# What's the difference between good and bad music?



## Rigby (Apr 30, 2013)

Huh?


----------



## Kosdu (Apr 30, 2013)

Good: Soulful, good sounding arrangements, nothing bad
Bad: country accents, thoughtless pop, souless, crappy arrangements.... Etc.


----------



## Hewge (Apr 30, 2013)

I feel like 'taste' is the difference. As in musical taste between each person.

Aka it is a matter of opinion.


----------



## DMAN14 (Apr 30, 2013)

Hewge said:


> I feel like 'taste' is the difference. As in musical taste between each person.
> 
> Aka it is a matter of opinion.



I'm gonna second Sir Ottigre here, I have some friends whose musical tastes are very different than mine. Like I cannot even bear listening to it and I don't even see it as "quality" music. While there are other genres that I don't like that I recognize as "quality". For example, I love country, but I bet many furs here dislike country. Yet they may recognize many songs as quality and good, but just not for them.


----------



## Ranguvar (Apr 30, 2013)

Hewge said:


> I feel like 'taste' is the difference. As in musical taste between each person.
> 
> Aka it is a matter of opinion.


True except nu-metal. All nu metal is terrible, no exceptions.


----------



## Golden (Apr 30, 2013)

Matter of pure opinion; however, in my opinion, good music consists of one or more of the following:
-Meaningful lyrics when applicable (preferably tells a story)
-depth (or songs that have specific motifs, like death or nostalgia)
-Original Songwriting (I appreciate it when the artist is dedicated enough to write his/her/their own material)

Bad music has characteristics like:
-simple sing-a-long lyrics
-recycling elements from other songs in unimaginative ways (i.e. very similar song structure to songs that the artist has already released)
-getting easily stuck in your head (not exactly songs with a simple rhythm, but songs with a certain catchiness)


----------



## Rigby (Apr 30, 2013)

Golden said:


> -getting easily stuck in your head (not exactly songs with a simple rhythm, but songs with a certain catchiness)



why is that bad?


----------



## Golden (Apr 30, 2013)

Rigby said:


> why is that bad?


It gets in my head for all the wrong reasons.

Case in point: Call Me Maybe by Carly Rae Jespsen

It's over-produced, simple, lazy, crap. And it won't ever leave my head simply because it's catchy.

Fuck that.

EDIT: Not to say that catchiness as a whole is a bad thing. But when that's the only redeeming quality of the song, it sits in your head.


----------



## HereKittyKitty (Apr 30, 2013)

That's subjective!


----------



## Rigby (Apr 30, 2013)

Golden said:


> It gets in my head for all the wrong reasons.
> 
> Case in point: Call Me Maybe by Carly Rae Jespsen
> 
> ...



Doesn't there have to be something to make it catchy? Catchiness can't exist on its own, can it? Is it an exclusive characteristic of a song?

Also, what's simple or lazy about Call Me Maybe?


----------



## Demensa (May 1, 2013)

As vague and unanswerable the question is, I'll try to answer it anyways.

Good can have a few different meanings to start with. The most obvious being the "Oh, I like this. It sounds good" gut reaction.
I would agree with Hewge in that it is mainly a matter of taste and will therefore depend on the sum of all of the influences, memories and experiences in your life, both good and bad.

Whether a song is "Good" or "Bad" also has a lot to do with context.


Golden said:


> -recycling elements from other songs in unimaginative ways (i.e. very similar song structure to songs that the artist has already released)


 This is an example of something being bad in a contextual way. If someone wrote an amazing song and someone else decided to 'compose' a blatant rip-off, even though it sounds good on it's own, you will reject the song because you know the writer has stolen ideas. Usually when we hear something that sounds similar to another song, the artist has never intended to plagiarise someone else's work, even though we sometimes see it that way. It's these illogical biases that have a lot of power in shaping our taste. You might dismiss a song as being bad because it carries a label like "Dubstep" or "Nu-metal" even when you haven't really given it a chance to sink in. The opinions of others can also have impact on your own taste.
Talking directly about the quote, I think that a similar song structure can be a good thing some of the time. Sometimes it's nice to just hear the same thing over and over.

I mean it's okay to say that you didn't enjoy something or that you thought it was terrible, as long as you keep in mind that nobody else will feel exactly the same.
The idea that music is inherently good or bad is very far from the truth. 



Kosdu said:


> Good: Soulful, good sounding arrangements, nothing bad
> Bad: country accents, thoughtless pop, souless, crappy arrangements.... Etc.



It's interesting you bring up "Soulful". It's possibly even a more subjective term than "Good" or "Bad".


----------



## Vukasin (May 1, 2013)

There is technically no such thing as bad music. Unless there is a song that literally everybody in the world hates.


----------



## Llamapotamus (May 1, 2013)

Green_Knight said:


> True expect nu-metal. All nu metal is terrible, no exceptions.



That's funny, because my response was going to be "I think good music is whatever makes you feel better. For instance, I'm listening to Korn right now and I feel awesome!". But then I saw this, and it made me laugh inside. Some times, nu-metal makes me nostalgic for the simpler times around the end of last century. But I'm weird, so maybe it's just me. Music is very subjective, anyway...

Also, nice little lysdexic moment, there...


----------



## Golden (May 1, 2013)

Rigby said:


> Doesn't there have to be something to make it catchy? Catchiness can't exist on its own, can it? Is it an exclusive characteristic of a song?
> 
> Also, what's simple or lazy about Call Me Maybe?



I think people find that songs are catchy for different reasons. For me, it's simplicity. I get songs with a simple beat and a simple structure stuck in my head. This could be anything from Burial to the Sheepdogs to (new) Radiohead, as well as pop music.

Regarding Call Me Maybe, I was speaking subjectively. I find the lyrics blatantly unimaginative (ohh, look! Yet ANOTHER song about a girl hooking up with a guy) and ridiculously lazy (rhyming fell with tell and well; the structure of the verses don't even flow properly to me).

I know it's idiotic to single out an artist like this, but goddamn this song is everywhere and its the prime example of a bad, yet catchy, song to me right now.

Then again, I'm not the target audience anyways.



Demensa said:


> As vague and unanswerable the question is, I'll try to answer it anyways.
> 
> Good can have a few different meanings to start with. The most obvious being the "Oh, I like this. It sounds good" gut reaction.
> I would agree with Hewge in that it is mainly a matter of taste and will therefore depend on the sum of all of the influences, memories and experiences in your life, both good and bad.
> ...



I agree. There is no such thing as objectively bad music.

What I was specifically referring to is when an artist takes an interesting sound or structure, and then stretches it out as far as possible; of course it's nice to hear the same thing over and over again, but sometimes you simply can't keep exploiting one quality idea and build a career out of it. In other words, artists need to evolve and explore new ideas, rather than stagnate and release the same thing essentially ad infinitum. I have no problem with repetition, sampling, remixing, or borrowing musical ideas with the proper permission.

Kinda obvious, really.


----------



## Zabrina (May 1, 2013)

Good music will make you feel like you ate really good macaroni. 


Bad music will make you feel like you ate fifty pounds of the cream animal fat in oreos.


----------



## Conker (May 1, 2013)

The listener's opinion. 

Hate to say it, but that's really it.

Even some of the most godawful pop/rap music makes it into the Top 40 charts, so even more than SOME people like it.

I mean, you can go into "is it objectively good" area, but that's really hard to do with music. Harder than with books and movies and video games, I'd say. There's something so ethereal about music.


----------



## Rigby (May 2, 2013)

Conker said:


> The listener's opinion.
> 
> Hate to say it, but that's really it.
> 
> ...



Of course it's subjective, but when you listen to a song, by what criteria are you supposed to identify the "good" from the "bad"? When a professional music reviewer says "this is a flaw in an album," why is it a flaw instead of an accomplishment? How do they know and how could I possibly know?


----------



## Kalmor (May 2, 2013)

Rigby said:


> Of course it's subjective, but when you listen to a song, by what criteria are you supposed to identify the "good" from the "bad"?


Then you should re-name the title "What do you think is the difference between good and bad music?"


----------



## Heliophobic (May 2, 2013)

The difference is nonexistent, as music can not be objectively good nor bad.

This thread is fucking stupid.


----------



## Rigby (May 2, 2013)

Saliva said:


> The difference is nonexistent, as music can not be objectively good nor bad.
> 
> This thread is fucking stupid.



What's a song you like? Think of it, now _why_ do you like it? There ARE existent reasons why you prefer that song over another, that's an objective fact (or at least I'd hope it would be).


----------



## Heliophobic (May 2, 2013)

Rigby said:


> What's a song you like? Think of it, now _why_ do you like it? There ARE existent reasons why you prefer that song over another, that's an objective fact (or at least I'd hope it would be).



The elements of said song that I like are objective, yes, but my preference for those elements can not be justified. I just fucking like the song.


----------



## Rigby (May 2, 2013)

Saliva said:


> The elements of said song that I like are objective, yes, but my preference for those elements can not be justified. I just fucking like the song.



That's not true, I see people articulate why they like an album or a song all the time (and you're wrong, those elements aren't objective, the fact that they exist is objective). Just because you can't, doesn't mean no one can.


----------



## Heliophobic (May 2, 2013)

Rigby said:


> That's not true, I see people articulate why they like an album or a song all the time



I meant they can't be objectively justified. Like, with actual logic rather than emotion.



> (and you're wrong, those elements aren't objective, the fact that they exist is objective).


That's what I meant.



> Just because you can't, doesn't mean no one can.



I would love to see you review an album using logic and logic only.

Music isn't a science. It's an art.


----------



## Catilda Lily (May 2, 2013)

Personal tastes.


----------



## Vukasin (May 2, 2013)

Rigby said:


> Of course it's subjective, but when you listen to a song, by what criteria are you supposed to identify the "good" from the "bad"? When a professional music reviewer says "this is a flaw in an album," why is it a flaw instead of an accomplishment? How do they know and how could I possibly know?


When they say "This is a flaw" it's really only their opinion. There could be another reviewer who says that the "flaw" is actually an accomplishment.


----------



## Rigby (May 2, 2013)

Saliva said:


> I meant they can't be objectively justified. Like, with actual logic rather than emotion.



Yes they can.



Saliva said:


> That's what I meant.



You said something fundamentally different.



Saliva said:


> I would love to see you review an album using logic and logic only.



Look up the reviews of Piero Scaruffi then 



Saliva said:


> Music isn't a science. It's an art.



Not if people don't interpret it as art and that requires critiquing it.


----------



## Duality Jack (May 2, 2013)

Technical skill and raw emotionality being effectively expressed via the median.


----------



## Rigby (May 2, 2013)

Mokushi said:


> Technical skill and raw emotionality being effectively expressed via the median.



But what does "effectively expressed" look like? What does it mean?


----------



## Duality Jack (May 2, 2013)

Rigby said:


> But what does "effectively expressed" look like? What does it mean?


As with any artistic median, one of the core focuses is communicating a concept or feeling too the viewer/listener, and personally I think it is the most important aspect.

The issue though is that what communicates well varies from person to person, so like any other art form, quality is often subjective.


----------



## Demensa (May 3, 2013)

Rigby said:


> Of course it's subjective, but when you listen to a song, by what criteria are you supposed to identify the "good" from the "bad"? When a professional music reviewer says "this is a flaw in an album," why is it a flaw instead of an accomplishment? How do they know and how could I possibly know?



Of course they don't know.
Professional reviews are a little bit of a joke.
They tend to state their opinion strongly as an objective fact. I mean, they have to say that they _know _rather than they _think_, otherwise it would come off as a pretty weak review.
It's just a matter of their confidence.

 Although, there _is_ a little bit of technique in writing a review. You have to try and think like other people and try to identify where the world's tastes and people's criteria for 'good' will overlap. This usually includes things like; 'too much repetition', 'not cohesive enough', 'emotional buildups', etc. instead of personal things like 'It reminded me of X'. 
They are usually writing reviews to people with similar tastes as well; eg. anyone who is likely to know of a specific artist will probably have a more agreeable opinion to the reviewer than someone who isn't going to read the review in the first place.
The reviewer must also have a very large contextual background of releases in the genre.

Even then, they are next to useless for me anyways.


----------



## benignBiotic (May 3, 2013)

When my parents hear the experimental hipster shit I love they say "Is this even music?"


----------



## Rigby (May 3, 2013)

Demensa said:


> Of course they don't know.
> Professional reviews are a little bit of a joke.
> They tend to state their opinion strongly as an objective fact. I mean, they have to say that they _know _rather than they _think_, otherwise it would come off as a pretty weak review.
> It's just a matter of their confidence.
> ...



I don't know what reviews or reviewers you're talking about, but that's not how every review is written. Okay, this might sound crazy, but I'll telling the truth here when I say there are reviewers who dissect and analyze a song or album and make valid points about the flaws or the lack thereof in the music. That's what I'm talking about, how do _they_ do that? Does anyone know or is the wrong place to ask?


----------



## captainbrant (May 3, 2013)

.


----------



## Kosdu (May 3, 2013)

Bad music:

Check out my FA page under scraps, bad drawings and poetry are under my gallery, and scraps, too.


----------



## Rigby (May 3, 2013)

Kosdu said:


> Bad music:
> 
> Check out my FA page under scraps, bad drawings and poetry are under my gallery, and scraps, too.



Why is it bad?


----------



## Demensa (May 3, 2013)

Rigby said:


> I don't know what reviews or reviewers you're talking about, but that's not how every review is written. Okay, this might sound crazy, but I'll telling the truth here when I say there are reviewers who dissect and analyze a song or album and make valid points about the flaws or the lack thereof in the music. That's what I'm talking about, how do _they_ do that? Does anyone know or is the wrong place to ask?



When you say they make valid points about the flaws etc, you are only saying they are valid because they are ones you happen to agree with, yes?
The only reason it would seem like they were making valid points would be because you have a similar taste and way of analysing music. 

If you give me an example I can try and dissect and analyse the review itself...


----------



## Kosdu (May 4, 2013)

Rigby said:


> Why is it bad?



Listen =P


and I guess I deleted my old stuff off there, only left with the new "song".


----------



## Ferdinand Deer (May 4, 2013)

It's all opinion. I would say bad music is country,dubstep,rap and almost all modern day music. Then I say good is 70's-80's music.


----------



## Llamapotamus (May 10, 2013)

Is it even possible to create a piece of music that everybody agrees on as either good or bad?


----------



## Vukasin (May 10, 2013)

Llamapotamus said:


> Is it even possible to create a piece of music that everybody agrees on as either good or bad?


Technically no. Assuming the song was actually a serious attempt to make something good, of course.


----------



## Tigercougar (May 10, 2013)

The only good music that's ever existed is music that's been on the Top 40 list.



*Runs for her life*


----------



## elegastaanval (May 19, 2013)

good music- has a positive message, and meaningful lyrics

bad music- music about hoes, sex money, meaningless pop, dubstep, anything that serves no purpose other than sounding like a constipated cow


----------



## Conker (May 19, 2013)

elegastaanval said:


> *good music- has a positive message, and meaningful lyrics*
> 
> bad music- music about hoes, sex money, meaningless pop, dubstep, anything that serves no purpose other than sounding like a constipated cow


Both of those things are highly subjective, and even if they weren't, I'd strongly argue against your first point.


----------



## elegastaanval (May 22, 2013)

not saying that any music that has no message is bad, its mostly when it has a negative message that it's bad. anything that has no lyrics, or no meaning can be good, as long as it's done right. i personally just don't see the point of listening to something if you don't get anything out of it, but that's just my opinion.


----------



## Batty Krueger (May 24, 2013)

Ones good and ones bad wtf are you asking here.  Everyone has their own personal choice, to one person it's good and to another its bad.  Depends in the individual's taste.



Fuck.


----------



## Grimfang999 (May 24, 2013)

elegastaanval said:


> not saying that any music that has no message is bad, its mostly when it has a negative message that it's bad. anything that has no lyrics, or no meaning can be good, as long as it's done right. i personally just don't see the point of listening to something if you don't get anything out of it, but that's just my opinion.



Im not sure what you mean by "positive" or "negative" messages, because generally more negative messages usually have more meaning. Lets look at the lyrics of power metal versus something like hardcore punk. Power metal has lyrics which inspire people to be strong and to go to victory and all that bullshit. Thats a "positive" message in the way of uplifting, but has no real purpose behind it. 

Meanwhile, Hardcore is generally very aggressive and angry, trying to promote the overthrowing of society and such, so would that be negative? Not eactly, because they are being negative for the intent of progress, they are demonstrating the flaws and problems in society, and desire revolution as a means of ending oppression and hatred, which isnt positive but has good intentions. 

Thus, positive does not mean meaningful, and negative does not mean hateful. You may want to rephrase your terms to something more like bad lyrics are egostroking and retarded, meh lyrics are harmless and good lyrics have an agenda.


Now, for my own music tastes, everything is good so long as the person isnt jerking themselves off to the camera (metaphorically speaking about egostroking, literal is fine I guess). While my origins are in metal I moved onto renard queenston and now seem to be moving into hardcore punk and industrial, the latter of which is pretty fucking weird and nobody used to experimental music would be able to stand. What I appreciate are lyrics with purpose or good amount of emotion behind them, or a good amount of appropriate energy (I dislike disturbed because they play too slowly when they would sound far better played faster).

What pisses me off however has already been mentioned, is how people throw bands they dont like into catagories which have negative connotations such as nu metal. Nu metal isnt THAT bad, people just dislike it either because they dont like the lyrics (which I do admit are somewhat emo at times, such as korn), or just because they are trying to seperate themselves form it to seem more cvlt, even though they probably listened to that kind of shit before they went into extreme metal.

Oh and for those who say they hate simple music or electronic, you mean to say you hate this song?


In the end, any kind of sound will have fans, even harsh noise, and it pisses me off that these "music theorists" are so fucking anal about keeping in "tone". Come on now, experiment. On a guitar, with an average of 25 frets, thats 6x25=125 notes along before cords and tunings. I may sound musically ignorant by saying this, BUT YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE FOR SOUNDING SIMILAR TO A DIFFERENT BAND UNLESS YOU ARE CONFORMING TO WHAT SELLS. GET OUT THERE AND TRY WEIRD SHIT.

Or dont, its up to you.


----------



## Conker (May 24, 2013)

elegastaanval said:


> not saying that any music that has no message is bad, its mostly when it has a negative message that it's bad. anything that has no lyrics, or no meaning can be good, as long as it's done right. i personally just don't see the point of listening to something if you don't get anything out of it, but that's just my opinion.


You can get just as much out of a negative song as you can a positive song, if we are talking about lyrical content. 

I do differentiate between trashy lyrics and non trashy, and I define trashy lyrics as those about drugs, fighting, fucking, or partying. I don't hate songs with trashy lyrics though, but I don't hold them as high. And songs about drugs can be pretty meaningful if handled right; the trashy ones are more the "DRUGS ARE SO FUCKING AWESOME" kind, which annoy me. 

You got a song like "Monster" by Pop Evil, which could be said to be about the human condition and the world creating a kind of monster with its brutality. And that's a pretty song. Similarly, a "Purple" is about shame and probably domestic abuse. Been a bit since I listened to that un. Both of those songs aren't positive by any means, but the lyrics actually MEAN something. And then on that same CD we have a song like "Daisy Chain" which is about getting blowjobs. Or "Bosses Daughter" which is about fucking your boss's daughter. 

Those last two are trashy, even if they are fun songs to listen to.


----------

