"I like this music" vs. "this music's goo

MikeEnRegalia wrote: eugene wrote: I might have a simplistic approach to this matter, but I honestly believe that when a person saying "I like it" he should mean "It's good" and vice versa, unless this person is utter hypocrite. Any evaluation of piece of art is totally subjective and can't be otherwise, therefore I am always trying to say "it's good IMO" when I like it, and even when omitting "IMO" I definitely mean it. From other hand when I hear somebody stating "Oh, it's soooo good but I don't like a single minute of it" - I conclude that the person is either liar or hasn't got a clue what he is talking about, in a sense that it can't be good for him, unless he likes it.  Same goes to the ridiculous statements such as "I respect this band but hate the music they making". What the hell someone would respect a band for, if he hates what they doing???   Once at an exhibition I saw a woman staring at the painting, and she was seemingly enchanted by what she saw, and was declaring something like "Oh, so great expression and skills..." etc etc etc in very technical details, but when after I asked her if she really liked it, - she said "No, hell no.."  It was pure flattery towards artist and blatant hypocrisy from her side. I disagree ... it's absolutely possible to appreciate and respect some piece of music (or the performers/composers) and not to like it or even to hate it at the same time. Ok, sometimes people saying that they appreciate something are just trying to be polite - but that doesn't make them hypocrites. Unless they give away their true opinion on other occasions ... But if someone for example says "I don't like growling, but I appreciate what Opeth are doing musically", where's the problem? You can't like everything - but you don't have to despise everything you don't like.

NotSoKoolAid wrote: Call me a weirdo, but for me it is easy for me to appreciate something for an artistic quality, even if I don't actually enjoy it and it's not my thing. The average person would not be able to do that, not to be bragadocious. People look at me strange when I say things like "Well its good, but I don't particularly enjoy it."   Is that what you mean? It's a hopeless case.

Peter Rideout wrote: Those statements are fairly interchangable, and carefully worded.   "I like this music" is a simple fact -- it cannot be argued with.   "I think this music is good" is also a simple fact, which can't be argued, because of the inclusion of the "I think." If you had simply said "this music is good, " then that could be argued, as "good" is a relative, subjective concept.   Thus "I believe there is a God" can't be argued, but "there is a God" can.

Peter Rideout wrote: Those statements are fairly interchangable, and carefully worded.   "I like this music" is a simple fact -- it cannot be argued with.   "I think this music is good" is also a simple fact, which can't be argued, because of the inclusion of the "I think." If you had simply said "this music is good, " then that could be argued, as "good" is a relative, subjective concept.   Thus "I believe there is a God" can't be argued, but "there is a God" can.

eugene wrote: I am not only not trying to be objective, I state that all this is totally subjective and cannot be otherwise. If I say Fellini is not good to me, same does not make his works any less good for others, but I do not like it and it is no good for me.

When this is the case you must then use LIKE instead of GOOD. "Good for me" is not the best way to un-ambiguously express the fact of liking. This is important also because this thread is about "i like" vs. "it's good". Oh, and it's nothing wrong with being as objective as possibile sometimes.

eugene wrote: Your parallels between art appreciation and native roots of a consumer do not hold water. Tarkovskiy is largely known and loved in the West and underappreciated (if not despised) in his own country - he had to leave his country in order to be able to create.   Cultural heritage and/or native language has very little to do with appreciation of any Art, including Music and Litterature.

You're wrong. Aesthetic experience goes through the cultural patterns that formated you. If it wouldn't be like this westerners could have had orthodox icons and we easterners could have had gothic cathedrals, they could have had byzantine chorals and we could have had Mozart... but this never happened and never would have happened. I can taste and understand slavonic creativity... but I can't perform that way. Of course Tarkovsky is praised in the West... by people who can tell a masterpiece.

More ramblings...

It's also worth remembering some of the unique qualities of music - everyone thinks of it as an art, which it is.

However, it's more than that - it's also a means of communication, a language, if you like, with letters (notes) and rules of grammar. Although, to paraphrase what Craig Raine once said, it cannot tell you where your baggage is at an airport.

Like any other language, people understand it on different levels, and those who have a Ph.D from Oxford will be more articulate and be able to understand books or articles that people who have not studied the language to such a degree might struggle with - e.g. "Ulysses" or "Beowulf".

Both educated and non educated get something out of using the language - both in "performance" (speaking) or simply listening, and all perform and listen in different ways.

A poor speaker may have an amazing vocabulary, and be well-versed, but have difficulties in uniting words with thoughts, and express themselves in a manner that is unclear to the general audience.

Similarly, a speaker perceived as good may use soundbites and presentation techniques and express themselves clearly and wittily - yet have absolutely nothing of any value to say.

So it is with music.

Music communicates.

We can be patient, and try very hard to understand the erudite expressions of artists whose work seems impenetrable, or we can settle for something easy on the ear.

But which is better?

I lean towards the more difficult, as I enjoy the challenge - but, if it turns out that a clearly-spoken person is also making some pertinent points, whether educated or not, as well as having an entertaining style, then they deserve credit for making a good speech too.

We could deduce that the ultimate experience would be to hear an erudite and learned person speaking in an entertaining style on an engrossing topic.

But sometimes it's just as enlightening and entertaining listening to an uneducated person talking off the top of their head in the pub.

So the better question to ask isn't whether music is good or bad, or whether or not you like it - those things are immaterial to anyone else who can hold an equal but opposite opinion - but if it communicates something to you, what that is, and how well it does it. In other words, whether it holds value for you or not.

But there are always those to whom a particular piece may not "speak", no matter how much value you may perceive in it.

I hate people like that...