Quote:
Originally Posted by Mucha na Dziko
I don't believe that. I think you can "measure" objectively the quality of any art really.
The parameters being innovation in songwriting or production techniques, the complexity (or if lack there of "idea" or "invention") of the music and so on.
Taste is subjective, quality is not. One might like listening to Rihanna more than to the Beatles, but no one can say that Rihanna "makes" better, richer, etc music.
I think it's important to be able to distinguish taste from quality, and I'm not sure why most people aren't capable of that.
|
But what parameters do you use? Just because chords are arranged in an accepted sequence, or a certain key used in the song (like A Minor, so often) doesn't make the song "good". Good is subjective. Quality is also subjective in art. You could look at a Rubens or Caravaggio and be told this is amazing art, but it might not appeal to you. The same with literature. Moby Dick may be a classic, but I found it flat, lifeless and boring. Someone else would not. In the end, all you can say, about any art form, is coloured by your opinion. Even if you're an art/music/literature critic, that still doesn't mean you're right. It just means you think you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mucha na Dziko
"ass hole"
|
No need for name-calling now.
