Why don't most people love our beloved music?

Sometimes I have no choice but to listen to Céline's catcalls. I often meet a friend in Place Ville Marie for coffee in the morning and they play this goddam Céline Dion repeating sampler overthe PA. It is really f**king annoying. In Montréal you have to look at her ugly face in the newspapers on almost a daily basis. It used to be a lot worse but that flame has been passed on to Lady Gaga. When Céline calved those latest two little freaks it was everywhere. Just makes you want to drink your own diareah. Believe me thare are a lot of Céline haters in Québec, it' s not only me. That creepy pedophile manager husband / manager always says that they won't accept any cheap criticism, but they still get plenty of it .

Sarah McLachlan I can tolerate sometimes. But when this Lilith Fair militant women's lib crap came out I started to throw up. I have to admit unlike Céline she can sing. She does have a grasp of whatshe's doing with her mezzo-soprano voice but her songs are just too wishy washy. As far as Canadian female vocalists that I'll listen to. Lee Aaron ( Karen Greening ) Met her once, Alanah Myles and Pamela Morgan .I''ll even listen to Rita McNeil and Anne Murray. Randy Bachman is a real good Canadian female vocalist too.



Edited by Vibrationbaby - May 17 2011 at 10:12

giselle wrote: The big danger in clinging to a genre like this, is it can make you think you are in an elite, and creates in you a kind of snobbery which looks down on other forms of music. That of course, is rubbish - music is music is music. As we've seen from many discussions on here, forming a genre makes the devotees argue long and hard about what Prog is or isn't, when really it should just be about a group of people tending to enjoy the same kind of music. Prog isn't better or worse than other forms of music, it just is a particular way of playing and approaching the subject. That fact often gets lost in people's obsessive lack of distinction between their own very personal taste and musical quality.

I agreewith you as long as Céline Dion is not included in this thing we call music.

rogerthat wrote: Alitare wrote: I never said music didn't exist. I said the inherent 'goodness' or 'badness' of music does not exist. But you had earlier asked the question that how can a toddler wailing on a toy piano be called objectively bad music? My point is it would not even be music if he was just banging keys randomly, so the question of whether it is good or bad music does not arise.  Within the realm of whatever IS music, we cannot prove what is inherently bad or good music, I agree. You will, on the other hand, get most people to agree that the same toddler playing some 'musical' crap with horrible tones is terrible music. That is not proof but it is highly persuasive and most music discourse goes around on persuasion, not proof.

I guess you haven't seen Shroeder pound out some killer Beethoven on the Charlie Brown specials.

rogerthat wrote: objectively proving something that is qualitative gets perceptive rather than purely factual.

You are basically saying that you can't prove something that is "qualitative" and I agree on that.

rogerthat wrote: When we say this is a good car and that one is not, it is again a subjective observation.  Only, there are fewer subjective bases of deciding what is a good car and better defined parameters at that than music

It's an opinion based on a subjective observation, yes.

However the claim that there are no good or bad cars would be something different. If that would be true, it would not mean that no one can know which cars are good or bad - but it means what it says - that no cars are good or bad, no one is better than another, and that's the truth.

But without proof most of us (I hope) would agree that there are good or bad cars. But "good" and "bad" are just values, you have to define in what sense the cars are good or bad. There are a lot of factors to consider. When a car is tested and given its opinion, it's everything from comfort, the mechanics, price, the cost of parts, design, etc. Within each aspect you make an evaluation based on common reasoning. And there is nothing random in reasoning. There is a ground for every opinion. That's not to say that every opinion is true, but it's not formed out of nothing.

Alitare wrote: wilmon91 wrote: Alitare wrote: My question, which has yet to be answered, is how can you intrinsically prove that one song is universally 'better' than another?   You can't, as I said, you can only use reason. But which reason is the best reason?

Reasoning is a way to make logic out of your perceptions and feelings. Which is the best reasoning is a matter of opinion, but its the one that is based on the perception that is closest to the truth , and the one who explains in the most clear and unadulterated way.

Humans have the ability to tell things that is in harmony from things that is in disharmony, and strive towards perfecting things. That's why we have arts. But the complexity of reality can make it harder to see where and what harmony is. But I mean that there are abstract values of goodness (ideals), and when something is created by a human, it can be more or less closer to these values. If you believe that all human creativity has a common ground , then it is these abstract things that gives rise to it.

So I mean that good and bad music definitely exists, and the quality is based on all the aspects that constitute the music, but no one can know the exact measure of it, and it's impossible to make general rules regarding quality because of there always being exceptions.


Edited by wilmon91 - May 17 2011 at 06:03

For the majority of people, music is just background noise... and occasionally will allow a song with a catchy hook into their minds, usually by force of having repeatedly heard it on radio.  

Bump

Alitare wrote: But proof, not persuasion, was the original aspect of conversation. Someone disagreed with what Henry said. He said that music didn't have universal worth. It's subjective worth. He was disagreeing with fact. It's not wrong to disagree with fact, but... That's where all this came from.

Alitare wrote: I never said music didn't exist. I said the inherent 'goodness' or 'badness' of music does not exist.

Edited by rogerthat - May 16 2011 at 23:19

Alitare wrote:   If animals only rely on survival instinct, then are you implying they don't think or dream? Animals think, learn, and grow. They have instincts similarly to ours, and they perceive sound. But to them, who knows what the difference between David Bowie and Slayer means? You aren't a rabbit, you can't tell.  My question, which has yet to be answered, is how can you intrinsically prove that one song is universally 'better' than another?

^ I think it's all your fault.