quote:

Originally posted by odysseyandoracle:
If it's entirely subjective, why does almost everyone like the Beatles more than, say, Herman's Hermits? At the very least we have to say that there's something real in the Beatles that makes them more appealing, if not "better."

That's a tough question. I actually wouldn't say that music is entirely subjective, because there are identifiable elements in music that appeal to the human mind. You could hear samples of random noise and a Beatles songs and say with some certainty that the Beatles song is better (I mean 'better' in the sense that it has a greater capacity to affect and bring pleasure to the human mind). While I think very broad conclusions like this are possible, when it comes to two pieces of music that are both well-liked by some people, they will both contain the elements of what we recognize as music and I think it is impossible to objectively state which one is better.

Certainly, how many people like a piece of music and how deeply they enjoy it (a harder thing to measure) are indicative of how "good" a piece of music is, I think we can all agree that these are imperfect indicators. For one, marketing and publicity obviously influence how many people will like the music. Also, their music backgrounds play a big part as does age and innumerable other factors. It's simply impossible to quantify how much the inherent "goodness" of a piece of music contributes to its popularity and enjoyment and how much these other factors contribute.

I suppose the ultimate experiment would be to take a large group of people and as they grow up, expose them to every known type of music. You would also have to prohibit them from reading or hearing about music from outside sources such as the media or other people, so that how they feel about music wouldn't be influenced by propaganda. Then you could play the pieces of music that you wish to compare (in an objective sense) and have them rate them. You could also do fMRI scans and other brain imaging techniques while they listen to the music to get another objective measurement of how strongly the music affects them. In this way I think you could get a pretty objective measurement of the greatness of a piece of music. Of course, this is an impossible experiment, but I think it at least demonstrates that it is theoretically possible to get an objective measurement of the greatness of different songs and albums.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:

That's a tough question. I actually wouldn't say that music is entirely subjective, because there are identifiable elements in music that appeal to the human mind. You could hear samples of random noise and a Beatles songs and say with some certainty that the Beatles song is better (I mean 'better' in the sense that it has a greater capacity to affect and bring pleasure to the human mind). While I think very broad conclusions like this are possible, when it comes to two pieces of music that are both well-liked by some people, they will both contain the elements of what we recognize as music and I think it is impossible to objectively state which one is better.

Yes! If it is impossible, or really impractical, to objectively state what is definitively better than why is it objectionable to use "favorite" over "best"? Also, I like your experiment idea but I think the replicant thing would be a little more humane...denying them pitchfork - how awful . We would have to sacrifice them afterwards, lest they become music critics themselves!

quote:

Originally posted by La La Love Pixies:
Yes! If it is impossible, or really impractical, to objectively state what is definitively better than why is it objectionable to use "favorite" over "best"?

I actually think "favorite" probably is the right word to use, but I'm not picky. It wasn't really which word to use that I originally objected to, just the fact that people distinguished between "best" and "favorite."

quote:

Originally posted by La La Love Pixies:
Also, I like your experiment idea but I think the replicant thing would be a little more humane...denying them pitchfork - how awful .

Haha, yeah, this is something that would never get by federal regulators. But maybe we could set up a lab in Guantanamo, hmmmm.....

quote:

Originally posted by Dork:
The weird thing here is that I totally agree with RavingLunatic, on principle. I don't beleive there's a way to separate out this supposed "core listener" from the other elements of your brain. It's a futile and ultimately silly effort in self deception.

I know, and that's why I said I was just trying to explain the way I think I approach it. It wasn't meant to be taken literally. It's an explanatory model, not an exact representation of the way I think - I just listen to music and write down how I feel about it, and if I can identify why I like it more than its actual content would suggest, I note that. Those would be "favorites," or at least rank highly on the "favorite" scale. Whereas if I like something tons because it's just an incredibly well-written and performed piece of music, it gets high ratings on the "best" scale. Again, my usage of the word "scale" is not meant to be taken literally, I'm just trying to explain what I mean when I say best and favorite are different for me.


Here is an example of what I'm talking about:

Jersey's Best Dancers by Lifetime is a blah blah blah, with yada yada yada music. I give this album 5 stars (or whatever), but part of the reason I enjoy it so much is because it makes me feel nostalgic for New Jersey. Your mileage may vary.

Does that sound so strange, put into practice?

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

I think we've all come a little closer to resolution here. How about we ban the usage of the word "best" in substitute for what we really equate to mean "favorite". If we are going to talk in terms of "best" then it has to be qualified - like "this album is the best (at) *insert adjective/verb/noun* because *insert technical explanation*, so it's not so much a matter of subjectivity. In other words you wouldn't want to confuse best with "most enjoyable". So in terms of defining ones year end list or 'greatest of the 70s' or something, we should exclusively refer to it as "favorite". How's that for SACRILEGE!

quote:

Originally posted by odysseyandoracle:
Does that sound so strange, put into practice?

Not at all.

Out of nowhere post:

I have tried, but I just don't like Andrew Bird's songs. I think that he shows off too much in his lyrics and I cringe because of that.

I think he's a great musician, though, and I love his Take Away Shows.

Showtime and Maths + English are both better than Boy in Da Corner. Although the latter just slightly.

And, I don't listen to enough rap to accurately make a judgment over the whole genre, but I can at least say that Showtime is better than anything Jay-Z or Kanye has done. Not that I don't like those guys, I just like Dizzee better.

Hip-hop, not rap, hip-hop. You "don't listen to enough hip-hop to..."

And yeah, I love Dizzee Rascal too, Def Jux is releasing Maths + English (finally!) on April 29 here in the States.

But how is it sacrilege that you prefer one MC to two others?

quote:

Originally posted by FragileKidA:
Hip-hop, not rap, hip-hop. You "don't listen to enough hip-hop to..."

I always found that to be a pedantic distinction. There is very little hip-hop that doesn't include rapping, and very little rapping these days that doesn't have hip-hop beats. I can't think of anything with a strong hip-hop influence and no rapping that couldn't be better described as a different genre. It's the fact that they're rapping and not singing that makes it entirely separate from traditional pop music.

But I could be convinced otherwise if you can come up with a good example of why it's necessary to be more precise here. "Rap music" and "hip-hop" have both worked fine for me.

quote:

And yeah, I love Dizzee Rascal too, Def Jux is releasing Maths + English (finally!) on April 29 here in the States.

But how is it sacrilege that you prefer one MC to two others?

Well, the consensus seems to be that those two guys are better - certainly Kanye at least, who can do no wrong in the eyes of many. And I don't just mean as far as their rapping abilities; I think Dizzee's beats and production are better, too.

What really puzzles me is how anyone could consider Boy in Da Corner better than Showtime. It's not even close. What would be sacrilege is to say that Showtime is the best hip-hop album of the decade, but I haven't heard enough to make that claim with confidence. It's the best I've heard.

quote:

Originally posted by odysseyandoracle:
There is very little hip-hop that doesn't include rapping, and very little rapping these days that doesn't have hip-hop beats.

No.

But nice try.

quote:

I can't think of anything with a strong hip-hop influence and no rapping that couldn't be better described as a different genre.

DJ Shadow, to name just one.

There's actually a lot of instrumental hip-hop out there.

That's a good point. I guess personally I just don't think of DJ Shadow as hip-hop. "Trip hop" was actually coined to refer to him.

But it seems that that itself is a good argument for calling hip-hop with MCs "rap music." It's more specific, at least.

Calling hip-hop rap music is like calling metal screaming music. It's a style of vocal, not a genre.

I guess I just base my genres on what's useful. Calling hip-hop rap music is useful, calling metal screaming music isn't.

But whatever, I don't care, arguing semantics wasn't the point of my post, etc., etc. This is just splitting hairs; rap music = hip-hop is already in the dictionaries and the popular lexicon and it isn't going away. But if it bothers people here I'll make sure I use hip-hop from now on.

quote:

Originally posted by odysseyandoracle:
Calling hip-hop rap music is useful, calling metal screaming music isn't.

Why, and why not?

Why, I'm glad you asked.

People know what "rap music" is. The fact that you and FKA both came in to point out that I was actually referring to "hip-hop" means that you both knew what I meant. Yeah, I mentioned some hip-hop artists in the post, but I'm pretty sure you'd understand it even if I hadn't.

Screaming music as metal, on the other hand, isn't so clear. There is other music that involves screaming besides metal (quite a bit of it these days), and the amount of metal centered around screaming probably isn't even a plurality (that is, assuming that you're using screaming to refer to the various evolutions of the mostly tuneless shouting pioneered by the early thrash metal bands [phew], and not just metal singing in general).

So: people know what rap music means. People don't know what screaming music is - it obviously involves screaming, but it's not at all clear whether the music or the screaming is going to sound more like Yoko Ono or Darkthrone or Orchid. Rap is as recognizable a term as hip-hop - if screaming music became as recognizable a term as metal, then it would be just as useful. This is the same reason I stopped getting upset when the likes of Dashboard Confessional are referred to as "emo" - like it or not, the term is inclusive now in general company.

If everyone in the world woke up tomorrow and started using "rap music" to mean "the sound of trimming pubes," then that's what it would mean when used by and with the majority of people. Maybe you and I would remember, but we'd get looked at *real strange* if we used it in a public arena. It would cease to be useful.

Basically, you're jumping off the cliff because other people are doing it too.

No. Words only have usefulness because you and the person(s) you're talking to use the word to refer to the same thing. You can make up words all you like, but they're useless until you can convince people that they refer to a particular thing. That's what language is for: communication. There is no ideal form of the word "rap" that exists above and beyond human perception of the word "rap," just like "faggot" has come from meaning a bundle of wood to meaning a male homosexual. The meaning of words is not eternal and unchanging; it would be absurd to say that faggot still meant male homosexual 500 years ago, just as it is to say that rap cannot possibly refer to hip-hop when it's used that way in both the OED and popular language. Hip-hop might be a more accurate or preferable term to you, but that doesn't change what rap means today. Same goes for any word. The meaning of a word is its use in a language.

FWIW, I just noticed that the name of the Metacritic subforum is also Rap / Hip-Hop.

But now we're getting very far away from anything related to music. Like I said, I'll use hip-hop if that's going to bother people less. I realized after that original post that someone would probably pipe up, but I didn't have a chance to go back and change it.

quote:

Originally posted by odysseyandoracle:
Like I said, I'll use hip-hop if that's going to bother people less. I realized after that original post that someone would probably pipe up, but I didn't have a chance to go back and change it.

Oh come on, it's not that big of a deal. Hip-hop is just the better term for it, I always use "hip-hop/rap" but that's just me. You yourself said you don't even know the genre that well at all so what we are saying isn't so incredible. I have studied the genre and think of myself to know a lot about it so that's why I said what I said.

I always thought it was referred to as crap. Har Har.

quote:

Originally posted by Dork:
Basically, you're jumping off the cliff because other people are doing it too.

Odyssey, don't bother with this unless you really enjoy it. Basically, you are talking to a wall. Or should I refer to it as acoustiking?