Jump to content
simplytom

Are your FAVOURITE songs what you consider to be their BEST songs?

Recommended Posts

Or people just have different interpretations and reasons for enjoying music...?
But it isn't about enjoyment of music, because then saying something is your favourite song would be enough, and saying that "well I like how emotional it is" or "I appreciate the technical aspect" would be enough. But some people try to validate their opinions as something more than that, because the "emotional depth" of a song is so deep that the song can't possibly have any other quality than the one I give it.

 

It's nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it isn't about enjoyment of music, because then saying something is your favourite song would be enough, and saying that "well I like how emotional it is" or "I appreciate the technical aspect" would be enough. But some people try to validate their opinions as something more than that, because the "emotional depth" of a song is so deep that the song can't possibly have any other quality than the one I give it.

 

It's nonsense.

 

I wasn't ever intending on starting arguments with this thread and I'm not trying to sound superior to anyone.

 

I was simply asking if people thought there was a difference between what are your favourite songs as in the songs you like the most and what you think are their best songs, in terms of musicality etc.

 

For example Supermassive Black Hole is my favourite song cos that's how I started listening to them but I think SS is better because of the feels it gives me.

 

Yes this is "subjective", but is there a difference between best and favourite? If so are your favourite songs also what you consider to be their best songs? I was simply trying to start an interesting discussion, rather then create yet another list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why would I pick another song as my favorite other than the one I think is their best? how high I rate a song only depends on how much I like it, there's no objectivity whatsoever when it comes to rating music :erm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of catch the drift, there's no way I would say TOADA is their best song, but it's one of my favourites because it's fun as fuck and I never get bored of listening to it. However, I would say that Exo is one of their most commendable pieces of music, so possibly their most accomplished work. So I would say that might be what I consider their best set of tracks. However, CE is in the middle for me, as it's one of my favourite tracks at a personal level and it's also one of their most perfect songs imo, so I kind of get where you're coming from. I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why would I pick another song as my favorite other than the one I think is their best? how high I rate a song only depends on how much I like it, there's no objectivity whatsoever when it comes to rating music :erm

 

The thread was kind of just discussing if people think best and favourite meant the same thing, which you do.

 

I'm just spectularly bad at putting thoughts into words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't ever intending on starting arguments with this thread and I'm not trying to sound superior to anyone.

 

I was simply asking if people thought there was a difference between what are your favourite songs as in the songs you like the most and what you think are their best songs, in terms of musicality etc.

 

For example Supermassive Black Hole is my favourite song cos that's how I started listening to them but I think SS is better because of the feels it gives me.

 

Yes this is "subjective", but is there a difference between best and favourite? If so are your favourite songs also what you consider to be their best songs? I was simply trying to start an interesting discussion, rather then create yet another list.

Yeah I know that your intention wasn't as bad as the examples I give, I'm just putting it out there BEFORE this thread turns into discussions about how Muse's best song must be Exogenesis or Reapers or whatever because of their technical complexity, and then it just boils down to people saying "Well I think Stockholm Syndrome is the best because...", and then it's JUST the same as the "what's your favourite Muse song" threads.

 

But I do admit that it would be interesting if some of these "musical quality can be measured"-people actually tried to defend why uncommon time signatures rank higher than uncommon chord progressions or vice versa. Bring it on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah I know that your intention wasn't as bad as the examples I give, I'm just putting it out there BEFORE this thread turns into discussions about how Muse's best song must be Exogenesis or Reapers or whatever because of their technical complexity, and then it just boils down to people saying "Well I think Stockholm Syndrome is the best because...", and then it's JUST the same as the "what's your favourite Muse song" threads.

 

But I do admit that it would be interesting if some of these "musical quality can be measured"-people actually tried to defend why uncommon time signatures rank higher than uncommon chord progressions or vice versa. Bring it on.

 

 

I don't think musical complexity is necessarily better than lack of musical complexity, but since a great deal of the music that I hear and have heard throughout my life follows similar, simple musical structures/tricks/cliches/(insert applicable word here)s, complexity and un-commonality in music tend to stand out to me as a listener and make me pay closer attention as I suddenly become unsure what will probably happen next. After I have discovered what does happen next, my unfamiliarity with the complication found in the music may also lead me to repeated listening to attempt to discover what exactly is going on in the music that has struck me as so unique. Afterwards, I may think to myself, "wow, (musician) must be extremely talented and unique for having come up with that idea and using like he/she did. I now respect her/him more." This gives a false impression of LOWERED respect for songsmiths who work mainly in musical commonalities, when in truth my standard has just been set higher on the complexity scale. That being said, musicians who work almost entirely in predictable musical cliches (especially in an attempt to gain popularity) begin to blend together as the have only their individual productions, voices, songs, melodies, etc. to stand out with. Of course, in certain genres (the blues for example), such simple aspects of music are totally accepted as the main (or only) differentiating factors between artists, in fact forcing the listener to go deeper for differentiating factors than many other types of music, assuming the standard that has been set for song structure, instrumentation, key, time signature, etc. does not bore the listener. Basically, listeners who reject music which is not superbly original or unusually complex are bored easily by sounds/tricks/ideas they have already heard, which is not bad, but not necessarily better than its alternatives. On a somewhat related note, some highly simple, cliche, or even derivative music can still make a huge personal connection with someone based on the emotion put into its performance and its lyrics. For people who have little knowledge of the range of complexity possible with music, this is often what they will search for in discovering music they enjoy. Does it successfully convey strong emotion to me of some kind? Do it's lyrics touch me in some way? Some people will argue this is all that music needs, and in a sense they are correct, as one can easily get by or even be revered as an artist simply for lyrical relatabilty/depth and most especially conveyance of emotion, whereas a great deal of more musically "interesting" music with more complexity and originality will fall flat on most people's ears for lack of the above traits. However, what seems to be agreed upon by most people to be good or even great music has a balanced combination of some level of complexity or musical interest and emotional conveyance and/or lyrical depth. Take....Redemtion for example. Technically speaking, it appears to be the least complex third of Exogenesis, and frankly is much less complex than a good deal of the rest of Muse's music. It may be argued that it is an overly simple song (or portion of a song) and should thus be looked down upon. Even lyrically ("let's start over again, this time we'll get it right,") it's rather basic, simple, perhaps even unimaginative. So why then do people adore this piece? Well, aside from the fact that it's part of an altogether complex and progressive rock symphony which supposedly gives it complexity by association, its use of one of music's most basic tools, tension and release, is highly effective on an emotional level, causing many listers to comment on it as "beautiful," "majestic," and "emotionally affecting." For some, such as myself, the simple effectiveness of the tension and release and the vocals/lyrics was not found without an accompanying video showing a quick and wordless story of the bitter curse of the passing of time and the awful mistake of wasting it, giving the lyrics more ground to stand/comment on and putting the rest of the song into bittersweet context, leading to vast swellings of emotions which neither the video or the song could've achieved on their own in said listener.

 

 

To put my long, unfortunately unparagraphed rambling in short, music lovers tend to look for at least one of these two elements in music: musical interest/complexity and emotional connectivity, the latter often expressed through lyrical depth, though not always. A song with neither of these traits is often considered garbage, and to many listeners, a song with only one of these traits can also be considered garbage. In total contrast, some listeners place so much value on one aspect or the other, that they tend to "fill in" the other aspect themselves in various psychological manners when questioned as to what makes a song without the lacking aspect worth listening to, or sometimes they claim that the other aspect is simply unnecessary or unimportant in music, and perhaps it is to that listener, but this does not hold true for all. IMO both of these traits can make wonderful music, and even one of these traits can make wonderful music under the right circumstances, but often a noticeable lack in one (or both) of these areas will lower the potential for my enjoyment of a song.

 

How's that? :)

 

EDIT: Also, I'm terribly sorry for above grammatical, language errors, but I probably won't try to weed them out and fix them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this such a weird question... since it's all subjective anyways, why would you consider a favorite song not to be a best song?

I mean, it's obviously got qualities good enough to top your list.

 

The only real reason I can think of, is if you have emotional ties to a song that you otherwise never liked, that have nothing to do with the song itself. Maybe your first dance or first kiss was to a song that you always thought was awful, but now it makes you happy when you hear it.

 

I see people saying things like "well, one of my favorites is X... I know it's not a GOOD song..." all the time (not just here.)

 

I'd personally find myself wondering why I'm so eager to say something that's a favorite of mine isn't "good" - am I personally embarrassed of my feelings? Am I trying to preempt criticism of my opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think musical complexity is necessarily better than lack of musical complexity, but since a great deal of the music that I hear and have heard throughout my life follows similar, simple musical structures/tricks/cliches/(insert applicable word here)s, complexity and un-commonality in music tend to stand out to me as a listener and make me pay closer attention as I suddenly become unsure what will probably happen next. After I have discovered what does happen next, my unfamiliarity with the complication found in the music may also lead me to repeated listening to attempt to discover what exactly is going on in the music that has struck me as so unique. Afterwards, I may think to myself, "wow, (musician) must be extremely talented and unique for having come up with that idea and using like he/she did. I now respect her/him more." This gives a false impression of LOWERED respect for songsmiths who work mainly in musical commonalities, when in truth my standard has just been set higher on the complexity scale. That being said, musicians who work almost entirely in predictable musical cliches (especially in an attempt to gain popularity) begin to blend together as the have only their individual productions, voices, songs, melodies, etc. to stand out with. Of course, in certain genres (the blues for example), such simple aspects of music are totally accepted as the main (or only) differentiating factors between artists, in fact forcing the listener to go deeper for differentiating factors than many other types of music, assuming the standard that has been set for song structure, instrumentation, key, time signature, etc. does not bore the listener. Basically, listeners who reject music which is not superbly original or unusually complex are bored easily by sounds/tricks/ideas they have already heard, which is not bad, but not necessarily better than its alternatives. On a somewhat related note, some highly simple, cliche, or even derivative music can still make a huge personal connection with someone based on the emotion put into its performance and its lyrics. For people who have little knowledge of the range of complexity possible with music, this is often what they will search for in discovering music they enjoy. Does it successfully convey strong emotion to me of some kind? Do it's lyrics touch me in some way? Some people will argue this is all that music needs, and in a sense they are correct, as one can easily get by or even be revered as an artist simply for lyrical relatabilty/depth and most especially conveyance of emotion, whereas a great deal of more musically "interesting" music with more complexity and originality will fall flat on most people's ears for lack of the above traits. However, what seems to be agreed upon by most people to be good or even great music has a balanced combination of some level of complexity or musical interest and emotional conveyance and/or lyrical depth. Take....Redemtion for example. Technically speaking, it appears to be the least complex third of Exogenesis, and frankly is much less complex than a good deal of the rest of Muse's music. It may be argued that it is an overly simple song (or portion of a song) and should thus be looked down upon. Even lyrically ("let's start over again, this time we'll get it right,") it's rather basic, simple, perhaps even unimaginative. So why then do people adore this piece? Well, aside from the fact that it's part of an altogether complex and progressive rock symphony which supposedly gives it complexity by association, its use of one of music's most basic tools, tension and release, is highly effective on an emotional level, causing many listers to comment on it as "beautiful," "majestic," and "emotionally affecting." For some, such as myself, the simple effectiveness of the tension and release and the vocals/lyrics was not found without an accompanying video showing a quick and wordless story of the bitter curse of the passing of time and the awful mistake of wasting it, giving the lyrics more ground to stand/comment on and putting the rest of the song into bittersweet context, leading to vast swellings of emotions which neither the video or the song could've achieved on their own in said listener.

 

 

To put my long, unfortunately unparagraphed rambling in short, music lovers tend to look for at least one of these two elements in music: musical interest/complexity and emotional connectivity, the latter often expressed through lyrical depth, though not always. A song with neither of these traits is often considered garbage, and to many listeners, a song with only one of these traits can also be considered garbage. In total contrast, some listeners place so much value on one aspect or the other, that they tend to "fill in" the other aspect themselves in various psychological manners when questioned as to what makes a song without the lacking aspect worth listening to, or sometimes they claim that the other aspect is simply unnecessary or unimportant in music, and perhaps it is to that listener, but this does not hold true for all. IMO both of these traits can make wonderful music, and even one of these traits can make wonderful music under the right circumstances, but often a noticeable lack in one (or both) of these areas will lower the potential for my enjoyment of a song.

 

How's that? :)

 

EDIT: Also, I'm terribly sorry for above grammatical, language errors, but I probably won't try to weed them out and fix them.

Oh god. I might attempt to read that later tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For example, Reapers is probably the best song in Drones because it is technically brilliant, but The Handler is my favourite song because of all the feels it gives me,

 

How dare you have such an opinion. I disagree so much I think I should just babble on with a 5 paragraph essay now. You'll get so frustrated you just wont wanna come back here.

 

OJ.

 

I have more than one favourite song but I think their best work has to be Citizen Erased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I like this. Best thread in a while. I don't tend to have a difference between best and favourite with music, though. Hard to differentiate. I can have favourite and best games and films, but not really music.

 

My favourite is Citizen Erased, and I think that might be their best as well, but it's hard to say. There are some contenders for best, such as Stockholm Syndrome and Time is Running Out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find this such a weird question... since it's all subjective anyways, why would you consider a favorite song not to be a best song?

I mean, it's obviously got qualities good enough to top your list.

 

The only real reason I can think of, is if you have emotional ties to a song that you otherwise never liked, that have nothing to do with the song itself. Maybe your first dance or first kiss was to a song that you always thought was awful, but now it makes you happy when you hear it.

 

I see people saying things like "well, one of my favorites is X... I know it's not a GOOD song..." all the time (not just here.)

 

I'd personally find myself wondering why I'm so eager to say something that's a favorite of mine isn't "good" - am I personally embarrassed of my feelings? Am I trying to preempt criticism of my opinion?

 

There are different factors to take into account with taste. Fight Club really resonates within me and I could watch it over and over again and have great feelings while watching it, but I know that films are better than Fight Club by a long shot. For a favourite piece of media, you take general enjoyment from it, such as nostalgia, sense of humour and how relatable it is. For a best piece of media, you take other things into the equation, such as how beloved it is, how everything fits together, and how generally well done it is. A favourite film can be none of those things and you can still enjoy it.

 

That's why things are considered 'guilty pleasures'. You know they're no where near the best in any way, but they're a favourite.

 

Edit: I know someone who loves a song they think is awful because it was played at a happy, memorable time in their life. It was a social meet up thing, but I can't go into detail with that.

 

Edit II: How to Train Your Dragon 2 is in my top ten films and I liked the second Hobbit film mainly for the situation I was in when I watched them. How to Train Your Dragon 2 is an amazing coming of age film and I love the Hiccup/Toothless friendship and dragons, but I know the film isn't worthy of being in a top 500 films, never mind ten. Nostalgia plays a huge part in why I love it and it's a favourite.

Edited by Aeterna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love the way that in the title, favourite and best are capitalised as though we're all dumb as fuck. That's what I'm taking from this thread.
Well evidently we ARE quite dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are different factors to take into account with taste. Fight Club really resonates within me and I could watch it over and over again and have great feelings while watching it, but I know that films are better than Fight Club by a long shot. For a favourite piece of media, you take general enjoyment from it, such as nostalgia, sense of humour and how relatable it is. For a best piece of media, you take other things into the equation, such as how beloved it is, how everything fits together, and how generally well done it is. A favourite film can be none of those things and you can still enjoy it.

 

That's why things are considered 'guilty pleasures'. You know they're no where near the best in any way, but they're a favourite.

 

Edit: I know someone who loves a song they think is awful because it was played at a happy, memorable time in their life. It was a social meet up thing, but I can't go into detail with that.

 

Edit II: How to Train Your Dragon 2 is in my top ten films and I liked the second Hobbit film mainly for the situation I was in when I watched them. How to Train Your Dragon 2 is an amazing coming of age film and I love the Hiccup/Toothless friendship and dragons, but I know the film isn't worthy of being in a top 500 films, never mind ten. Nostalgia plays a huge part in why I love it and it's a favourite.

 

See, I don't believe in any of that.

I don't think you can ever really say something is "put together" better then something else, and have that mean anything. You could have the best filmed movie, or the most technically complex song, and if they're completely unrelatable, none of that means anything. For just one example.

 

And how beloved something is should never, ever factor in to what is the "best" of anything, especially since we're talking about personal opinions here.

Likewise, I disagree with the concept of the "guilty pleasure" (despite my using the term once in a while) because it highlights what I said before - you're only saying there's a difference between something that's good and something that you like because of the opinions of others, and apologizing for your likes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are different factors to take into account with taste. Fight Club really resonates within me and I could watch it over and over again and have great feelings while watching it, but I know that films are better than Fight Club by a long shot. For a favourite piece of media, you take general enjoyment from it, such as nostalgia, sense of humour and how relatable it is. For a best piece of media, you take other things into the equation, such as how beloved it is, how everything fits together, and how generally well done it is. A favourite film can be none of those things and you can still enjoy it.

 

That's why things are considered 'guilty pleasures'. You know they're no where near the best in any way, but they're a favourite.

 

Edit: I know someone who loves a song they think is awful because it was played at a happy, memorable time in their life. It was a social meet up thing, but I can't go into detail with that.

 

Edit II: How to Train Your Dragon 2 is in my top ten films and I liked the second Hobbit film mainly for the situation I was in when I watched them. How to Train Your Dragon 2 is an amazing coming of age film and I love the Hiccup/Toothless friendship and dragons, but I know the film isn't worthy of being in a top 500 films, never mind ten. Nostalgia plays a huge part in why I love it and it's a favourite.

 

This is like, precisely the point I want to make without being nearly as long or rambly. Great post! I think it's just necessary that we understand our ideas of "best" are still subjective when it comes to art, despite whatever connotations/denotations the word holds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See, I don't believe in any of that.

I don't think you can ever really say something is "put together" better then something else, and have that mean anything. You could have the best filmed movie, or the most technically complex song, and if they're completely unrelatable, none of that means anything. For just one example.

 

It means a lot. I can't relate to The Godfather at all. I'm nothing like Michael Corleone. But it flows more smoothly than any film I've ever seen and every scene is masterful. Much, much better than Fight Club. But I'd choose Fight Club over The Godfather any day. Not because it's better, but because I like it more.

 

And how beloved something is should never, ever factor in to what is the "best" of anything, especially since we're talking about personal opinions here.

 

Yes it should. If the opinion of the vast majority says it's good, then it's good. I don't like 2001: A Space Odyssey at all and think it's pretentious, but I'll admit that there must be something great about it to capture so many people and don't think it's bad, despite disliking it.

 

Likewise, I disagree with the concept of the "guilty pleasure" (despite my using the term once in a while) because it highlights what I said before - you're only saying there's a difference between something that's good and something that you like because of the opinions of others, and apologizing for your likes.

 

Not at all. Nothing to do with what others think. I like bad films made for preteen girls. It's a guilty pleasure because I think it's an awful film, not other people, but I love it anyway. It doesn't deserve an oscar or anything and is awful, but I love it. This has nothing to do with other people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It means a lot. I can't relate to The Godfather at all. I'm nothing like Michael Corleone. But it flows more smoothly than any film I've ever seen and every scene is masterful. Much, much better than Fight Club. But I'd choose Fight Club over The Godfather any day. Not because it's better, but because I like it more.
But is flow the only thing that makes a movie good? The answer is no. There is an infinite number of things that could be part of what makes a movie good, which makes it a totally unrealistic thing to try to pin down.

 

 

Yes it should. If the opinion of the vast majority says it's good, then it's good. I don't like 2001: A Space Odyssey at all and think it's pretentious, but I'll admit that there must be something great about it to capture so many people and don't think it's bad, despite disliking it.

So what you're saying is that One Direction are better than Muse, because they have more fans?

 

 

Not at all. Nothing to do with what others think. I like bad films made for preteen girls. It's a guilty pleasure because I think it's an awful film, not other people, but I love it anyway. It doesn't deserve an oscar or anything and is awful, but I love it. This has nothing to do with other people.

Why is it so hard to just say that you love it? It's so obvious that you don't want people to make fun of you or think less of you for liking it, so you make sure we know you know it's an "awful film".

 

Grow up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But is flow the only thing that makes a movie good? The answer is no. There is an infinite number of things that could be part of what makes a movie good, which makes it a totally unrealistic thing to try to pin down.

 

Yes, the answer is no. There is more than one thing to take into account. Nobody says that they've found an objective best song or film, they're saying what they consider to be the best song or film they've heard or watched.

 

So what you're saying is that One Direction are better than Muse, because they have more fans?

 

That's only one part of the equation to take into account. And One Direction has more fans, but more people hate One Direction than Muse.

 

Why is it so hard to just say that you love it? It's so obvious that you don't want people to make fun of you or think less of you for liking it, so you make sure we know you know it's an "awful film".

 

Grow up.

 

I don't give a shit what other people think. I do love them, but they're fucking awful films that hardly any effort has been put into. They don't deserve credit or love, which is why it's a guilty pleasure. You're the one who cares what everyone else thinks, because you're trying to dictate what people can and can't think and you're getting upset because other people look at things differently to you. It's none of your business how people view films and music, and so you shouldn't go around getting pissed off because they think differently.

 

You need to grow up. You came into the thread and, as the first post, tried to start an argument, bringing objectivity and subjectivity into the equation, despite them having nothing to do with the question.you keep getting angry at people who think differently to you and seem to think your opinions are superior. If you don't think that 'best' and 'favourite' are valid, why come here in the first place? To tell people how wrong they are? Because that's the epitome of childish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love the way that in the title, favourite and best are capitalised as though we're all dumb as fuck. That's what I'm taking from this thread.

 

That is not how I meant it to look :$

 

If anyone is dumb as fuck, it's me for making this thread.

 

I already have opinions so it's not like "but x and y said that z are their best song so I think it's their best song". It's not like I base my opinions on what somebody else thinks. What can I say I'm an inquisitive guy who likes to know what other people think.

 

Just defending myself a bit here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...