Originally Posted by Mikebert

Is rap is automatically bad by your definition, as it lacks melody, being spoken?

What is the difference between a beat and rhythm? Isn't the former subsumed into the latter?

A great deal of what passes for rap in the mainstream wouldn't even qualify as music, much less good music.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

My argumentation is that taste (or lack thereof) cannot be accounted for. That being said, music can be objectively good, and still not be liked by an individual. For example most modern country is not to my taste, but it very well could be objectively speaking good.

So ... to my question ... is traditional Japanese music objectively good? Bad? Or unaccountable?

Originally Posted by mockingbirdstl

Well, why not? The Boomers on here call all 3T music "garbage," like it is some sort of universal truth. Why shouldn't we all just live in our own personal, narcissistic bubbles and not try to understand the experiences of others.

I am a 1957 Boomer and I certainly do not call all 3T music garbage. Neither do a lot of Boomers. Please don't confuse Eric's tastes with allBoomers. There are a ton of us with widely diverse tastes. Like a hella lot of metal-heads are Boomers.

Originally Posted by annla899

I am a 1957 Boomer and I certainly do not call all 3T music garbage. Neither do a lot of Boomers. Please don't confuse Eric's tastes with allBoomers. There are a ton of us with widely diverse tastes. Like a hella lot of metal-heads are Boomers.

My mother is a '57 boomer too and she loves the 3T music I listened to. Nsync, brit spears, westlife, 5ive, and her fave, bsb. Much more than that too. She still has posters on her wall i gave her of the groups.

Originally Posted by mockingbirdstl

Well, why not? The Boomers on here call all 3T music "garbage," like it is some sort of universal truth. Why shouldn't we all just live in our own personal, narcissistic bubbles and not try to understand the experiences of others.

"All" statements are (generally!) wrong. Not "all Boomers" say all 3T music is "garbage." Of course I have laid out my own opinion in detail already, and if people don't read it that's up to them.

"Understanding the experiences of others" does not equal "agree that music created to express those experiences is good." I discussed all that with Taramarie before; if people don't want to read it that's their business. But if you don't, then you can't reply to what I say with any coherence.

I have stated many times that music is objective, and our response to it is subjective. Some objective aspects of "beauty" can be pointed out that are transcultural. But mostly, the objective component is simply that we all hear or see the same artistic object. How we respond to it and whether we like it or not is determined by not only that, but by our own needs, desires, experiences, learning, etc. So, music is both subjective and objective. It does not "come down to" one or the other.

Tara says: "hehehe exactly. I try to explain it all comes down to preference but no one listens."

Not listening is the general rule on internet forums. And it works both ways.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Good music must have the following to be objectively good:

1. A melody
2. A harmony that does not clash with said melody
3. A beat (a dance-able beat if it is claimed to be dance music)
4. A clear rhythm.

All four of the songs (which TNT listed)


1. Tracy Chapman's "Give Me One Reason."
2. Lester Flatt and Earl Scruggs "Foggy Mountain Breakdown."
3. George Jones "He Stopped Loving Her Today."
4. Aretha Franklin "Respect."

listed have those four qualities. Though only one of them is to my taste. I'll let you ponder which one.

I would add structure.

Originally Posted by TnT

So ... to my question ... is traditional Japanese music objectively good? Bad? Or unaccountable?

It would depend on the piece in question. The same is true of contemporary Western music.

Originally Posted by annla899

I am a 1957 Boomer and I certainly do not call all 3T music garbage. Neither do a lot of Boomers. Please don't confuse Eric's tastes with allBoomers. There are a ton of us with widely diverse tastes. Like a hella lot of metal-heads are Boomers.

Well at least there is one thing all boomers do do. That is assume that when one speaks in generalizations about their generation that they are making a direct personal attack on them personally. My mother does this crap all the time. I may say something about boomers doing something completely retarded and of course she takes offense to it because she's not the one personally doing it.

It is almost as if the generation is incapable of understanding generalizations at all.

If you say "generally speaking," that's a generalization. If you say "all," that is stereotyping.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If you say "generally speaking," that's a generalization. If you say "all," that is stereotyping.

And not all stereotypes are wrong, or even generally wrong.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

My argumentation is that taste (or lack thereof) cannot be accounted for. That being said, music can be objectively good, and still not be liked by an individual. For example most modern country is not to my taste, but it very well could be objectively speaking good.

If country music if objectively good, then a rational person will find country music good (i.e. they will like it).
But you find country music not to your taste (i.e. you don't like it). So you are irrational?

I know you do not mean that, but that is the gist of what you are saying.

What sort of aesthetic value one places on a piece of music, a work of art or a dish is subjective.
One cannot have an objective subjective, it self-contradictory. If you insist on it, you get results like above.

Originally Posted by annla899

I am a 1957 Boomer and I certainly do not call all 3T music garbage. Neither do a lot of Boomers. Please don't confuse Eric's tastes with allBoomers. There are a ton of us with widely diverse tastes. Like a hella lot of metal-heads are Boomers.

Thanks, Annla. Of course I don't mean all Boomers, just the ones I was talking to in the conversation. The Boomers here that are more vocal about 3T music tend to be more negative.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

"All" statements are (generally!) wrong. Not "all Boomers" say all 3T music is "garbage." Of course I have laid out my own opinion in detail already, and if people don't read it that's up to them.

I suggest you reread my statement. I said "Boomers on here" not "all Boomers." By Boomers on here I specifically meant you and PBrower. Here is PBrower's statement:

The angry, alienated music of the 3T will go into the clutter of the attic and be abandoned and forgotten.

You of course are constantly calling 3T music garbage; I don't even need to find quotes for that.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

"Understanding the experiences of others" does not equal "agree that music created to express those experiences is good."

It is good for those that create it, and often for others.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I have stated many times that music is objective, and our response to it is subjective. Some objective aspects of "beauty" can be pointed out that are transcultural.

There may be a few aspects of beauty that seem trans-cultural, but it would be a rather dull world if we stuck to those basic aspects. Artists and musicians have no obligation to appeal to the broadest audience possible, even in a 4T.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But mostly, the objective component is simply that we all hear or see the same artistic object. How we respond to it and whether we like it or not is determined by not only that, but by our own needs, desires, experiences, learning, etc. So, music is both subjective and objective. It does not "come down to" one or the other.

This is all very well, and I generally agree here. I just don't understand how, if you believe this, you can be so intolerant about people who can subjectively find beauty in a work of art (that is an object) that you cannot find, subjectively. And yes, you are intolerant, I remember you bemoaning the downfall of civilization simply because people liked some types of pop music that you don't like.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not listening is the general rule on internet forums. And it works both ways.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by mockingbirdstl

I suggest you reread my statement. I said "Boomers on here" not "all Boomers." By Boomers on here I specifically meant you and PBrower. Here is PBrower's statement:

The angry, alienated music of the 3T will go into the clutter of the attic and be abandoned and forgotten.

You of course are constantly calling 3T music garbage; I don't even need to find quotes for that.

The "angry, alienated music" of recent times will become "attic clutter" -- still in nominal existence yet effectively ignored. But I speak of the "angry, alienated" music, and not of what will prove fun or otherwise attractive.

It is good for those that create it, and often for others.

For many people, artistic endeavors are good for those who do them -- often tantamount to therapy. People do creative activities because such is their character. For the money? That is suspect.

There may be a few aspects of beauty that seem trans-cultural, but it would be a rather dull world if we stuck to those basic aspects. Artists and musicians have no obligation to appeal to the broadest audience possible, even in a 4T.

True. Bach isn't for everyone. Goya isn't for everyone. Even Shakespeare isn't for everyone. But they all seem necessary for many.

This is all very well, and I generally agree here. I just don't understand how, if you believe this, you can be so intolerant about people who can subjectively find beauty in a work of art (that is an object) that you cannot find, subjectively. And yes, you are intolerant, I remember you bemoaning the downfall of civilization simply because people liked some types of pop music that you don't like.

I can't speak for Eric on this... but the line between 'pop' and 'sophisticated' can often blur. High culture has frequently reached to folk traditions to avoid going into the excessively-theoretical. Some of the greatest works of classical music of the 20th century are the folk-influenced string quartets of Bela Bartok and Dmitri Shostakovich. The most enduring pop music, that of the Beatles, shows the undeniable influence of the British folk tradition.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Some of the greatest classical music of the 20th century are the folk-influenced string quartets of Bela Bartok and Dmitri Shostakovich.

And then they often infuence popular music right back again!

This 1992 song by Faith No More samples from Shostakovich's 8th Quartet, the second movement. It has a similar mad intensity.

The Shostakovich:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHfjYuZbAfk

Faith No More's "Malpractice" (I just happened to be listening to this song last night!):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSh2-gDn82k

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The "angry, alienated music" of recent times will become "attic clutter" -- still in nominal existence yet effectively ignored. But I speak of the "angry, alienated" music, and not of what will prove fun or otherwise attractive.



For many people, artistic endeavors are good for those who do them -- often tantamount to therapy. People do creative activities because such is their character. For the money? That is suspect.



True. Bach isn't for everyone. Goya isn't for everyone. Even Shakespeare isn't for everyone. But they all seem necessary for many.




I can't speak for Eric on this... but the line between 'pop' and 'sophisticated' can often blur. High culture has frequently reached to folk traditions to avoid going into the excessively-theoretical. Some of the greatest classical music of the 20th century are the folk-influenced string quartets of Bela Bartok and Dmitri Shostakovich. The most enduring pop music, that of the Beatles, shows the undeniable influence of the British folk tradition.

It's interesting to look at the music of the last 3T. Few people today listen to Schoenburg's atonality pieces. But Stravinski's surreal Rite of Spring is still popular. And of course, Dixieland Jazz and the Blues. Interesting how Lady Gaga (who has a sociology degree by the way and likely has read S&H herself) is dueting with Tony Bennett --and the stuff sells! Literally a throwback to the last 1T, interestingly. Who's buying it?

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

It's interesting to look at the music of the last 3T. Few people today listen to Schoenburg's atonality pieces. But Stravinski's surreal Rite of Spring is still popular. And of course, Dixieland Jazz and the Blues. Interesting how Lady Gaga (who has a sociology degree by the way and likely has read S&H herself) is dueting with Tony Bennett --and the stuff sells! Literally a throwback to the last 1T, interestingly. Who's buying it?

Don't forget Rhapsody in Blue... I think Gershwin was a bit ahead of the saeculum.

Also the greatest of the silent movies ... Gold Rush, The General, Safety Last, The Freshman, the Witches, Metropolis, and the original Ben Hur -- except for City Lights and The Artist, silent movies from the "talking" era. (Battleship Potemkin is a contemporary of the American silent era, but the Soviet Union was then in a Crisis Era).

Originally Posted by Kinser79

A great deal of what passes for rap in the mainstream wouldn't even qualify as music, much less good music.

But rap arguably has revived poetry. Rap is actually a very old tradition. Traditional peoples have used rap and chants to pass their heritage down through the generations. Vachel Lindsay's "The Congo", (ironic, as blatantly racist as the work is!) is an early version of rap as is Allen Ginsburg's "Howl".

Originally Posted by mockingbirdstl

I suggest you reread my statement. I said "Boomers on here" not "all Boomers." By Boomers on here I specifically meant you and PBrower.

But if you say "Boomers on here," some folks like annla get the impression that you mean "all boomers on here." If you meant me and pbrower, then it would be better to say so.

Here is PBrower's statement:

You of course are constantly calling 3T music garbage; I don't even need to find quotes for that.

I agree with Pbrower, generally. But if you read me carefully, I say that with qualifications. You didn't read that.

It is good for those that create it, and often for others.

It depends. You have your opinion, and I have mine.

There may be a few aspects of beauty that seem trans-cultural, but it would be a rather dull world if we stuck to those basic aspects. Artists and musicians have no obligation to appeal to the broadest audience possible, even in a 4T.

I certainly agree there. And the aspects of beauty that might be postulated, have no relation to popularity. You're right; good music is not composed by carefully observing some objective standards. Inspiration is a gift; something to follow, more than a plan or a learned expression.

This is all very well, and I generally agree here. I just don't understand how, if you believe this, you can be so intolerant about people who can subjectively find beauty in a work of art (that is an object) that you cannot find, subjectively. And yes, you are intolerant, I remember you bemoaning the downfall of civilization simply because people liked some types of pop music that you don't like.

I don't know if I did that; I don't think the downfall of civilization is imminent. That's an Xer belief, generally speaking; not a boomer one. Boomers and Millies are more hopeful than that. Nope, civilization can survive an era in which American pop and rock music sunk to lower levels than at other periods. Of course, there's lousy pop and rock in all periods too; civilization survives. But civilization does not consist of such lousy stuff. If responding honestly to what I hear, and saying my opinion about it, is intolerance, then so be it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But if you say "Boomers on here," some folks like annla get the impression that you mean "all boomers on here." If you meant me and pbrower, then it would be better to say so.

Probably, yes. I was angry and sarcastic; it was one of my more impulsive posts.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't know if I did that; I don't think the downfall of civilization is imminent. That's an Xer belief, generally speaking; not a boomer one.

Bemoaning the downfall of civilization is totally a Prophet thing, through and through. They do this as they get older, if they feel that the younger generations are not following the script for moral and cultural standards that they have established. It is certainly not a Nomad thing; Nomads as they get older just get more crotchety and want to be left alone, the "get off my lawn" thing. Prophets still want to be on everyone's lawn, even after they've become old and out of touch with the times. Someone on these threads, possibly Ragnarok, called elder Prophet rantings "jeremiads," I think that is pretty apt.

Originally Posted by mockingbirdstl

Probably, yes. I was angry and sarcastic; it was one of my more impulsive posts.

No need to be angry; recognize that we have a point about a segment of music. No-one needs to identify with it. See what's better. But, if you disagree with me, there's nothing wrong with saying so.

Bemoaning the downfall of civilization is totally a Prophet thing, through and through. They do this as they get older, if they feel that the younger generations are not following the script for moral and cultural standards that they have established. It is certainly not a Nomad thing; Nomads as they get older just get more crotchety and want to be left alone, the "get off my lawn" thing. Prophets still want to be on everyone's lawn, even after they've become old and out of touch with the times. Someone on these threads, possibly Ragnarok, called elder Prophet rantings "jeremiads," I think that is pretty apt.

Maybe, but it's the nomads here who are the cynics and pessimists, and it certainly wasn't me. Many prophets might be jeremiads, but others remains ezekiels and isaiahs. One of my major points is that we have every reason to think that a renaissance is still possible, given the advantages that we have, and that our generations are quite capable of handling and winning this 4T.

Originally Posted by TnT

So ... to my question ... is traditional Japanese music objectively good? Bad? Or unaccountable?

It is attractive enough -- like Peruvian or Indonesian folk music.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

If country music if objectively good, then a rational person will find country music good (i.e. they will like it).

Taste is not subject to reason. I'm sure that an expertly crafted curry containing ghost peppers may in fact be objectively good (on the standards of Indian Cuisine) but I very much think that most Americans would not find it good from the standpoint of taste.

But you find country music not to your taste (i.e. you don't like it). So you are irrational?

Taste, is subjective and not objective therefore rationality does not come into the question. See my explanation about the expertly crafted curry containing ghost peppers.

I know you do not mean that, but that is the gist of what you are saying.

Not only do I not mean that, but it isn't what I'm saying in the slightest and you know it. Or at least I think you know it because I'm assuming you aren't stupid.

What sort of aesthetic value one places on a piece of music, a work of art or a dish is subjective.
One cannot have an objective subjective, it self-contradictory. If you insist on it, you get results like above.

Incorrect. There must be objective standards in art and in music in order for there to be a determination of what is good and what is not good. Michelangelo carved "David" from a rock, it is art, the LA Museum of Modern Art merely provides us with a rock. And a rock no matter how heavy is not art, and cannot be art.

The problem with reducing everything down to subjective standards is you eventually get to the logical end point of such a system. The Post-Moderninst "That's just your opinion, man" view where nothing exists, not truth, not reason, not even reality. The ultimate form of idealism is of course also the ultimate form of nihilism.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

But rap arguably has revived poetry. Rap is actually a very old tradition. Traditional peoples have used rap and chants to pass their heritage down through the generations. Vachel Lindsay's "The Congo", (ironic, as blatantly racist as the work is!) is an early version of rap as is Allen Ginsburg's "Howl".

I didn't say anything about it being an art form such as poetry, and poetry is not music either, and neither is painting. Rap clearly is poetry, some of it really good (I suggest listening to basically anything by Dead Prez, Immortal Technique and a few others if you want to hear good rap) some of it is really terrible garbage. However, that is true of almost all human endeavors.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No need to be angry; recognize that we have a point about a segment of music. No-one needs to identify with it. See what's better. But, if you disagree with me, there's nothing wrong with saying so.

And what point was that? That "angry, alienated" 3T music is "garbage" that will be regulated to the dustbin of history? I hate to say it, but the truth is you guys just got old. Our music was too intense for you. So because you couldn't feel it, you call it garbage. Now of course, many Boomers were more youthful and open to new ideas and experiences, and they could "get it."

Getting old is nothing to be ashamed of. Some of us Xers are starting to get old and out of touch now, too. Just have a little humility and perspective. Yours is not the only view out there, and it is certainly not the only correct view.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

One of my major points is that we have every reason to think that a renaissance is still possible, given the advantages that we have, and that our generations are quite capable of handling and winning this 4T.

And I very much agree with this. But we can totally do without the Boomer morality police, regarding artistic expression.