Muse songs that are genuinely musically bad

[Buxomflirter Queef]

Music is an art form, and objectively speaking, there's no such thing as good or bad art. The only value of art, is the value we put into it (subjectively!).

 

Meh only to an extent. If I play a cover of twinkle twinkle little star on my wooden flute than I doubt anybody would class that a piece of art

[Anxyous]

Meh only to an extent. If I play a cover of twinkle twinkle little star on my wooden flute than I doubt anybody would class that a piece of art

 

Now you're just getting into a discussion about what art is.

[Buxomflirter Queef]

Now you're just getting into a discussion about what art is.

 

Well if we can't say whether it's good or bad art at least we can discuss whether it's art at all.

Although I did lie in my earlier statement. My mother would probably think I'm a genius and extremely talented.

[Anxyous]

Well if we can't say whether it's good or bad art at least we can discuss whether it's art at all.

Although I did lie in my earlier statement. My mother would probably think I'm a genius and extremely talented.

 

Well there you go; that's the reason why it's useless to discuss what art is.

 

And even if we could agree that it's art, there's still no such thing as good or bad art.

 

But let's say it's not art - then what is it?

[Buxomflirter Queef]

Well there you go; that's the reason why it's useless to discuss what art is.

 

And even if we could agree that it's art, there's still no such thing as good or bad art.

 

But let's say it's not art - then what is it?

 

Yeah but tell that to my music teacher who will grade then me on that piece of music on a scale from 'u suk' to excellent.

[Anxyous]

Yeah but tell that to my music teacher who will grade then me on that piece of music on a scale from 'u suk' to excellent.

 

Whatever objective arguments (and they are few) enter there, are based upon conventions of technique and such - keeping time, playing the correct notes and lots of finer details, but that has nothing to do with the value of the music itself. In short, your teacher will grade your performance, not the music.

[Niall]

But Niall, music isn't like making cars. You can say that a car is bad because it takes a dangerously long distance to brake, if it takes 10 minutes to reach 10 miles per hour or if you have to turn the steering wheel halfway round before anything happens.

 

Music isn't like that.

 

Music is an art form, and objectively speaking, there's no such thing as good or bad art. The only value of art, is the value we put into it (subjectively!).

 

You're preaching to the converted...this is sort of the point of this thread, and it's what I've been arguing for ages in this forum. It was a bit facetious really, I guess. I was just genuinely curious how far people would get in trying to explain why they think a song is "bad" and why people berating others for saying the best Muse song is Guiding Light and Citizen Erased is bad is just ridiculous.

 

But there are also some things you can say are bad where technical skills are involved. You can say that one Muse song is better mastered or produced than another if it more realistically portrays the sounds that were played in the studio. The lyrics may be grammatically incorrect or nonsensical.

[Buxomflirter Queef]

Whatever objective arguments (and they are few) enter there, are based upon conventions of technique and such - keeping time, playing the correct notes and lots of finer details, but that has nothing to do with the value of the music itself. In short, your teacher will grade your performance, not the music.

 

But this thread is asking whether the song is musically bad, which can mean the composition, the way it's sang, the way the instruments are played etc so all of that has to with performance, rather than the 'value of music'.

[Hat]

You can say that one Muse song is better mastered or produced than another if it more realistically portrays the sounds that were played in the studio.

assuming thats the sound they wanted.

 

There are loads of approaches to producing, and unless you know that the sound on the final product isn't what was intended, there's really not many things that could be objectively called bad.

[Anxyous]

But there are also some things you can say are bad where technical skills are involved. You can say that one Muse song is better mastered or produced than another if it more realistically portrays the sounds that were played in the studio.

 

But now you're just saying that the closer a song sounds to what was played in the studio, the better it is. Whatever went before the song doesn't matter; only the finished result matters. Then you might argue that heavily compressed songs must be better, but that just based on your experience of good sound. Is hi-fi music better than lo-fi music?

 

The lyrics may be grammatically incorrect or nonsensical.

 

Oh come on.

[Niall]

But this thread is asking whether the song is musically bad, which can mean the composition, the way it's sang, the way the instruments are played etc so all of that has to with performance, rather than the 'value of music'.

 

Yeah, I think that's where the discussion is to be had.

 

I was sort of inspired by reading essays like this to ask the question in the first place, just interested to see what attempts people would make.

[Anxyous]

But this thread is asking whether the song is musically bad, which can mean the composition, the way it's sang, the way the instruments are played etc so all of that has to with performance, rather than the 'value of music'.

 

No, as far as I understand, this thread deals entirely with composition and the like.

[Hat]

But this thread is asking whether the song is musically bad, which can mean the composition, the way it's sang, the way the instruments are played etc so all of that has to with performance, rather than the 'value of music'.

That doesn't really have any meaning in professionally produced music though. If someone plays an instrument wrong, they either correct it or leave it be, and no matter which one, the result will be whatever they want it to be. So to say that it's a musically bad piece of music is irrelevant.

[Niall]

assuming thats the sound they wanted.

 

There are loads of approaches to producing, and unless you know that the sound on the final product isn't what was intended, there's really not many things that could be objectively called bad.

 

Well yeah the assumption being that's what was intended. I mean a lot of things Muse do aren't instruments anyway, they're synthesised noises which makes the point irrelevant.

[Buxomflirter Queef]

No, as far as I understand, this thread deals entirely with composition and the like.

 

And? You can still grade composition. Students at Conservatorium are subjected to that all the time.

[Anxyous]

Well yeah the assumption being that's what was intended.

 

If they didn't intend it, why release the song?

 

And? You can still grade composition. Students at Conservatorium are subjected to that all the time.

 

See my earlier post in response to your comment about your teacher grading you.

[Buxomflirter Queef]

See my earlier post in response to your comment about your teacher grading you.

 

and how can that not be applied by use judging a muse song?

[Hat]

And? You can still grade composition. Students at Conservatorium are subjected to that all the time.

of course you can. You can listen to a song and say that it's shit because of the technical aspects of a song, but it's still subjective. There's no fact saying that one progression is better than another, it's just some teacher saying its better because it sounds better to him.

[Anxyous]

and how can that not be applied by use judging a muse song?

 

Because there are no absolutes in musical technique.

 

Whereas I find minimalist music amazing (of the actual minimalist movement, not stuff like Madness ), you (or a composition teacher) might find it boring and too simplistic to have any value.

[Buxomflirter Queef]

So thread best be closed then if there is no way to objectively say if it's good or bad.

[Hat]

and how can that not be applied by use judging a muse song?

Because EVERY Muse song keeps time and has the correct notes 99% of the time. Why would you want to judge a performance of a studio song? Obviously the performance will be the way they wanted it or they would have done another take. Or they wanted to keep a mistake in to make it more real. Either way it's a shit way to judge if a song is good or not.

[Anxyous]

So thread best be closed then if there is no way to objectively say if it's good or bad.

 

My point all along.

[Jobby]

So thread best be closed then if there is no way to objectively say if it's good or bad.

 

Pretty much this, I don't see the point in this thread.

[Buxomflirter Queef]

Because EVERY Muse song keeps time and has the correct notes 99% of the time. Why would you want to judge a performance of a studio song? Obviously the performance will be the way they wanted it or they would have done another take. Or they wanted to keep a mistake in to make it more real. Either way it's a shit way to judge if a song is good or not.

 

aha 99% of the time eh That other 1% is what we're looking for then

Hey I'm just asking a question here and I'm not the one crying when a newbie comes in saying starlight is their favourite song cause 'omg starlight sux'.

[Hat]

Btw has no one really done the "well if you take baby by Justin bieber and compare it to say stairway to heaven, you can obviously tell that the latter contains more musical goodness" argument yet? It's usually standard in these discussions.