LET US COME TOGETHER AND SET A STANDARD

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

After arguing back and forth with Dave225 about Omelette-on-Trial, I have come to the conclusion that we need to set a DEFINATE STANDARD OF WHAT IS GOOD AND WHAT IS BAD in the realms of MUSIC. The minds, I know, are here and ready to be tapped.

Who will step up and join me in the Star Chamber of official decent musical taste?

― Gage-o, Tuesday, 29 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

No thanks, neo-Stalinist.

― hstencil, Tuesday, 29 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Damn, hstencil would have been nice to have on the council. Damn!

― Gage-o, Tuesday, 29 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I s'pose I appreciate that, in a weird way, but the idea of parsing out a "definite standard" of "official decent musical taste" is kinda repugnant. Kinda like deciding whether art is worthy of state sponsorship or the "degenerate" tag. People like what they like, and it doesn't make much sense to get too up in arms about what other people like (not that I thought you were that serious).

'Sides, this whole ILM mess seems like an ongoing arbitration anyway, no?

― hstencil, Tuesday, 29 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

True that ILM is essentially the on-the-floor Senate arguments for a "decent music" bill.

― Gage-o, Tuesday, 29 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

There is no law, there is no standard. Period.

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 29 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

the standard is: what I like is good, what i don't like is bad

― g, Tuesday, 29 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

you may choose to follow the standard at your own discretion

― g, Tuesday, 29 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Have you not been paying attention here, Gage-o?

― Josh, Tuesday, 29 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I might have said this before, but: No, I think there is a standard for quality in art. What matters is what you like, but that has nothing to do with the quality of the art. I like plenty of bad art, and i hate plenty of good art. (example, Bach=indisputablely good, but many people don't like Bach) Now, the quality spectrum is very hazy and much art is both good and bad. I think most people can feel if art is good, of course it would be a little different for everybody, and many people would let thier personal tastes get in the way of judging it.

― A Nairn, Tuesday, 29 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

You guys have it all wrong. Remember, it's: willfully obscure sleepers= good; and successful, popular hitmakers=bad. Budgie good, Metallica bad.

― Andy, Tuesday, 29 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I'm going to try and clarify my last response. Music is both entertainment and art. Entertainment involves ones personal tastes, and if the music is satisfying to them. Art is unrelated to tastes, and has an underlying quality. Too often people confuse these two, and they don't realize that people can have completely different tastes. The question (which I think is very very difficult to answer) is what makes up the underlying quality. (possibly it involves the quality/motives of the creativity used by the creator) Maybe someone else who knows what I'm talking about could try and explain more.

― A Nairn, Tuesday, 29 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

LET US COME TOGETHER AND SET A STANDARD

Let us not, and pretend that we did.

― Norman Phay, Tuesday, 29 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Please, God, don't, I get victimised enough as it is for liking shit and being mouthy about it. If you made me illegal I'd just DIE.

― Nick Southall, Tuesday, 29 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Oh, and by the way... Art does not have an 'underlying character'.

― Nick Southall, Tuesday, 29 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

How is Bach indisputably good?

― Clarke B., Tuesday, 29 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

If we're talking about Sebastian Back, he is indisputedly GOD.

― Andy, Tuesday, 29 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Shurely we can say "It Is On Poptones = It Is Rubbish"?

― DG, Tuesday, 29 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

but gnac = not rubbish, dg

My theory = it got to no.1 it is grate, it got to no.2 it not quite so grate, it got to no.3 it is less grate yet....

this carries on predictably enuff till no.47 when it starts going the other way again. No.95 is slightly better than no.1. Then it turns again. Now the quantum jumps are slightly larger...

― mark s, Tuesday, 29 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

"but gnac = not rubbish, dg"
Ah, the exception that proves the rule then.
NOTE: I have yet to hear anything off Poptones bar the Cosmic Rough Riders and The Hives, who both confirm my original statement.

― DG, Tuesday, 29 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I am currently writing a proposal to set a digital signal processing chip up to Calvin's Transmogrifier then there will be cool hard scientific fact about the suckage of music codified by genre. Though world music presents a problem as it changes values on a weekly basis meaning definite integrals must be computed. No need for senate, congress or house of Traci Lords and SP3.

― Mr Noodles, Tuesday, 29 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

*sigh* Poptones is really quite a good label, and it's a shame that the stuff that seems to be most popular is in fact the dullest (except for the truly awful El Vez).

― electric sound of jim, Tuesday, 29 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

can we say that bach is better ( is mote complex, is more innovative in the long run ) then britney . i like brit and i like bach but i think it would be stupid of me to assume that they are artistic eqauls ? Can subjectivity only go so far ?

― anthony, Tuesday, 29 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

We can say that Bach is more complex and more innovative than Britney yes. We then have to decide whether complexity and innovation are the deciders of 'better' in music - or rather, whether they are *always* the deciders of 'better', or can we imagine circumstances in which they wouldn't be?

The broader question is - what does it change if there is or isn't an objective measure of quality in music?

― Tom, Wednesday, 30 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Music is good if the vibrating particles affect the listener's neurochemistry in such a manner that their synaptic configuration moves toward more closely resembling mine. Unfortunately sometimes the process is painful and traumatic for the listener, but we're superseding bourgeois morality here.

― dave q, Wednesday, 30 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Wait a minute... We were arguing? I thought we just disagreed, which is cool with me. (But I know who I'm not inviting to my birthday party!)

― Dave225, Wednesday, 30 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

DG: The Hives = good. Cosmic Rough Riders = shite. Le Volume Courbe = good.

I've decided that there is no other band than Pluxus. Therefore all music is good, because all music is Pluxus.

― emil.y, Wednesday, 30 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

poptones: n the denise james CD is pretty good

― g, Wednesday, 30 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Oh, I'm supposed to pay attention?

That changes EVERYTHING.

― Gage-o, Wednesday, 30 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Who will step up and join me in the Star Chamber of official decent musical taste?
Sorry, Gage-o. It's a doomed cause. I merely wrote an informal list of Lists, collating a vague consensus of a broad and random cross-section of the music loving public. And the ILM Posse chased me around like the Anti-Frankenstein Hitsquad Mob...and spawned 2 or 3 more threads about...
"How much of A Rockist Prick is Lord Custos?"
a) A Huge Amount
b) Aircraft Carrier Sized
c) Galactic Scale

― Lord Custos, Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Ugh. After re-reading my own post I realized I sounded like a guy from an ad agency. Yiiick!
But at least I used "Prick" and "Aircraft Carrier" in the same sentence.

― Lord Custos, Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Woohoo! Killed another thread. One down....600 more to go!

― Lord Custos, Saturday, 2 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

my own easy listening scale - add up the number of the following instruments played on the album. the more counted the better the LP:
hammond organ, bongos, sitar, vibraphone, bird calls, electric harpsichord, moog, wordless vocals, marimba, theremin, 'jungle' drums, hawaiian guitar

― michael, Sunday, 3 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

By this logic Esquivel is our generation's great law-giver.

― Tracer Hand, Sunday, 3 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.