15 Feb
2009
15 Feb
'09
7:23 p.m.
This is really
an argument about semantics. Surely it's easier to
more clearly define what you mean by good music...
But we all agree that there are such things as good music and bad music
do we?
...than it is to
fight over who best embodies the meaning of the original word which
is by now utterly bastardised. There are many different factors that
contribute to a person deciding that a given piece of music is good.
Of course there is a lot of subjectivity in this. I dislike a lot of
music personally and still accept, that this music is good. But there is
really bad music also and even though, many people may "like" bad music
the world would be a better place without such music.
But of course nobody shall dictate, what music is allowed to exist and
which is not because of badness. But the same as I believe, everybody
must be allowed to make and hear bad music I demand the right to call
music bad, if I have reasons to do so....
If you want to exclude any of them then you
should define those
exclusions from the outset, if only to avoid the controversy that
will arise as a result of that omission.
Yeah - standards, what standards shall we have for music? You are right:
It is easier to define, what is good: the complexity and deepness of
Bach, Wagner or Thelonius Monk is obvious. The craft and intelligence of
Tom Waits or PJ Harvey is plain to see also.
But how can we define badness? Primitivity? No: listen to the first
album of the Stooges or to the Ramones or to Suicide - complexity is not
a must-have.
Stupidity? Yes: stupid stuff is bad stuff, but what is stupid?
I guess, I could prove the stupidity of the average
gregorian-chant-dance-beat-CD but it is late now, I need to sleep and
nobody would read an elaboration on this that would take 4-5 h to write
and 20min to read....