I've gotten to a point where i think calling anyone's

>>73110431
congrats you are not an edgy faggot like everyone else here

Because the Internet was built for people to insult other people

>>73110431
You are wise beyond your years OP, don't feel bad for thinking this way, I'm in complete agreement! :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqY052B_m38

>>73110431
there's nothing wrong with that op, everything sounds good to *someone*

>>73110431
desu if someone puts genuine effort and commitment into something because they actually like it, it usually comes out to at least a decent standard, even if it's not necessarily something to the listener's taste. Usually you find the majorly bad music is cotnractual obligations, done for the money or projects that the artist has lost faith in

>>73110431
If someone creates something, and it's honest, and it's real, you should never mock that. Even if the end product is mediocre to you.

why would that be disrespectful? i mean unless you're just getting really personal and absolutely trashing their work without even trying to mention the positives, then sure.

>>73110458
this

File: 1467854562624.jpg (52KB, 368x427px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 368x427px

>>73110431
This except chill lo-fi anime shitters.

>>73110458
And dilettantism, which is just the worst.

>>73110682<<

>>73110431
true.

if i don't like the music tho i just say "i'm not a fan"

>>73110439
>>73110453
>>73110456
>>73110458
>>73110462

Comfy thread.

>>73110431
>i think
Well I think you are an idiot, there's literally nothing wrong with having standards

>>73110462
>If someone creates something, and it's honest, and it's real, you should never mock that.
Whatever you say faggot
https://youtu.be/ybDCObQRRM4

>>73110462
Yeah but if its so horrible, then I say free game.
e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kvJ1aceD6s

File: 1446840409835.gif (833KB, 500x353px) Image search: [Google]

833KB, 500x353px

>>73110431
You sound like a good person OP :)

>>73110431
Yeah I get kinda mad when people say "this sucks" or "this seems like they're just goofing around" or "she's not a real musician"

Notice how "she's not a real musician" is not said about any other profession in the world. If someone makes money to do carpentry, no one will ever say "they're not a real carpenter" yet people say this about musicians constantly.

Music is a subjective medium, but music taste carries with it a stigma, such as metalheads being edgy and hipsters being afraid of popularity and youtube views. Being a music reviewer is kind of pointless to me unless the reviewer enjoys the "type" of sound in question and wants to compare and recommend so people don't waste their money (even though the viewer can most likely listen to the full album on youtube anyways). People tend to want the artist to repeat the same Album over and over too, which blocks creativity, I like an artist to express him/herself in any way they like, at least then it's an honest picture.

Anyways I'm ranting, yeah saying someone's taste on anything subjective like food (not nutritional), art or films is kind of just a selfish, harmful way of gaining an ego boost. Instead why not convince them to try your taste and vice-versa? On the other hand, if someone does mock your taste, don't be oversensitive about it.

File: 1494837167494.jpg (259KB, 1663x1247px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1663x1247px

>>73110431

best thread I've seen in a while. thank you op

>>73110431
Don't know this feel. Criticism helps people improve themselves (or realize they don't have talent and focus on something they are good at). David bowies first album was a major flop because it was simply not good, if nobody would have criticised it he might have continued making the same garbage ans never understood why he didn't make it

Value judgments aren't that useful anyway. One of /mu/'s biggest problems is that everything is only discussed in terms of whether you do or don't like something, or whether you like one thing more or less than another. That's about the least interesting thing you can say about music. It leaves nothing to discuss.

>>73114068
Criticism isn't the only path to being good at something. Hell, it often leads you in exactly the wrong direction. If Bowie solicited and followed advice in 1976 he would have made a boring rehash of Diamond Dogs or something rather than Low. Most of the criticism you'd encounter here is fucking useless anyway.

File: smerchant.jpg (31KB, 302x432px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 302x432px

>>73110431
we broke him, /mu/. we broke him

>>73110431
As a producer constructive criticism is a lot better than not getting any feedback at all. I think saying 'get better faggot' is just a sign the person is an elitist douche bag though

>>73110431
You're right, because music is subjective

>>73110431
I rarely relate to anything as much as I now relate to this post. It's really difficult to me to be critical towards others' music or for example live concerts, even if I did it in a sensitive and polite way. I've never stumbled upon a single album or even a song where I'd agree with every musical choice the artist has made making it (even if I loved the song/album.) Having thereby realized how unique we are when it comes to our taste in music, is it's not by any means logical for me to think that I could judge a piece of music made with determination and passion as objectively _bad_ when it's really just the case of me not personally enjoying it. In fact I think it's downright stupid for anyone to think they have the power to do so.

>>73114285
The problem is more that in places like this, the critique might as well come from a 12 year old who only listens to power metal and EDM. Most of the time people are just complaining because you're not giving them what they like.

The other thing is that getting good feedback doesn't mean you're done or that it's good enough.

Most people cannot create anything.

>>73110431
Totally agree. The art should stand for itself.

File: 1462501150024.jpg (43KB, 720x544px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 720x544px

>>73110431
don't feel bad OP, but music is not a meritocracy

>>73114363
No, music is objective. Taste is subjective, and I'll happily shit on you for it.

>>73114727
please, enlighten me on how one arrangement of sounds can be objectively better than another
I get some music is objectively better than other, like more works ben put into it and maybe scientifically it's something we as humans will either enjoy more or find more satisfaction from or something, but ultimately it's really difficult to say.

For example, I hate The Clash and think London Calling is dogshit, but I'm not gonna say it's objectively bad am I? After all the praise it gets, it's very hard to say this is objectively bad music, despite me struggling to find many redeeming qualities at all.

Get any two critically acclaimed albums, lets say OK Computer and Sgt Peppers. Which one is OBJECTIVELY better? You may prefer one over the other, but that doesn't mean it is, scientifically, mathematically better than the other. Maybe to you, but maybe not to someone else.

So basically, some aspects of music are objective, such as effort and perhaps overall quality to some extent, but that vast majority of music is subjective.

>>73114808
I never said music can be objectively better than other music. You wasted all that effort typing out a spergy little post. Can you even read homo? I said TASTE is subjective, the exact same thing you're arguing. But music is objective because music is math, i.e. an Eb is objectively an Eb, you can't say pitch is subjective. And a ii - V - I progression is objectively just that, not a iii - ii - I - V.

>>73114880
Music is to some degree based on objective phenomena (harmonic series, rhythmic entrainment), but it doesn't use these phenomena directly. Everything that we actually use and value is constructed by culture.

Really your post is vacuous as fuck, all you're saying is that music exists as information in some objective form. No shit.

>>73114808
reddit
>>73114880
autist
>>73115172
pseud

>>73110431
>I've gotten to a point where i think calling anyone's music bad is extremely disrespectful. They put work and thought into their art they created, how can someone be so insensitive as to mock it or insult it?

Im at a similar point. Im a fan of all music. If theres effort put into it, ill like it. Its easy to tell when theres no effort put into it (see most of Beyonces singles)

>>73116324
the next step is to just listen to all sound without judgment or concern for whether or not there's effort put into it

>>73114880
pedantic autist detected

>>73110431
That's good you feel so open to other's music and especially for somebody in /mu/. I mean maybe don't be actually angry about it if a person (civilly) doesn't like it (if you are, I don't know you or how you are about this), but the fact you are able to be empathetic about this is a good quality

>>73114880
absolute retard

>>73110431
op is cute. CUTE!!!!!!!!!

>>73110431
i would usually say something like "oh, well i can't really enjoy or appreciate this", it could start a discussion

that's it, you don't even have to say "but i see why someone else would enjoy it" , that's kinda bs.

F

>>73110431
Not everyone believes music is for the musician. Some people believe music is for the listener! I don't thank musicians for being musicians that work hard. They work hard and cause me good ear feelings, and then I thank them for that. If you cause me bad ear feelings, well it's my responsibility to let you know on behalf of other listeners.

>>73110431
you don't have to be a dick about it, but some art is good and some art is bad. I'm not gonna pretend that Corey Feldman piece of shit was good just because he was passionate about it.

Some people have the talent and circumstances to make good art, some don't. It's not mean to call a spade a spade unless you're a little taintgoblin about it

>>73118898
>>73117304
this t b h
>>73116324
if you think very little effort went into Beyonce's music, irrespective of its quality, then you're either a fucking mongoloid or this is medium rare b8

>>73110431
i only like insulting music that clearly wasnt done out of pure passion and is not genuine, ie the chainsmokers. They obviously dont intend on making serious art, theyre just tryna cash in

I think people just need to remember the difference between "this music was poorly made" and "I personally dislike this music"

>>73110431
desu you're right and now i feel bad for dissing lupe fiasco in another thread

>>73110431
fuck off

if someone isn't skilled enough to make something of value in their artistic medium they shouldn't be participating at all and should be shunned at all costs. it doesn't take much thought to make good music.

>>73119436
also, think of all the dumb 15-19 year olds who have released classic albums over the last 50 years. it's not that fucking hard. if you're over like 21 and are still struggling as an artist you will probably never be good.

>>73119483
>15-19 year olds

who are these people? Most albums I love have been made by people at least into their 20's. LCD Soundsystem wasn't even a thing until James Murphy was like 35. The National were like 30 something when their music actually started being good. this is a meme, and most people, even talented ones, need time to develop their talent.

>>73119528
Slint

if a couple of 13 year olds can make Spiderland and you can't even get 100 views on your new Death Grips inspired track what makes you think you should keep pursuing music?

I feel that way until my buddy tries to defend Burzum or I hear dubstep. You've gotta draw the line somewhere.

>>73119551
dawg is this bait

spiderland was made when the members were in college. sure, there are examples of a couple artists making great work when they're young, but usually at youngest 18-20, and usually their best work is later in their careers. Paul Simon released Graceland when he was 45, and Slint did nothing of value after Spiderland, nor before. I wouldn't say age is that great of a predictor of musical output, aside from basically no one above the age of 75 or under the age of 16 putting much good stuff out.

>>73110431
Yes it's so "disrespectful" to call out an artist for just rehashing the same shit we've heard a million times and not trying to be innovative. Listening to their boring shit is disrespectful to my ears.

>>73119600
>until my buddy tries to defend Burzum
haha but burzum is good

File: Y0IRi80.png (133KB, 500x522px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 500x522px

>>73119822
>haha but burzum is good

>>73119843
filosofem and hvis are both fantastic and innovative albums.

>>73119811
Is it necessary for music to be innovative in order to be good though? Even if an artist continues to make similar-sounding music, does that make it bad?

>>73110431
Great post OP, just enjoy whatever you want to and don't let people change that

>>73119048
not him but the bulk of the effort didn't come from Beyonce herself

>>73119922
If an artist continues to make music that sounds exactly the same for their entire career, then yes that does make it bad. Similarly if an artist makes music belonging to a specific genre and they're not one of the originators, that also usually means it's bad.

>>73110431
I do think calling something flat out bad with no reason is wrong but if you support your criticism with how the music is falling short in several areas to what you believe their artistic intent is, I think that's perfectly acceptable. Obviously no one can know what that is but the artist but generally if for example someone is trying to make a pop album and their song isn't catchy or too complicated, you can call it out as a bad pop album because it is safe to assume that wasn't their intention.

>>73120039
i guess, but if you're evaluating the SONG based on the amount of effort put into it, why does this reflect on its quality?

>>73120045
>If an artist continues to make music that sounds exactly the same for their entire career, then yes that does make it bad.
Alright, let's imagine the music an artist puts out is of good quality, and the artist puts out music that is similar in both sound AND quality. What about it being similar makes the quality of it go from good to bad given this scenario?
>Similarly if an artist makes music belonging to a specific genre and they're not one of the originators, that also usually means it's bad.
What artists are you talking about? Could you give an example of a pioneer or an originator and their non-originator counterpart? I'd like to know where the difference in quality lies in your opinion.