/Taste/

File: IMG_4892.jpg (82KB, 300x293px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 300x293px

>>75007785
Do you hate goth?

File: IMG_2312.jpg (130KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 900x675px

Yes, yes.
Let's start by discussing how Mozart got flueyed with his portrait compared to Beethoven.

>>75007785
I listen to more Death Grips than Classical.

>>75007817
This is the equivalent of you taking a steaming pile of shit and pouring it down my ears with auto tune.

>>75007882
Death grips has cool sounds, but there is no melodic progression. Their songs tire out in about a minute.

In the Aeroplane Over the Sea is a combination of Shakespeare and Bach and if you disagree you simply didn't understand it.

Exceptions: Death Grips

File: hume[1].jpg (22KB, 250x341px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 250x341px

>>75007785
music IS subjective
Well, actually that phrase has always seemed a little off to me.
The music itself isn't subjective, in that it has material existence - whether that is as a notated score, or as a recording, or indeed as sound waves. No reasonable person will disagree over whether a recording of Beethoven's Missa Solemnis is in fact a recording of Missa Solemnis. However they will disagree over how good they think it is.
Therefore, what this phrase really means is that the quality of music is subjective, the quality being "how good it is", for lack of any better definition. And that IS true, the quality of music IS subjective. This I shall prove beyond doubt after I define subjectivity.
Subjectivity is "the quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." Now the quality of music - or perhaps I should say the *perceived* quality of music as quality itself has no material existence outside the minds of people - is clearly based on or influenced by personal taste, as who has ever disagreed with another on the subjective of the quality of a piece of music will attest.
Q.E.D. - You are an idiot.

>>75007998
You've never read Shakespeare or heard Bach. It's a very safe album, no risk taken.

>>75008354
The quality of music is not as subjective as you think. 99.99% of people do not listen to 99.99% of all possible musical compositions. We argue about the .001% of music as if it was the set of all available music. The differences in music taste ae just differences in the individuals ability to understand what music is. NO ONE listens to an out of tune, off beat record that repeats every four bars for twenty minutes. That is objectively NOT musical. Hip hop, jazz, rock, classical all exist on a spectrum of acceptable musical compositions, with some being closer to true music and some being closer to a mess, that is what music taste is.

>>75008517
I own the complete works of both and have invested much time in them. Sorry you don't understand ITAOTS. It takes a bit of intelligence and worldly awareness to understand.

>>75008354
If you think the quality of music is subjective you have no taste. Good music is objective, bad music is subjective.

>>75008612
prove to me it's a blend of Shakespeare and Bach then.

Small minds are always scared of subjectivity, the threat of thinking for yourself rather than having your taste justified for you seems to be terrifying to you.

>>75008732
Subjectivity is the product of a small mind. You are afraid that you might have bad taste, so you assert that all tastes are equal. The threat of your taste being unjustifiable by an objective standard seems to be terrifying to you.

I can play smart ass psychologist too. Now are you going to make an actual argument ?

>>75008612
>>75008653
aaaaaaaaaaaand he's gone

>>75008653
Lyrically a combination of Hamlet and Henry V. Anne Frank representing Falstaff (spectre of life and fulfillment) and and Rose Wallace Goldaline (spectre of death and malaise) representing Hamlet. Neither are fully understood which is why the album is still discussed. You can tell which songs are Rose Wallace Goldaline and which are Anne Frank because the tone are consistent throughout (Bach). Guitar chords: low base, saw and horn: basso continuo, vocals: always written monody because Jeff wrote lyrics and then the song behind it.
Of course this is all dorm room speculation and not rooted in reality but it's more interesting to bring up here than the usual shitposting and trite arguments.

File: hume[1].jpg (13KB, 200x290px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 200x290px

>>75008608
>NO ONE listens to an out of tune, off beat record that repeats every four bars for twenty minutes.
You clearly haven't heard of unmeasured xenharmonic minimalism then.
Regardless, if for the sake of argument we assume the existence of an objective musical quality, then any particular subset of all music - however small - all of which two or more people have listened to should have one piece which has the greatest degree of quality, unless several are tied for first place. Were it so, then those people would agree on which was the best piece or pieces, but this is counter to reality. We know that two people, upon hearing the same piece of music disagree about its quality.
Your position is untenable and runs counter to every experience you have of disagreement between people on musical quality. However, it is hardly surprising that one should hold a view so counter to experience, as my own experience informs me that this is unfortunately a rather common state of affairs.
>>75008631
>if you disagree with me you're poo
good argument

>>75008992
>unmeasured xenharmonic minimalism

No one has, that's the point.

do you know what 99.99% means? Statistically everyone. I don't care if your small group of tryhards wants to be different. NO ONE listens to out of tune, off beat music.

>>75008992
You confused "existence of an objective musical quality" with "existence of an objectively musical song".

An ideal does not have to express itself in your subjective reality in order for it to exist, for they are purely mental constructs. Your argument is like saying "there is no objective truth" because "no one has agreed on it yet". When it shows itself, it will be obvious.

Objectively beautiful musical pieces have shown themselves in some form or another over the years. There's a reason you can recognize beethoven from hundreds of years ago and you can't recognize the monkees music from the last century.

>>75008984
Give me quotations and musical score comparisons, then prove to me that was his intention. If you can't do both of those things your "intelligent" appreciation is just baseless speculation and poptimism.

>>75009169
>99.99% of music
It's irrelevant. Let me demonstrate why with something which is quite clearly objective
If you have a finite subset of natural numbers then you, statistically speaking, have 0% of numbers. However, give that subset to any group of people and they will all agree on the highest number. The fact that we only discuss a small subset of all numbers is actually completely irrelevant to the task of ordering by quanity.
The same ought to be true of music if it's quality were not subjective. Given literally any subset of music, then upon listening to it all a group should all agree on the highest quality piece.
This is not what we see.
>>75009240
But this is quite simply counter to experiment. I have over the years played people works by Beethoven considered masterpieces and received negative feedback.
Were such pieces objectively beautiful then there ought to be no disagreement over their beauty. Again, remember that upon showing someone several numbers, none of sound mind disagree on the highest number, yet a sizeable proportion disagree on the quality of Beethoven. This should be no surprise to anyone who has looked at the sales of classical music compared to modern pop music.

>>75009351
>prove to me his intention
Why? Should I also prove Shakespeare's intention?
>compare the compositions
I just did, do you not understand what I wrote? Can you not hear?

You really sound like a cunt. You sound like the type of cunt to appreciate how his "taste" has matured and how he has grown lol!

>>75009429
Who said that there was a finite set of music? the fact that people dont listen to the other 99.9% is because they dont like it.

The correlation between correct pitch, appropriate rhythm and timing, dynamic control, proper equalisation and the music that people listen to are practically 1-1 in some of those categories. In any other field of study this would be evidence of an objective reality.

We only say music is subjective because we're afraid to offend.

>>75009461
Prove to me that neutral milk hotel was making the comparison to shakespeare otherwise your claim is complete garbage.

I said compare the compositions, you don't even know how to do that. Find sheet music of both and show me where the similarities are. Show how they both use the same chord systems and why these are unique to bach and neutral milk hotel must have been influenced by bach. If you can't do that you're not as intelligent as you think you are.

Take it form someone who has to deal with compositions on a daily basis, there's no comparison.

>>75009429
Because you conducted the experiment horribly. Taste is developed, not force fed. Why would someone appreciate art they don't understand? What was the setting under which you showed them the masterpieces? Did you perform them live or play a tape? Were they interested beforehand in learning about beethoven?

You're making the argument that "i tried telling him the medicine will work but he didnt take it, therefore the medicine was not as good as we thought it was"

How often did you try? What songs did you show them?

>>75009695
>Taste is developed, not force fed. Why would someone appreciate art they don't understand? What was the setting under which you showed them the masterpieces? Did you perform them live or play a tape? Were they interested beforehand in learning about beethoven?
These things would not matter if music was not subjective. The very fact that they matter is proof that music IS subjective. Recall the definition of subjectivity:
>"the quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions."
Again imagine the same experiment with numbers. It would not matter how you introduced the numbers, what colour you printed them out as, how they were feeling, if they were interested in numbers.
The very fact you're even making this argument shows you're implicitly acknowledging that musical quality is subjective.

So this thread is ironic right?

>>75009797
We can only hope.

>>75009772
That's not what it means and here's why. If you use logic to prove to an ignorant christian his god doesn't literally exist, and he still doesn't believe you, does that make the existence of god subjective?

No it doesn't. If you show beethoven to someone and they don't appreciate it, does that make beethoven's music subjective? No it doesn't.

All that's left for this argument is for me to prove to you that his music is objectively good.

>>75009595
Who is the objective listener? Your entire first argument is nothing because you can't answer this.

And I don't need to prove they were intentionally making a comparison because that's not how comparisons work you fucking moron. If I compare a Shakespeare character to a Cervantes character, I don't have to prove any intention I just have to make the comparison.
>You don't even know how to do that
Again, I just fucking did moron.
>chord systems
Holy shit, entry level music theorist unveiled.
>Unique to Bach
Show me how anything is unique to Bach you fucking moron; not related at all to the comparison (which by the way I mentioned was "dorm-room speculation" so your autistic, vapid self which I detected a mile away wouldn't spaz out; you couldn't help yourself though clearly haha!)
>If you can't do that you're not as intelligent as you think you are.
This is a good point because it proves your invested interest in this discussion as some type of dominance struggle. This is because you're so worthless you only gain a rush through arguing online LOL! The amount of archaeology I could do on your fucking retarded self from your assumptions you throw out of the blue is pretty funny but I'll spare you.

>Take it form someone who has to deal with musical compositions daily.
Oh cool, what conservatory did you study at? Don't worry, I realize you didn't.

In conclusion, you'll go on through life grasping to your "intelligence" as everything whirls over your head. Pretty sad honestly. Goodbye

>>75009872
Prove God doesn't exist.

I mean, people enjoy different things right? That's why they listen to different music. I think that's enough to prove that there's a subjective aspect to music.

On the other hand, authorities in music and theory consistently praise certain artists, and there definitely are trends in what people like or dislike.

Doesn't the conversation end here? Maybe you guys can accept the true patrician attitude that everything is both objective and subjective. There is a subject and object to everything.

I don't know why this is a big debate or what the big deal is honestly.

>>75007785
>these genres suck
>there are exceptions
this is your problem, you can't even accurately represent your own feelings

>>75008517
>It's a very safe album, no risk ta
So Bach.

File: Sunn Trio - Sunn Trio - cover.png (2MB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 900x900px

Is this good?

>>75009906
I'm an entry level music theorist when the ENTIRE FUCKING ALBUM just uses basic chord systems


Fuck off, you are talking out your ass.

"Hurr it's shakespeare and bach but i can't prove it"

lmao fuck off with your pseudointellectual try hard bullshit. The album is lackluster and boring.

>>75009928
For God the creator to create he has to have will, objective, and desire. Consciousness does not have either of those things, only brains do.

>>75010053
Pardon me sir, but the new "neurotypical" is the new "pseudo-intellectual".

>>75009981
>x is y
>z is also y
>therefore x is z

Logic 101, you failed dumbass.

>>75009962
How is that inaccurate

>>75008354
Lol that guys in ur pic is fat

>>75009872
The existence of god is a subjective question. You can't prove the existence of god, and to some god does exist. You will of course claim that that is a question of belief rather than existence, but I should make the counter claim that that is only when you impose an actual rigorously defined definition of God. After all before you do that I can say god exists and that I believe that god is a feature of my own mind or a feature of the collective unconscious. You might disagree with my definition - the definition appears subjective, no? When you start to impose rigorous definitions like God is a omnipotent being, God created the universe, God can do X, God can do Y etc such that the question becomes objective, you bring into relief the crux of the matter: those are fundamentally verifiable or falsifiable statements. Although it is difficult to do in practice, if you could find God and you could verify each of those statements as true, then you have God. It is far more difficult to establish the non-existence of God for unrelated epistemological reasons.

The point is when we have defined what is god in terms of verifiable features, then the question becomes non-subjective. The problem with saying things like consonance, harmonic complexity etc. are these features is that is too vague to have any non-subjective interpretation. What you need to do to prove the objectivity of musical quality is to prove the existence of non-vague features that one could use to rate the quality of music, and you need to do so in such a convincing way that almost everyone in the world agrees with you, otherwise you are just a mad man with a formula for rating music.

No such formula for rating music will be accepted by any large number of people and there will always be people who profess to enjoy music your system rates as low quality. But I invite you to share the formula or computer code that collates these conditions for quality such that we might review its plausibility.

>>75008992
Ur right but why are you talking like a 1700s guy to belabor every point LOL

>>75009957
This

Favorite jazz album OP?

>>75010188
When you generalize and then retract your logic and explain that there are exceptions, you've already undermined your own confidence. Makes you seem shaky, like you can't keep a consistent train of thought, or stick with a particular belief. Like you're just struggling against the waves to figure out your own opinions, live, and in front of anyone on /mu/ who happens to see.

You know how when a singer is singing popular music he or she usually isn't directly on the beat but is slightly out of step with the accompaniment's rhythm? In OAI, if I remember accurately, Mangum tends to hang a little behind the beat on many of the songs ("Blistering pree..." and so on). Contrast with much of ITAOTS, where on the fast-paced numbers like "Two Headed Boy" he's bearing down so heavily that he's almost outrunning his own accompanying, and even on slow tunes like "Oh Comely" the tenseness of the delivery is unwavering and he's hitting the rhythms with militant precision.

In "Two Headed Boy", for instance, he makes extensive use of blues turnarounds and other methods to prolong the resolution so that the first time we hear an authentic V-I cadence isn't until the end of the B section, which is something like 2 full minutes into the song! The effect of such a harmonic structure is to make this resolution uncommonly satisfying and cathartic, since we as listeners to tonal music aren't accustomed to waiting that long, and certainly not in a pop song. This is to say nothing of the modal mixture (a B major chord in a G major key being an example) and other points of interest.

The B chord in "Two Headed Boy" isn't native to the song's key of G major, but that sense of wrongness or strangeness we get upon hearing the non-diatonic chord is part of what makes the harmony expressive and distinctive. Songwriters/composers do that kind of thing all the time; what makes "Oh Comely" worth noting is the decision to begin the song not on the tonic chord, but in the midst of an extended prolongation of the predominant C major, and to top it all off, on a non-diatonic chord. That's the reason "Oh Comely" sounds so anxious and tense, and why the D-G cadence is like a weight off our shoulders when we eventually hear it, because this harmonic framework is incredibly unstable.

>>75010373
An E major chord opens the song, strummed on acoustic guitar in 3/4 with a vaguely menacing swing. E major will become the dominant key for much of the rest of the album. The song is mostly a single-take guitar and vocal performance, with the exception of some doubled vocals and horns that enter later on. In fact, the recording on the album preserves what was meant to be only a test of microphone levels with a few bars (ibid). Instead, Mangum, apparently swept up with the power of the song, plows through its entire duration with a remarkable, emotionally-wrought performance. His voice assumes the timbre of a sorrowful, pained moan. The chord progression consists of E major alternating with C major, but the melody of the first section superimposes E natural minor over the E major chord. Here Mangum’s loud, deep voice dominates the guitar’s tonality, which buries its major thirds by emphasizing the low fifth. Though the major tonality is clear during the instrumental breaks, as he sings the minor vocal melody all but obliterates the major key. This domination reflects the song’s subject matter, which laments the imposition of one force upon another, the invasion of suffering where it does not belong.

At the outset, the speaker seems to be anticipating the death of a loved one: “Oh comely / I will be with you when you lose your breath.” This foreboding is akin to the feelings Mangum experienced as he read Anne Frank’s diary. In an interview shortly after the album’s release, he recalled, “I pretty much knew what was going to happen. But that’s the thing: you love people because you know their story” (McGonigal, 1998, pp. 21-22). He expressed frustration that he could feel so close to someone who eventually “gets disposed of like a piece of trash” (ibid). Here, the word “comely” is surrounded by ugliness and decay, just as Anne was a beautiful presence amidst an abhorrent tragedy.

>>75010393
Next, the key shifts to G major as the speaker briefly reflects on the contentment of the past: “Chasing the only meaningful memory you thought you had left / [...] It isn’t as pretty as you’d like to guess / In your memory.” The G major key is reminiscent of the relative happiness of the previous few songs—the joy of the title track, the comforting pathos of “Two-Headed Boy,” the celebration of “Holland, 1945,” and the explorative, escapist fantasy of “Communist Daughter”—which are themselves already fading into vaguely pleasant memories under the weight of “Oh Comely.” Likewise, Anne often used nostalgia as a crutch, but her memories only produced temporary relief, which in turn quickly subsided into melancholy. As the key shifts back to the E major/minor hybrid, Mangum proclaims, “It doesn’t mean anything at all,” as if to say that the unrequited longing Anne endured as she suffered to prolong her life was pointless since she died before it could be satisfied.

It's the flowering of a truly original artist's voice, with Mangum's text, composition, and performances surpassing all preceding efforts; it is the first true rock "concept album" to succeed holistically - and not merely succeed, but flourish - prompting a reexamination of that idiom by many; it's one of the rock music's most artistically significant statements from the 1990s, perhaps even ever.

>>75010180

ITAOTS is the most autistic album i've ever heard.


>>75010223
There's the problem. You think the existence of god is subjective. Existence is an objective quality. BELIEF in the existence of God is subjective, the existence itself is objective.

It's only difficult to establish the non-existence of God when you define God as being something that cannot ever be identified, measured, calculated, located, or communicated with. But that is essentially the definition of non-existence so i don't know why we pretend theres an argument for the other side.

DEFINITION OF OBJECTIVELY GOOD MUSIC:

1. Accurately portray's the artists complete imaginative potential and arrangement of aesthetic quality, arrangement, pitch, mood, dynamics, rhythm.
2. Is performed and judged live in an appropriate building and environment.
3. Easily showcases the artists complete knowledge or mastery of music or musical proficiency
4. Does not require cultural significance, age (beyond the point of brain development) race, sex, time period, language, or any other non-musical factors to be appreciated.

>>75010373
haven't seen this pasta in a LONG time
good shit though

>>75010265

So in your mind, baseless absolute statements are a sign of confidence?

I think you're projecting more than anything else. noting exceptions to a rule has nothing to do with logic, or consistent trains of thought, or particular beliefs, or my own confidence. You just used 4 completely different terms to try and explain what you meant and you're confusing everyone that reads what you say.

>>75010544
>So in your mind, baseless absolute statements are a sign of confidence?
Of course they are. What else would they be? Who makes a declarative statement without confidence other than idiots?

>>75010704
>>75010544
Just gonna pop in to say I was sooo angsty for such a long time and hung up on subjectivity. Then I thought the solution was to be super absolute and principled and I thought subjectivity basically allowed me to view whatever I wanted as objective, cause it's necessary to have some things be concrete. Pragmatic shit.

Then I realized the real solution is to leave this stupid objective/subjective debate and live like a normal person. It literally doesn't matter. Absolute statements don't betray confidence. Only actual confidence does, and this only comes from a rationality that stands above stupid epistemological debates

>>75010457
You misunderstood my argument.
If my definition of God is the Sun (as was the definition used by many ancient people), then God absolutely does exist.
Equally if my definition is a humanoid being who created the universe, who is omnipotent and who sent his son to save humanity of their sins then that changes. Ergo, definition matters.
Note at this point how many people across the world would reject both definitions and claim their own.

If you simply say "does God exist?" then that question is subjective because you have not rigorously defined God.
When you do define God rigorously you reduce your definition to a set of statements A(x), B(x), C(x),... etc such that if x satisfies all of those statements then x is God. These statements might for example be "x created the universe", "x is a humanoid", "x is omnipotent", which is either true or false, and leaves no room to interpretation.

The first hurdle you hit is how many people agree with your definition, In this case it isn't actually an awful lot of people, because so many different religions and personal beliefs differ on their idea of who or what God is. How many people would accept your own criteria for musical quality?

The lack of subjectivity does not come in the lack of ability to prove the existence of god or not. We say that God's existence is subjective if the set of statements is not defined or is itself subjective.

The problem with your own definition is that each of the statements are themselves subjective, and the terms you use are vague enough to lead to a number of disparate conclusions judging the same piece. Imagine giving your criteria to several groups of people and asking them to rank a set of musical pieces. Are you absolutely that each group would unanimously come to the same rankings?

>>75010704
You have it backwards.

People who are smart understand that the objective world doesn't conform to childish dichotomies. Needing things to be absolutely black or absolutely white is a sign of low intelligence, not the other way around.

>>75010758
Thank you for the input. Noted.

>>75010764
Okay I understand your point of view and I agree with you on the matter of God. The lack of a clear definition is a huge problem.

Now on to my criteria for musical quality, we have to look at it not as what people accept for a definition, but what they accept in the form of a musical piece or a song.

Virtually all music people are listening to was made in the furtherance of some combination of those 4 goals and is self evident if you analyse it. If you want me to show you an example of a specific song to show you how I would go about doing this I can do so.

Here is where the ranking issue can be settled I think. You have to take into account what they mean. Total and complete imaginative ability being brought forth into a musical composition.This means anything the artist (being a master musician) can possibly ever imagine in his life being played for everyone to hear with perfect quality and performance, and them not having ANY bias whatsoever. We HAVE NOT YET SEEN what that is like, but we see various degrees of it expressing itself.

I do believe if we created this environment, the humand mind cannot help but to enjoy it.

>>75010925
>If you want me to show you an example of a specific song to show you how I would go about doing this I can do so.
Please do
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN7ghZVZTr0&t=50s

>>75011009
>2:02
He is increasing rhythm and altering intensity of the notes to create mood whilst limiting his musical palate to two notes. This makes the other notes IF he ever uses them sound more refreshing.

>4:48
There it is, notice how he builds on what he already had but changes it subtly, keeping it in the same mood. That's arrangement.

>7:03
he is doing more of what he did before, by this point I would predict the direction of this song is to go in the same vein of increasing the notes and trying to do some kind of build up, which is a cheap trick in my opinion.

>8:25
he went back down to where he was earlier in the same way people go from verse to chorus to verse. I expect him to go down or up or down again

>9:18
good surprise

>9:37
good but not as good as the first time

>10:27
different, but it only works because he set the mood, notice how he didnt start with the out of key notes, he walks you through this progression then throws curveballs.

>31:00 - 33:00
brilliant

>35:01
good

Heres my analysis of that concert.

He did a very good job of untraining your ear to expecting a standard musical scale. He first subtly brought in the out of tune notes and then did so again to get us used to it, but first he set the mood of the song to open up the ears of the audience. he did so by playing quiet then loud, this makes your ears more sensitive. By playing the repetitive sequence continuously the audience and myself became invested in the song to see where it would go. And once committed we were hooked and he had our full attention with just a few notes. He also did it in a way that removes your bias. You can't compare it to something you've heard before because its so unique. You have to take it as something standalone. You have to take in what tools he used to accomplish his goals and how he used time and dynamics to do that. This was objectively good.

ITT:
>Pure math PhD argues with community college brainlet

File: 1472597196127.gif (2MB, 200x293px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x293px

>People actually spend their time doing this

>>75011433
would everyone have this exact same analysis? you're literally digging your own hole at this point

define and prove rigourously to me what good/better/quality is. exactly, now fuck off