Originally posted by Lord Sharki guess this is where the confusion lies. just because 1 person likes it, that doesn't make it music for all. it is music for that person. that person experiences it, enjoys it, "understands" it if you will. if a lot more than 1 person likes it, that music gets established into a genre or whatever.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]it is always fun to hear people use the words "so clearly false". it totally doesn't mean they think you are utterly wrong and they are utterly right. it totally doesn't mean their arguments are slim or non-existent that they feel the need give an ultimatum "your statements are clearly false, i can't be bothered to ...[text shortened]... nswers to these questions. what a shame
I've just dealt with most of them.[/b]
"I haven't, instead I responded by making the point that even if somebody thinks, say, rap is garbage, they still know that it is music. They just think it is rubbish music."
some don't think it is even bad music but simply not music at all. which is a subjective view.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by ZahlanziOriginally posted by Zahlanzi
i guess this is where the confusion lies. just because 1 person likes it, that doesn't make it music for all. it is music for that person. that person experiences it, enjoys it, "understands" it if you will. if a lot more than 1 person likes it, that music gets established into a genre or whatever.
"I haven't, instead I responded by making the point tha ...[text shortened]... don't think it is even bad music but simply not music at all. which is a subjective view.
i guess this is where the confusion lies. just because 1 person likes it, that doesn't make it music for all. it is music for that person. that person experiences it, enjoys it, "understands" it if you will. if a lot more than 1 person likes it, that music gets established into a genre or whatever.
I agree that this is where the confusion lies. My claim is that a person liking a sequence of sounds, like those produced by Rome burning, is not sufficient to define those sounds as music. But it doesn't follow that if a sequence of sounds is music, that it will be widely recognised as worthwhile or any good. Some people express this by saying 'that's not music', however if they literally think that it isn't, they are confused.
some don't think it is even bad music but simply not music at all. which is a subjective view.
This is where we disagree. I think whether something is music is an institutional fact. So whilst that is observer-relative, it is so in a collective rather than an individual sense.
What you have done is assume that the subjectivity of personal taste in music extends all the way to the definition of whether something is music or not. I don't think that is so. At best there might be disagreement over limiting cases, but to respond to those by abandoning any intersubjective definition is just a mistake in my view.
To put it another way, the fact that something is music is in most cases ontologically subjective but epistemically objective.
1 edit
Originally posted by Lord Sharkyou are saying that someone else is entitled to define music, not each individuals. that individual taste is overruled by the opinion of many, or at least "the experts".
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]i guess this is where the confusion lies. just because 1 person likes it, that doesn't make it music for all. it is music for that person. that person experiences it, enjoys it, "understands" it if you will. if a lot more than 1 person likes it, that music gets established into a genre or whatever.
I agree th ething is music is in most cases ontologically subjective but epistemically objective.[/b]
i don't agree with that. an example would be the oscars that most of the years award some movies and not others, influencing the public in the process. telling it what is quality and what is not.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by ZahlanziOriginally posted by Zahlanzi
you are saying that someone else is entitled to define music, not each individuals. that individual taste is overruled by the opinion of many, or at least "the experts".
i don't agree with that. an example would be the oscars that most of the years award some movies and not others, influencing the public in the process. telling it what is quality and what is not.
you are saying that someone else is entitled to define music, not each individuals. that individual taste is overruled by the opinion of many, or at least "the experts".
Yes we at least agree on where we disagree. I'm saying that the definition of terms like 'music' in a public language, English, is a collective not an individual matter.
Nobody else can dictate what is good music or not. That is a matter of individual taste. But just because you decide that the sound of your vacuum cleaner is music, it doesn't follow that you are correct.
The reason is you don't get to define words. That is a social affair not an individual one. You might decide that your goldfish is a chair but you'd just be wrong.
Take another example, whether something is an oil painting or not isn't a matter of personal opinion, even though whether it is any good or not is a matter of taste. The same is true for music.
i don't agree with that. an example would be the oscars that most of the years award some movies and not others, influencing the public in the process. telling it what is quality and what is not.
This is an example of the same confusion between whether anything is any good and whether something meets a definition for what it is.
My point all along has been analogous to this: people will argue about which is the best film amongst those being considered by the judges, but if somebody starts arguing about whether they are films or not, then they either are not competent in English or maybe need to take their meds.
Originally posted by jaywillSure-take your time-I just figure with your christianity and musicality and intelligence you could enlighten me as regards to this subject. Surely you dont agree that rock is the devils music? (But nothing surprises me that much anymore)
[b]=====================================
You would be the perfect person to answer, dearest and most esteemed jaywill: why was rock considered the devils music? huh?
=====================================
It is the devil's music! That is except for Franky Lyman.
Just kidding. I'll be back latter and attempt a more serious reply.[/b]
Originally posted by avalanchethecatThere is a lot more stuff out there on various media to listen to, to be sure. But that doesn't equate to more MUSIC being available nowadays. Just more trash to filter through.
I don't agree most vociferously! I've been avidly consuming other people's music since the mid-70s and I'm certain that whatever you like in music there's more of it available today than ever before. In my book it's the big payoff for living in the 21st century. You just have to go looking for your music a bit, rather than swallowing the mainstream garbage, that's all.
2 edits
Originally posted by PinkFloydMatter of taste.
Military and more music.?..I don't get the correlation. I simply said it's sad that more people equate to more trash that some people errantly call music.
I see what you are saying now. I thought you meant that the more people shouldn't be making more "music" but be doing something else instead. My bad🙂
edit:i said more people = more music and you said "SAD but true"
I just couldn't see why it would be sad to have more music in the world, unless of course you couldn't find a quiet spot.