Exactly....what is a valid basis? What somebody who knows more about actual music thinks?

That's more silly then what anybody else here has said. With or without musical knowledge, it's going to be subjective no matter what.(to use your basis for many arguments)

100 people who can be considered experts in the art of music can still easily disagree on what good quality and bad quality music is. So what makes one side right and one side wrong? There is nothing objective to subtantiate considering anybody's opinion concrete.

You can even use your own set of criteria as to what quality music should contain. Some will say certain music contain it and others will laugh and insist it doesn't.

you mcpheezy can point out any particular criteria as to what makes quality music and provide examples of what you think fit it. I'll guarantee you that there are thousand upon thousands of people out there more knowledgeable then you who will disagree.

Especially for you, pheezy, to consider, but everyone should read this.

Fact: There are quantifiable measures of music in determining several elements:

- Complexity
- Cadence
- Harmony
- Etc.

Thus, someone can demonstrably prove those and other elements exist in music and to what degree. To describe The River, for example, as a simple song with uncreative elements is an objective observation. Some people like that, others do not.

Opinion: Any or all of those elements amount to "good" or "bad" music. This is not an argument that everything's subjective and let's all be happy. However, it is an argument that something that is "good" or "bad" or "awesome" or "sucks" is an opinion masked as allegation of fact. This is where subjective interpretation rears its head. We're all socialized in different cultures with different expectations and social norms. What is "weird" to you may not be so to someone else. Likewise, a song that "sucks" to you may not be regarded as such by the majority opinion, and that is the key distinction. While you may be able to demonstrably prove the existence (or lack thereof) of elements in a song, you have no basis for describing the song as "good" or "bad" other than your opinion. And that opinion is formed based on your interpretation of the importance of musical elements (and that of the majority opinion in a given field) and whether they ultimately constitute a good or bad product.

Songs can be insanely complex and still not strike a cord with us. That's where unmeasurable elements come in: emotion, resonance, soul.

This post has been edited by swamiscott: Mar 2 2006, 8:07 pm

Live went into the studio to make a pop album, and they did just that. I don't know how you can say that there isn't much pop on the album at all, it's so abundant.



Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. Obviously you don't agree with mine and I don't agree with yours.

Probably something more like two or two and a half stars.



Good idea!

My God, must we have this argument again??

So what we're really saying is that if a friend hears me listening to live's new work and sees that i'm obviously enjoying it and asks me, "so good album?" I have to say, "Oh, no, its terrible. Terrible music. I love it"

WTF??

I agree with the reality that there are guidelines to assess quality of music, being a film buff I know there is a paramount difference in quality between films like "Citizen Kane" and a film i saw recently called "hostel". I loved both movies but i know that CK has more depth and substance in a single one of its frames than hostell does for its entire running length, but that doesnt mean when someone asks me if hostel was good, I'm gonna say..."NO."

its all about perspective and reference;

Lives music IS good, compared to backstreet boys.

Hostel IS a shit film, compared to Citizen Kane (In fact every movie is shit compared to citizen kane)

mrmcpheezy IS a nice guy.......COMPARED TO FRANKENSTEIN

hehehehe

This post has been edited by Wambangalang: Mar 2 2006, 9:36 pm

That's hysterical! Sad that I believe that's how it went down. But hysterical

They had plenty of songs that "rocked" per say...or really got the crowd all fired up. Shit towne, Stage, white discusion, lakinis juice, voodoo lady, etc... Granted people will mosh to just about anything, but what songs now do you see since V that people get excited about? Now its all "hold yer lighters up" stuff. Most of us have been fans since the begining, and we grew accustomed to their "old" sound. Does their new music suck. no. Its THEIR music. They are doing what they want. Can they do better after being a group for over 10 years? fuck yeah. They are a tight band and they should be showing it on an album. Christ, last album had processed drums for crying out loud!
anyone in here that ends up loving the album, mor power to you, that is great. But the rest of us just feel they could be doing better music.
Time for Ed to take off the freakin skin tight leather lants and go back to his roots...

Processed drums? What do you mean by that, all of Live's instruments on all of their albums have been processed. Especially from TDTH onwards.

Live's music is simple. This is a fact. Live's music evidentally emotionally connected with all of us here at some stage in time. This is another fact. Live's music has changed- some people think it is better, some people think it is worse. Wow, another fact. Live's music, for better or worse, is not as dynamic as it once was- some people miss that quality, some people dont mind. Despite these obvious facts people are still going to argue about how 'good' Live's music is.

Personally, I am of the opinion that it is a fact that compositionally-wise Live's newer music doesn't offer much. But when you're arguing over whether you think that a fact is in fact a fact, or just an opinion, it gets pretty pointless.


I'm very very ill and have not slept more than 2 hours a night in at least three weeks.

I agree with most of what you say here.


My main thing is that while comments about whether or not you like the album are based soley on how you feel when you hear the song, but comments about its quality must be founded in the objective aspects that you mentioned. As liverocks pointed out, subjectivity still comes into play (I've never denied that it has) but those subjective comments must be about objective aspects of the song.

The only valid basis for making comments about the quality of a song is its objective aspects. To say that a song is good or bad because you like it or don't like it is bullshit. It implies that the song's value is based on how much you like it. It isn't. The value of a song is based on the quality of the writing. Not all well written songs strike me in a manner that makes me want to listen to them over and over again, but that does not take anything away from the quality of the writing.

All the things that scott mentioned in his post (and many others) can be measured objectively, and it is from those objective elements that the quality of a song is determined. Subjectivity comes into play in the sense that different listeners will give different amounts of importance to different objective aspects.

But again, if you think that liking a song makes it ok for you to say that that song is good, stfu. You're wrong and probably an idiot.

Why are people so afraid of doing this? What's wrong with admitting that you like poorly written music? If you enjoy it, hey, who gives a fuck about its quality? I like plenty of shit music (see also: bone thugs, dido, eminem, fiona apple, jimmy eat world, mindless self indulgence, tom waits). These musicians may have a few things going for them, but none of them are doing anything all that impressive. I just enjoy the music. However, that enjoyment does not prevent me from being able to objectively analyze and understand and critique their work.

Yes that's true.

So with that in mind, my opinion is that this cd is not abundant with pop music. That's how I can say it.

Other then The River, Mystery and Sophia, I don't think I can pick out one single song that could fit into any kind of pop format. Contemporary yes, but pop? NO. This cd is more along the lines of alternative then pop if you ask me.

Out to Dry from BOP was pop. Simple Creed from V was pop. The River is pop. Compare those songs to the vast majority of this album and tell me they're the same? Yeah, I'm entitled to my own opinion, I'm also entitled to laugh at yours.

What aspects of the music from this album make you feel as though pop is not an appropriate title for it?

I've been following the band since just prior to Copper.

I love them because each album is different.

This album is also different, it's a cross between Jewelry, Distance & BoPray.

And it's one of their best!

Music doesn't have to be uber-intricate to be brilliant. There are a lot of amazing tracks on this album and it only continues to grow. After about 50+ listens it's only getting better.

Bp

POP music? Depends what you consider to be pop music. Pop music to me is characterized in a few different ways...although others may broaden the spectrum to include several additional elements.

Pop music generally is considered acceptable by a large number of people. Especially nowadays looking at crap like American Idol, MTV, etc. The melodies are easily listenable and mostly repetitive creating something catchy....as you see in many songs on pop radio nowadays. Aside from the Rhythmic elements and typical length of the song, these are songs that people generally enjoy singing along to. Lightning Crashes for example, and a very good one if you've ever been to one of the bands concerts. The hooks are simple and catchy, sticking in your head to purposely create a lasting and sometimes annoying memory of what you've heard. Obvioulsy, pop music is radio friendly and commercial, hence....The River and a very good example at that.

Now, in a lot of these songs? There is nothing memorable or radio friendly about them. The chorus to most of them won't stick in your head and aren't particulary catchy nor repetitive. Most of them lack the typical rhythmic element that most pop music posesses. Also, I don't think that ANY of them are marketable in the least in regards to them being radio friendly. My impression was that I actually couldn't pick out the chorus in some of the songs. While there are a few acoustic melodies that ARE repetitive, there are more that aren't. More that are broken and off the normal beaten path. I don't even see a remote possibility that these songs were made in order to appeal to the masses.

Like I said, the only songs I feel that follow the typical "pop" structure are The River, Mystery and Sophia. Maybe Show to some extent as well. Other then that, I see not much of the "pop" element on this cd.