I hardly ever met anyone who makes a difference between their personnal taste and an objective quality in music (see what happens in the Music & More forum ) and I'd like to know if some people here...

Well, have you ever wondered if you may be loving crap and rejecting good music? Have you ever considered the notion that maybe your musical tastes aren't very good or interesting for others to hear? I certainly have.

I'd also would like to know how u decide that such music is good or bad. For example, it seems obvious that 1999 is a superior album to 3121, or that a Prince record is superior to a Kylie Minogue record, but honestly what are the criterias you would choose? Innovation? Complexity? Virtuosity? Wilderness? Honesty? Some people would argue that a a Coltrane record is superior to both, and that a Mozart opera is superior to a Coltrane album, and that same person probably couldn't make the difference between Prince and Kylie's music anyway. On the other hand, some people who can wouldn't be able to differentiate the quality of elevator jazz from the quality in Coltrane, or Mozart from Wagner.

You'd think that the more you listen to music, and the more music you know, the more demanding you are. I thought so too but after 35 years of listening to music being my main activity (including during working hours), and now that I've listened to thousands of albums by thousands of musicians (I have something like 4000 albums in the comp), I find myself more and more open and tolerating, often being able to identify the small detail that makes me like something that I'd have rejected a few years earlier. Some things still get on my nerves, and I'm still unreceiptive to a few musical genres, but basically the more I grow up the more I learn to appreciate details and variations on things that shoudn't impress me, or wouldn't have earlier.

On the other hand, I came to realize that many artists that I considered totally groundbreaking actually borrowed a lot from the ones before them, or their contemporaries, and therefore I'm not as easily tempted than before to qualify someone as a genius. Prince, for example, may be extremely prolific but I came to realize that quite a number of artists are just as prolific (even though few are as famous as he is). Similarly, I am now much more aware of his "musical context" and I know that he borrowed a lot, even in the early 80's. Just like anyone else. My point isn't to criticize Prince, who remains my favorite artist of all times, but to say that I've come to realize that there are many more musical visionaries than I thought when I was younger.

And in the end, despite knowing more music, and being more passionate about it than 99% of the people, I'm not sure who I am to tell that one thing is better than the next...

Please share your thoughts.

[Edited 7/16/12 8:04am]

There's no way to not be subjective in "evaluating music".

But I can say, that for my taste I would judge what IMO are great records by the following:

50% songwriting

35% performance

15% production/arrangement

How alluring the song is to me, as a composition of a melody line over harmony, is by far the most important thing in the equation.

There can be instances where a song has been terribly overplayed to the point I'm sick of hearing it, but I still know the song is a great piece of work.

There can be instances where I feel the performance or production is bland, but it's still a great piece because the writing is so strong etc etc...

databank said:

I'd also would like to know how u decide that such music is good or bad. For example, it seems obvious that 1999 is a superior album to 3121, or that a Prince record is superior to a Kylie Minogue record, but honestly what are the criterias you would choose? Innovation? Complexity? Virtuosity? Wilderness? Honesty? Some people would argue that a a Coltrane record is superior to both, and that a Mozart opera is superior to a Coltrane album, and that same person probably couldn't make the difference between Prince and Kylie's music anyway. On the other hand, some people who can wouldn't be able to differentiate the quality of elevator jazz from the quality in Coltrane, or Mozart from Wagner.

Why would that be "obvious"?

Kylie Minogue's records released during the last ten years are full of good songwriting and interesting production approaches. It's actually quite hard for me to tell if Prince's "Musicology" or "3121" really are somehow "superior" to "Body Language" or "X" just because they are by Prince. Actually, as pop albums I don't think they are that at all.

It's not that hard to be objective about music. Or, at least, to stay away from voicing completely subjective opinions that have simply a dismissive tone. You'll just have to judge individual pieces of work within their own genre and not shit on everything that you don't yourself understand or have even listened to.

When you have conversations together with people that have listened to thousands of records you'll notice that they'll have share most of their views on music. They might not agree on everything, but most have learned to avoid knee-jerk reactions when something they are not enough familiar with is being talked about ("Yuck, Prince is ugly and can't sing!").

Eh, if you like a song then it is a "good" song. If you don't like a song then it is a "bad" song. Why dig any deeper than that?

Only songs about fucking bitches and getting money are good songs.

That must be the thread of the month!

I have been asking myself the same question.

How can you evaluate music?

Why this people are not sensitive to that song and so on?

To me, I think a big part of it is ear education.

I personally started with anime songs on TV (4-5 yo), MJJ from 6 years old, then Queen, G&R, of course Prince, radiohead, smashing, dream theater, steve vai, devin townsend (heavy as hell) and very recently, classical music with Mozart, Stravinsky, Tchaikovsky etc.

It took me a couple of years to get into Dream Theater, took me 1 year to appreciate Strapping Young Lad.

I was always telling myself, one day you are going to appreciate Classical music, and that day came. But it took me 30 years!

Complexity will just extend the time it takes to get bored of it and complexity lies within lyrics, song composition, recording, mixing etc.

There is also a part of sensitivity, but again, I think it falls under education.

I was wondering, why a conductor can make the difference?

And it does make a big difference, and the more I listen to the same "Great Mass in C minor" but different conductor, the more I get into details and find some parts that moves me.

We all started with those catchy pop songs (Bubble gum?) because it is easy access, you remember it instantly, very quick to enjoy, sweet like a candy.

Then you grew up and start to appreciate a bottle of "Château Latour 1920".

Once, some NPG member mentioned something interesting about nowadays music

"You know it gets there before it actually gets there."

And this is basically how I evaluate a song.

If there is a minimum complexity, it will trick your brain and take you to another place.

Hearing twice "You are beautiful", "It's true" with a plain rythm guitar and flat beat, still doesnt make the trick to me.

"If you got the time baby, I got the ride"

"If you got the time baby, I got the ride"

Now we are talking

Not sure If I really answered your thread, but at least I had fun

Brendan said:

Because the search brings me joy. Makes no difference if others think it's pretentious, a waste of time, or the only way to really expand in any significant way. I strongly believe that there is a larger, more objective truth that exists outside of whatever my knowledge, experience, and bias is currently allowing. But make no mistake, someone can live a brilliantly happy life never giving a shit about anything outside their subjective fence with the warning signs for vicious dogs. And possibly the most foolish thing any of us could do is reject something that brings us joy just because others whom you suspect might be more experienced, more knowledgable, look down at it. But equally as insecure would be to reject something just because you don't understand it yet, or understand those that might. I believe there are examples of greatness everywhere, not just in what I've currently invested in. To think otherwise is arrogant. Even if an artist, for example, is a condescending idiot, it still doesn't necessarily make their art so. Words like "complexity" are just cool descriptor words, not value judgments. I suspect there are just as many mediocre songs that can be instantly memorized as those which are usually only heard in a tuxedo. Anyone the claims they know exactly what defines good and bad I steer clear of. After all, if there was a formula, it would've already been stolen and raped beyond all recognition by all those who sell it. Ultimately I think such incredibly difficult discernment comes from a great deal of experience and openness, leaning constantly on others, thinking deeper than whatever moved me when I first pushed play, and being humble enough to admit to being wrong, sometimes even more than you're right. Then, maybe, just maybe, but perhaps not (if you ever get too sure of yourself, you're probably lost) you might just find yourself in a place which might ascertain a little something about someone else's attempted external recreation of their soul (art).

One of the most insightful and broadminded posts I've ever read on prince.org. Well said, Brendan.

There are several.

Lyrical content. Arrangement. Composition. Instrumentation. Delivery of vocals and instrumentals. Engagement. Innovation. Emotion. Progression of artist. Intent of the piece.

And many more...

Thanks for sharing the thoughts, please keep doing so this is quite interesting to hear different points of views.

Songs about bitches and money... Mmmh...

Novabrkr: I have nothing special against Kylie Minogue, I am not really familiar with her work, and what I've heard goes from things that I've absolutely loved to other things I've absolutely hated, with some being somewhere in the middle. I only chose her as an archetypal pop-idol who (as far as I know?) doesn't compose her stuff, as opposed to a creator with an original, personnal vision such as Prince. I could have said anyone else from Céline Dion to Whitney Houston...