Eons: Good and bad music doesn't exist

Rik VII 04.07.18	"If I want to claim that these are the top 10 albums of all time, nobody can tell me my music taste is bad or that the albums suck. Since it will only be their subjective, personal opinion." That's nonsense. Everyone could tell you that your taste is bad and the albums suck, and of course it's their personal opinion. Why would that keep anyone from stating their opinion about your opinion? Also, there are things that tend to work for human ears and things that don't. I'd argue that a lot of this doesn't correspond to what human ears would biologically perceive as well-sounding, but well, that can also have its charme, so yeah. That's all I have to say. Please proceed making childish lists.
Pheromone 04.07.18	lotta good albums on this list man pos
CaimanJesus 04.07.18	That's like saying no one is fat, and everyone is beautiful, shit ain't true
Mythodea 04.07.18	Hey, keep your list clean from Heritage, album doesn't belong here.
Eons 04.07.18	Rik, I will recommend you leave this comment thread and go for a walk and cool down.
DoofusWainwright 04.07.18	List is good shit. Other than Opeth. Say nopeth to opeth, stay gold
Zeuzo 04.07.18	That's like saying no one is fat, and everyone is beautiful, shit ain't true [2]
Eons 04.07.18	It's subjective, some people find fat ugly people sexy af
Rik VII 04.07.18	Telling people to "cool down" is always a comfortable thing to say when you have no defendable line of reason to offer, I know, I know.
LepreCon 04.07.18	Except all of these albums bar 6 and 7 are objectively bad. Just kidding. But not really. But hey, everyone to their own.
parksungjoon 04.07.18	only people who think 7 is bad are butthurt buttblasted metalheads who cant appreciate any other kind of music lol
parksungjoon 04.07.18	like i am 16 and my favourite bands are metallica and bon jovi type children
Rik VII 04.07.18	Like, a lot of this stuff has a kind of sonic ugliness that is hard to enjoy. If someone really enjoys it, good for them, who am I to say they mustn't. I sure wouldn't understand it for, say, 3. It's like ... someone munching pebble stones and liking it. It's weird. And just that.
ramon. 04.07.18	heritage is baller
bgillesp 04.07.18	ya 7 is good
Deathconscious 04.07.18	Whats the point of this list though? I think most people know this.
Jots 04.07.18	4 is actually good tho and not necessarily just for subjective reasons.
DominionMM1 04.07.18	lol i forgot steven seagal has released a couple albums
Ocean of Noise 04.07.18	ok but Heritage actually rules
parksungjoon 04.07.18	yea also what johnny said
Zig 04.07.18	Lol. There's a big difference between taste and quality.
BenThatsMyJamin 04.07.18	Takes one philosophy class...
Deathconscious 04.07.18	"There's a big difference between taste and quality." How is anyone this dumb. How do you prove quality when everyones idea of quality is different? This is basic shit, kids. We were taught this very basic logic in fucking grade school.
Rik VII 04.07.18	The true differentiation to be made is taste and bias. How you truly feel about it and what you force yourself to feel about it/if you even give it a proper chance. That's all there is to it honestly. Genuine emotions and forced emotions. Every approach to musical "quality" that isn't directly tied to emotional reaction is not an approach to music but to some abstract, theoretical stuff that doesn't really correspond to music as an actual thing and, at the end of the day, is worthless.
LouBreed 04.07.18	Everyone is fat.
Deathconscious 04.07.18	Shut up, fat-head.
Calc 04.07.18	"Takes one philosophy class..." more like youtubed one TED Talk.
Zig 04.07.18	"How is anyone this dumb. How do you prove quality when everyones idea of quality is different? This is basic shit, kids. We were taught this very basic logic in fucking grade school." We're talking about art, not food. So, ugliness and beauty don't exist, are also subjective? Taste is subjective. Quality (or musical aesthetics) is objective.
Rik VII 04.07.18	But musical aesthetics don't exist outside of our emotional (and therefore subjective) perceptions. Of course you can say a C minor chord corresponds with what is considered musically aesthetic, but that's because people have agreed that TO THEM it sounds good. The whole concept of musical aesthetics presumes a perceiving being that responds to something with a subjective emotion, and the premise that there is >some kind< of a consensus of how things are perceived, like, which chords sound consonent to our ears, which ones sound dissonant, etc etc. You can't just take music theory and the things that are called aesthetic by it and contemplate it without the context of human perception and emotions (and therefore subjectivity). The only objectivity is the fact of what the music makes you feel like. That's all there is to it. If you have an emotional reaction to something, that emotional reaction is a fact. That's your own objectivity, and it can differ from the consensus of "musical aesthetics" that some people decided some hundreds years ago and it's totally okay for it to do that. You just have to know what you feel.
hal1ax 04.07.18	deeply intelligent list
Toad 04.07.18	this is a music review / discussion website. if you put stock in the "it's all subjective" argument why bother coming here oh right, it's because you're lazy and have some need to feel better than other people on the internet
BenThatsMyJamin 04.07.18	[2] nail on the head Toad
Rik VII 04.07.18	But that comment doesn't make any sense.
Trebor. 04.07.18	op's been watching rick and morty
bloc 04.07.18	"That's like saying no one is fat, and everyone is beautiful" Being fat is not the opposite of being beautiful, so this is nonsense
LouBreed 04.07.18	Take a good look in the mirror and eventually you'll see Chino Moreno staring back at you, while consuming junk food
Deathconscious 04.07.18	"Being fat is not the opposite of being beautiful" I would say it is. And that right there is why the analogy is poor and only helps me prove my point.
Zeuzo 04.07.18	Hold da fuck up lil buddy Angelic 2 the core is aoty 2016
Deathconscious 04.07.18	Agreed
ArsMoriendi 04.07.18	Just like what you like regardless of what other people think People will judge you no matter what. Human beings are judgemental fuckers, and I'm no exception. :D
Zig 04.07.18	RikRoach First of all, I do understand your point; but not all music provides emotional experiences, and no one agreed that it sounds good, it's in our nature to feel good about beautiful and clean harmonies. Secondly, how do you explain the existence of atonal music? Because atonal music doesn't sound naturally good to the human ear. Think about this: if there's a song, in which the singer can't sing, players can't play and producers can't produce, is it objectively "bad music"? And if a person tells you he likes that song, is it impossible that a person likes "bad music"?
Deathconscious 04.07.18	Lol how are you not getting this.
butcherboy 04.07.18	Eons is probably the account of Rivers Cuomo.. I imagine he has great interest in promoting subjectivity in art..
Demon of the Fall 04.07.18	Troll list (probs) & anyone can tell you that you’re wrong, but it’s also fair to broadcast your opinion. Music is subjective, it’s personal, that’s the beauty of it. I’m sure Caiman’s comment was in jest but if not then man that’s depressing & completely ludicrous.
ArsMoriendi 04.07.18	Subjectivity is more fun than objectivity That's an objective fact :D
butcherboy 04.07.18	subjectivity is subject to be objectivized..
Zig 04.07.18	I get it now, AdolfChrist. Taste in music is subjective, there's no right answer.
hexfix93 04.07.18	I think it goes without saying that if a person can say an album is good, they can also say an album is bad. It may be subjective, but that doesn't mean we can't state our opinions. Not even really sure what the point of this list is either considering everyone knows music is subjective. Assuming it's a troll list anyway since you have Heritage listed here but it's your lowest rated Opeth. Also most of this stuff looks ridiculous.
hal1ax 04.07.18	@zig - i have always enjoyed atonal music.. probably more than these putative 'clean and beautiful harmonies' you're prattling on about. also how the fuck do u know what sounds naturally good to the human ear? are u some kind of wizard
Zig 04.07.18	hal1ax guys like Edmund Burke and Immanuel Kant explained the "natural" link between beauty and the human perception, like why the human being tends to naturally like beauty over ugliness.
hexfix93 04.07.18	Na lol. 8 pretty much clued me in. I don't know most* of these albums though, only reason I bothered checking ratings to confirm it was a troll even though it seemed fairly obvious from the start.
Storm In A Teacup 04.07.18	look at that madcow Steven Seagal acting like a guitar virtuoso in that picture lmao
hal1ax 04.07.18	@zig - your definition of beauty will always differ from mine though... how have you read Kant but aren't grasping this?
Beautiful 04.07.18	This list sucks You should like give up listening to music This is an objective statement
Zig 04.07.18	Storm In A Teacup, look at those skills :D https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/nonciclopedia/images/3/32/Steven_Seagal_chitarra.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20090203172201
Deathconscious 04.07.18	I too enjoy sitting on my porch playing an unplugged electric guitar.
hexfix93 04.07.18	lol yeah that cover is pretty ridiculous
Storm In A Teacup 04.07.18	@zig amazing, simply beautiful
Zig 04.07.18	hal1ax, I do agree with you, mine definition of beauty won't be the same of yours. I'm talking in an artistic context, because there's "elements" that make a painting to be grotesque or sublime, there's no subjectivity about it, and this is not my mere opinion, because there are authors who explain this linking those "elements" to the human nature.
TheSpaceMan 04.07.18	"nobody can tell me my music taste is bad" your music taste is actually bad though
GhostB1rd 04.07.18	Fuck yo taste, nigga.
Eons 04.07.18	@everybody in this comment thread, those are just your subjective opinions.
Toad 04.07.18	"there's "elements" that make a painting to be grotesque or sublime, there's no subjectivity about it" the thing is, those "elements" are subject to debate and changing perception of what those elements are continues to create new waves of art, theory, criticism etc and they also vary highly between cultures
Azertherion 04.07.18	The real essence of nihilism is contained in the oblivion of the being.
Toad 04.07.18	"@everybody in this comment thread, those are just your subjective opinions" unfortunately, this assertion is also a subjective opinion, and it happens to be dumb and lazy compared to most
treeqt. 04.07.18	oadt
Toad 04.07.18	sup qt pi, how's the sorority life treating ya
treeqt. 04.07.18	o i wish
wham49 04.07.18	Love the list. I always reference garcia who got it from Ellington or Miles, whoever, who said there are 2 kinds of music good music and the other kind, which I think is like this statement I think that is what is great about music, or at least what music used to be, which is there are so many different presentations how can anyone judge good or bad, music is so personal like pizza, everybody loves it but nobody can decide the best way to make it
Eons 04.07.18	that's right!
SharkTooth 04.08.18	List is great, point, while cliche, is valid but... "nobody can tell me my music taste is bad or that the albums suck" This is just grade a fuckboy material Just because a thing is subjective doesn't mean you're beyond any sort of criticism if you do something related to said thing
Rik VII 04.08.18	"RikRoach, First of all, I do understand your point; but not all music provides emotional experiences, and no one agreed that it sounds good, it's in our nature to feel good about beautiful and clean harmonies. Secondly, how do you explain the existence of atonal music? Because atonal music doesn't sound naturally good to the human ear." Of course a bunch of people must have agreed that it sounds good. That's how terms function. A chair is called a chair because once there were enough people who saw the connection between one chair and another and agreed that it would be useful to call them both by the same name. Same about music: There's a chord, there's enough people who agree that it's consonant, so yeah, that's why it's called consonant. That said, of course there's a reason why so many people agreed - it's biological reasons that cause our ears to perceive something as beautiful. Dissonance can also sound good because it can bear a lot of tension, rather than being "beautiful" in the common sense of the word, but that's another form of emotional reaction, just like the fascination you can have with something that just sounds bad to you. Then you say there's music that doesn't evoke emotions. Of course there is, and there's also food that tastes like nothing. But what's the sense of music that doesn't bear any emotions. It doesn't have to be beautiful, there's a lot of other reasons why something can be appealing to someone, but if it isn't emotionally appealing, then there's no reason why you would like it. Why would you listen to something that doesn't cause an emotional reaction? Then it's just bad music to you. Subjectively, of course, because maybe someone gets a positive emotional reaction out of it, who knows. Regarding 12 tone music, that music exists because of two reasons: 1) Avant-garde. Artists wanted to see how far the can push the boundaries of music. The result is a deliberately "un-aesthetic" form of music, which is a whole new form of aesthetic as well - the thrilling feeling of something adventurous and new. Which is an emotional reaction. If there wasn't a reaction to it like that, noone would care for it. 2) A theory of the evolution of the human ear. Schönenberg believed that human ears would develop over time so that "dissonant" chords would sound less and less dissonnat for them as human history proceeds. That's what actually happened over the last few centuries, because some chors that have once been called dissonant are now called consonant. Human ears have developed, and with it the subjective experience of listening to a certain piece of music. As far as I can see it, that movement didn't really play out, that is up until now.
Rik VII 04.08.18	Continuation: "Think about this: if there's a song, in which the singer can't sing, players can't play and producers can't produce, is it objectively "bad music"? And if a person tells you he likes that song, is it impossible that a person likes "bad music"?"" If it evokes an emotional reaction that you like, you like the piece of art. Singers that "can't sing" can have other strengths, like Ian Curtis who was just super expressive. You can do that for all kinds of instruments. A bunch of people who can't play any instruments might not be good "musicians" in that they understand the craft of playing the instruments, but a piece of art they create can still be able to evoke a positive feeling. That's what punk is all about, among other movements of "anti-aesthetic" music genres. Everyone can be a punk musician, you don't have to be able to do anything. It's not about talent, it's about expression. And I'm by no means a punk fan, it's actually a genre that is pretty far from my own taste, but I understand why someone would find enjoyment in that kind of rawness that people might call "objectively bad" if they only think about music in the frames of what musicologists regard as good.
neekafat 04.08.18	Bar Sachiko is objectively bad
deathschool 04.08.18	4 rules
Rik VII 04.08.18	"Bar Sachiko is objectively bad" That's probably what I'd call the closest you could get to "objectively bad", haha. That's because I just can't imagine why someone would >subjectively< enjoy it. I just can't imagine it. That said, allegedly there are people who get a positive emotional reaction out of listening to two peeps over the course of an hour, so that would mean to it has the >potential< of evoking a positive reaction, so it can't be entirely objectively bad. That is, except the people who claim to like it aren't just faking/biased/trolling/intellectualizing it into a philosophical meaning and calling it revolutionary without actually feeling "good" (in the broader term of the word) while listening to it. But if I were to choose one piece of music that I myself can't imagine anyone genuinely enjoying, it's that one. And that would be as close as a piece of art could get to being "objectively bad". As in "having no potential at all to be enjoyable to anyone".
SharkTooth 04.08.18	Bar Sachiko is a fucking meme of an album