of program, out there, that let the keys of a computer keyboard sound a musical note, thus allowing a computer keyboard to turn into some kind of musical ...... keyboard.

As for the question in the OP, I think so.  One of the beautiful things about this forum is that we can talk about all kinds of different bands in all kinds of different genres (including non-rock genres) and those people discussing these different bands/genres would not feel out of place.  I do not know if other bands, that plays prog rock, forums does it, but for optimism, I like to think that they do.

[npiazza91]

I am interested in discussing why you think Russell is one of the best.  He has zero social game.  I admit, his strategic game is fantastic, and him orchestrating Tyson voting himself out was GENIUS.  However, Russell himself has even said that he doesn't care about the jury.  The jury is the whole point of the game.  It doesn't matter how far you make it, whether it's 20th place or 2nd place.  A lot of people get brought to the end just because everyone knows they can beat them.  Phillip came in second, is he a good player?  Hell no, Boston Rob brought Phillip because he's terrible.  That's why Russell will never win.  He's a goat that everyone wants to bring to the end.  Survivor is a social experiment, the social aspect is more important that anything else.  If the whole point of the game is to vote everyone out, Russell will be the best.  But the point is to make it to the end, while being able to balance voting people out and having them vote for you in the end.  Russell doesn't focus on any of this and instead chooses to be a bulldozer and screw over everyone.  If you're playing chess and just try to eliminate every piece the opponent has without protecting your King, you will lose.  Russell COULD be a good player if he just chills out a bit and thinks more about what he's doing.  But he lost to Sandra, who didn't do anything the whole game, that's pretty bad.

Right, he has no social game.  That's how he was able to make it to the finals twice, because that can be done without a social game.

Dude, everyone is entitled to their opinion.  I guess.

Social game=getting people to like you so that even after you vote them out they will still vote for you in the end.  The entire jury hated Russell both seasons.  The reason why he made it to the end is because he's a very good strategist.  Like I said, if Survivor was a strategy only game Russell would be the best player ever.  But he keeps threatening everyone's place in the game and voting them out.  He has not tried to make one friend.  If you keep screwing everyone over, they will not give you the million, no matter how good of a strategy you had.  A good player knows this and keeping people happy through you is a key element in winning the game.

[npiazza91]

I'm going to adjust the way I'm saying this so people don't feel like I'm attacking them personally.  Anybody can like any band, music group, whatever, that's their opinion.  It's all good, every genre needs its fans.  Take Nickelback for example.  They have many fans.  However, people often confuse "liking" a music group with thinking they are "the best".  Nickelback is not anywhere near the best bands of all time, not even close.  Here's the thing. Nobody likes to hear that their favorite band sucks.  Nobody does.  My favorite band, Megadeth, is pretty good.  I LOVE Megadeth, a LITTLE more than I like Dream Theater, but I would never tell anyone that Megadeth is better than Dream Theater.  DT is on a whole different level.  I can't stand Rush personally.  That's my opinion.  But Rush is WAY better than 99% of the bands I listen to, there's no denying that.  Saying "Rush sucks" is like saying The Flash is slow.  You can say "I don't like Rush", because you know, opinions.  But you'd be wrong in saying they sucked.

Anyone can "like" anything.  If you're the type of person that just don't care about musical talent, that's ok.  You don't have to like anything else.  Pretty much everyone started liking music with radio songs.  Some people just stick with that their whole lives and that's great.  I don't judge people who listen to any music and I hope nobody else here does.  However, if you're really into music, want to learn an instrument and are looking for the well written works or something that has a lot more complexity into it, you want to listen to a band that knows what they're doing.  That know how to play really well, so you can learn from "the best".

I would never tell anyone in person that they listen to a bad band.  People just don't like hearing that and, as evident in this thread, just don't understand where I'm getting at.  I'm not saying "I don't like them, they suck".  In fact, my personal opinion has nothing to do with whether they're good or not.  Some bands I don't even know if they're good or bad.  I'm sure there's some amazing undergrounds bands out there that I may or may not like...but I don't know which ones because I haven't found them.

Enjoyment, likability and emotion from music is completely and entirely opinionated.  What the person receives from the music itself is an opinion.  Like, I said, everyone has different tastes.   It's the people writing and playing the music that determines whether it's good or not.

I hope to God that someone understands where I'm coming from here.  It seems like everyone gets so offended when I say that something they like is bad, that they act like I committed a crime.  Like I said, nobody wants to hear their favorite group sucks.  But I even admitted that Linking Park is in my top 5 and I KNOW they suck.  I meant nothing personal, and if someone wants to discuss in a mature way what makes a band better than another, I'd be ok with that.  We're just having a discussion after all.

[ariich]

Saying "Rush sucks" is like saying The Flash is slow.

No it is not. Speed can be objectively measured and compared. Miles per hour. The two situations are in no way similar.

EDIT: As for the rest of your post, it has some top notch stuff about opinions and anyone being able to like anything, but I cannot disagree more strongly that art can be objectively good or bad. I'm not going to go into detail though, because we've had this discussion hundreds of times on this forum.

[Calvin6s]

It seems like everyone gets so offended when I say that something they like is bad, that they act like I committed a crime.

Didn't this thread start out about being open minded?  Seems we have approached a full 180.

[Zantera]

The thing is, measuring something like speed is possible. You can have a contest with all guitar players in the world and measure who plays the most notes in 5 minutes. In theory that is within the realms of possibility. Quality is not the same. You can't measure quality, because quality is defined by different things for all of us. If you honestly think that technical skill is the only factor that plays into overall quality, then you are very wrong. Music as an art form is very subjective thing in itself, it means different things to all of us, and we all look for different things in music. Technical skill is such a minor part of the whole thing, and other factors also play a big part, like songwriting. You can be as technical if you want, but if you can't write a good song, who cares?

I wouldn't have an issue if you said "Dream Theater is a more technically skilled band than The Beatles", but if you instead say "Dream Theater is objectively better than The Beatles", then I do have a problem. Again, Quality can't be measured because we all have different criteria for it. Just with the case of Dream Theater, I would say that they have the individual skill as musicians to blow most musicians out of the water on their instruments, but still they have failed to deliver a single good album in 12 years now. If you agree or disagree, that is beside the point. What I mean is, technical skill is far from everything. Some musicians have limited skill, but they play to their strengths perfectly and are able to craft perfect music despite these flaws. Other musicians can play pretty much everything possible, but they lack the imagination to craft something memorable.

If it can't be objectively measured, then it can't be considered as facts. And I think the argument falls flat, because within the world of music, different bands and musicians aspire to achieve different things.

[npiazza91]

Saying "Rush sucks" is like saying The Flash is slow.

No it is not. Speed can be objectively measured and compared. Miles per hour. The two situations are in no way similar.

EDIT: As for the rest of your post, it has some top notch stuff about opinions and anyone being able to like anything, but I cannot disagree more strongly that art can be objectively good or bad. I'm not going to go into detail though, because we've had this discussion hundreds of times on this forum.

You're completely right.  Art is interpreted differently from person to person.  You may find a picture I painted more captivating than Picasso's.  Or it may speak to you in a way that a better painting doesn't.  But my painting is not as good as one that Picasso would make.  I may write a song that grabs your heart and makes you cry.  But, in actuality, is it as good as a song written by Iron Maiden?  Hell no.  Because when it comes down to it, I suck at playing guitar and writing music.  I'm not even close to the level that they are.  Everyone has a different perception on something, that's life in a nutshell.  Everyone's different.  But if you take the piece of art by itself, with nobody listening to it/looking at it, there is a quality there that makes it better or worse than something else.  It's hard to understand because it's a different way of looking at things than what we're used to.  It's extremely difficult to not put your personal opinion on something when deciding whether it's good or bad.  I'm not going to lie, I read the first Twilight book (until the movie came and I hated it) and I loved it.  It was interesting, entertaining, etc...but it's terribly written.  She can't write.  I know a lot of people who hate Stephen King, and I understand that, he's not for everybody.  But he's a fantastic writer.  You may not AGREE with his style, but the man knows how to write.

[chaossystem]

You know, this is a REALLY tough question to answer, and I doubt if there will ever BE a definitive answer.

I think that there are a lot of people like me, who are very open-minded in some areas, but very close-minded in others.

I've known some people who don't like prog OR metal, and they've made up their minds. That's that. Period.

I have posted many times on this forum regarding my opinions about rap, and some people will certainly say that my view in that area is VERY close-minded. Which is fine. You can see it that way if you so choose.

But I don't think I HAVE been close-minded, because as I have already said many times: over the last 20-30 years, I have heard MORE than ENOUGH rap to know that I don't like it and make that decision for myself.

On the OTHER hand, I've known some people-and this is regardless of age, race, or any other demographic that you would care to name-who ONLY want to hear the latest "hip, hot" new thing that's coming out, weather it's rap, pop, punk,new wave, alternative, country, industrial, electronica, house music, or some weird underground rock band that makes sounds that most human beings would never recognize as music!
And I'm sure I left a lot of things OUT of that statement.
Anyway, the point is that a lot of THOSE people are very close-minded about the kind of music that I and a lot of the other people on this forum like.
To them most of the prog and/or metal bands that WE like are often considered "too old," "too melodic," "too heavy," or "not heavy enough" or "too repetitious," etc.

So I don't think you can say that prog fans are better or worse than anyone else when it comes to open-mindedness.

[npiazza91]

The thing is, measuring something like speed is possible. You can have a contest with all guitar players in the world and measure who plays the most notes in 5 minutes. In theory that is within the realms of possibility. Quality is not the same. You can't measure quality, because quality is defined by different things for all of us. If you honestly think that technical skill is the only factor that plays into overall quality, then you are very wrong. Music as an art form is very subjective thing in itself, it means different things to all of us, and we all look for different things in music. Technical skill is such a minor part of the whole thing, and other factors also play a big part, like songwriting. You can be as technical if you want, but if you can't write a good song, who cares?

I wouldn't have an issue if you said "Dream Theater is a more technically skilled band than The Beatles", but if you instead say "Dream Theater is objectively better than The Beatles", then I do have a problem. Again, Quality can't be measured because we all have different criteria for it. Just with the case of Dream Theater, I would say that they have the individual skill as musicians to blow most musicians out of the water on their instruments, but still they have failed to deliver a single good album in 12 years now. If you agree or disagree, that is beside the point. What I mean is, technical skill is far from everything. Some musicians have limited skill, but they play to their strengths perfectly and are able to craft perfect music despite these flaws. Other musicians can play pretty much everything possible, but they lack the imagination to craft something memorable.

If it can't be objectively measured, then it can't be considered as facts. And I think the argument falls flat, because within the world of music, different bands and musicians aspire to achieve different things.

Thank you for this response, very insightful.  I do agree with you...to an extent.  Yes, DT would be considered a more technically skilled band than The Beatles, but what else does "technically skilled" mean?  They are more skilled in that area of expertise.  More skilled=better, unless you have another definition for it.

Also, we keep coming back to"what we think", or "how people feel about it".  I already stated that yes, these are opinions.  How someone feels about something, or relates to something, or enjoys is opinionated.  But if you take it by itself no other factors added in, one is better than the other.  Song writing is a huge part of this, but it's equally difficult to say if a song is good or bad without throwing how you feel about it into the mix.  I have two different DT Top 50 lists saved on Microsoft Word.  One is my opinion, and the other is where I tried to narrow down the BEST DT songs, opinion not included.  It's extremely tough, because we're so used to using our perception, and I guarantee that list will still be off when I'm done and the honest answer is that it's probably just not possible since there's so many factors at play here and it's impossible to separate personal feelings towards every single aspect of every song.  Not to mention that you would need to be a master of music theory to objectively break it all down.

I get what you're saying and I think the truth underneath all of this is that the debate itself doesn't matter.  You like what you like, I like what I like, everyone likes what they like.  That's ok.  I think art, in general, CAN be measured objectively and by itself, but there is just way too many factors involved, plus the fact that it's too hard to separate personal feelings from it, that it's near impossible. 

[npiazza91]

You know, this is a REALLY tough question to answer, and I doubt if there will ever BE a definitive answer.

I think that there are a lot of people like me, who are very open-minded in some areas, but very close-minded in others.

I've known some people who don't like prog OR metal, and they've made up their minds. That's that. Period.

I have posted many times on this forum regarding my opinions about rap, and some people will certainly say that my view in that area is VERY close-minded. Which is fine. You can see it that way if you so choose.

But I don't think I HAVE been close-minded, because as I have already said many times: over the last 20-30 years, I have heard MORE than ENOUGH rap to know that I don't like it and make that decision for myself.

On the OTHER hand, I've known some people-and this is regardless of age, race, or any other demographic that you would care to name-who ONLY want to hear the latest "hip, hot" new thing that's coming out, weather it's rap, pop, punk,new wave, alternative, country, industrial, electronica, house music, or some weird underground rock band that makes sounds that most human beings would never recognize as music!
And I'm sure I left a lot of things OUT of that statement.
Anyway, the point is that a lot of THOSE people are very close-minded about the kind of music that I and a lot of the other people on this forum like.
To them most of the prog and/or metal bands that WE like are often considered "too old," "too melodic," "too heavy," or "not heavy enough" or "too repetitious," etc.

So I don't think you can say that prog fans are better or worse than anyone else when it comes to open-mindedness.

This is exactly why this debate is pretty much impossible to reasonably discuss.  Nobody wants to hear that what they like "could possibly be anything worse than good".  Tell anyone that their favorite group sucks and they'll be pissed off.  Nobody wants to even CONSIDER a world where what they like isn't good. It makes them feel like their judgement or opinion is wrong...which it's not.  Something being good or bad has nothing to do with how people perceive it or like it.  It's an entire planet of close mindedness.  This is why looking at something or listening to something without putting your personal feelings into it is impossible, and this is why we'll never get to the root of which group is better than another.

If we all just sat back and relaxed, no feelings involved and looked at everything, actually LOOKED at everything, I think we'll find that we're a lot closer to figuring this out than we think.

[Zantera]

I also think it's very unfair to generalize music like everything has the same purpose or goal. It's not like discussing Football statistics where you can analyze statistics and measure who is the best kicker in NFL history. Music is such a broad thing, and discussing quality in such broad terms is just very impossible. To me, your argument is like trying to measure who is the best athlete in the world. Not within one specific sport, but all sports. And you can't really measure that since all sports are different and there are different criteria to each of them. Music is similar with genres instead. Like, how do you even measure a 40 minute experimental Drone/Noise song VS a 3 minute pop ballad meant for radio play? They are two very different things, and so trying to measure bands and artists in overall quality, when they have so different backgrounds, and act in different genres, it just becomes impossible.

I could understand comparing a band like Dream Theater to other bands within their style. Bands like Symphony X or Circus Maximus who operate within the same sets of rules and craft music from the same "guidebook" so to speak. It just becomes very different when you throw all genres into the mix and try to generalize music as one thing, and trying to measure the quality, when the genres themselves are so different.

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

Saying "Rush sucks" is like saying The Flash is slow.

No it is not. Speed can be objectively measured and compared. Miles per hour. The two situations are in no way similar.

EDIT: As for the rest of your post, it has some top notch stuff about opinions and anyone being able to like anything, but I cannot disagree more strongly that art can be objectively good or bad. I'm not going to go into detail though, because we've had this discussion hundreds of times on this forum.

You're completely right.  Art is interpreted differently from person to person.  You may find a picture I painted more captivating than Picasso's.  Or it may speak to you in a way that a better painting doesn't.  But my painting is not as good as one that Picasso would make.  I may write a song that grabs your heart and makes you cry.  But, in actuality, is it as good as a song written by Iron Maiden?  Hell no.  Because when it comes down to it, I suck at playing guitar and writing music.  I'm not even close to the level that they are.  Everyone has a different perception on something, that's life in a nutshell.  Everyone's different.  But if you take the piece of art by itself, with nobody listening to it/looking at it, there is a quality there that makes it better or worse than something else.  It's hard to understand because it's a different way of looking at things than what we're used to.  It's extremely difficult to not put your personal opinion on something when deciding whether it's good or bad.  I'm not going to lie, I read the first Twilight book (until the movie came and I hated it) and I loved it.  It was interesting, entertaining, etc...but it's terribly written.  She can't write.  I know a lot of people who hate Stephen King, and I understand that, he's not for everybody.  But he's a fantastic writer.  You may not AGREE with his style, but the man knows how to write.

You have yet to explain this. How? What criteria is this? How does one determine objective quality of art?

[Lucien]

Saying "Rush sucks" is like saying The Flash is slow.

No it is not. Speed can be objectively measured and compared. Miles per hour. The two situations are in no way similar.

EDIT: As for the rest of your post, it has some top notch stuff about opinions and anyone being able to like anything, but I cannot disagree more strongly that art can be objectively good or bad. I'm not going to go into detail though, because we've had this discussion hundreds of times on this forum.

You're completely right.  Art is interpreted differently from person to person.  You may find a picture I painted more captivating than Picasso's.  Or it may speak to you in a way that a better painting doesn't.  But my painting is not as good as one that Picasso would make.  I may write a song that grabs your heart and makes you cry.  But, in actuality, is it as good as a song written by Iron Maiden?  Hell no.  Because when it comes down to it, I suck at playing guitar and writing music.  I'm not even close to the level that they are.  Everyone has a different perception on something, that's life in a nutshell.  Everyone's different.  But if you take the piece of art by itself, with nobody listening to it/looking at it, there is a quality there that makes it better or worse than something else.  It's hard to understand because it's a different way of looking at things than what we're used to.  It's extremely difficult to not put your personal opinion on something when deciding whether it's good or bad.  I'm not going to lie, I read the first Twilight book (until the movie came and I hated it) and I loved it.  It was interesting, entertaining, etc...but it's terribly written.  She can't write.  I know a lot of people who hate Stephen King, and I understand that, he's not for everybody.  But he's a fantastic writer.  You may not AGREE with his style, but the man knows how to write.

You have yet to explain this. How? What criteria is this? How does one determine objective quality of art?

There is no objective quality in art. If you write a song, and there is very little to it, like some ambient song, someone could consider it better than Beethoven's 9th Symphony. Would they be right? Yes, in their own opinion, which is all that matters. I wouldn't agree, but they are correct because they like it more. It is one's personal opinion what is better. Someone could say Nickelback is better than Dream Theater, and to himself or herself they would be correct. Perhaps not to us, because we have different opinions. The only thing you can measure objectively is the virtuosity of a player, which in the grand scheme things, means absolutely nothing. I don't think I'd be wrong if I said the only people that care Dream Theater plays faster are Dream Theater fans. Musically, as I have said before, virtuosity only adds embellishment, which is unimportant in emotional expression, which is what music is all about.

[npiazza91]

Saying "Rush sucks" is like saying The Flash is slow.

No it is not. Speed can be objectively measured and compared. Miles per hour. The two situations are in no way similar.

EDIT: As for the rest of your post, it has some top notch stuff about opinions and anyone being able to like anything, but I cannot disagree more strongly that art can be objectively good or bad. I'm not going to go into detail though, because we've had this discussion hundreds of times on this forum.

You're completely right.  Art is interpreted differently from person to person.  You may find a picture I painted more captivating than Picasso's.  Or it may speak to you in a way that a better painting doesn't.  But my painting is not as good as one that Picasso would make.  I may write a song that grabs your heart and makes you cry.  But, in actuality, is it as good as a song written by Iron Maiden?  Hell no.  Because when it comes down to it, I suck at playing guitar and writing music.  I'm not even close to the level that they are.  Everyone has a different perception on something, that's life in a nutshell.  Everyone's different.  But if you take the piece of art by itself, with nobody listening to it/looking at it, there is a quality there that makes it better or worse than something else.  It's hard to understand because it's a different way of looking at things than what we're used to.  It's extremely difficult to not put your personal opinion on something when deciding whether it's good or bad.  I'm not going to lie, I read the first Twilight book (until the movie came and I hated it) and I loved it.  It was interesting, entertaining, etc...but it's terribly written.  She can't write.  I know a lot of people who hate Stephen King, and I understand that, he's not for everybody.  But he's a fantastic writer.  You may not AGREE with his style, but the man knows how to write.

You have yet to explain this. How? What criteria is this? How does one determine objective quality of art?

It's extremely difficult to explain but I'll try my best.  Ok, imagine a world where all of humanity has died off.  The music still exists but there's nobody around to hear it.  One is better than another.  It comes down to music talent, skill, and how well he/she uses said talent and skill, but that's not the only thing.  If a song or passage is harder to accomplish, that means the amount of skill required  is higher, so people who aren't good at guitar, or even people that are good but not great, won't be able to do it.  It also has to be with the members involved and how talented they are in general. 

Take Rush again for example.  Tell me this: How can you have an amazing guitarist (fact), an amazing singer (fact), an amazing drummer (fact) and an amazing bassist (fact) and come to the conclusion that when you put these together, it all becomes ONLY an opinion?  It makes no sense.  Sure you can dislike the band, or you may even dislike the band members, but if each individual member is amazing, then why is the band as a whole regarded as just an opinion?  It seems to me like nobody wants to ruffle any feathers or get into a "which is better" debate, so the safer route is to be nice to everyone.  A type of "agree to disagree" easy solution.  There is an opinion side and a factual side, I'm not saying that there is no opinion here.  But you guys are saying that it ONLY comes down to an opinion.  I'm saying it's both, but you have to approach it from different angles.  Liking/disliking= opinion, good/bad=fact. You can have a band of amazing musicians or a band full of a bunch of clown who don't know C Major from D Major.  Sure, you may think the song that the clowns made sounds better to YOU, or resonates well with YOU, but, taken at face value, with nobody around to form an opinion, they are just not as good as the other band, plain and simple. 

I hope this makes sense, I explained it as best I could.

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

Again, it sounds like you're basing the entire thing around technicality, which as has been said (SO MANY TIMES) doesn't really mean anything. That would mean that the most insanely technical composition ever would be the "best" music ever made, even if literally nobody can stand listening to it. You seem to be saying that music is good if it's composed by technically skilled musicians, and bad if it's not, and frankly the entire premise seems fallacious to me.

[Lucien]

Again, it sounds like you're basing the entire thing around technicality, which as has been said (SO MANY TIMES) doesn't really mean anything. That would mean that the most insanely technical composition ever would be the "best" music ever made, even if literally nobody can stand listening to it. You seem to be saying that music is good if it's composed by technically skilled musicians, and bad if it's not, and frankly the entire premise seems fallacious to me.

[KevShmev]

This thread makes my head hurt. 

And no one is a bigger Rush fan than me , but saying that it's a fact that Geddy Lee is an amazing singer is just ridiculous.

[Zantera]

Just because you have amazing individual musicians, that doesn't necessarily mean they are able to write good music together. Think of it like mixing chocolate sauce, pizza, bacon, whipped cream and cookies, all great on their own, but that doesn't mean they would go well together.