'"I like it" and "it's good" are 1) not equivalent statements and 2) not necessarily good partners, even.'

if you can answer all three independently of one another, you'll get an awful lot written

shush, Ned! Shush!

but seriously, I guess you could say something was "good jazz" and then say "you're not really into jazz" around a jazz afficiando friend but that's just being polite. Why would you NOT like something you thought was Good, and why would you think something was NOT good and like it?

Nothing really matters, anyone can see...

i.e.

Like it but it isn't good = like something about it that doesn't transfer to other people.

e.g.

I really like Q-Tex's "The power of love" because it reminds me of being 16, discovering ecstasy and listening to bad happy hardcore radio stations, and not because it is a good song. It is actually incredibly generic bouncy techno.

But there's no chance, is there?

that is why i r00l this thread and all others evah

i know john cage has many good works because i've been told he's a genius and what i've seen and read would lead me to agree that he's had some good moments... but do i like or enjoy 4'33" of silence as a song? do i put it on in the car to get excited about going out?

no.
m.

ps i think that in general two or three word sentences will leave a lot to the imagination of the reader and should be avoided all by themselves.

I could never do that, I have to say. If I like something, I'll always defend it as something "good". People often say "Am I wrong for liking this? I know it's crap, really". I don't understand that. I don't expect to convince anyone, but I'd never accept that my love of something is "wrong" because I'm in a minority, or because its widely considered to be bad form to like it, etc.

Why? Or how, even?

a: is it good? no, it's doing a half-assed take on someone else's idea
b: does it matter? no, it's been done better before
c: do i like it? yes, because i'm a sucker for the sound

And from that I will write a negative piece. And I'll do the same thing for something that I don't like as well.

I might equally ask why, or how, even, everything you like must be good. Doesn't that seem incredibly solipstic to you?

And Jacob, when I find myself thinking of these two a meaning different things, I don't have too much problem saying something is good, but also saying I don't like it. At the very least I suspect it's good. I suspect that most of the canonical works in classical music and in jazz really are good (if anything really is good. . . ha ha ha), but for the most part I don't like them. Similarly, I think that certain bubble gum salsa songs I like are probably bad, but I still like them, because I can't help myself (and don't try to help myself, usually).

I think what I'm trying to say is that my own opinion is the only thing I have to decide whether something is "good" or not, so I use "I like it" and "It's good" as essentially the same thing. I don't think people who have the opposite view are "wrong" essentially, but I will defend something I "like" as something "good".

I think you mean John D! That's his quote starting this all off, not mine.

Also, the idea that something "matters" because it hasn't been done before is why DJ Shadow and the Avalanches get rave reviews from people who probably won't listen to the albums three months after they came out.

Surrendering your own taste to some sense of objective good and relevancy means you're more suspectible to hype and peer pressure. The point of a review is to express your reaction to the work. The best critics have the best sense of WHY they liked it - and also appreciate a wider range of attributes found in the art (they don't ignore lyrics and only listen to the guitars, for instance). Saying you like it but it isn't good means you don't think you have good taste, so why are you writing? At its worst it can be solipsism (especially if you don't understand exactly why you like something and can't explain it coherently to your reader), but that's still preferable to going with the flow.

Also, the idea that something "matters" because it hasn't been done before is why DJ Shadow and the Avalanches get rave reviews from people who probably won't listen to the albums three months after they came out.

Surrendering your own taste to some sense of objective good and relevancy means you're more suspectible to hype and peer pressure. The point of a review is to express your reaction to the work. The best critics have the best sense of WHY they liked it - and also appreciate a wider range of attributes found in the art (they don't ignore lyrics and only listen to the guitars, for instance). Saying you like it but it isn't good means you don't think you have good taste, so why are you writing? At its worst it can be solipsism (especially if you don't understand exactly why you like something and can't explain it coherently to your reader), but that's still preferable to going with the flow.

Well, we differ Kilian. I've written many bad reviews of records I enjoy and vice versa. I always make it obvious that my feelings are mixed, however.

ahhh-haaaaa !!!

Not at all. There can be more than one criteria as to why something's good. But I do agree that to say "It's good because I like it" isn't necessarily rational or all that illuminating or whatever.

It's foolish and misleading to compare food to music/art, but since I am foolish & prefer analogies to almost anything, let's imagine this: when I was in Scotland I was introduced to a foodstuff called a Chip Buttie. I found this particular foodstuff really yummy and subsisted entirely on Chip Butties for the better part of two days. I love 'em. But to call them "good food" does something of an injustice to makers of good food the world over.

I don't draw the "good"/"I like it" distinction in order to say bad things about music that other people like/love; my general rule is that I only write about stuff I like. I just don't accept the proposition that in art, all standards are ultimately subjective.

saying it's good because you like it is plenty rational, but it definitely ain't illuminating. And illumination is the whole point of a review.

As far as "matters:" Umm... so attempts to create something new shouldn't be an issue at all? We should only praise things that personally appeal to us? And why do you bring up DJ Shadow and Avalanches? I see "matters" as being something completely separate from "like" and "good," and even from the music itself. "Matters" to me is context, relevancy, cultural implications... things larger than the record itself or the artist's intent, and these are the most interesting issues of all.

I'll agree all is not subjective to a point. Most people can agree when album is "long" or "full of loud songs." Subjectivity comes in when people decide whether it is "too long" or "too loud."

Yes. This is the problem I have with the "I like it but it isn't good" statement. I don't like the notion that I should disparage what I enjoy to conform to some orthodox critical consensus.

I don't know about that. I'd say that if one wants to be a critic, one had better think that one's writing is at least entertaining to read, and that one's opinions might lead others to have pleasant experiences with the music under scrutiny.

"It's good because I like it" isn't rational, because it is a tautology ("true by virtue of its logical form alone"). And being rational is all about proving things by deductive reasoning, rather than relying on tautologies.

But I'll be here all day if I don't watch it... must go.

Anthony: Maybe they bring up how those records were made because that's more interesting than the music itself and they want an entertaining piece?

If I say I like something that isn't good, I'm not adhering to a critical line, I'm applying my critical nature towards my own taste. This is a good thing... You try to figure out why you like something, and then sometimes you discover that it's not all that great, but it strikes a chord with you, for a variety of reasons.

As for defining "like" and "good," I'm thinking about that...

Is it really, though? Leaving aside the difficulties presented by the last four words, unless you believe that something can be "good", the statement "it's good" is meaningless. So the two phases would not mean different things - one would be meaningful, the other not.

Like it but it isn't good = like something about it that doesn't transfer to other people.

Except I would change "doesn't" to "might not," and make that the definition for "like." In other words the appeal is highly subjective.

Good would then entail qualities of a record that would likely be appreciated by others. Qualities like: good hooks, good songwriting, etc.

If you are writing a consumer guide type of review, which seems to be the focus of this thread now, then "good" (meaning properties that are discernable) is of greater value than "like," because it has wider implications and should be easily understandable.

I'm sure this post is full of holes... Thinking while I'm writing.

but seriously.. its difficult because there is no answer

What properties can't one discern, btw?

I really like Q-Tex's "The power of love" because it reminds me of being 16, discovering ecstasy and listening to bad happy hardcore radio stations

I see that as very subjective and not at all interesting in a review format (but I am a diary-style review hater).

If I were to carry out my on the spot definition, then this would be true, but I was mainly arguing about writing a review, not personal taste. Personal taste should not/cannot be defined in the way that I did above and I wasn't trying to.

Main property that cannot be discerned: What impact a song or album will have on a listener (if this were possible singles would never fail!).

I think this is what I mean when I say it. In the sense that people who tend to like the same things that I like, probably wouldn't like this thing that I'm calling "bad." But I do like it.

Why not?

bullshit intellectualism and jargon-mongering is what drives me crazy and generally makes for really boring reading.

i do dig analogies and metaphors though....
m.

this is one of those really messy questions. sure, it'd be great to avoid leaving your audience feeling clueless and to communicate perfectly, but on the other hand, what can you do if a particular subset of the audience is just not going to get it? technical writing is a good place to point to about this. if i'm writing about some crazy software i'm working on, i'm assuming a certain level of knowledge and typically the beginning of the white paper will start with, "reader must understand XYZ, BLAH BLAH, and http://elbow macaroni."

sadly, a random record review doesn't have a chance for that. BUT, the magazine does. i mean, you don't go from reading maxim blender to wire and hope that all points will connect.

m.

"Good" = "successful in triggering some effect"

"I like it" = "successful in triggering in me some effect that I am looking for"

Or, perhaps, "good" = "successful in triggering some effect in an ideal listener" or "in an average listener". "Some effect" certainly doesn't have to be positive: "That song is good at putting people to sleep." Or "That song makes a good emetic."

("It matters" = "There is a gaping hole in my understanding of the universe that this seems to fill.")

Sometimes I try to work towards listening to music in a way that doesn't involve whether I like it, whether it's good, or whether it matters. Usually I just listen to what I like.

[Place quote from some canonical philosopher to back me up here.]

If food isn't a 'good' analogy - how about sport?
(haha mark s I await the arrival of Eddie.....)

You might agree that a tennis player is a good tennis player - they get the job done and are very technically effective and they win lots of tournaments/money or whatever, but you might not like them because you don't like their look or their on-court behaviour or even the way they play the game (eg they don't take exciting chances or they aren't 'aggressive' enough). But you might also think they matter because you can see that they are going to have some influence (sorry mark s) on how the game is played in future or something....
I think this is only so hard to disentangle in music/art because we have a variety of overlapping/incoherent/dissonant/time-variant criteria for evaluating them - there's no equivalent uncontested measure of what makes a 'good' work - it's as if we only ever thought good tennis players were the ones *we* liked to watch, regardless of how effective they were at what they do. So maybe we have to ask the question - what is THIS music trying to DO, and what are the criteria by which we can evaluate it's degree of success at that?
eg some think huge commercial success/popularity/notoriety is irrelevant either way, some think it is a +ve, some could say it is actually a -ve: all you *can* say is that Robbie Williams is a 'good pop star' or 'entertainer' by those measures, but that isn't to say you have to *like* Pop Stars or find 'entertainment' a worthwhile thing in all ways at all times - and it doesn't help you to decide whether they are Ephemeral or Culturally Important (and even *that* criteria could swing aesthetically as a +ve or -ve thing!); some think that a degree of historical permanence is a guide, but some might see that as encrusted/canonical/brainwash.....

*falls over unconscious*

also, not liking something that you recognise as good/strong = distinguishing and appreciating for instance, the intrinsic technical and emotive qualities of jazz, yet criticising it in terms of personal taste because you prefer listening to britney.

or something like that

I just wanted to say Chris Piuma's post rocks.

In any case, I'd rather hear something that someone likes but doesn't think is good than something they think is good but don't like. Which do you trust more in matters of aesthetics: the id or the superego?

yr first response to my first response was a dickheaded piece of needless rudeness also, what's yr problem?

I find this a little mind-boggling. Since when did the default definition of good become "liked by me"?! People have been making a distinction between good (in various contexts) and "liked by me" for a long time. I don't think someone who uses good in a sense other than "liked by me" owes an explanation, since "good" has generally meant something different. (I fear I am about to be drawn into attempting to define "good.")

Obviously.

or you can go at it all the miccio way: "i don't get it = it is all random"

Well, there are lots of people on this thread who are saying that they mean something different by "good" than "what is liked by me", but none of them have as yet put forward a very convincing definition of what "good" means. So forgive me if I'm not too optimistic about finding more clarity on this issue over at rec.music.bluenote.

I think this would be an important step towards achieving objectivity, but by itself, it still wouldn't guarantee objectivity, because who is to judge whether something meets the criteria? You'd also have to have an agreed-upon way of measuring whether something meets the criteria, and then I think you'd be there.

Of course, the debate then starts being over what consitutes the ground rules of a particular genre...

spoken like a true music critic! seriously though, I could care less.. and to an extent sure I know what you mean but by reading someone other than a music listener, say a critic use the word "good"- the implications are more numerous. And yet, if you boil it down.. "good" means "I like" unless you are speaking about technical ability or adherence to a rigid genre (but those can be better described than by using "good")

while I agree that it is interesting that people think differently, this is completely tangential to the question of whether "good" is different than "i like" playing dress up

We need a government agency!

Exactly! Like that agency in France, where they keep the official one-meter rod locked in a climate-controlled chamber in their basement. Except, for the music agency, they'd have to have the original masters of Beggars Banquet or something.

Im afraid I follow you less than if I was an one eyed fish

if it is possible for this statement to be "true," then it is possible for there to be an objective "good," wherefore the statement cannot be true

Ditto...:) and youre right Im going to get a drink...bye

I've been thinking about this lately because I've been writing my Focus Group ballot and I listened to "Sk8er Boi" for the first time and goddamn is that a well-written song. Not so much for the chords or riffs, or Avril's singing, but for the dramatic arc that the lyrics take. It's a great example of using a classical structure well.

B is a boring conversationalist, and so his opinions are soon not going to be sought out, bcz he is NO FUN TO BE WITH (talking-wise, anyway, he may be HOTT in bed, how wd I know?)

We choose to make distinctions because it gives us an excuse to spend time with one another batting them around. It is true that this "playing dress up" is all very unappealing if you hate fun and desire no friends.

It's strange that music reviews have not come to this point by now. The closest I can think of is an editor quickly choosing what CDs will be reviewed each month. After the point of choosing the CDs/candidates, it's all up to the writers' personal preferences -- except that it's just one judge for one record, thereby taking the argument out of the picture. I guess that's where ILM comes in. :)

"sexual intercourse
n.
Coitus between humans."

"sexual intercourse
n.
Coitus between humans."

ie it is that music where there is no agreed-on prior school-level of musicality that anyone has to have attained or they get booted?

(this is why avril = punk btw)

coitus is dull.

ew sterling i *DON'T WANT TO KNOW*!!

a. do you like it?
b. why?

Bullshit. Sex, all on its own, is boring. Sex between two (or more) (or, I suppose, fewer) people with all the various experiences and issues that they bring to the table (or bed) (or, no, fuck it, let's go with table!) is interesting, but at that point it leaves the dictionary behind (unless it needs to look up "perineum" or "prepuce").

Now, do I like sex? That's a different question.

"Interesting sex doesn't break the rules of its genre so much as it ignores them and substitutes its own rules"

Hmmm. I might agree with that.

(it should be noted that an interesting b. is very rare)

The Clash
London Calling (CBS)
Q: DO I LIKE IT?
A: Yes!
Anthony Miccio

This seems thin, Anthony, can you expand?
Bob Xgau

I think "I like it, but it's not good" means "there are aspects that I like, but there are other aspects I find annoying and would never encourage be used in anything else."

Isn't that "I like it, but it's flawed", Melissa? Are "flawed" and "good" mutually exclusive?

Yes of course you prefer detail as to why people like things, Anthony. Who doesn't? Because we want to also know the answers to "Is it good?" — ie (for example: there are other ways expand on this) do other people like it apart from the reviewer (or us), and why — and to "Does it matter?" — (for example: there are other ways expand on this also) does it reveal things about how music works or is changing or stuff like that, which it's useful to have heard in itself bcz it tells you things about other stuff you may well love, even if actually no, it's not that much fun to listen to in itself really. All of these things can be examined in overlong, pretentious and half-hearted ways, if that's what the writer chooses to do.

"People apart from me like it" is way less thin than "It's good!!"

a. popular, but so was "Armageddon"
b. might be first "respect" killer animal movie
c. nice effects but acting and script are horrific

a. popular, but so was "Armageddon"
b. might be first "respected" killer animal movie
c. nice effects but acting and script are horrific

You don't see a contradiction there? You don't think step b) might be missing?

Snowy's sports analogy is a good one, since it includes some criteria for why something is good other than the tautologous "i like it." And there's an added bonus: once you get through with measuring something on its own terms, you can then start to compare different terms and even venture arguments as to which terms are better!

Dealing first with work conundra and now packing. I might post something way later tonight.

the move to equate 'I like it' and 'it's good' - or the denial of same - seems to me to usually rush past facts about the way that our answers to mark's questions are complex and varied. why do people do that? is it a shorthand, or an argument-stopper, or a defensive tactic? (there is the possibility this could be done sincerely too, but I suspect most people would bend if they were tested on this point.)

a. What is this good at? (all records are good at something)
b. Who does this matter to? (all records matter to somebody)
c. Who am I? (If you knew, why would you be wasting precious time trying to sort this all out?)

One thing that's been kind of overlooked thus far: saying "I like it but I know it's crap" is often a discursive strategy -- a "move" in the game of conversation, if you will. It's a tactful way to both acknowledge popular (or hipster as the case may be) consensus -- that said song/album/artist is crap -- while maintaining some semblance of willfulness and of sticking to your guns (not to mention honesty). What seems to be the mere expression of a belief is actually part of a quite complex dance of face-saving and conversational push-and-pull.

We often act and argue as if we hold concrete *beliefs* (a sticky concept if ever there was one) about the goodness of particular songs/albums/artists, and we fail to acknowledge the variety of ways and situations in which we use the word. John's food metaphor, while interesting, falls apart because (among other things): (a) food can be scientifically good-for-you, whereas music cannot; and (b) the standards for evaluating food are more firmly and universally accepted than those for evaluating music.

Ways I use the word "good" with regard to music:
good = fun
good = intellectually challenging
good = universally accepted as such
good = carries out its intended function quite thoroughly
good = embodies its genre
good = provocative

We could all come up with many more, I'm sure, but all I'm trying to get across is that statements like "For me, "good" (or at least "successful") music usually means that it strictly adheres to an implied pre-existing set of ground rules which describe the proper construction and execution of the piece" (sorry Nick) are inadequate (and thusly unsatisfying) because they fail to address the complexity of our usage of the word. [This is pretty much textbook Wittgensteinianism, but I think it works here.]

time is important too; some of these words are used in very short-lived situations, and are not necessarily intended to hold up outside those situations, whereas other times they're used in ways meant to hold up over time. or to say something about say how we have thought of a piece of music over a longer period of time. the differences in time are tied to function (it's good in this bar, tonight, with these people, because it gives us something to dance to and talk about), provocativeness (some things lose their edge, some don't, but at the time they are provocative for us, whether or not we are worreid that they WILL lose their edge may be of greater or lesser interest), etc.

Anyway to go back to the actual question - a lot of the time the stuff I like writing about most is the stuff that seems flawed, where my liking of it is worrying or puzzling me. This is something similar to "I like it but it's good", maybe.

And to go back again to too-soon-to-know - one thing thats attracted me to pop records, and comic books, and the internet for that matter, is that they seem very new things. I think that the qualities and standards implied in the objective-use 'good', if they exist at all, don't come into being at the start of an artform's history - like heavier elements in the cosmos, they are formed very slowly. Objective quality might be latent in recorded pop, or in comic books, but these are still too close to their 'big bangs' for it to be possible to discover what that quality might be.

The real problem with Mark's question b -- which is also why such a question is always URGENT AND KEY -- is that it is always too LATE to know. (Which is why philosophy lives on, in my belated version of Adorno).

should you spend money on this?

Does ANYONE have to like something for it to be good? Ie is there music which no one at all likes but which is drearily propped up as being good? It seems to me that if "good" and "like" are separable concepts then this music should exist somewhere in tune-space.

So do you more or less mean "canon" by "objective quality" here, or do you mean something more/else?

The value assigned to ANYTHING is probably most often dependent upon its rarity or uniqueness.

Then why are diamonds so expensive?

In regards to Clarke's first graf: I see how "I like it but it's crap" could be read as a defense mechanism for the embarrassed listener, but I do think that it has real weight. Acknowledging that such an idea exists (that yr taste ain't all that) is important, because it leads you to understand why someone else might like this, or why they would disagree with you, thus making your reasoning for like/dislike more sound and more interesting.

dave q: Questions like these are ways to ensure that the review will make someone care about it. Clearly "I like it. It's good." won't build much interest, but a solid grasp on the why's, who's, what's, etc., can, as you mentioned, by virtue of the writer questioning him/herself.

Whereas what I'm saying above is that even those big trends can't be satisfactorily judged now, except by looking at the present-day scene which neccessarily magnifies the importance of the past ("disco is important because look at all this dance music"; "punk is important because etc etc" - and because we can't look into the future all current music will by definition fail this importance-test) and leads to what I was complaining about.

I think writing about contemporary music always involves a leap of faith - a willingness to take the music on what appear to be its own terms, to pretend that it matters or might matter. I think that's the only way you can risk the disappointment you need as a critic - as opposed to the built-in disappointment of the "it's all fads, ah the past" point of view, which involves no risk.

I'm not sure that's what Mark meant by "matters", though.

like - subjective
good - objective

Therefore using the word "good" is a little bit of an arrogation. You imply that you know all music and know the objective criteria to judge.

"Good" somehow means to me original, unique, individual.

A problem can be your restricted knowledge of music and especially the chronology of your musical experiences. Let's say you hear Elastica and don't know of Wire. You like them and think they are original and good therefore. Afterwards you hear Wire and find out that this kind of stuff has been done before. To complicate things I don't even think that with your new knowledge you should now infer that though you like Elastica they are not good as they were copycats. As personally you heard them first and they probably even did something new in terms of a more up-to-date sound to Wire you can still think they are good.

A different example where it seems more obvious would be Beck's new record. Let's say you know Nick Drake before listening to Sea Change and especially this one song where Beck uses a string arrangement by Nick Drake. You can still like Beck's song but to say it is good would stretch things I guess. As you always hear Nick Drake behind those strings and know that Beck must have heard them before composing his song you can't possibly say Beck's version is good.

This is a mess, don't know if I added anything.

This thread is so long I don't remember if I've contributed to it yet or not, but I disagree with the above. Can't a phony diamond be good? Can't a song that is pleasant until you discover it rips something off be good?

Personal to Arthur: I'll have something in your inbox tonight!

Of course, you may be saying something else entirely haha. It's a long time since I read Wittgenstein.

you're right about language not being totally in control of us either, I think, but if I made it seem as if I think this investigating-how-good-is-used is sort of done in-place, static, well, I should find another way to put it. there's something I don't like about the sort of definition nick advanced, though, despite this. the best I can do at the moment without sliding into some things I'm philosophically very unsure about is this: I suspect that attempts to have an impact on the meaning of a word like this lead back to the kinds of disputes about language they're meant to somehow quiet, so I don't think they're an answer; that might be ok with me as long as the people doing the impacting (and the ones impacted and arguing about it) are able to at some point recognize what's been going on, and not just start arguing over the impacter's use of the word as if the question is whether or not theirs is the right one in an essentialist/usual W targets sense. does that make any sense to you?

They weren't trying to indoctrinate us or re-educate our taste. The idea was for us to learn to critically analyse art.

One result was meant to be that we would examine why we liked what we liked and therefore be able to further develop our taste or interest and that this would contribute to our own art making.

Another aim was for us to not just go "I don't like it, it's crap" about things that didn't immediately take our fancy but rather to, once again, critically analyse stuff and to take an interest in what the artist was trying to achieve, their success in doing so and to get value from a piece of art whether we liked it or not.

Most of the 12 and 13 year olds in this class could handle the concept of appreciating art they didn't actually like.

???

It's not so much "I don't like it = it's crap" as much as "I don't get it = I have valid reasons that I do not support or enjoy this work. And since I'm supposed to be sharing my opinion I'm not going to pretend I don't have these reasons just to appease a culture or subculture's sense of what is objectively good. If you wanna know why you should like it, read someone who does."

An easy way to point this out would be if you did a 10 Best Albums of the year list. Shouldn't it be the same as your 10 favorite albums of the year?

btw - go to http://abc.net.au/triplej/2002/albums/vote.htm for a good list of albums released this year.