Do you hate certain prog because of popularity?

Paravion wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Paravion wrote: Anyway - what are the reasons for liking (or hating) the music you like (or hate)? There seems to be a tendency towards a subjectivist approach (I like it because I like it), but doesn't this exclude the existence of objective properties ascribable to music (e.g. 'good' and 'bad') and render whatever reason completely arbitrary?  Others might claim that music can be said to be objectively good, that there are such things as good music and bad music - independent of what you happen to think and like.  Personally, I think the subjectivist view excludes the possibility of actual reasons for liking (except random and personal ones) as well as discussions about what is good and bad. I believe in the subjectivist view and sometimes wonder why this place is full of reasons why some band is good as well as discussions where the participants assume that music actually has (value-laden) properties. Can you do that while maintaining that taste is completely subjective?    Of course. Taste in food is completely subjective. I like pizza because I like sauce and cheese. I dislike salad because I don't like lettuce, tomatoes, or onions.  I don't understand..

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Paravion wrote: Anyway - what are the reasons for liking (or hating) the music you like (or hate)? There seems to be a tendency towards a subjectivist approach (I like it because I like it), but doesn't this exclude the existence of objective properties ascribable to music (e.g. 'good' and 'bad') and render whatever reason completely arbitrary?  Others might claim that music can be said to be objectively good, that there are such things as good music and bad music - independent of what you happen to think and like.  Personally, I think the subjectivist view excludes the possibility of actual reasons for liking (except random and personal ones) as well as discussions about what is good and bad. I believe in the subjectivist view and sometimes wonder why this place is full of reasons why some band is good as well as discussions where the participants assume that music actually has (value-laden) properties. Can you do that while maintaining that taste is completely subjective?    Of course. Taste in food is completely subjective. I like pizza because I like sauce and cheese. I dislike salad because I don't like lettuce, tomatoes, or onions.

I don't understand..

wilmon91 wrote: Paravion wrote: Others might claim that music can be said to be objectively good, that there are such things as good music and bad music - independent of what you happen to think and like.    I would claim that. But absolute objective taste is an abstract idea, and an impossible thing to possess, unless you have entered a higher form of consciousness and become one with the Absolute. Personal taste is a mixture of subjective experience and objective reason.   Paravion wrote: discussions where the participants assume that music actually has (value-laden) properties. Can you do that while maintaining that taste is completely subjective?      No. But I'm gonna take food as an example , as Equality did. Everyone has their own tastes. But still there is good and bad cooking. A fine restaurant makes better food than the average lunch restaurant. It's no question about it. To make the best cooking you have to master the art. And that requires knowledge, passion, inspiration etc. Just as with music. Can you really make great music if you have no passion for it? Well, some might like it. Some might like overcooked broccoli. Maybe becasue they haven't tried perfectly cooked broccoli.   It's more complicated with music, but you can still make objective distinctions, at least in regard to individual aspects of the music.   Among the worst music of all kinds I think is the typical rock cover band. Not only do they lack any material of their own, but they play well known "rock hits" , designing the set list to please the audience as much as they can. Usually they stay as close to the original as possible. It serves a function - many people like to hear music they recognize. But the quality can't go beyond the ambition of serving the intended function. It's not about art and creativity.It's like the difference between a wine glass and a plastic wine glass (or a good wine and a bad wine - whatever). I would say, from a standpoint I would claim to have a lot of objective weight to it, that the quality of such concerts generally sucks.   But you can argue that if it is what it's meant to be - then it is perfect in it's own sphere, because the artist have achieved the goals of their ambition. But, as with the case with overcooked broccoli, lack of knowledge, vision, passion etc, sets a limit for the quality, which can't be exceeded unless the artist is willing to raise the ambition and strive for higher artistic levels.

So, there is good music - but the goodness of the music is actually impossible to reasonably grasp, but it exists? If it is so, it surely renders 'objective taste in music' nothing more than an abstract idea and also prevents reasonable objective judgements the about goodness of music. 

What concerned me yesterday was a hypothetical contradiction scenario that may rise if you accept a subjectivist approach to taste (I like it because I like it) and yet still want to give reasons as to why you like it. This, I think, poses a problem for a subjectivist view because it is common and natural to make sense of and explain your particluar taste in terms that not merely has to do with your personal preferences, your circumstances and your own more or less idiosyncratic beliefs.  Seen from above, you just can't cant do that if you accept that taste is completely subjective.

Anyway - the food analogy is a little 'off' in that making a good meal obviously requires skills that reasonably can be subjected to objective judgements - this is not the case with music, where such analogous measurable skills (e.g. how well and fast you play your guitar) play a rather insignificant role in the making of good music.  

Is it at all possible to explain and determine the goodness of some particular instance of music? I really don't think so.  

[Referring back to the original message]

Watcher! What nonsense! Just let the idiots rave! If I make speak for myself, I've loved SELLING ENGLAND (just about the most popular prog album hereabouts) ever sinds I first heard it 35 yrs ago. I still love it and I don't care what anybody says! (I love most of the Progarchives All-Time Top Twenty, and thank jebus I do!) It is ridiculous and childish to believe that you just HAVE to prefer more obscure and "difficult" bands.

Crunkcore

Sounds tautological, but I like what I like.

I hate certain prog.... but not because of popularity

Equality 7-2521 wrote: They're the equivalent of ear cancer.

Are you sure you're not talking about Nu-Metal?

They're the equivalent of ear cancer.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: It's funny, seems that some people has double standards A few days ago I said: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:   It seems that Progheads don't forgive success, bands like Pink Floyd or Kansas, who did outstanding Prog music are criticized by people because they were popular Iván And a guy called Hobocamp made a scandal as if I had insulted him and Junges supported him. Now both are on this thread about the same issue, giving their opinions in a civil way. Iván

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: It's funny, seems that some people has double standards A few days ago I said: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:   It seems that Progheads don't forgive success, bands like Pink Floyd or Kansas, who did outstanding Prog music are criticized by people because they were popular Iván And a guy called Hobocamp made a scandal as if I had insulted him and Junges supported him. Now both are on this thread about the same issue, giving their opinions in a civil way. Iván