Good and Bad Music - does it exist?

Dark Artist

Myself and a friend were discussing this earlier. So... what do you think?

Personally I'm inclined to believe that music is always down to individual taste. There is the argument that music should be viewed objectively - e.g. a song is either logically good or it isn't. Then there's the subjective argument - that the only thing to base a song's quality on is how many people like it.

Should people differentiate between what's 'good' and what they 'like'?

Or is that the whole point... if a person enjoys a song, then surely it's good music?

My friend argued that if you think a song is good, you need to give objective reasons why. He said the reason "because I like it" isn't good enough.

For example, he argued that a certain band is good because their songs are musically complex and have thoughtful lyrics. He said this band has a great musical education and that their understanding of musical theory is above average - therefore their ability to create good music is heightened.

I agree that if someone knows a lot about musical theory, then they will be able to play their instrument better and be able to write more complex songs. That's obvious. But does that necessarily mean that they have the talent to write music that people enjoy?

A song can have the most complex time signatures and most inspired chord progression and the most perfect instrumental arrangements, but if people don't enjoy it then what's the point?

I think it's very hard to definie what good music is. I do, however, strongly believe that in definining what it is, you have to look at it subjectively as well as objectively. Music is maths in one sense, but it's undeniably spiritual and personal in another sense.

What do you all think?

A Primal Nut

Dark Artist wrote:

Should people differentiate between what's 'good' and what they 'like'?

Or is that the whole point... if a person enjoys a song, then surely it's good music?

I actually think people should differentiate between good and what they like. I'm not a fan of Pink Floyd, but I can admire their songwriting ability and the amount of success they've had. So if someone starts a thread about them in Rock/Metal I'm not gonna respond about how crap/overrated they are, coz clearly I'm wrong. On the other hand, most people do make a big deal out of not liking certain bands, regardless of their success. People are always going on about how crap U2 are, coz the Edge is crap or whatever, but just coz they don't like them doesn't mean they're untalented. It just means, well, they don't like them. It doesn't change the fact that loadsa people do like them, coz Achtung Baby has great songs or whatever reason.

My friend argued that if you think a song is good, you need to give objective reasons why. He said the reason "because I like it" isn't good enough.

Your friend is wrong.

For example, he argued that a certain band is good because their songs are musically complex and have thoughtful lyrics. He said this band has a great musical education and that their understanding of musical theory is above average - therefore their ability to create good music is heightened.

This is absurd. To give one obvious example, AC/DC are an amazing/very influential band and none of the above applies to them. As for weird time signatures, anyone can write a piece in 5/4 or 7/4, but writing something in those time signatures that people would want to listen to is another story, and very few artists in history have been able to pull if off. I certainly don't think lyrics need to be thoughtful or complex, the simplest lyrics are the best.

I know plenty of people, friends of mine who have an amazing musical education, it isn't that big a deal and certainly doesn't mean they can write good songs. It's why I'm no longer impressed by people who can shred on a guitar - i know 20 other people who can play just as fast, its no big deal.

Anyway, what happens if you don't play an instrument and you don't understand all this stuff about time signatures and theory? Is it still possible to give an objective reason?

I agree that if someone knows a lot about musical theory, then they will be able to play their instrument better and be able to write more complex songs. That's obvious. But does that necessarily mean that they have the talent to write music that people enjoy?

I think this is a good point. A lot of people get caught up in playing in different styles and different scales and being amazing at their instrument and forget what turned them onto music in the first place. So they could write the amazing riff in E, A and D, but reject it coz its not original enough or too simple whatever, which is a shame.

I love complex music as well as simple music, Led Zeppelin are my favourite band and they never kept things simple. Metallica's ...And Justice For All is one of my favourite albums too. But everything you do in a song is a means to a end. I love a good rock epic with loadsa different parts but ultimately the music has to be good, or all the complexity means nothing. You can't appreciate complexity unless you enjoy listening to the music in the first place.

I don't think there is good and bad music, just music you like or don't like.
"All Music Is Popular for a reason, you just have to find it."

shatners basoon

It really depends on what you consider good to be. On that word alone it is subjective naturally but if you're talking about the creativity involved in the progression and the melody then its a bit more debateable. Think there was a thread on this board a while ago where someone was arguing that music reached its peak with Beethoven but we won't get into that.

A lot of what we find "good" in the music we like is usually predetermined rather than people being open with the music. Most popular music uses simple catchy melodies which get stuck in your head easily and offer little depth or originality -(the same thing applies to all popular media e.g. films, tv etc.). Thats not to say it isn't 'good' but from a musical/creative standpoint popular music has never been up to much.

As for complexities in music- they're harder to appreciate and require effort. Thats not saying that all music thats complicated theoretically is good music, but it gives the music much more colour and personality. As an example a musician who has a better musical vocabulary is like a writer who has a better vocabulary and they've more scope to express themselves. They require more effort to understand and appreciate but the effort is worth it.

A primal nut wrote:

As for weird time signatures, anyone can write a piece in 5/4 or 7/4, but writing something in those time signatures that people would want to listen to is another story, and very few artists in history have been able to pull if off.

Thats just in popular music as our modern civilisation in raised in common time, there's nothing weird about those time signatures at all provided you're used to them, same goes for scales. It doesn't even make for complex music (unless its say tool changing time signatures every 4 bars or so which is awkward) Its all about what you're used to, people don't challenge themselves to even become aware of all the great music thats out there because they're not used to it. If you were born in Africa or Cuba you'd be well used to different rythms and wouldn't find anything complex about them.
Its better to be able to appreciate more rather than less.

A musician should be open to all and willing to experiment with all thats on offer. An entertainer can just play what people want to hear so they can get rich and famous.

Karl Hungus

Music is probably the most subjective thing you could talk about.

First of all it depends on what you consider music is.

For someone who likes complex arrangements, a dance track isn't going to be good, because it's a simple rythm and melody for someone who's dancing to keep in time with. Likewise if you're someone who dances, a complexly structured 10 minute long song isn't going to be good.

Knowledge in music theory can be a good thing though. Take a look at Dream Theater, most of the guys in the band are Berkley educated music geniuses, and they make some of the best music ever. Then again, that's speaking from a perspective of enjoying more complex music, so it's subjective.

John

And is good music always good music?

Makaveli

There will always be somebody somewhere that likes some sort of music (even if it's just the person that made it) so really you can never have good or bad music. It's just down to what you like and what you don't.

Dream Theater may be musical geniuses but some 9 year old girl is probably not going to appreciate the music or even like it. Where at the same time the latest Girls Aloud song might be her favourite track in the world but the Dream Theater fans are more than likely not going to like it. Horses for courses.

I don't think anybody needs to justify why they like a song. Maybe it just caught their attention with a catchy little beat and silly lyrics and they enjoy it for what it is. You need the pop fluff as well as the 10 minutes epic guitar solos for a bit of balance.

That's not to say you can't express your opinion on an artist/song/genre. You may think it's bad and from a technical point of view it might be bad but really it's just down to opinion at the end of the day.

Mr Alan

i agree with pretty much all of the above, wat people like is always down to their individual tastes and one can never really be in a position to question that..........

BUT! i think that if someone tried to argue that some hip hop song going about pimps, bling, etc etc is a better song than With or Without You or Stairway to heaven etc . . . . . i would have to contradict wat i've said above and say they are straight out WRONG!

ah well thats the beauty and frustration that is music. wouldnt change it for the world

Orizio

millersangel wrote:

i agree with pretty much all of the above, wat people like is always down to their individual tastes and one can never really be in a position to question that..........

BUT! i think that if someone tried to argue that some hip hop song going about pimps, bling, etc etc is a better song than With or Without You or Stairway to heaven etc . . . . . i would have to contradict wat i've said above and say they are straight out WRONG!
ah well thats the beauty and frustration that is music. wouldnt change it for the world

Can I have your address so I can kill you please? Check out The Coup's 'Me And Jesus The Pimp In A '79 Granada Last Night', which I would contend takes a huge dump on practically every other piece of music ever made and its about a pimp's lifestyle and the effects it can have on innocents and children.How odd...

However I agree that music is hugely subjective.You listen to what you like, not what a magazine says you should like or what your freinds say you should like.

Dark Artist

It's really refreshing to read all of your posts... the points you all make are very interesting. It's really also interesting to see that most people view music as subjective just as I do.

By the way, John, that link you posted was amazing. Great article and very relevant to the discussion.

Sinfonia

Orizio wrote:

Can I have your address so I can kill you please? Check out The Coup's 'Me And Jesus The Pimp In A '79 Granada Last Night', which I would contend takes a huge dump on practically every other piece of music ever made and its about a pimp's lifestyle and the effects it can have on innocents and children.How odd...

However I agree that music is hugely subjective.You listen to what you like, not what a magazine says you should like or what your freinds say you should like.

I think millersangel is really referring to the amount of terrible 'hip hop' in the charts these days,
where the 'rapper' is tossin on about nothing really, and this has given hip hop a really bad name.
Most of the music in rap is sampled and/or not very inventive, so I think the lyrics are the most important part of it.
For anybody who has only been subjected to Ludacris, or tracks like 'Smack That', or who can't really relate to gangsta rap,
I'd recommend artists like The Fugees, Mos Def, Common, Nas, some 2Pac, J5, and The Roots. Or DJ Shadow if you want good beats without the lyrics.

cornbb

Yes, good and bad music exists. A lot of it is subjective of course but in fairness the difference should be self evident in most cases.

My own personal rule of thumb is that a piece of music is good if it is somehow a little different or original or has been written for the sake of being music, as opposed to being written for the sake of being "safe", listenable or just to sell. Although having said that I sometimes hear great pop music and awful experimental music too, so I guess there's no hard and fast rule.

Orizio

SumGuy wrote:

I think millersangel is really referring to the amount of terrible 'hip hop' in the charts these days,
where the 'rapper' is tossin on about nothing really, and this has given hip hop a really bad name.
Most of the music in rap is sampled and/or not very inventive, so I think the lyrics are the most important part of it.
For anybody who has only been subjected to Ludacris, or tracks like 'Smack That', or who can't really relate to gangsta rap,
I'd recommend artists like The Fugees, Mos Def, Common, Nas, some 2Pac, J5, and The Roots. Or DJ Shadow if you want good beats without the lyrics.

Umm no and no, and even if this was true you wouldn't be able to prove it.Sampling is not an automatically bad thing, and plays less of an important part in Hip-Hop then it used to.

I see and basically agree with your point.Basically I'm saying don't judge a book by its cover-just because its rap and the subject matter is pimps does not mean its misogynistic or brainless.That point can no doubt be taken for all forms of music.

Mr Alan

thanks sumguy, thats exactly what i meant. i have no problem with genuine, innovative hip hop music - anything which is creative is good in my book. truth be known i have no problem with '****ty nightclub' hip hop either, just dont think it deserves to be compared to genuine quality music (of any genre)

Makaveli

SumGuy wrote:

Most of the music in rap is sampled and/or not very inventive, so I think the lyrics are the most important part of it.

Or DJ Shadow if you want good beats without the lyrics.

You realise Endtroducing is made 100% from samples right?

Sinfonia

Makaveli wrote:

You realise Endtroducing is made 100% from samples right?

Yup.
I wasn't saying sampling was a bad thing. I was just saying that I think the lyrics in rap are more important. Also, I find that sampling done for a lot of rap songs is playing the exact sample with very little mixing, with just a more prominent beat added to it - in the same way as all the ****ty dance remixes of 80s songs are made (Call On Me, Make Luv, Out of Touch etc.), and as for the not inventive thing, I just find that a lot of Dre's beats, for example, while they may be catchy, generally just stick to a kind of formula, and just act as wallpaper for song.
Which is fine!
It's all down to personal taste, and any genre is home to "crap" artists, but if a song I don't like makes somebody else happy, who am I to say they shouldn't listen to it.
I was really just trying to get across what millersangel was saying, because I just thought his opinion got picked up wrong. What I think he was really saying, and this is something that I agree with, is that there are sort of two ways to write music:
One is to write music because you want to create something, as an artist.
The other is to write music that you feel will be appreciated by a target audience, usually for the pursuit of moneymaking. I have always felt that the former is more important.
Therefore, I think, even in the same genre, when you take a track like 'Smack That' and a track like 'Only God Can Judge Me', the difference in what I suppose you could call artistic integrity is clear.
One is (IMO) a well-written and poetic heartfelt expression from 2pac about how people (esp. the media) try to judge him without knowing him (although I'm not mad on the 4-Tay bit).
The other is (IMO) a beat, melody and lyrics strung together in five minutes for the purposes of pandering to people who don't care for anything original.

Also, I'll retract the "most is sampled" bit, I can't back that up, but it's certainly not unusual.
And just to say again, I don't have a problem with sampling, I like it most of the time, but I think if the artist is not writing the music, then obviously the lyrics they are writing are the most important thing to them, and so that's why I think the lyrics are usually the most important part of rap - and to be fair it's always been about the lyrics.

Orizio

I'd agree to a certain degree.There is a certain laziness to how some producers-even some of the better known ones like 9th Wonder-flip their samples, even if the end product is consistently dope.Put an old soul sample on a loop,throw some drums and bass on it and thats it.Anyone can do it basically.

However as I said that laziness is not really true for most producers.

Makaveli

SumGuy wrote:

there are sort of two ways to write music:
One is to write music because you want to create something, as an artist.
The other is to write music that you feel will be appreciated by a target audience, usually for the pursuit of moneymaking. I have always felt that the former is more important.

Therefore, I think, even in the same genre, when you take a track like 'Smack That' and a track like 'Only God Can Judge Me', the difference in what I suppose you could call artistic integrity is clear.

One is (IMO) a well-written and poetic heartfelt expression from 2pac about how people (esp. the media) try to judge him without knowing him (although I'm not mad on the 4-Tay bit).

The other is (IMO) a beat, melody and lyrics strung together in five minutes for the purposes of pandering to people who don't care for anything original.

I see your point, but you need the fluff too I think. It depends on the environment you're in. A song like Smack That (which I think is crap) works well in a nightclub where as Only God Can Judge Me wouldn't. The two artists you've used as examples have diverse enough sounds in their catalogues anyway. Eminem has written songs that are a lot better than a lot of 2pac's stuff imo.

Mr Alan

agree, wat i've heard from eminem i would find much more entertaining and interesting than what i've heard from tupac (until eminems latest couple of albums that is, think he has got lazy - the edge that was there before is gone now)

John

Another interesting article on good music, this time focussing on the listener's perception of the person supposedly playing the music. Link here.

funky penguin

Jaco Pastorius, an amazing Bassist (now unfortunately 6 feet under), once said this about music; "If its good, I dig it". (I think it was him anyway).

I try to live by this statement. If you like it, roll with it no matter what anybody says, if its the latest club tune, an ancient gregorian chant, an obscure form of Jazz from the depths of New York city or Britney's latest chart topper.

I remember hearing about that Joshua Bell story on lyric fm and thinking.. "NOOOOO!!!!! If only I had been there... I could have shown him the love!"

Cardinal

I would say that there is good and bad music, but that the two are fuzzy definitions rather than a clear cut case of one or the other.

At the simplest level, part of the reason for the fuzziness is subjectivity with regards to a particular song. Someone might come to like a song because of the situation they were in when they first heard it, or for some other reason they have attached a significance to the song.

But that's not the only level where subjectivity comes into play. There's further subjectivity on the level of "what makes good music". People may think many things such as: theoretical complexity, difficulty of performance, how emotionally compelling a peice is, how much fun a piece is, depth of lyrics etc. are what make music good. So, within any of these contexts, a piece of music may seem great, yet within another it's terrible.

So while it may not be possible to construct a list of all music from good at the top to bad at the bottom, it is certainly possible to have a useful conversation about the quality of diverse pieces of music, so long as one keeps in mind the context of that quality.