++ ATOT official NEF thread part IV ++

[sdifox]

my theory is; taste in music is subjective.

But what makes music good or not isn't. You may not like a particular piece, but you can recognise it is good.

 

[Mixolydian]

Mozart did it through sheer inspiration. Beethoven was the one that worked hard to come up with his music. Yet Mozart is the one that is revered.

sheer inspiration meaning what? that there's no theory in his music?

and they are both respected composers.

 

[sdifox]

sheer inspiration meaning what? that there's no theory in his music?

and they are both respected composers.

Beetheoven had to work really hard at it compared to Mozart. But then it could be that Mozart was just better at burning the candle.

 

[Mixolydian]

Beetheoven had to work really hard at it compared to Mozart. But then it could be that Mozart was just better at burning the candle.

...

 

[mnewsham]

But what makes music good or not isn't. You may not like a particular piece, but you can recognise it is good.

no, not really, everything is subjective; even "good" and "bad" are just labels for what you personally feel fits into either good or bad. It can vary from person to person, you can not say with 100% accuracy what makes music good (or bad). So don't try.

 

[sdifox]

...

Beethoven was a stickler of rules. Mozart is more free with his composition.

 

[sdifox]

no, not really, everything is subjective; even "good" and "bad" are just labels for what you personally feel fits into either good or bad. It can vary from person to person, you can not say with 100% accuracy what makes music good (or bad). So don't try.

suit yourself. Here is a hint, Beethoven good, Andrew Lloyd Webber, not so much.

 

[Mixolydian]

no, not really, everything is subjective; even "good" and "bad" are just labels for what you personally feel fits into either good or bad. It can vary from person to person, you can not say with 100% accuracy what makes music good (or bad). So don't try.

yes and no. you are right that "good" music is subjective. but there is no arguing that applying different methods can require a great deal of creativity and knowledge.

 

[mnewsham]

suit yourself.

it's not a suit yourself situation, if you think you can backup what you're saying than do so. But since it is literally impossible, just submit to it and know that what makes music good or bad cannot be clearly defined by anyone except the person who is experiencing the music for themselves.

You personally will know what sounds good to you, just as I know what sounds good to me. Are either of us wrong if we don't like what the other listens to? No, it's just a difference in taste.

 

[sdifox]

ni

 

[sdifox]

it's not a suit yourself situation, if you think you can backup what you're saying than do so. But since it is literally impossible, just submit to it and know that what makes music good or bad cannot be clearly defined by anyone except the person who is experiencing the music for themselves.

You personally will know what sounds good to you, just as I know what sounds good to me. Are either of us wrong if we don't like what the other listens to? No, it's just a difference in taste.

Are you going to say Beethoven is bad?

 

[sdifox]

will probably pass Alfa tomorrow. No way I am going to do it today.

 

[mnewsham]

yes and no. you are right that "good" music is subjective. but there is no arguing that applying different methods can require a great deal of creativity and knowledge.

not denying that at all, but what makes music good and bad can vary greatly depending on the listener, so there is no set in stone way to make music good or bad.

 

[sdifox]

not denying that at all, but what makes music good and bad can vary greatly depending on the listener, so there is no set in stone way to make music good or bad.

What you are describing is like and dislike, not good or bad.

 

[sdifox]

nananananananana batman!

 

[mnewsham]

Are you going to say Beethoven is bad?

No, but you can't say as a FACT that Beethoven is good, you can say in your opinion Beethoven is good, or even you love Beethoven more than any other music in the world, but that does not make it a universal fact no matter how much you want it to.

 

[sdifox]

No, but you can't say as a FACT that Beethoven is good, you can say in your opinion Beethoven is good, or even you love Beethoven more than any other music in the world, but that does not make it a universal fact no matter how much you want it to.

It is not just my opinion that he was good. It has survived time and countless challengers.

 

[sdifox]

There is a reason they are called classical music, because they survived the test of time.

 

[sdifox]

For example, I am not a big fan of Shostakovich, but I recognised that his work is good.

 

[sdifox]

Mixy, if he has the time, can probably tell you why Shostakovich is good. I can't nor do I care to learn.

 

[mnewsham]

It is not just my opinion that he was good. It has survived time and countless challengers.

in a million years I bet no one will know him, fuck off with that test of time crap, considering he was relatively modern it's no big shock the music is still around. PSY's Gangnam style has the most views on youtube for a music video, does that make it good music? It has surpassed millions of other videos, obviously it has proven itself.

 

[sdifox]

in a million years I bet no one will know him, fuck off with that test of time crap, considering he was relatively modern it's no big shock the music is still around. PSY's Gangnam style has the most views on youtube for a music video, does that make it good music? It has surpassed millions of other videos, obviously it has proven itself.

luz psy is really recent compared to Beethoven.

what two hundred years is not good enough for you? Mozart was a bit earlier, how about him?

 

[sdifox]

18

 

[sdifox]

17... the dreaded 15 second time between post is getting to me.

 

[sdifox]

16