Citizen_Eraser Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Ayy thanks for the shoutout. Serious shit though the guy in the facebook group sounds like some /MU/ troll when he talked about that; "objectively bad" is a buzz term to incite something or to be ironic, most people with a brain don't say that. What fb group? I'm lost lol. His comment was directed at me and idk about a fb group or \mu\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizen_Eraser Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Because there is no objectivity. Saying stuff like "if you don't like it it's because it's not what you were expecting" or "There isn't much I can find about the song that is objectively bad" or "The only part of this song that slightly hits on objectively lazy to me" makes no sense. It's still nothing more than his opinion. It's funny that right after "objectively lazy" he says "to me". Maybe objective is a bad choice of words then. Would you rather me say "something that any reasonable person would agree to and find consensus in" Most reasonable people who understand how a song is constructed and what all goes into it would likely only find the 4 chord progression from the bridge on to be lazy. Is that better? Still an opinion but one almost anyone would share. What else is lazy about this song besides the 4 chords in the bridge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FabriPav Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 It's still assumptions you're making based on nothing. Just don't mention objectivity or anything. Just say what you think of the song. Worthy discussions can be had without resorting to objectivity or "opinions almost anyone would share". You don't need democracy to talk about music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denise3112 Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 the execution and delivery of the vocals is so fantastic . I agree. This song is a showcase for his stunning voice and musical delivery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizen_Eraser Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 It's still assumptions you're making based on nothing. Just don't mention objectivity or anything. Just say what you think of the song. Worthy discussions can be had without resorting to objectivity or "opinions almost anyone would share". You don't need democracy to talk about music. So apparently just the word objective can set people off lol. I've never seen someone have the reaction you did so I'll keep that in mind. I agree with what your saying and I actually hinted at that in my original post and in the following one, but since I chose to use that word you lost it apparently lol. There are elements that go into music that can be considered bad objectively flat out. If someone sang an entire song flat as fuck and screwed up multiple notes along the way and let it get to record and release would you say its a bad performance by opinion or its a bad performance? If someone wrote a song like I described, same line for 3 minutes and same 3 chords would it not be lazy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonisdead Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 What fb group? I'm lost lol. His comment was directed at me and idk about a fb group or \mu\ Hard to tell when Fabri's being discreet or not. I bagged on some pretentious kid in a Muse facebook group for his "objective" opinions so I thoght he was referring to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FabriPav Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 There are elements that go into music that can be considered bad objectively flat out. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FabriPav Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Hard to tell when Fabri's being discreet or not. I bagged on some pretentious kid in a Muse facebook group for his "objective" opinions so I thoght he was referring to me. wut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizen_Eraser Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Hard to tell when Fabri's being discreet or not. I bagged on some pretentious kid in a Muse facebook group for his "objective" opinions so I thoght he was referring to me. I used it in quotes sarcastically a few posts back and more or less expressed an opinion but used the word once or twice and he lost it lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topo_musero Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 If someone wrote a song like I described, same line for 3 minutes and same 3 chords would it not be lazy? Yep, it's called "Psycho" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonisdead Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 wut That Henry Dinson or whatever shitposter in the Drones fb group. I called him out for being "objective" so I thought you were mimicking me lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FabriPav Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 I used it in quotes sarcastically a few posts back and more or less expressed an opinion but used the word once or twice and he lost it lol. I just find it annoying that people actually use "objectively bad" (or something that has the same meaning) seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizen_Eraser Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 No. So someone completely shit at guitar writes and releases a record full of dissonant chords and mistakes etc you wouldn't think it was bad you'd say that's there choice to play like that? Alright then. I'd say it sounds like shit lol. Thats enough though we can move on lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kueller Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Fabri is objectively wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FabriPav Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 I'd say it sounds like shit lol. And I'd agree! see, it's not hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee3Dee Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 So someone completely shit at guitar writes and releases a record full of dissonant chords and mistakes etc you wouldn't think it was bad you'd say that's there choice to play like that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow-YPRq-t8A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizen_Eraser Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) I just find it annoying that people actually use "objectively bad" (or something that has the same meaning) seriously. I hear ya and I agree. But anyways I just can't take people saying "its shit because its pop" or comments that amount to that seriously. That is not a serious criticism it just makes someone look stupid. The whole point I made in my original post is saying something is shit because its pop or it wasn't what you wanted is entirely different than saying something is shit because the vocal performance is bad or the song writing is lazy. You are aware of this correct? Yeah in the end it all comes down to "personal preference" if you want to use that scape goat out of an argument but there are varying degrees of fair and acceptable criticisms to any piece of subjective media. This is why you'll never see any professional reviewer with a job resort to "its shit because its pop" and be taken seriously. Edited March 25, 2015 by Citizen_Eraser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kueller Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Thing with dissonance or wrong chords is it implies the current standard of theory is somehow objectively correct or at all universal. I hear ya and I agree. But anyways I just can't take people saying "its shit because its pop" or comments that amount to that seriously. That is not a serious criticism it just makes someone look stupid. I agree with this. Also people replying "no" to unpopular opinions. Destroys all potential discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denise3112 Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 So someone completely shit at guitar writes and releases a record full of dissonant chords and mistakes etc you wouldn't think it was bad ? . . You should stick your ground. You're right. Objectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FabriPav Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Also people replying "no" to unpopular opinions. Destroys all potential discussion. no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizen_Eraser Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Thing with dissonance or wrong chords is it implies the current standard of theory is somehow objectively correct or at all universal. I agree with this. Also people replying "no" to unpopular opinions. Destroys all potential discussion. Well there are tolerances the human ear and brain can accept and be pleased by. Maybe through some evolution we'll start enjoying dissonance in our music. Right now stuff like that is nails on a chalk board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kueller Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Well there are tolerances the human ear and brain can accept and be pleased by. Maybe through some evolution we'll start enjoying dissonance in our music. Right now stuff like that is nails on a chalk board. But that doesn't explain entirely other cultures having musical cliches that can similarly be found as cacophonous and dissonant to us. And that the average production of a song on the radio, widely accepted today, would similarly be intolerable 100 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bumpypotato Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 So someone completely shit at guitar writes and releases a record full of dissonant chords and mistakes etc you wouldn't think it was bad you'd say that's there choice to play like that? Alright then. I'd say it sounds like shit lol. This is objectively wrong. Well there are tolerances the human ear and brain can accept and be pleased by. Maybe through some evolution we'll start enjoying dissonance in our music. Right now stuff like that is nails on a chalk board. I like a lot of dissonant music. I guess I'm more evolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizen_Eraser Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 But that doesn't explain entirely other cultures having musical cliches that can similarly be found as cacophonous and dissonant to us. And that the average production of a song on the radio, widely accepted today, would similarly be intolerable 100 years ago. Good point. So it has to do with what you're used to hearing then I guess. We're used to the way our music sounds. A true dissonance isn't the same as something just sounding off or unexpected or syncopated. The notes and vibrations physically clash in a way that changes the sound of both notes. Idk maybe if that was all we'd been hearing the past 100 years we would be used to it by now I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bohemian-Cygnus-Running-Out Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Two words and one song title. John Cage "4'33"" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now