PE and I are sort of hijacking a thread in the Indie Rock category, but I think it's an interesting enough subject to really talk about...

I know nobody wants to sound indie-snobbish or anything by deriding music that other people like...and most of the time, I agree. Taste is subjective.

In fact, whenever somebody judges a piece of music according to the content of the music, I'll say 'taste is subjective'.

But there's some music that's judged by aspects external to the music. And I'm just not going to lend credence to every flash in the pan MTV artist whose entire fanbase will probably categorically disown in less than five years anyway. Even if it's going to come off as snobbish.

Some music is bad. It has nothing to do with opinion, it's bad. There's a reason that people who take a strong interest in music don't flock to the flash in the pan MTV artists, and it's because they aren't talented musicians. Granted, a lot of people will buy their albums and sing their praises, but 95% of them don't know what exists beyond what's fed to them by television. That doesn't mean all mainstream artists are bad, but most of them are, and end up being forgotten a few years later.

Now, once someone really takes a strong interest into exploring what's out there musically, it gets a bit fuzzier. I hate metal with a passion, but I know some people who have huge collections of metal all over the world, and know just about everything there is to know about all the metal subgenres. Personally, I think these people like terrible music, but I also respect that they have a good taste in music, just not one that I can relate to. I don't know much about or particularly like jazz either, but people who love jazz and get into classic jazz artists certainly have a good taste in jazz music. I can respect their taste in music, but I don't really get into jazz that much on a personal level.

Basically what I'm trying to get at is everyone gets into different genres, and become well-versed in it, so to speak, and form opinions on what they like and don't like. If someone explores all different types of music is out there, and decides after hearing a lot of different types of music that they like straight up MTV, total requeset live shit, I would be shocked. Odds are the person finds something better. I just don't respect people who's taste in music is what they're told to like.

There's a difference between respecting someone's taste in music, and thinking someone has good taste in music. That's what I was trying to illustrate in that rambling mess.

I just try to consider that, for ever artist or band or song that I react with abhorrence to, somebody else, somewhere, is making a similarly considered judgment about something that I treasure. When I look down my nose at the Backstreet Boys, there's somebody else looking down their nose at my beloved Replacements, or all rock music, or whatever.

I can pick out all sorts of stuff that I hate, and I try to offer some objective reading as to why it's bad ("Margaritaville" is god-awful) but I'm not sure I can ever offer anything more than "I don't like it for these reasons"...all of them tied to "I."

I worry about subjectivism, though. If you apply it everywhere, you get some really creepy arguments in ethics. I find it appealling, but also to be a little upsetting.

I would agree with most of what you guys had to say and have only this to add: I think that there is capability for good music in every genre... I don't personally enjoy metal/hardcore for example, but a local Grand Rapids hardcore band just released an amazing album a couple weeks ago, and though I don't like it personally, I would definetely consider it to be "good" music. I feel the same for rap, though I honestly haven't given it enough of a chance to find any of it that i particularly enjoy. That said, in both genres, and in my opinion country as well, the good music is far and few between and the vast majority of music in those categories I would consider to be "bad." But I have respect for those who are into those genres because of their personal taste as long as it's their own opinion and not that which the media says that they should have.

I've heard some really absurd relativist arguments, but in the case of music I think a strong case can be made that just about everything is subjective. If you've never had your tastes change dramatically like mine have, then it may be more difficult to understand.

I think we need to make a distinction between casual music listeners (the MTV crowd, soccer moms) and serious music fanatics (just about everyone on this site). I think there is a lot of music out there that serious music fans hate, but that casual music fans adore. This is music that is easily grasped, does not take repeated listens to appreciate, and does not require you to be engrossed with the music to gain some enjoyment. This is just the result of the different amount of time and attention different people spend on music.

I could make an analogy with visual art, like paintings. When I look at paintings I want to see something that looks cool. I kinda like cartoon-like pictures. Someone who is an artist or an art historian would dismiss the kind of stuff I would like out of hand. I, on the other hand, see nothing particularly remarkable about the masterpieces that all art critics say are magnificent. The sole reason for the difference in how I perceive paintings and how the art historian perceives paintings is how much time he has spent studying and appreciating the art.

I think the difference between your music fanatic and your MTV watcher is similar. A garish cartoon that looks kinda cool to me is like a slick radio single that every serious music fan abhors. The Picasso that art historians deify is like the indie-rock masterpiece that the average person wouldn't get.

I know I was like this just a few years ago. I didnn't listen to much music, but there were some radio singles that I kinda liked. Those are the kind of songs that I probably wouldn't bother with or enjoy today.

I'm sorry to seem ignorant, but what's the "question" or "issue" that is driving this thread? Is this the place where we (the "serious music fanatics") are supposed to pontificate about how WE know more about what entails "good music" than the "soccer moms" who enjoy (heaven forbid!) artists featured on MTV? Each individual's taste in music, art, literature, movies, etc. is subjective - DUH!

Are you trying to make people who like "popular" music feel bad?

My original intent was to say I didn't feel like you need a disclaimer whenever you want to criticize something.

And to say that there are two categories I don't like: Music that I appreciate the fact that it is genuinely enjoyed, and music that is generally enjoyed superficially.

And that most of the music that falls into the latter category is stuff that people who like now, will hate as soon as the trend fades out. And in that category I feel justified in saying 'It sucks'. But, if you do like it, there's no reason to feel bad.

There's some good stuff played on MTV. Just, MTV markets based on image and social trends, and not based on the music.

Objectively, yes, everything strictly regarding taste is subjective. But subjectively, it can be made objective, by focusing on technical skill, strength of emotional content, creativity, etc. I think you can objectively discuss art and music so long as you define exactly what you're talking about. The thing is, *what* you judge music and art based on, is ultimately subjective.

(So let's just assume that Justin Timberlake being hot doesn't affect the quality of N Sync's music.)

Bob, by the way, is heterosexual. MARK.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Bobthespirit,

Bob has the hots for Justin, but at least it's subjective (or is that objective?) I think I'm starting to lose it.

I do believe that, in some cases, one piece or "art" is simply better than another. If you really believe that Limp Bizkit or Insane Clown Posse are better than The Beatles, Radiohead or other artistic standards of their era, I don't think you should have the right to use subjectivity as justification.

Nonetheless, indie fans can probably be as concerned with attitude and aesthetics (this whole lo-fi trend, for instance) as casual viewers of MTV.

quote:

Originally posted by benjiru:
a local Grand Rapids hardcore band just released an amazing album a couple weeks ago, and though I don't like it personally, I would definetely consider it to be "good" music.

Hellooo fellow West Michigan native!!

Is this band's CD something that I should check out on my next trip to Vertigo Records?

.

quote:

Originally posted by philosopherEric:
I just try to consider that, for ever[y] artist or band or song that I react with abhorrence to.

(insert "Fiery Furnaces" here)

.

Flem...
The album I referred to is by a local hardcore band by the name of Still Remains, though I'm not into hardcore, I find the album to be quite interesting(though only enough to tolerate when my metalhead roommate plays it haha). It is very good musically though, so if you are in to harder edged stuff, it is worth the listen... Ahh Vertigo, when I had a more steady income it was my home away home!

quote:

Originally posted by benjiru:
Flem...
The album I referred to is by a local hardcore band by the name of Still Remains

I see that the CD ("Of Love and Lunacy") got a nice writeup in today's edition of the local paper.

And yes, Vertigo Records does carry it.

Here's hoping that steady income thing comes back around for ya real soon....

.