why is it hard to write good music?

[vurt]

context?

bach would be shit at a rave.

relative init?

yes, he's my great uncle.

[Hink]

context?

bach would be shit at a rave.

relative init?

yes, he's my great uncle.

great?

[jancivil]

Good is relative

During your post you changed your tune from saying your father had no actual tools for discernment to an entirely different appeal placing it in home and hearth and emotion. It went from objective to subjective and I think it illustrates the problem perfectly. It's about the music - or the musicianship - itself, or it's about this other thing which colors the assessment so we can disregard the qualitative, or a standard, or anything we decide to now.

[DJ Warmonger]

It it not hard to write good music at all. Recently I realized my best tunes were based on single chord progressions with little variations, what's dificult about that The bad ones were unsatisfactory mostly as they are overcomplicated.

[Hink]

Good is relative

During your post you changed your tune from saying your father had no actual tools for discernment to an entirely different appeal placing it in home and hearth and emotion. It went from objective to subjective and I think it illustrates the problem perfectly. It's about the music - or the musicianship - itself, or it's about this other thing which colors the assessment so we can disregard the qualitative, or a standard, or anything we decide to now.

probably my bad but you took that comment out of context, my point was at that point that was my reaction

[jancivil]

context?

bach would be shit at a rave.

A delicious fresh fruit would stand out as not quite right for a sewer.

Now we're going to argue that's just taste; now, if some people have no taste buds where are we?

The person who is color blind has every bit the right to assert their taste in painting as equal.
The tone deaf person's opinion of music has to be considered as just as valid as anyone's.

This resembles reduction to the absurd but I think that illuminates the consideration we're about here.

[jancivil]

Good is relative

During your post you changed your tune from saying your father had no actual tools for discernment to an entirely different appeal placing it in home and hearth and emotion. It went from objective to subjective and I think it illustrates the problem perfectly. It's about the music - or the musicianship - itself, or it's about this other thing which colors the assessment so we can disregard the qualitative, or a standard, or anything we decide to now.

probably my bad but you took that comment out of context, my point was at that point that was my reaction

I didn't. To me the context is illustrative of the problem, you chose the subjective. Your father loves you so he thinks you're 'accomplished'. My mother had no particular way to tell if I was suited to go to conservatory. I got in through an audition. The guy who determined my grade as a performance major was actually a legend. His word meant something. He had no subjective anything to go by. (Except I didn't look all that good then. ) I don't think this is that hard to see.

[vurt]

context?

bach would be shit at a rave.

A delicious fresh fruit would stand out as not quite right for a sewer.

Now we're going to argue that's just taste; now, if some people have no taste buds where are we?

The person who is color blind has every bit the right to assert their taste in painting as equal.
The tone deaf person's opinion of music has to be considered as just as valid as anyone's.

This resembles reduction to the absurd but I think that illuminates the consideration we're about here.

this assumes that people who go raving don't enjoy the music of bach, or any of the other "master craftsmen" when not at raves.

it was a reduction to the absurd to point out that there are standards within different "genres"
im not sure the music as a whole single entity is worth following any more.
i blame elvis.

[foosnark]

Somewhat related (in my twisted brain) to side discussions here: a talk with Caterina Barbieri about minimalism and taking inspiration from Indian classical music, followed by a performance.



(Somewhat ironically, her performance of the Patterns of Consciousness album pieces seems less minimalist to me than the album version, due to more complex timbres, a slightly faster tempo and a much wetter delay/reverb mix. But I do love what she did with the much more swoopy end of the first piece and the big slowdown -- it kind of gave me chills.)

[ghettosynth]

Examples do not a metric make. If you can't define why one track is good and one is bad such that your measure can be applied to other examples, then you are just expressing your own taste and others are free to disagree, as I'm sure many would.

Getting angry about it or insulting those who might disagree with you doesn't add any weight to your opinion.

[jancivil]

the music of bach, or any of the other "master craftsmen" at raves.

So there's a place for everything. Sure. I don't know what that has to do with good vs bad. If you put JS Bach (I'm not a JS Bach freak at all, mind) up against what's on the stage there, was the idea.

I don't really buy the reduction to technical or to craft, either. The technique/craft is a means to an end. There are people that have gigantic technique I wouldn't say are the greatest just because they have everybody beat like it's running a race.

[Hink]

Good is relative

During your post you changed your tune from saying your father had no actual tools for discernment to an entirely different appeal placing it in home and hearth and emotion. It went from objective to subjective and I think it illustrates the problem perfectly. It's about the music - or the musicianship - itself, or it's about this other thing which colors the assessment so we can disregard the qualitative, or a standard, or anything we decide to now.

probably my bad but you took that comment out of context, my point was at that point that was my reaction

I didn't. To me the context is illustrative of the problem

and therein lies the difference between us on this subject, to you there is a problem and to me there isn't.

Vive La Différence

[jancivil]

of quality vs not quality? whatever, it's the subject of the thread at this point. I make qualitative distinctions when I create a piece of music, or when I played guitar. I try for 'good'.
So that's not for everyone? I guess so.

[jancivil]

context?

bach would be shit at a rave.

A delicious fresh fruit would stand out as not quite right for a sewer.

Now we're going to argue that's just taste; now, if some people have no taste buds where are we?

The person who is color blind has every bit the right to assert their taste in painting as equal.
The tone deaf person's opinion of music has to be considered as just as valid as anyone's.

This resembles reduction to the absurd but I think that illuminates the consideration we're about here.

this assumes that people who go raving don't enjoy the music of bach, or any of the other "master craftsmen" when not at raves.

it was a reduction to the absurd to point out that there are standards within different "genres"
im not sure the music as a whole single entity is worth following any more.
i blame elvis.it was a reduction to the absurd to point out that there are standards within different "genres"
im not sure the music as a whole single entity is worth following any more.
i blame elvis.

No, in fact I didn't say anything about 'their' capacity to do something else. I made an analogy in response to your remark. And analogized culinary taste for musical taste, as this word taste keeps being used as the be all/end all to the discussion. So one of the worst McDonalds' burgers from when they used worms is as good as anything ever created in a kitchen, because after all it's just taste.

People do reductio ad absurdum to clarify a problem by making it maximally obvious. I think actually reading it back again it was reductio ad absurdum, as it's as absurd to think someone that lacks information and is incurious should expect their opinion to be on equal footing as someone knowledgable as it is for a color blind person's view of a painting (using color of course) is to be considered on the same footing as someone with a developed sense of color. To deny that is to deny that things can be known about anything, here about music. If that's where we are, I can't do anything more.

[ghettosynth]

context?

bach would be shit at a rave.

A delicious fresh fruit would stand out as not quite right for a sewer.

That fresh fruit is generally preferred is a perfect example of a subjective statement. That it is fresh is not, we can say that objectively making corrections for how ripe it was at time of picking and whether or not it has been frozen since.

However, to assume that fresh fruit is objectively better than fruit that isn't fresh presumes a preference for consumption that is just that. I would argue that the majority prefer un-fresh prunes, e.g., raisins, to their fresh counterpart.

Droning on about color blindness and further insulting people who disagree adds nothing to the case. For music, we don't have to be able to hear it. The data is in the score and/or the recording. An objective measure, could you define it, would be able to analyze either from that point of view and apply your criteria.

Vurt's point is spot on. Music exists because it serves a purpose, really purposes, and without that it has no intrinsic value. If you disagree, I have to ask you what value would music be if you could not hear (or feel) it and had never in your life heard it?

Like the consumption of fruit, the value of music depends on the purpose it is serving and that depends on human perception.

Foosnark's post above speaks to this.

Bottom line is that while some of you believe that it must be true, you have absolutely zero idea how to define an objective measure, or, you are afraid to commit because you know precisely how easy it will be to use your own measure against your own preferences.