^1. For instance, is it okay if a person prefers Insane Clown Posse over The Beatles if they’re aware & accept the difference of talent between the two? If they respect The Beatles and what they did? Even if you still consider them wrong and lacking in music taste, does it still matter to you? I guess what I’m saying is, do you respect a person who respects what you like (or what is considered talented) even if you loathe what they like?
2. What do you think about people who make up elaborate arguments about why the music they listen to contains talent? For example, I’m aware that there are large fans of both classic rock and death metal right here in R&P, and some of them don’t like (or hate) the other genre. But each will put up their own arguments as to why it IS good. If you’re one or the other, do you say "Okay maybe I was wrong, but I still hate it" or "I’m sorry but I still think there’s no talent in it"?
3. Do you think people who like terrible music (whatever you personally perceive that to be) have bad (or flawed) judgement? Are you less likely to follow their recommendations? Do you take what they say on other subjects (such as movies or literature) "with a grain of salt"? (Say that someone who says they love Lil Wayne says "Have you seen/read _______? It’s great!")
4. Is music entertainment, art, or both/neither (depending on the artist/band)? Can you give some examples?
5. Do you treat other forms of entertainment/art the same as music? For instance, what type of movies do you like & what do you think about people who claim it’s terrible or boring? What do you think about people who say their favorite movie is something like Saw or High School Musical?
6. "The problem with your way of thinking ("the subjectivist approach") is that you fail to realize that some things can be factually and literally proven. Another example is when people state that Bob Dylan is the greatest songwriter of all time. This not only bears some sort of subjective connection but on a purely objective point of view, this can be proven. You can dissect his words, the structure, the themes, the motifs, the imagery, the diction and come to a realization that he is the greatest songwriter of all time."
- Thoughts on this paragraph? Agree? Disagree? (Not on Bob Dylan, but on what this person is saying)
7. Most people think that certain music genres are better than others, either in general or totally. But what about entire categories of musical genres? Is African music better than Korean music? Is it possible to even tell without knowing the language & history?
8. Do you have to have a Ph.D in music theory before you can objectively state why one song is better than another song? Is it possible to even be objective? (Remember, objective, not subjective!)
9. As sort of an add-on to question 8, must the difference between studio version and live version be examined as well? If a band makes amazing songs in the studio but can’t play it live, is their respectability or talent lessened? What about songs that cannot be performed live? Enya plays most of the instruments in her songs, and layers her voice dozens (sometimes hundreds) of times to create the desired effect. Therefore she can’t play live. Does this affect her talent as a musician? (Whether you like her or not, I’m just using her as an example)
10. Most people say that you don’t have to have heard every song in an artist or band’s discography to be considered a fan. But do you have to have heard every song to be able to judge them (again, objectively)? Where do you think the line is – most song/albums? half of them? A handful? Their most popular ones? Least popular?
11. Out of the four choices, which do you identify with the most?
- A. "There are two types of music – good and bad. I don’t use genres or subgenres; they’re pointless."
- B. "I use main genres, like Rock or Country, but nothing further. I like having my music slightly classified."
- C. "I use main genres & subgenres (such as alternative rock or power metal) provided it doesn’t get ridiculous. Music encompasses many genres and I like knowing where a band stands."
- D. "I use main genres, subgenres, and multiple meta-genres (if applicable). For example: Rock > Progressive rock > Neo-progressive rock. I like to identify the specific type of music a band makes and it makes it easier to find bands that make similar music."
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
Feel free to answer as many (or few) of these questions as you like! Just be honest, don’t worry about what others think. If you like any of the bands/artists that I used as a negative example, sorry, I tried to pick ones that the general population of R&P dislike. Thank you for your answers.
* * * Also, I have no "point" I’m trying to make & I tried to keep my own opinions out of the questions. I’m just curious as to YOUR opinions.
One more question – what’s your Now Playing?
That Movie Guy: Yes, please! I’m interested.
My answer is too long, they won’t accept it. Man.
I can email it to you, if you want.
Ah, there we are!
1. Of course I do, it’s simple reciprocation. If the person is being hotheaded, however, and claims that if you don’t listen to Insane Clown Posse, you’re an idiot, that’s a different situation entirely.
2. It all depends on what YOU say first in order to provoke them. It’s really the same situation as the first question…if they have a valid argument, then there’s really no point in debating with them. I’m sure one person won’t be totally converted through someone’s argument on Yahoo! Answers. I think I’d try it out if they’re really convinced it’s so great.
3. I don’t think their judgment is flawed, I just don’t agree with them. Of course, because our musical tastes are so different, I probably would take a recommendation from them…with a grain of salt. I mean, it completely relies on what they’re trying to get you to listen to. If they know what you like and think you’ll adore the band (and they tell you that), I’d say to give the band a try, but if they’re just trying to convert you…well, you see where I’m going with this.
4. Both, but it’s changed into something completely different over the past few centuries. I don’t really consider Miley Cyrus’s music artwork compared to the Velvet Underground, and even they don’t look like artists compared to Ludwig Van. I suppose it really depends on the writer’s intentions…if they’re trying to get you up and dancing, that’d be more entertainment. If they’re trying to get you to protest about Vietnam and think about the world today, that’d be more like art.
5. Yes, in fact. I consider film the highest form of artwork, although the situation is similar. I do tend to get fired up when someone says Eraserhead sucks because it’s boring, but I really tend to ignore their harsh comments, especially if they can’t hold up their argument. I really see nothing wrong with liking High School Musical or Saw over 2001 and Vertigo (and I’m an auteur), because, well, it’s just an opinion. Not something to take to heart…we’ll all like what we want.
6. I definitely disagree. It CANNOT be proven that one songwriter is better than the other, as the themes, the imagery, the motifs, etc. could be considered ‘cringe-worthy’, if you will, to anyone anywhere. Musical complexity can be proven, of course, but that doesn’t change how good the music itself is. It’s all how one person perceives it, if I’m making any sense. Your musical taste should matter more to you than that of some critic who thinks he knows what’s what because he likes Bob Dylan.
7. That’s tough. I assume without prior knowledge to what you’re claiming, you can’t make any judgment. However, if African music just happens to appeal to you more than Korean music…well, you know where I’m going with this. It’s the same as question 6…even if their heritage/culture changes the way their music sounds, it’s still MUSIC. The universal language. See what I’m saying?
8. Of course it isn’t. That’s what I’ve been saying throughout this entire thing…it’s COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE. No matter how well you know music and its history, you can’t prove someone wrong in an area like this.
9. Sort of, but it depends on what the artist is aiming for. The Beatles didn’t play any live concerts after 1966 (besides the Rooftop one), and they’re still considered the most innovative band in rock n’ roll history. I don’t think you can judge a group by their live performances, no.
10. I’ve always wondered this myself. One of my favorite pastimes is making lists, but I’m really quite amateur. I suppose there is no line to draw…it’s completely dependant upon what you’ve heard already (although I wouldn’t call someone who’s heard ‘Touch of Grey’ five times a Grateful Dead fan).
11. D
Now playing….? Sorry, I don’t know what that is….
I’m just curious as to what others thought, and where better to pose this question than R&P?
no phd but sometimes a band/composer uses better counterpoint for their melodies and some just have better melodies overall. You wouldn’t want to listen to band with no melodic sense unless you want to listen to something Atonal. Afterall, it’s the melody(or the beat) that appeals to the listener.