DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Music Discussion => Topic started by: WildRanger on October 11, 2018, 11:24:22 AM
-
What do you think?
If some bands are influential, do they have to be good/great?
-
nope. there can be "influential" artists who are totally garbage
-
It all depends on the person's taste, which means it is subjective.
-
Well, I'm very much in the "taste is subjective, there is no good/bad in music" camp, except when it comes to the degree to which a work meets the artists expectations, but here I think there is an element of objectivity. I don't think "influence" makes a good band "great", but I do think that influence is one of those standards that we CAN measure, and it can't be ignored. I think there's something to be said for a band like Van Halen, or Sabbath, or Kiss, or the Velvet Underground that separates them from the Motley Crue's, the Soundgardens or the REMs that come after. Sure, the Velvets weren't that good of players, not even close, but they DID deliver something new, and they DID tap into a zeitgeist like few bands ever have, and that matters. I think if there's no Velvet Underground, there is no Sex Pistols, and if there is no Sex Pistols, there are no REM, U2 (at least as we know them), Seattle (at least Nirvana), Red Hot Chili Peppers, Jane's Addiction, Green Day, etc.
-
I think if there's no Velvet Underground, there is no Sex Pistols, and if there is no Sex Pistols, there are no REM, U2 (at least as we know them), Seattle (at least Nirvana), Red Hot Chili Peppers, Jane's Addiction, Green Day, etc.
..and the problem with that is?.. ;D
-
.....what?
-
.....what?
You talkin' bout...
-
Willis
-
Bravo.
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/eb026d47b573221a005a721a3d84865d/tumblr_mnzhhhEbBn1srw9e6o1_400.gif)
-
I'm not a fan of The Beatles at all. I don't think they're any good, yet they seemed to have influenced EVERYONE. So no, influential bands don't have to be good. It all comes down to personal taste anyway. I mean, Dream Theater is great, and they influenced a shit ton of garbage bands. It works both ways.
-
I'm not a fan of The Beatles at all. I don't think they're any good, yet they seemed to have influenced EVERYONE. So no, influential bands don't have to be good. It all comes down to personal taste anyway. I mean, Dream Theater is great, and they influenced a shit ton of garbage bands. It works both ways.
But not to pound on you, but under what standard are the Beatles "not good"? I get it if "you don't like them" - which you admit - but why go one step further and say "not good"? Are you really saying that Paul McCartney can't play bass very well? Or sing well? Or write catchy songs? I think there's a place for recognizing that just because one doesn't like them that they might offer something unique and special to the rest of the world (I'm thinking of Bob Dylan now, who is to me unlistenable, but I recognize that he is, in fact, the voice of a generation).
-
I think if there's no Velvet Underground, there is no Sex Pistols, and if there is no Sex Pistols, there are no REM, U2 (at least as we know them), Seattle (at least Nirvana), Red Hot Chili Peppers, Jane's Addiction, Green Day, etc.
I don't disagree with your chain, but I am of the opinion that if there were no Velvet Underground, there would have been another band similar enough to them that would initiate that chain.
I generally do not like when people tout a band's influence when establishing their bona fides but also recognize that if their influence is that significant, they much be doing something right. But let's not automatically equate it with greatness. Toxic Avenger spawned a whole subgenre of low-budget, shock/gory horror movies in the 80s. Does that make it Citizen Kane?
Was reading up on The Smiths recently and saw NME named the Smiths the "most influential artist ever" in a 2002 poll. I mean, holy crap. I get that it is one magazine's poll. But really, The Smiths?
-
Fine I'll play along.
Great to whom? The people influenced by them? Well yea, or else they wouldn't be influenced by them.
I'm influenced by Metallica, so I think they're pretty great.
I think Nirvana sucks. Surprisingly, they don't influence me at all.
But do I have to like every band who are influential IN GENERAL? Hell no. As I said, I think Nirvana sucks.
-
I'm not a fan of The Beatles at all. I don't think they're any good, yet they seemed to have influenced EVERYONE. So no, influential bands don't have to be good. It all comes down to personal taste anyway. I mean, Dream Theater is great, and they influenced a shit ton of garbage bands. It works both ways.
But not to pound on you, but under what standard are the Beatles "not good"? I get it if "you don't like them" - which you admit - but why go one step further and say "not good"? Are you really saying that Paul McCartney can't play bass very well? Or sing well? Or write catchy songs? I think there's a place for recognizing that just because one doesn't like them that they might offer something unique and special to the rest of the world (I'm thinking of Bob Dylan now, who is to me unlistenable, but I recognize that he is, in fact, the voice of a generation).
Wouldn't saying a band or singer is unlistenable be implying at least to you that they are not good? Plenty of people think Adele writes catchy tunes, but I think she's unlistenable, and therefore not good. If I don't like something, I can declare it as not good to me. Every member of The Beatles is more talented at music than I am, but the music they made does not appeal to me at all, and therefore I don't think the music they created was any good. Five Finger Death are more talented than me (I can't play any instruments) but they suck donkey dick. That sceamo band that just makes puke noises while the other guys strum the same cord repeatedly over blast beats (I'm sure they exist) technically is more talented than me, etc, etc.
-
Great to whom?
Yeah, I just want to underscore the importance of this question and add another worth considering: Great by what standard?
-
I'm not a fan of The Beatles at all. I don't think they're any good, yet they seemed to have influenced EVERYONE. So no, influential bands don't have to be good. It all comes down to personal taste anyway. I mean, Dream Theater is great, and they influenced a shit ton of garbage bands. It works both ways.
But not to pound on you, but under what standard are the Beatles "not good"? I get it if "you don't like them" - which you admit - but why go one step further and say "not good"? Are you really saying that Paul McCartney can't play bass very well? Or sing well? Or write catchy songs? I think there's a place for recognizing that just because one doesn't like them that they might offer something unique and special to the rest of the world (I'm thinking of Bob Dylan now, who is to me unlistenable, but I recognize that he is, in fact, the voice of a generation).
Wouldn't saying a band or singer is unlistenable be implying at least to you that they are not good? Plenty of people think Adele writes catchy tunes, but I think she's unlistenable, and therefore not good. If I don't like something, I can declare it as not good to me. Every member of The Beatles is more talented at music than I am, but the music they made does not appeal to me at all, and therefore I don't think the music they created was any good. Five Finger Death are more talented than me (I can't play any instruments) but they suck donkey dick. That sceamo band that just makes puke noises while the other guys strum the same cord repeatedly over blast beats (I'm sure they exist) technically is more talented than me, etc, etc.
No, because - and don't take offense at this, I'm literally just talking about myself, not implying anything about you - I don't think my opinion is so valuable that I can determine who's "good" or not. Bob Dylan has touched millions and millions of people with his music. Him not touching me isn't reflective of HIM, it's reflective of ME. To say he's not "good" is to put it on him.
Maybe we're just talking semantics; if by "good" or "they suck" just is your shorthand for "I like it" or "I don't like it", well, I guess you're right. But anything else is, I believe subjecting others to your standards, and I know for me I would hate that. Plus, part of it is respect; Bob Dylan and (for all I know) Five Finger Death Punch have dedicated their lives to their art, and they've connected to millions of people. It wouldn't kill me to acknowledge that without telling them "THEY SUCK!" because I'm not a 60's hippy or a 90's sk8R boi.
-
It is not my fault I don't like certain types of music. Sure, it's more respectful to simply say I don't like this or that, but saying something sucks is just an exaggeration of my personal opinion. But really, why should art be respected? I don't need to respect The Beatles because they influenced my favorite band. What if they were all misogynistic assholes, but they made some music that ended up influencing other bands I do like? I recognize the importance of bands like The Beatles, but I also am confused how they were so influential because I don't think they're any good. Bob Dylan sounds like a weed wacker, but he has a Nobel prize. Go figure. I get it's for his lyrics, but come on.
And I don't think my opinion is valuable, except to me, because it is my opinion and I have a right to it. When I say something sucks or isn't good, that is according to my own tastes and opinion, and isn't an objective factual statement, but that still doesn't make it my fault that I don't like a certain something.
And finally, no, I didn't have to be there. Pink Floyd sounded like a bad Beatles cover band (which for me is really bad) but they have a few really good albums later in their career. I wasn't alive for those, yet I like them.
-
No, because - and don't take offense at this, I'm literally just talking about myself, not implying anything about you - I don't think my opinion is so valuable that I can determine who's "good" or not. Bob Dylan has touched millions and millions of people with his music. Him not touching me isn't reflective of HIM, it's reflective of ME. To say he's not "good" is to put it on him.
Maybe we're just talking semantics; if by "good" or "they suck" just is your shorthand for "I like it" or "I don't like it", well, I guess you're right. But anything else is, I believe subjecting others to your standards, and I know for me I would hate that. Plus, part of it is respect; Bob Dylan and (for all I know) Five Finger Death Punch have dedicated their lives to their art, and they've connected to millions of people. It wouldn't kill me to acknowledge that without telling them "THEY SUCK!" because I'm not a 60's hippy or a 90's sk8R boi.
Whenever you say something is good or not you are making an evaluation based on YOUR opinion and YOUR taste. Things just are what they are. Bob Dylan is what he is. "Good" and "bad" can only come from you, your perception, your taste, your opinion, your evaluation. It doesn't mean the thing or person you are calling "good" or "bad" is objectively good or bad. There is no such thing.
Whenever you say something is bad or something sucks, you are basically saying you don't like it or that you hate it. Not that the thing is objectively, universally, essentially bad. Because... there is no such thing. If that was the case, then nobody would like the thing/person. And even if nobody liked it, it doesn't mean it is bad. It only means nobody likes it.
-
I can't help but wonder why the hell WildRanger has the constant urge to either rank music or to call certain music 'good' or 'bad'.
Yes, some bands influenced other bands. Are they good? I don't care - or better yet: that's not for me to decide. Does it matter? No. Obviously the artist influenced by anther artist must have thought it was good, else he wouldn't have drawn inspiration from it. Art influences art and it has happened throughout the centuries. Time will tell which music from the 20th century will become canonised. We're already seeing artists 'disappear' or become mentioned less frequently. In light of this thread: my bet is that the Beatles will be held in high regard for years, maybe centuries, to come.
-
To keep my answer simple I don't think influential doesn't have to mean good or great. I think in some cases some bands have taken elements of other bands they like and created something new out of it.
A recent example that just pops in my head is Ghost - a band that's doing nothing new really, but they've taken some elements from different bands (both musically and visually with their costumes) and gotten a pretty good result.
-
Ghost is another one I don't understand. Nothing I've heard sounds good. Very boring music.
I'd just like to clarify that I'm not just using this thread as an excuse to shit post, and trash bands I don't like. I'm trying to be constructive.
Ayreon has some very Beatles sounding songs and I like those. I also haven't heard everything by The Beatles, but I've heard enough, and nothing has ever interested me, ever.
-
why should art be respected? I don't need to respect The Beatles because they influenced my favorite band.
Okay, whatever. I can't and won't compete with that. If you can't look at another human being, acknowledge their emotions and hard work and respect that, well, this isn't about music anymore then. It's just human decency. It's like seeing a kid on a beach and kicking over his sandcastle.
-
why should art be respected? I don't need to respect The Beatles because they influenced my favorite band.
Okay, whatever. I can't and won't compete with that. If you can't look at another human being, acknowledge their emotions and hard work and respect that, well, this isn't about music anymore then. It's just human decency. It's like seeing a kid on a beach and kicking over his sandcastle.
I would never kick over a kid's sand castle, nor would I run up on a street musician and take their guitar and smash it because I didn't like what they were playing. I still don't have to respect them though. That's not a good analogy.
-
No, because - and don't take offense at this, I'm literally just talking about myself, not implying anything about you - I don't think my opinion is so valuable that I can determine who's "good" or not. Bob Dylan has touched millions and millions of people with his music. Him not touching me isn't reflective of HIM, it's reflective of ME. To say he's not "good" is to put it on him.
Maybe we're just talking semantics; if by "good" or "they suck" just is your shorthand for "I like it" or "I don't like it", well, I guess you're right. But anything else is, I believe subjecting others to your standards, and I know for me I would hate that. Plus, part of it is respect; Bob Dylan and (for all I know) Five Finger Death Punch have dedicated their lives to their art, and they've connected to millions of people. It wouldn't kill me to acknowledge that without telling them "THEY SUCK!" because I'm not a 60's hippy or a 90's sk8R boi.
Whenever you say something is good or not you are making an evaluation based on YOUR opinion and YOUR taste. Things just are what they are. Bob Dylan is what he is. "Good" and "bad" can only come from you, your perception, your taste, your opinion, your evaluation. It doesn't mean the thing or person you are calling "good" or "bad" is objectively good or bad. There is no such thing.
Whenever you say something is bad or something sucks, you are basically saying you don't like it or that you hate it. Not that the thing is objectively, universally, essentially bad. Because... there is no such thing. If that was the case, then nobody would like the thing/person. And even if nobody liked it, it doesn't mean it is bad. It only means nobody likes it.
So why not take about two nano-seconds of effort and use different words? Why not say what you mean instead of taking the easy way out and hoping everyone else in the world understands you?
I think this is going beyond music now and into personal philosophy. I don't at all expect the entire world to bow to my way of seeing things. If Bob Dylan's song doesn't connect with me, it's on ME not Bob Dylan; he has no obligation to target Stadler with his work; his obligation is to follow his muse and make his statement. I think there's a courage in that, and something to be admired. For me to turn around and not have the common human decency to take a second and acknowledge that, and just say "Nope, sucks. And you know what I mean." is, well, counterproductive and - yeah, I'll say it - selfish.
I suppose that fat girl ought to just suck it up and take it, because it's your perspective, and your worldview?
-
why should art be respected? I don't need to respect The Beatles because they influenced my favorite band.
Okay, whatever. I can't and won't compete with that. If you can't look at another human being, acknowledge their emotions and hard work and respect that, well, this isn't about music anymore then. It's just human decency. It's like seeing a kid on a beach and kicking over his sandcastle.
I would never kick over a kid's sand castle, nor would I run up on a street musician and take their guitar and smash it because I didn't like what they were playing. I still don't have to respect them though. That's not a good analogy.
It's a perfect analogy, because it highlights the difference in point of view here. YOU'RE determining what that other person should or should not accept and deal with. And I'm saying in a better world, "it's not your call". As I've noted above, I'm starting to think this is about a world view, not music. I don't believe the world should bend to me. My opinion means nothing except to me and to those that ask me for that opinion.
If you don't mind my asking, do you have kids?
-
No, because - and don't take offense at this, I'm literally just talking about myself, not implying anything about you - I don't think my opinion is so valuable that I can determine who's "good" or not. Bob Dylan has touched millions and millions of people with his music. Him not touching me isn't reflective of HIM, it's reflective of ME. To say he's not "good" is to put it on him.
Maybe we're just talking semantics; if by "good" or "they suck" just is your shorthand for "I like it" or "I don't like it", well, I guess you're right. But anything else is, I believe subjecting others to your standards, and I know for me I would hate that. Plus, part of it is respect; Bob Dylan and (for all I know) Five Finger Death Punch have dedicated their lives to their art, and they've connected to millions of people. It wouldn't kill me to acknowledge that without telling them "THEY SUCK!" because I'm not a 60's hippy or a 90's sk8R boi.
Whenever you say something is good or not you are making an evaluation based on YOUR opinion and YOUR taste. Things just are what they are. Bob Dylan is what he is. "Good" and "bad" can only come from you, your perception, your taste, your opinion, your evaluation. It doesn't mean the thing or person you are calling "good" or "bad" is objectively good or bad. There is no such thing.
Whenever you say something is bad or something sucks, you are basically saying you don't like it or that you hate it. Not that the thing is objectively, universally, essentially bad. Because... there is no such thing. If that was the case, then nobody would like the thing/person. And even if nobody liked it, it doesn't mean it is bad. It only means nobody likes it.
So why not take about two nano-seconds of effort and use different words? Why not say what you mean instead of taking the easy way out and hoping everyone else in the world understands you?
I think this is going beyond music now and into personal philosophy. I don't at all expect the entire world to bow to my way of seeing things. If Bob Dylan's song doesn't connect with me, it's on ME not Bob Dylan; he has no obligation to target Stadler with his work; his obligation is to follow his muse and make his statement. I think there's a courage in that, and something to be admired. For me to turn around and not have the common human decency to take a second and acknowledge that, and just say "Nope, sucks. And you know what I mean." is, well, counterproductive and - yeah, I'll say it - selfish.
I suppose that fat girl ought to just suck it up and take it, because it's your perspective, and your worldview?
I don't think respect is the right word to use here. If Dream Theater wouldn't exist without The Beatles, fine. Cool, thanks Paul and crew for making music that inspired a future band that would end up being my favorite. Oh, you know which band inspired Jon Schaffer of Iced Earth to play guitar for a living? KISS. Do I like them? NOPE. Not even a little bit. Well, that's not true. Iced Earth has a good cover of Creatures of the Night. I'm not going to fault myself or place the blame on myself for not liking something. Again, I don't think respect is the right word to use. I don't ever say I respect DT or Iced Earth even though I love their music and think the musicians are pretty cool and don't afraid of anything.
-
why should art be respected? I don't need to respect The Beatles because they influenced my favorite band.
Okay, whatever. I can't and won't compete with that. If you can't look at another human being, acknowledge their emotions and hard work and respect that, well, this isn't about music anymore then. It's just human decency. It's like seeing a kid on a beach and kicking over his sandcastle.
I would never kick over a kid's sand castle, nor would I run up on a street musician and take their guitar and smash it because I didn't like what they were playing. I still don't have to respect them though. That's not a good analogy.
It's a perfect analogy, because it highlights the difference in point of view here. YOU'RE determining what that other person should or should not accept and deal with. And I'm saying in a better world, "it's not your call". As I've noted above, I'm starting to think this is about a world view, not music. I don't believe the world should bend to me. My opinion means nothing except to me and to those that ask me for that opinion.
If you don't mind my asking, do you have kids?
I have a step daughter I've been helping raise as my own for 8 years, just to be perfectly clear. Once again, I am not stating my opinion as universal fact. The other guy above said the same thing.
-
Words like "good" and "great" are just vague enough to make topics like this a problem. If "great" just means a general excellence in one area or more, sure, the Beatles were "great" in many ways. Their albums were sonic marvels at the time. Their popularity was unprecedented. The legacy has endured. All these things make the Beatles, by definition, "great", if "great" just means something like "surpassing the norms in one area or another". In some areas, I think they fell fall short of great: they were never a good live band, they didn't release very many albums, and even on the albums that I would consider "great", there are plenty of duds. I don't like the Beatles nearly as much as some, and think The Rolling Stones, Dylan, and other of their contemporaries had far better albums and left more impressive legacies. But to say flat out that they weren't great in any way just strikes me as a needless stake in the ground.
I don't think respect is the right word to use here. If Dream Theater wouldn't exist without The Beatles, fine. Cool, thanks Paul and crew for making music that inspired a future band that would end up being my favorite. Oh, you know which band inspired Jon Schaffer of Iced Earth to play guitar for a living? KISS. Do I like them? NOPE. Not even a little bit. Well, that's not true. Iced Earth has a good cover of Creatures of the Night. I'm not going to fault myself or place the blame on myself for not liking something. Again, I don't think respect is the right word to use. I don't ever say I respect DT or Iced Earth even though I love their music and think the musicians are pretty cool and don't afraid of anything.
To me Iced Earth are a good example of a band who have been very influential in their scene despite being total schlock. I suppose they too were great in the sense that they inspired so many bands who then carried the torch for heavy metal for several years, though. Kiss were schlock too, but at least in a fun way that connects with me more, and their legacy still dwarfs those of many others.
-
Was reading up on The Smiths recently and saw NME named the Smiths the "most influential artist ever" in a 2002 poll. I mean, holy crap. I get that it is one magazine's poll. But really, The Smiths?
What else did you expect from NME readers? They swoon over them like nobody's business.
-
Words like "good" and "great" are just vague enough to make topics like this a problem. If "great" just means a general excellence in one area or more, sure, the Beatles were "great" in many ways. Their albums were sonic marvels at the time. Their popularity was unprecedented. The legacy has endured. All these things make the Beatles, by definition, "great", if "great" just means something like "surpassing the norms in one area or another". In some areas, I think they fell fall short of great: they were never a good live band, they didn't release very many albums, and even on the albums that I would consider "great", there are plenty of duds. I don't like the Beatles nearly as much as some, and think The Rolling Stones, Dylan, and other of their contemporaries had far better albums and left more impressive legacies. But to say flat out that they weren't great in any way just strikes me as a needless stake in the ground.
I don't think respect is the right word to use here. If Dream Theater wouldn't exist without The Beatles, fine. Cool, thanks Paul and crew for making music that inspired a future band that would end up being my favorite. Oh, you know which band inspired Jon Schaffer of Iced Earth to play guitar for a living? KISS. Do I like them? NOPE. Not even a little bit. Well, that's not true. Iced Earth has a good cover of Creatures of the Night. I'm not going to fault myself or place the blame on myself for not liking something. Again, I don't think respect is the right word to use. I don't ever say I respect DT or Iced Earth even though I love their music and think the musicians are pretty cool and don't afraid of anything.
To me Iced Earth are a good example of a band who have been very influential in their scene despite being total schlock. I suppose they too were great in the sense that they inspired so many bands who then carried the torch for heavy metal for several years, though. Kiss were schlock too, but at least in a fun way that connects with me more, and their legacy still dwarfs those of many others.
See? If anything can be respected, it's an opinion, even when it's wrong. :biggrin:
-
I think if there's no Velvet Underground, there is no Sex Pistols, and if there is no Sex Pistols, there are no REM, U2 (at least as we know them), Seattle (at least Nirvana), Red Hot Chili Peppers, Jane's Addiction, Green Day, etc.
..and the problem with that is?.. ;D
:lol
-
Well, I'm very much in the "taste is subjective, there is no good/bad in music" camp, except when it comes to the degree to which a work meets the artists expectations, but here I think there is an element of objectivity. I don't think "influence" makes a good band "great", but I do think that influence is one of those standards that we CAN measure, and it can't be ignored. I think there's something to be said for a band like Van Halen, or Sabbath, or Kiss, or the Velvet Underground that separates them from the Motley Crue's, the Soundgardens or the REMs that come after. Sure, the Velvets weren't that good of players, not even close, but they DID deliver something new, and they DID tap into a zeitgeist like few bands ever have, and that matters. I think if there's no Velvet Underground, there is no Sex Pistols, and if there is no Sex Pistols, there are no REM, U2 (at least as we know them), Seattle (at least Nirvana), Red Hot Chili Peppers, Jane's Addiction, Green Day, etc.
You've replaced subjectivity with speculation.
I think if there's no Velvet Underground, there is no Sex Pistols, and if there is no Sex Pistols, there are no REM, U2 (at least as we know them), Seattle (at least Nirvana), Red Hot Chili Peppers, Jane's Addiction, Green Day, etc.
..and the problem with that is?.. ;D
Exactly.
As for the original question, since "good," as it relates to music, is entirely subjective, and since every band/artist has folks who like the band/artist and folks who don't like the band/artist, the answer is necessarily both yes and no.
In other words, this is Schroedinger's Thread. All influential bands are both good and not good.
-
Ghost is another one I don't understand. Nothing I've heard sounds good. Very boring music.
I'm trying to be constructive.
I don't think you're trying very hard :lol
-
Ghost is another one I don't understand. Nothing I've heard sounds good. Very boring music.
I'm trying to be constructive.
I don't think you're trying very hard :lol
Describing something as boring isn't constructive criticism anymore? OK then.
In my own personal individual opinion, Ghost lacks the proper musical endorphins to energize and stimulate my brain palate.
-
Whenever you say something is bad or something sucks, you are basically saying you don't like it or that you hate it. Not that the thing is objectively, universally, essentially bad. Because... there is no such thing. If that was the case, then nobody would like the thing/person. And even if nobody liked it, it doesn't mean it is bad. It only means nobody likes it.
For example, saying "Metallica's St. Anger sucks" is an extremely popular opinion and the big majority of big Metallica fans claim so. But that's a good enough reason that we can conclude that album is objectively BAD. In some cases extremely popular opinions about certain music could lead subjective views to become objective.
-
God dammit dude, do you just come here to open a can of worms and throw them all over Zook and Stad's faces? Their faces are weird enough as is!
I cannot conceive how your last comment is meant to do anything than make people disagree.
-
Whenever you say something is bad or something sucks, you are basically saying you don't like it or that you hate it. Not that the thing is objectively, universally, essentially bad. Because... there is no such thing. If that was the case, then nobody would like the thing/person. And even if nobody liked it, it doesn't mean it is bad. It only means nobody likes it.
For example, saying "Metallica's St. Anger sucks" is an extremely popular opinion and the big majority of big Metallica fans claim so. But that's a good enough reason that we can conclude that album is objectively BAD. In some cases extremely popular opinions about certain music could lead subjective views to become objective.
lol.
No.
-
That album still sucks though. :lol
-
Next WildRanger thread: "Is music good or bad?"
-
Next WildRanger thread: "Is music good or bad?"
More realistically? "Is popular music good because it's popular?"
-
For example, saying "Metallica's St. Anger sucks" is an extremely popular opinion and the big majority of big Metallica fans claim so. But that's a good enough reason that we can conclude that album is objectively BAD. In some cases extremely popular opinions about certain music could lead subjective views to become objective.
Huh???
There is no such thing as "objectively bad." If 99/100 people in a room hate St. Anger, does that mean the 1 person who likes it is objectively wrong? Come on....
"Is music good or bad?"
Yes.
-
I think it's important to study an artist who has been objectively influential on the entire music in order to better understand what it was about that artist who struck a chord with so many people.
For example. Bob Dylan is *truly* NOT MY THING.....AT ALL. And yet, I feel compelled from time to time to dig into his history, and his poetry, and what was going on at the time. Because at the end of the day, he is SO MUCH a product of his time. And he resonated with an entire generation. Whether I like him or not, Bob Dylan's stamp on music is extremely important. And I don't feel that my modern day understanding of the musical landscape would be complete without at least objectively studying Dylan, even if I don't particularly care for anything beyond a small handful of songs.
-
TLDR version - I think Dylan is a perfect example of someone "I don't like" that I still consider to be "among the GREATS" in the history of music.
So *in that sense and context*, I do think "great" can be an objective term.
-
Next WildRanger thread: "Is music good or bad?"
More realistically? "Is popular music good because it's popular?"
Is music real?
Is all "music" actually music?
-
Next WildRanger thread: "Is music good or bad?"
More realistically? "Is popular music good because it's popular?"
Is music real?
Is all "music" actually music?
Did you know that reality is immaterial?
-
Are we all living in a simulation?
-
Next WildRanger thread: "Is music good or bad?"
More realistically? "Is popular music good because it's popular?"
Is music real?
Is all "music" actually music?
Did you know that reality is immaterial?
This is not reality....
-
God dammit dude, do you just come here to open a can of worms and throw them all over Zook and Stad's faces? Their faces are weird enough as is!
I cannot conceive how your last comment is meant to do anything than make people disagree.
I love you too, buddy.
-
Is St. Anger obectively good or bad?
-
God dammit dude, do you just come here to open a can of worms and throw them all over Zook and Stad's faces? Their faces are weird enough as is!
I cannot conceive how your last comment is meant to do anything than make people disagree.
I love you too, buddy.
Love you too, and your weird face.
-
God dammit dude, do you just come here to open a can of worms and throw them all over Zook and Stad's faces? Their faces are weird enough as is!
I cannot conceive how your last comment is meant to do anything than make people disagree.
I love you too, buddy.
Love you too, and your weird face.
:zook3:
-
Whoa....I wrote my Dylan rant before I even bothered to go back and read Stadler's....
-
I don't think respect is the right word to use here. If Dream Theater wouldn't exist without The Beatles, fine. Cool, thanks Paul and crew for making music that inspired a future band that would end up being my favorite. Oh, you know which band inspired Jon Schaffer of Iced Earth to play guitar for a living? KISS. Do I like them? NOPE. Not even a little bit. Well, that's not true. Iced Earth has a good cover of Creatures of the Night. I'm not going to fault myself or place the blame on myself for not liking something. Again, I don't think respect is the right word to use. I don't ever say I respect DT or Iced Earth even though I love their music and think the musicians are pretty cool and don't afraid of anything.
But no one said anything about LIKING. I could care less about LIKING something, it's just acknowledging it. I happen to love Kiss, but there are plenty of bands that I really like that are influenced by bands I do not listen to and don't care for (I'm not a huge thrash fan, for example, so while DT is one of my favorite bands as well, as they progressed and incorporated more of the thrash metal influences.
I have a step daughter I've been helping raise as my own for 8 years, just to be perfectly clear. Once again, I am not stating my opinion as universal fact. The other guy above said the same thing.
I wasn't trying to dig or make it personal, but to explain myself better. I'm a massive music fan. I have a wall of CDs, I play, etc. So when my daughter started to get involved in music, I was as thrilled as anyone could be. She liked (and likes) to sing and wants to play an instrument (she's playing ukulele at school). But imagine my chagrin when she gravitated to Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift, and One Direction. And at first I tried to make sure she understood where that was coming from; when Swift played a Train song in concert then a Fleetwood Mac song, I made sure she heard the originals. Same with One D. When they did that song that sounds exactly like David Bowie's Changes, I made sure she heard that. too. But she would come home from a hard day or done with her studying, she gets the same relief and emotional lift from that music that I do from DT or Genesis or whoever. And it dawned on me, who am I to say that "sucks"? I can - and do - tell her which songs don't work for me, and why, and there are some that DO work ("Once In A Lifetime" by One D and "Wildest Dreams" are two of my favorite songs ever).
All I know, is when I hear the "In The Cage Medley" from 3SL, the hairs on my arms stand up; if that Swift song does the same thing to her, how can that "suck"? It's music, it causes the same reaction over time and space, so how does "Genesis" rule and Swift drool? It makes no logical sense. So I look at the one variable that is different, and it's ME.
This is very different than "like". I don't like those bands per se. I love the Dead (well, parts of it; the Godcheaux years, basically) and their biggest influence is probably Dylan. I still don't like Dylan, but I love how the Dead took his whatever and filtered it through their whatever and came up with something new.
Again, it's not personal, I'm not telling you you're wrong, I'm just saying I disagree strongly and giving tangible reasons why.
-
Genesis blows.
And to quote a friend:
Again, it's not personal, I'm not telling you you're wrong, I'm just saying I disagree strongly and giving tangible reasons why.
-
For example, saying "Metallica's St. Anger sucks" is an extremely popular opinion and the big majority of big Metallica fans claim so. But that's a good enough reason that we can conclude that album is objectively BAD. In some cases extremely popular opinions about certain music could lead subjective views to become objective.
Huh???
There is no such thing as "objectively bad." If 99/100 people in a room hate St. Anger, does that mean the 1 person who likes it is objectively wrong? Come on....
Even if 100 say it, doesn't make it so, UNLESS all 100 agree on a standard by which it can be measured. This is why the "I think it sucks" is a bad standard, because no one else CAN agree on what that standard is, because it's unique to you.
There is a whole field of literature called "Criticism". And those critics don't just say "Oh, it sucks!" or "Oh, it rocks my balls!". They carefully (to one degree or another) lay out the standards on which the work will be compared, and they do so. it IS objective, in the sense that it is clear what the rating is and what it is based on. You STILL don't have to agree with it, but at least there's a common ground to be compared and debated. And in some cases, those objectives are purely factual (number of records sold, number of gold records, number of #1 singles, etc.)
-
I think it's important to study an artist who has been objectively influential on the entire music in order to better understand what it was about that artist who struck a chord with so many people.
For example. Bob Dylan is *truly* NOT MY THING.....AT ALL. And yet, I feel compelled from time to time to dig into his history, and his poetry, and what was going on at the time. Because at the end of the day, he is SO MUCH a product of his time. And he resonated with an entire generation. Whether I like him or not, Bob Dylan's stamp on music is extremely important. And I don't feel that my modern day understanding of the musical landscape would be complete without at least objectively studying Dylan, even if I don't particularly care for anything beyond a small handful of songs.
It should surprise no one that I love this post.
I was even driving from my house in CT to my work in Rochester, NY, and I had to get gas, so I diverted through Woodstock. I saw where he lived. Where The Band (another band I really cannot listen to; I find no entertainment in that home-y Levon Helm singing style) lived. The Bearsville Studio that so many bands went to to recreate that vibe. And you see what those guys did in the mid-to-late 60's, and how Jimi Hendrix was moved by it, how the Beatles were moved by it, and why it came about the way it did, it's an unbelievable dose of perspective.
I have a 28,000 songs on my iPod more or less, and I have three Dylan songs: Knocking' On Heaven's Door (because I wanted to learn it), a Beatles cover (I think it's "Things We Said Today") and a Woody Guthrie cover that I couldn't name if my life depended on it. in that context I think it makes me ignorant to say "I think Bob Dylan sucks."
-
The thing about Dylan is that it's not about the music, it's about the lyrics. The man could (and still can) turn a phrase and paint landscapes with words. I still remember my first exposure, just waking up in the sleeper cab of my Dad's big rig while he was driving, and listening to a Dylan cassette. "Ballad of a Thin Man" was playing and I had no idea what I was listening to. It was deeply disturbing and evocative in a way music had never been for me prior. The he put on the Bringin It All Back Home cassette and every single song was a new lyrical world to explore and ponder. It's no surprise to me that Dylan's Nobel Peace prize was for literature, not music.
-
Is St. Anger obectively good or bad?
Correct answer is bad.
-
Whenever you say something is bad or something sucks, you are basically saying you don't like it or that you hate it. Not that the thing is objectively, universally, essentially bad. Because... there is no such thing. If that was the case, then nobody would like the thing/person. And even if nobody liked it, it doesn't mean it is bad. It only means nobody likes it.
For example, saying "Metallica's St. Anger sucks" is an extremely popular opinion and the big majority of big Metallica fans claim so. But that's a good enough reason that we can conclude that album is objectively BAD. In some cases extremely popular opinions about certain music could lead subjective views to become objective.
So you are basically saying that because the majority agrees on something then it is automatically right and objective? God, Hitler and dictators would have liked you.
In your head you can think your opinion is objective. You can tell yourself all you want. All your friends can agree with you. It doesn't matter. It is still subjective. Even though most people hate St. Anger, there are still people who like it. And to repeat myself:
And even if nobody liked it, it doesn't mean it is bad. It only means nobody likes it.
-
Next WildRanger thread: "Is music good or bad?"
More realistically? "Is popular music good because it's popular?"
Is music real?
Is all "music" actually music?
Did you know that reality is immaterial?
This is not reality....
:rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin
-
You know, with each new thread this guy creates, I get the feeling he's only out to troll the shit out of these forums by spewing his disinformation. He doesn't actively engage in this discussion his non-issue topics somehow manage to generate and the only reply that gets out of him is 'St. Anger is objectively bad'.
Come on.
-
I don't think respect is the right word to use here. If Dream Theater wouldn't exist without The Beatles, fine. Cool, thanks Paul and crew for making music that inspired a future band that would end up being my favorite. Oh, you know which band inspired Jon Schaffer of Iced Earth to play guitar for a living? KISS. Do I like them? NOPE. Not even a little bit. Well, that's not true. Iced Earth has a good cover of Creatures of the Night. I'm not going to fault myself or place the blame on myself for not liking something. Again, I don't think respect is the right word to use. I don't ever say I respect DT or Iced Earth even though I love their music and think the musicians are pretty cool and don't afraid of anything.
But no one said anything about LIKING. I could care less about LIKING something, it's just acknowledging it. I happen to love Kiss, but there are plenty of bands that I really like that are influenced by bands I do not listen to and don't care for (I'm not a huge thrash fan, for example, so while DT is one of my favorite bands as well, as they progressed and incorporated more of the thrash metal influences.
I have a step daughter I've been helping raise as my own for 8 years, just to be perfectly clear. Once again, I am not stating my opinion as universal fact. The other guy above said the same thing.
I wasn't trying to dig or make it personal, but to explain myself better. I'm a massive music fan. I have a wall of CDs, I play, etc. So when my daughter started to get involved in music, I was as thrilled as anyone could be. She liked (and likes) to sing and wants to play an instrument (she's playing ukulele at school). But imagine my chagrin when she gravitated to Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift, and One Direction. And at first I tried to make sure she understood where that was coming from; when Swift played a Train song in concert then a Fleetwood Mac song, I made sure she heard the originals. Same with One D. When they did that song that sounds exactly like David Bowie's Changes, I made sure she heard that. too. But she would come home from a hard day or done with her studying, she gets the same relief and emotional lift from that music that I do from DT or Genesis or whoever. And it dawned on me, who am I to say that "sucks"? I can - and do - tell her which songs don't work for me, and why, and there are some that DO work ("Once In A Lifetime" by One D and "Wildest Dreams" are two of my favorite songs ever).
All I know, is when I hear the "In The Cage Medley" from 3SL, the hairs on my arms stand up; if that Swift song does the same thing to her, how can that "suck"? It's music, it causes the same reaction over time and space, so how does "Genesis" rule and Swift drool? It makes no logical sense. So I look at the one variable that is different, and it's ME.
This is very different than "like". I don't like those bands per se. I love the Dead (well, parts of it; the Godcheaux years, basically) and their biggest influence is probably Dylan. I still don't like Dylan, but I love how the Dead took his whatever and filtered it through their whatever and came up with something new.
Again, it's not personal, I'm not telling you you're wrong, I'm just saying I disagree strongly and giving tangible reasons why.
My daughter loves Taylor Swift and every other female pop singer ever, and anything her mom listens to. I make it perfectly clear what I like and don't like. Yes, I need to work on that, but they listen to the same shit OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. It drives me mad. I am surprised when something enjoyable comes on, but more often than not, it's "change this shit. I'm fucking sick of this song." Certain songs are banned from my car. Lately my daughter has been describing what I listen to as just screaming into a microphone, and she's referring to any singing with a harsher tone, not ever Death Metal which I don't actively listen to anyway. She has requested Dream Theater, but it seems to be always when I want to listen to something else. Both my daughter and my fiancée like Dream Theater, which is cool. But yeah, I'm very vocal when it comes to stuff I don't like.
As I said before, saying something sucks is an exaggeration of an opinion. It's basically slang for "I don't like this." Can it be mean? Yes. I don't like it when someone says something sucks or is boring that I like, so I'm a bit of a hypocrite in that regard, but such is life. When my fiancée and daughter are listening to shit I really don't like, I just leave the room now. I can't take it. I'd like to be more of an influence on my daughter when it comes to music, and I think by just showing her how much I love the music I listen to would help, I'm not one to sing in front of people. They love to sing, but I know my limitations, and I know I can't. I drown myself out in the car when I'm by myself. Maybe one day I'll build up the courage.
Music can "suck" because it's all personal opinion. One person's trash is another's treasure. Once again, saying something sucks is not a truth claim, or stating an objective fact. It's all opinion. Genesis can both rule and drool as well as Taylor Swift. Example: Swift's new album is a dumpster fire, but 1989 is a 9 out of 10. Reputation fucking blows... But my fiancée and daughter love it. Your point of view is seeing it as objective. Objectively it wouldn't make logical sense, but there's nothing objective about an opinion. We all like 1989. The only song which is complete trash is Bad Blood, but they like it. What if my daughter and I liked it, but my fiancée didn't. Or only my daughter hated it? Or they both hated it, but I liked it. Maybe in another universe because I fucking hate that song. Sorry if this was a mess or if I missed something. Basically, you know, it's all like, our opinions, man. People can be mean, I can be mean or blunt. It's something to work on, but god damn, some of the shit they listen to is so bad...
-
I'm really surprised that the most people on this board are into Rush very much and I wonder whether it has something to do with their huge influence on Dream Theater.
-
I'm really surprised that the most people on this board are into Rush very much and I wonder whether it has something to do with their huge influence on Dream Theater.
DT is a huge influence on Haken and not everyone here likes them. ::)
-
You know, with each new thread this guy creates, I get the feeling he's only out to troll the shit out of these forums by spewing his disinformation. He doesn't actively engage in this discussion his non-issue topics somehow manage to generate and the only reply that gets out of him is 'St. Anger is objectively bad'.
Come on.
This..
-
I'm really surprised that the most people on this board are into Rush very much and I wonder whether it has something to do with their huge influence on Dream Theater.
:rollin :rollin :rollin
-
I'm really surprised that the most people on this board are into Rush very much and I wonder whether it has something to do with their huge influence on Dream Theater.
:rollin :rollin :rollin
Therefore we can all agree that Rush is objectively good. ;D
-
I'm really surprised that the most people on this board are into Rush very much and I wonder whether it has something to do with their huge influence on Dream Theater.
:rollin :rollin :rollin
Therefore we can all agree that Rush is objectively good. ;D
YES, BUT ARE THEY PROG???
WE HAVE TO KNOW!!!!!!!!
-
I'm really surprised that the most people on this board are into Rush very much and I wonder whether it has something to do with their huge influence on Dream Theater.
DT is a huge influence on Haken and not everyone here likes them. ::)
Yeah, but Haken are terrible
-
I'm really surprised that the most people on this board are into Rush very much and I wonder whether it has something to do with their huge influence on Dream Theater.
DT is a huge influence on Haken and not everyone here likes them. ::)
Yeah, but Haken are terrible
They have one good song, subjectively.
-
Don't mean to offend anyone but I don't get the mentality of having to justify something as "objectively good". It's all opinions, it's subjective. Just seems like a bit of a schoolyard mentality to me, "oh you say this band sucks but guess what, i got proof they are objectively good".
-
Yes and no.
There's a difference in definition with good and great when talking about art, which can get lost because "great" is often used to mean "good".
I think that influential is one of the defining characteristics for being "great", alongside timelessness. It's really hard to determine if a contemporary artist or album is great, because you can't see much of the impact they've had on other artists and the general public. Stuff like Adele, Dream Theater, Alice in Chains, Eminem, Meshuggah, Lorde, Skrillex, and Taylor Swift seem like the obvious greats to us now, but when they first came out it would've been hard to gauge their impact and lasting power.
Being influential has no impact on whether it's good or not. Whether something is good or not is totally subjective, and everyone's definition of what's good is different.
You can also acknowledge that something is great without necessarily thinking it's good. Take me for example, I absolutely hated having to sit through Slayer's Reign in Blood and Miles Davis's Bitches Brew, but I have no qualms with admitting that those two albums are great. A lot of critics thought that rock and jazz in general wouldn't last because they didn't like it, but boy were they wrong.
-
Yes and no.
There's a difference in definition with good and great when talking about art, which can get lost because "great" is often used to mean "good".
I think that influential is one of the defining characteristics for being "great", alongside timelessness. It's really hard to determine if a contemporary artist or album is great, because you can't see much of the impact they've had on other artists and the general public. Stuff like Adele, Dream Theater, Alice in Chains, Eminem, Meshuggah, Lorde, Skrillex, and Taylor Swift seem like the obvious greats to us now, but when they first came out it would've been hard to gauge their impact and lasting power.
Being influential has no impact on whether it's good or not. Whether something is good or not is totally subjective, and everyone's definition of what's good is different.
You can also acknowledge that something is great without necessarily thinking it's good. Take me for example, I absolutely hated having to sit through Slayer's Reign in Blood and Miles Davis's Bitches Brew, but I have no qualms with admitting that those two albums are great. A lot of critics thought that rock and jazz in general wouldn't last because they didn't like it, but boy were they wrong.
Love this post! Big +1!!
I like that idea. Something can be great without being good.
-
Is St. Anger obectively good or bad?
Correct answer is bad.
WOOSH
THERE IT GOES
THE POINT FLEW SO FAR ABOVE YOUR HEAD THEY NAMED IT A COMET
-
As silly and pointless and childish as these topics are... I think they are fun. ;D
-
I don't think respect is the right word to use here. If Dream Theater wouldn't exist without The Beatles, fine. Cool, thanks Paul and crew for making music that inspired a future band that would end up being my favorite. Oh, you know which band inspired Jon Schaffer of Iced Earth to play guitar for a living? KISS. Do I like them? NOPE. Not even a little bit. Well, that's not true. Iced Earth has a good cover of Creatures of the Night. I'm not going to fault myself or place the blame on myself for not liking something. Again, I don't think respect is the right word to use. I don't ever say I respect DT or Iced Earth even though I love their music and think the musicians are pretty cool and don't afraid of anything.
But no one said anything about LIKING. I could care less about LIKING something, it's just acknowledging it. I happen to love Kiss, but there are plenty of bands that I really like that are influenced by bands I do not listen to and don't care for (I'm not a huge thrash fan, for example, so while DT is one of my favorite bands as well, as they progressed and incorporated more of the thrash metal influences.
I have a step daughter I've been helping raise as my own for 8 years, just to be perfectly clear. Once again, I am not stating my opinion as universal fact. The other guy above said the same thing.
I wasn't trying to dig or make it personal, but to explain myself better. I'm a massive music fan. I have a wall of CDs, I play, etc. So when my daughter started to get involved in music, I was as thrilled as anyone could be. She liked (and likes) to sing and wants to play an instrument (she's playing ukulele at school). But imagine my chagrin when she gravitated to Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift, and One Direction. And at first I tried to make sure she understood where that was coming from; when Swift played a Train song in concert then a Fleetwood Mac song, I made sure she heard the originals. Same with One D. When they did that song that sounds exactly like David Bowie's Changes, I made sure she heard that. too. But she would come home from a hard day or done with her studying, she gets the same relief and emotional lift from that music that I do from DT or Genesis or whoever. And it dawned on me, who am I to say that "sucks"? I can - and do - tell her which songs don't work for me, and why, and there are some that DO work ("Once In A Lifetime" by One D and "Wildest Dreams" are two of my favorite songs ever).
All I know, is when I hear the "In The Cage Medley" from 3SL, the hairs on my arms stand up; if that Swift song does the same thing to her, how can that "suck"? It's music, it causes the same reaction over time and space, so how does "Genesis" rule and Swift drool? It makes no logical sense. So I look at the one variable that is different, and it's ME.
This is very different than "like". I don't like those bands per se. I love the Dead (well, parts of it; the Godcheaux years, basically) and their biggest influence is probably Dylan. I still don't like Dylan, but I love how the Dead took his whatever and filtered it through their whatever and came up with something new.
Again, it's not personal, I'm not telling you you're wrong, I'm just saying I disagree strongly and giving tangible reasons why.
My daughter loves Taylor Swift and every other female pop singer ever, and anything her mom listens to. I make it perfectly clear what I like and don't like. Yes, I need to work on that, but they listen to the same shit OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. It drives me mad. I am surprised when something enjoyable comes on, but more often than not, it's "change this shit. I'm fucking sick of this song." Certain songs are banned from my car. Lately my daughter has been describing what I listen to as just screaming into a microphone, and she's referring to any singing with a harsher tone, not ever Death Metal which I don't actively listen to anyway. She has requested Dream Theater, but it seems to be always when I want to listen to something else. Both my daughter and my fiancée like Dream Theater, which is cool. But yeah, I'm very vocal when it comes to stuff I don't like.
As I said before, saying something sucks is an exaggeration of an opinion. It's basically slang for "I don't like this." Can it be mean? Yes. I don't like it when someone says something sucks or is boring that I like, so I'm a bit of a hypocrite in that regard, but such is life. When my fiancée and daughter are listening to shit I really don't like, I just leave the room now. I can't take it. I'd like to be more of an influence on my daughter when it comes to music, and I think by just showing her how much I love the music I listen to would help, I'm not one to sing in front of people. They love to sing, but I know my limitations, and I know I can't. I drown myself out in the car when I'm by myself. Maybe one day I'll build up the courage.
Music can "suck" because it's all personal opinion. One person's trash is another's treasure. Once again, saying something sucks is not a truth claim, or stating an objective fact. It's all opinion. Genesis can both rule and drool as well as Taylor Swift. Example: Swift's new album is a dumpster fire, but 1989 is a 9 out of 10. Reputation fucking blows... But my fiancée and daughter love it. Your point of view is seeing it as objective. Objectively it wouldn't make logical sense, but there's nothing objective about an opinion. We all like 1989. The only song which is complete trash is Bad Blood, but they like it. What if my daughter and I liked it, but my fiancée didn't. Or only my daughter hated it? Or they both hated it, but I liked it. Maybe in another universe because I fucking hate that song. Sorry if this was a mess or if I missed something. Basically, you know, it's all like, our opinions, man. People can be mean, I can be mean or blunt. It's something to work on, but god damn, some of the shit they listen to is so bad...
If you just say "suck" as "I don't like this", then we really don't have any disagreement, since I don't for a second think you should "like" everything. I know I don't. By your definition, Radiohead and Slayer suck, and suck hard. And certainly how you handle that in your circle is your call. I'm not here to try and tell you how to live your life.
(Though, I'll be blunt and say that kind of makes me a little sad; nothing is banned in my car, and we play a little game, depending on the ride. Short rides, she gets one way, anything goes, no rules, and I get the return, anything goes no rules. Longer drives we take half hour shifts. It's not about music for me, but it's my sort of personality that I feel the same saying "wow, your music BLOWS!" as I do saying "wow, honey, you look skank today." I feel like I'm being disrespectful.)