Metal Reviews

Those aren't the best of examples because they only really apply to say, a concert of 12 year olds who just picked up their instruments 6 months ago and can barely play in time... anything beyond that is basically just decided by taste >.>

a lot of people may not like the Backstreet Boys or Linkin Park but they are good at doing some things.

Yeah, I edited my last post, btw as I was thinking more about that. I see your point...

To get into good and bad though would be pretty difficult (for me). I tend to think of it as more of a departure from the mean rather than "good" and "bad", which is why I always use the " " 's. I'd have to try explaining that another time though... But I agree with you on the "bad" example with the 12 year olds. That they exist, however, and we consider them "bad" means there's "bad" music though, whether anyone likes them or not.

Like you said though with "good at certain things" about the Backstreet Boyd. I agree with that kind of approach, and that's why I was trying to say what I did earlier about "qualities" and "attributable properties".

-Tyrion

Something I think we should all keep in consideration is the fact that rock 'n' roll is the devil's music. Surely music that makes you go to hell qualifies as bad.

But "Sad But True" IS a good song...

And I don't really care about what other people think of my taste. I listen to what I like, whatever it is, and if people can't handle that is rather wide at times, well, fuck them.

I think a lot of what makes a person have good taste or bad taste is simply if they can explain why they like or dont like something. If something doesnt grab you then you should be able to, at least in simple terms, describe what you find lacking, and vice versa. Also, the ability to appreciate music that you yourself wouldnt purchase but can still see there is musical merit there. For example, I dont really like Tool. I can see why others do though.

What most people misunderstand however, myself included untiul recently, is that most of the people that we are surrounded with, that listen to what we probably would all claim to be sub-par music, dont necessarily have bad taste, they just dont care about music. Not in the way a group of people who would join a metal forum would care about music.

No one likes the Bach as much as this guy likes the backstreet boys.




I don't think this guy likes the music at all though, so this would be one of those that fall into the "no taste" category, as it appears he is only there to collect a bunch of crap that has their faces on it, when he hardly mentions one song by them. He also needs to get his ass over to Dr. Phil before he realizes his life has been a waste.

Mostly young people listen this kind of music and they just don't know better. They only look at the music charts and listen to what everyone else is listening to.
For example, my girlfriend has a couple of singles about 5 years old from groups like the spice girls, backstreet boys. She doesn't even like them anymore. Just because they were hits back then, she bought it.

Ok, so generally it is agreed on that there is good and bad music. Now if a person listens to a mix of good and bad music, he has something that is elevated above having no taste, right? So how could listening to more good music ratiowise not mean taste can be better?

I don't really think of it that way. I know my last two posts weren't the best (it's what happens when you try to think about this and watch NHL, I guess, haha ), but anyway ...

The way I look at tastes, whether there is good or bad music is kind of irrelevant. And I don't necessarily want to try to explain how I look at that issue, at least not yet...

Your taste is a representation of what you like. You could like something for any reason(s), be it conscious or subconscious. You may not really have a reason at all. I don't think a person needs to give a reason for liking something, though it's often interesting if they do. But in any event, a person could like Bach, not because they think it's good music, but "Just because" or because they like that string section at 4:20 in song whatever. ... A person might like just a few select classical composers and that's all the music they like. That person doesn't have any specific reason why they like them, they just do. Now, it might be determined by someone else that those are all really good composers, so that person had "good taste" right? Why? They might not know anything about any other music, let alone the music they're listening to. They just like it. Now how would that somehow be great taste? Their taste just is. Now, if they have an appreciation for certain aspects of the music, complexities, composition, and you can even get down to the specific performers/performances and the conductor with such critiques, that's about music appreciation, not taste.

Some people won't like this example, but also think of it this way. Say I like the color blue but don't really like red and you like the color red but don't really like blue. Whether we give reasons why or not, is either one of us somehow more right than the other? Maybe you like red because it's like fire and I like blue because it's like ice. Okay. So? Or maybe you can give reasons why you like red, but I can't give reasons why I like blue. That just means you understand your tastes in a way that maybe I don't and/or you have a certain appreciation and ability to describe your point of view. But either way, how is it really correct to like one more than the other?

Like I said before, I don't think we all like like something just because it's "good" or dislike something just because it's "bad". And I don't think that would be a very good way to look at it anyway, or we'd start asking questions like: Should I only like the very best musician ever in order to have "good taste". Or "Does a person who likes every musician that's good really even have taste or do they just appreciate the quality and listen to them?" "Do they listen to any one more than the other? Yes? Uh oh... why is that?" That's just really silly to me... *shrug*

I just don't think comparing tastes is really the big issue. People compare tastes to see whether they like the same things or not. If people want to have in-depth discussions about music and perception, that heads into the realm of appreciation, definitions, and reaching a mutual understanding. I don't really see a necessary connection between the two (tastes and appreciation).

-Tyrion

I've been thinking about this for a wahile today and think that there is no real answer. There are some factors to be considered though that can answer some parts of the question.

1 - Why does somebody like the music? Is it because they actually like it or because it is trendy and they feel that they are supoosed to like it? If it is the latter than they have bad taste in music or just no taste in music.

2 - Is everything that a person listens to sound pretty much the same? If there is no variation in what a person listen sto than they most likely have bad taste or at least very close-minded tastes. They are probably listening for the wrong reasons as well if they cant accept any other music.

3 - Can the person tell the difference between good music (by which I mean it took real talent and effort to make) and music that they like? For example I like Manowar but I know while some of their songs are very good musically, there are others that are cheesy and ridiculous but I like it anyway.

4 - Is the person listening to rap? Then it is obviously bad taste.



- the last one was a joke. Sort of

Liking something because it's trendy is still liking it... Though I sort of agree that when people exhibit that they often tend to head towards having no taste in music.



That's just wrong, and that's a significant part of what I've been talking about. How is it wrong or close-minded to only like certain, specific forms of music? What are "wrong reasons" for liking music? Why should anyone have to "accept any other music"? Sorry, but that's just bullshit. Being close-minded is when you don't even consider something else when it's presented to you. Making the decision that you don't like something or that you prefer one thing instead of another is not being close-minded.



First part has to do with appreciation versus tastes. Second part is similarly along the lines of illustrating the distinction between what a person likes and assessing the properties of what they like.

...

Now... How about saying something like, "You tend to have a taste for "good" music"?

That's an approach that I can understand and agree with, I think.

-Tyrion

i listen to, what i find good music, but i can easily admit i enjoy listening to wrong music(not bad music per se, but wrong as in..not very orthodox if you catch my drift). Most of these songs or artists can qualify as party music or music you can amuse yourself on when your drunk or stoned.

The second part might of come off wrong. I am talking about a persons willingness to actually give other muscial forms a chance. I see nothing wrong or negative about listening to something and then deciding it is utter crap, as long as you give it a chance. I am told that I am close-minded when it comes to music by every person I know that doesnt listen to metal. I differentiate between black metal, death metal, prog metal, etc. as all different music. I find most music outside the "metal world" to be total shit and pointless, but I do give it a shot.

I think the whole noodle's argument of there is no good or bad music is flawed, if you look music as a subjective matter you might think this is true but if you think of music as a product determined to satisfy a costumer the conclusion would be that ALL music is good: "if that kind of music exists someone might like it", for example if you look at the "a song no one dislikes" thread its quite obvious that such think doesnt exists the same thing applies to "a song no one likes" argument, there isnt such a thing but...

That doesnt mean that there isnt a thing as bad taste in music, having a bad taste and liking crap music are two different things, while the second is subjective i think that the first could be proven in an objective way although it may be a difficult task.

Someone mentioned the analogy of music and food, well you could all agree with me that a trained cheff have better taste in food that someone who eats MacDonalds exclusively, regardless of how tasty you find those BigMacs, in the same way the musical taste of someone who listens classical music is better than of a teenage girl who enjoys Justin Timberlake music, that is because classical music doesnt relies on visuals or cheap hooks(although it does have hooks) to get the attraction of the listener.

Music its a form of art and its supposed to bring emotions to the listener and many people are constantly looking to an "edge" for their musical preferences, someone particulary might be attracted to innovation, not looking for a particuar emotion but on new ways in wich music can bring them and push boundaries, while somoene else might feel attracted to atmospheric music and more sutile emotions, then there are those kind of people who dont look for anything in particular as long as its catchy, those are the people who have bad taste in music.

Some Metalheads say that they have good taste in music because Metal is way better than Pop music, but it is to my believe that most Rock based music and other forms of music based on melodies, relies basically on hooks and some of them are not that different than those of a Pop artist, like in many Power Metal bands where the catchines lies only on the vocals and on a lesser extent on visuals, thats why you shouldnt be surprised that your 13 year old sister likes Sonata Arctica, like i said people who are ONLY looking for instant musical gratification have bad taste in music.

BTW nice thread Misha.

Yeah but why can you say that noisy dissonance is better than a catchy melody? Pushing boundaries doesn't matter if it sounds like crap

Wow, this thread has produced the most interesting conversation I have seen on here in a long time.


I agree with the idea of, if you listen to only one time of music and are completely closed off to all else, you do not have good taste in music. Maybe that would mean they have good taste in *insert sub-genre*. SInce the definition we have is " a relish, liking, or partiality for something: a taste for music" you could argue that they don't have a relish for music in general, just their style. Of course you could braden that to mean that some of us here only have taste for "music played by white males on guitars" so i suppose what it really comes down to is how braod you want to make it. If I fart into a microphone and call it music and no one listens to it, does that mean that no one has good taste in music (no but it would make me uber-kvlt).
You would be hard pressed to find someone that would say yes, so how broad would someones "relish" for music have to be for them to have good taste.

In repect to the good aspects of something like The backstreet boys, I once was listening to a sound engineer at the Art Institute in boston talk about how perfect those types of albums are recorded. Everything is crisp and rings very clearly. You may not care about the song out side of the perfection of it on the disc, but one could say they have better taste in music because they look at the craft of it and appreciate.

This really is quite an abstract idea that i don't think we can really make sense out of so....

that guy who told me i should listen to some good music, like that song 'honky tonk buh-donk-a-donk has incredibly bad taste.

ahh, that was much more simple

Yeah


I respect the taste of anyone who has heard a lot of bands and styles of music and knows what they like and at least somewhat why they like it (a lot of this comes from having a lot of great bands recommended to me by people who only shared a few, if any, bands in common with me and thinking everything I loved sucked )

I generally don't respect the taste of people who haven't heard enough bands or styles to actually know what they like. (This includes pretty much everyone who sticks to mainstream music or just the popular bands of their chosen genre, but bad taste in music isn't really something I hold against people so whatever)

That's basically how I define good/bad music.

I'm gonna go get high, 'cause its 420 now,.

What about those who hate the music only because it is trendy, could that also be considered having bad taste ?

No matter what, music tastes will always be influenced by a majority of factors such as trend(positive or negative), musical background, instrument preferences, The lyrical message, the appeal of the genre and others as such.
Tastes are objective so something considered as bad taste will vary from one person to another, so to me there's no such thing as universal bad taste. What I consider bad taste may not be for another person and vice versa.

So yeas bad taste exists but it is not universal.

I have sucky taste.

It might sound like crap to you but not to others, and im not talking about just catchy melodies(who doesn like catchiness? ) but about cheap and easy listening catchy tunes, like the ones in the oh so many Pop artists.