Objectively Looking at Music

[oneafroboy]

Well, the first answer to that question is yes. I can say that this song modulates here, is in this key, ends on the 7th, etc., etc.

Because God is, and because there are absolutes, is there good art and bad art? Yes, I think pretty much everyone agrees there is good and bad music.

But what is that? Can we measure it? Can we do it objectively?

The problem with answering yes to this is assuming that human beings can be objective when measuring quality. We still have our likes and dislikes. And if we truly dislike something, are we really going to say, "Hey, that's good music." Most of us think of ourselves as connesieurs (sp?) of good music, and so we'll like it if it's good. But I don't know if that's true.

I encountered this on my trip out west. There were a couple of ppl who came to believe that I was U2-obsessed, because I believed that they a) had redefined electric guitar sounds in rock in the '80s, and was B) the 2nd most influential band ever (we all agreed the Beatles were first, but it was coming up with 2nd that was the point of contention). They honestly did not think U2 was good. Honestly. One liked punk and all things modern. Two others thought Pearl Jam was the best thing that's ever happened to music. Punk music aside, how can I argue that U2 is a better band?

At a certain level, I think it is impossible to objectively rank music. Especially once we establish what is good, how then other than our likes and dislikes do we discern between good and great. 1st and 2nd? And what happens when we go cross-genre? Then, our likes and dislikes play and even bigger role. So, Beethoven, Mozart, Bach were great classical artists (well, Beethoven was more romantic, but wutever). But who's to say who's the best? And just because I prefer Beatles over Beethoven, does that make them better?

Last question (I know I'm rambling, but I haven't posted in 2 weeks). Does only the good stuff last? Will the pop music today still be played as much when we have children as the pop music of our parent's generation is played now? Can something lose its "goodness" or its "beauty" over time? Does Mozart still hold all the water he did when he was alive? Is Sgt. Pepper still relevant? Will U2's Pop and Zooropa albums still mean all that they meant against the backdrop of the 90s in 30 years?

Anyway, I'm finished now. Discuss if you choose.

--the Afro

[Josh]

I'll get to the main beef of this topic later, but for now, a couple of minor points:

Is Sgt. Pepper still relevant?

From a spiritual standpoint, it was probably never relevant, but it certainly inspires musicians to this day.

Will U2's Pop and Zooropa albums still mean all that they meant against the backdrop of the 90s in 30 years?

Sure. Because they're not too specific; they deal with issues that will always plague humankind.

[bloop]

If we can all agree on what specific things make an album/song "good", then I suppose we can look at it objectively.  I think it's at least difficult to put an opinion forward as absolute.  

You can say this is in 7/16 time with musicianship that must have resulted from selling soul to the devil, but people are still going to disagree on whether that is good or not.  To me, some level of complexity in the music is pretty necessary for it to deserve raves, but not everyone agrees with that.  David, for example, says that it is only a small part of the whole for him, and that's just his criteria...very different from mine.  I wouldn't say he's wrong, but I know I like my criteria more.

I think a BIG problem is the sheer number of ways a song can be good.  A song doesn't have to have complex rhythm patterns, but that helps . . . being interpretive lyrically can help or hinder a song, virtuoso showmanship is wonderful but it's sometimes better for a particular musician to be more subdued and let the music breathe a little - have a little faith in the song itself.  It all gets very complex to really talk about objectively when you think about it.  
---------------------------------------------------------------
On a side note, it could be interesting to look at what reviews online people put most stock in.

Of the critics I read, I put them in this order in terms of being right by me:
Pitchfork
Andree
Allmusic
Josh
David
Rolling Stone/Blender/Spin (in essence - magazines with more populist bents)

This doesn't imply that Pitchfork is right and Spin is wrong, but Pitchfork seems to be the most closely aligned to my criteria.

[Josh]

Woo hoo! I beat David, anyway...

[DvChWi]

Its impossible to judge music completely objectively.  Even the so called "rules" of music can be broken, to create a special feel.  That being said, I think we can use intellgent judgement to come up with some obsolute quality standards.  For example, we could have:
Creativity
Originality(similiar to the last one, I know)
Technical Excellence
Lyrical Prowness
Creation of an Overall Mood
Meaningfullness( a big one, the reason why poppy stuff misses the mark, in my mind)
Reflection of Truth(Not important to everyone)

Now, you can't measure any of those things scientifically, but I say you can make a pretty good case using each of those categories as to why one record is better than another.

[Josh]

Meaningfullness( a big one, the reason why poppy stuff misses the mark, in my mind)
Reflection of Truth(Not important to everyone)

How would you distinguish between these two, Dv?

A good list of criteria, by the way.

[DvChWi]

Meaningfulness, to me at least, would simply indicate that it has some sort of deeper meaning in it.  For example, most teen pop stuff says absolutly nothing useful about anything.  Not meaningful.  Reflection of Truth is simply a subpoint to meaningfulness, which indicates that the meaning it conveys is a true one, rather than a false one.  For example, one song conveys the concept that God is out to get all of us, and that we should try to rebel against is meaningful, but not true.  To some people, that kind of a concept would be something they might like.  Since we are talking about objectivity here, we can't really compare the meaning to any particular worldview, true or otherwise.  See what I'm getting at?

[Edit]  Now that I wrote that out, I realize that Reflection of Truth isn't an objective standard, though I believe it can still be used, because we are trying to uphold absolute values.

[oneafroboy]

Hey, thanks for replying all. I enjoyed reading ppl's thoughts and comments.

To Josh: Hey, I've only heard a few songs from those U2 albums. From what I have heard, they seemed to very much be speaking to the current culture. I don't doubt that they will still be relevant 30 years from now. I was just trying to give a possible example of how sometimes art can be speaking both to humanity and its current culture, and that perhaps that which spoke within a contemporary cultural context is lost over time. Also, I disagree about Sgt. Pepper. Tracks like Fixing a Hole, Within Without You and a Day in the Life do have spiritual relevancy. (Even if they weren't right.)  Anyway, I impatiently await to hear more from you on this topic.

To bloop: Good words. I think you're kind of hitting it. Even setting up criteria can be subjective, which kind of doesn't help the situation at all.

To DvChWi: Good list. The problem I guess comes with how do you measure degrees of any of those things? Once we narrow it down to a few select "excellent" records, how do we measure the degree to which they are excellent without what sounds pleasing to the individual ear comes in? Or lyrical prowness. At a certain level, doesn't it just breakdown? Anyway. I think those are good starting points in narrowing down what is bad, what is good, and what is great.

All in all, I think that it's easier to judge an album individually than to compare it with others and come out with an objective list of what is better than what. So is there any point in trying to figure out what's the best? Or have we missed the point of art?

Btw, I think it's good to think about art cross-culturally. A person whose musical opinion I highly respect doesn't like Indian music. They don't have half steps, they have quarter steps. To Westerners, it probably just sounds like noise. Does that make it bad music? If a kid grows up on atonal music, does tonal music sound like garbage to them? Another dilemma! The way our ears have been trained greatly influence what we consider art and what we consider trash. Hmmm...

[Guest]

I've always wondered if there's some minimum set of standards music has to live up to just be be considered "good".  What to you think?  If such standards exist, what are they?

[Josh]

OK, really quick...

MY PERSONAL STANDARDS FOR MUSIC:

Lyrics
- Must be meaningful and truthful.
- Must make you think. If I can understand the song on the first listen then, 9 times out of 10, I'll hate it.
- No cliches or trite saying.
- No propagandizing. Songs should be poetry, not commercials.

Originality
- No borrowing too heavily and obviously from other bands
- There should be some way of distinguishing the band in question's sound from the sound of all the other bands out there.

Production
- Restraint can be a good thing. Jumping to a big, shiney, euphoric sound in every song is annoying and shows little musicianship. Hear that, Coldplay?
- Drum loops are generally no good, though I make exceptions when they're used appropriately; U2, REM, OtR, etc.
- Too much polish is a bad thing. Too little polish can be, as well.

Vocals
- Let's hear some emotion, okay?
- At least act like you care.
- Don't imitate other singers unless you're trying to mock them.
- Scat singing and other soulful vocal flourishes are cool.
- Trying on different voices, a la Bob Dylan, earns major cool points.
- People who sneer all the time get on my nerves. Hear that, Juliana Theory?

Instrumentation
- Complex stuff is cool, but don't be too show-offy.
- Solos are cool too, but, again, use some restraint.
- Musicians who play the same old thing on every song try my patience.

Other
- Let's make the songs on an album be thematically and musically cohesive, shall we?
- Putting all the slow songs at the front of the record is USUALLY a bad thing.


That's a good start, anyway...

[bloop]

Lyrics
- Must be meaningful and truthful.
- Must make you think. If I can understand the song on the first listen then, 9 times out of 10, I'll hate it.
- No cliches or trite saying.
- No propagandizing. Songs should be poetry, not commercials.

I have to say that overall, I think your criteria makes a lot of sense, but definitely it can't be called entirely objective.  First, some questions here:

You say "9 out of 10 times, I'll hate it".  What will cause you to not hate it that 1 time out of 10?

Propagandizing - are you talking about selling Volvos or selling your cause (AIDS in Africa, abortion, tieing down a certain Republican and Liberal Party monster, etc.)?  Do the liner notes count here or are we only talking about the music?

Originality
- No borrowing too heavily and obviously from other bands
- There should be some way of distinguishing the band in question's sound from the sound of all the other bands out there.

About "no borrowing too heavily..." . . . does that mean you don't like covers?

Is it ok to borrow a sound that has fallen out of the mainstream conscious? (that way, you'd be unique in the sense that you're practically the only one doing it now, but you're clearly pretty similar to another band in the past)

Production
- Restraint can be a good thing. Jumping to a big, shiney, euphoric sound in every song is annoying and shows little musicianship. Hear that, Coldplay?
- Drum loops are generally no good, though I make exceptions when they're used appropriately; U2, REM, OtR, etc.
- Too much polish is a bad thing. Too little polish can be, as well.

What separates an appropriate drum loop from an inappropriate one?

What is "too much" and "too little" in terms of polish (Coldplay, too much?  Neutral Milk Hotel, too little?), or are you referring to Polish people?  The word "too" implies a lot of subjectivity.

Vocals
- Let's hear some emotion, okay?
- At least act like you care.
- Don't imitate other singers unless you're trying to mock them.
- Scat singing and other soulful vocal flourishes are cool.
- Trying on different voices, a la Bob Dylan, earns major cool points.
- People who sneer all the time get on my nerves. Hear that, Juliana Theory?

If the point of the song is to show resignation, isn't emotion a bad thing to show?

Item 3 and item 5 seem strangely in contradiction to me.

Instrumentation
- Complex stuff is cool, but don't be too show-offy.
- Solos are cool too, but, again, use some restraint.
- Musicians who play the same old thing on every song try my patience.

Why nothing about actual instrumentation i.e. the instruments actually used?

Again, that "too" word strikes again.

Other
- Let's make the songs on an album be thematically and musically cohesive, shall we?
- Putting all the slow songs at the front of the record is USUALLY a bad thing.

Can an album be good and merely be a collection of great songs?

Is it a bad thing if all the songs are slow, or fast, or mid-tempo?

Just being a hemorroid...as I said, I like your list overall.  It's better than I could do, but maybe these questions can help to clarify.

[Josh]

You say "9 out of 10 times, I'll hate it". What will cause you to not hate it that 1 time out of 10?

Honestly, I can only think of one example here: Derek Webb's album. And it's hard for me to pin down why it doesn't bother me that those songs are so easy. Maybe it should bother me. But I think the lyrics are both relevant/meaningful and poetic, so I'm not going to pick nits.

Propagandizing - are you talking about selling Volvos or selling your cause (AIDS in Africa, abortion, tieing down a certain Republican and Liberal Party monster, etc.)? Do the liner notes count here or are we only talking about the music?

I hate ALL sales pitches in music, be it a sales pitch for a car, a political movement, or God. This is where CCM tends to lose many points; those songs are just "commercials for God," if I may borrow a Bonoism.

And liner notes... you mean like U2 and Coldplay? Nah, doesn't bother me.

About "no borrowing too heavily..." . . . does that mean you don't like covers?

I like there to be some interpretation involved. Nichole Nordeman covered "In Your Eyes," for example, and didn't seem to change a thing about the song. And I have to wonder... why did she even bother?

Is it ok to borrow a sound that has fallen out of the mainstream conscious? (that way, you'd be unique in the sense that you're practically the only one doing it now, but you're clearly pretty similar to another band in the past)

No. Not if you don't do something to make the sound your own.

What separates an appropriate drum loop from an inappropriate one?

This is where it really becomes hard to be objective. Simply put, I think the loops on Pop and Up are tasteful, whereas the ones on Jars of Clay's first album are annoying and irritating. What's the difference? Eh... I guess largely personal preference, I'm afraid. Though U2 were absorbing dance and techno influences into their sound, so the use of loops really made sense there.

What is "too much" and "too little" in terms of polish (Coldplay, too much? Neutral Milk Hotel, too little?), or are you referring to Polish people? The word "too" implies a lot of subjectivity.

Rush of Blood is way too much. So is Divine Discontent. And yeah, it's very subjective, I'm afraid, but those two albums just bored me with how sterile they were. No risk-taking at all; everything sounded like a well-oiled machine. Just not very interesting.

If the point of the song is to show resignation, isn't emotion a bad thing to show?

Perhaps, I guess. Some of Thom Yorke's most flat, monotonous performances strike me as powerfully emotive, though. Not quite sure how that works.

Item 3 and item 5 seem strangely in contradiction to me.

Nahh. The latter point means that your vocal performance should reflect the character from whos point of view you are singing.

Can an album be good and merely be a collection of great songs?

Yes... but I ALWAYS PREFER thematic cohesion.

Is it a bad thing if all the songs are slow, or fast, or mid-tempo?

Hmmm... not always. Sometimes the subject matter and of the album makes a set tempo seem more appropriate.

[murlough23]

Josh, I think the difference between you and me is that I'm not afraid to simply enjoy a catchy song now and then. Sure, I have some requirements - I want something musically interesting to be going on even if it doesn't require virtuoso talent, and I prefer that the lyrics not be stoopid, but I don't mind radio-friendly, easily understood material as much as you do.

Of course, if it's radio friendly but has a hidden message few people are catching on to, that sweetens the deal - like you, I like having a deeper level of interpretation available instead of having it all spelled out to me. But I think it's silly to say you'll hate a song that often if it's easily understood. Most of Switchfoot's songs are easily understood, and some border on being slogans. But you'll defend that band tooth and nail.

I actually have very similar rules to yours, but I think there are more caveats. I think part of me likes to be proven wrong. There used to be a time when I wouldn't listen to anything heavy with screaming in it. Then I found some bands that can do that and still be enjoyable. So I launched a tirade against teen pop, and even in that genre I found a few artists that tickled my fancy. Despite my general distaste for worship albums, I found that I really enjoyed the Passion CD I reviewed last night. I guess I've learned that for all of my rules, there are notable exceptions.

[Josh]

Josh, I think the difference between you and me is that I'm not afraid to simply enjoy a catchy song now and then.

Not true. I listen to and enjoy several songs that I find to be inferior songs, technically speaking. I will, of course, frown on these songs in my reviews, but my reviews are not meant to reflect my personal preference.

Most of Switchfoot's songs are easily understood, and some border on being slogans. But you'll defend that band tooth and nail.

Yes, some of their songs are just slogans, and I don't like those nearly as much. It's for this reason that I like TBL less each time I hear it, and "Love is the Movement," the only slogan track on LTB, happens to be my least favorite track on that album.

 

[DvChWi]

Some songs are just so amazing in a certain area(i.e., great arrangements, catchyness) that it doesn't bother me to much that they are lacking in other areas.  I just enjoy it for what it is, freely admitting its inferiority.  In fact, I have been listening to(and enjoying somewhat) some Linkin Park songs, and while I wouldn't buy anything from them just yet, I do realize that they do have some talent in doing what they are doing.  They have great production and some good melodic sense.  They just desperately need more variety and better lyrics.  They need to step out of commercial-land, and into the light of artistic creativity.  

[bloop]

...and a better rapper (both delivery and lyrical content needs work).

oh, and a better dj (listen to his work next to a good DJ i.e. Shadow, Premier and mock freely).

oh yeah, and a talented vocalist would help (Bennington lacks range, variety, and an ability to actually sing).

Finally, add more ambitious arrangements, and you have a good version of Linkin Park.  

Being "catchy" is not important to me.  Actually, "catchy" sounds just plain contrived to me most of the time.

[DvChWi]

...and a better rapper (both delivery and lyrical content needs work).

oh, and a better dj (listen to his work next to a good DJ i.e. Shadow, Premier and mock freely).

oh yeah, and a talented vocalist would help (Bennington lacks range, variety, and an ability to actually sing).

Finally, add more ambitious arrangements, and you have a good version of Linkin Park.  

Being "catchy" is not important to me.  Actually, "catchy" sounds just plain contrived to me most of the time.

Fair enough, I guess.  I really haven't had that much exposure to that side of the musical scene, so my standards are probably off.  Why don't you like "catchy"?  I guess its a pretty subjective concept(I find myself with Radiohead's "Morning Bell" stuck in my head, sometimes), but I think its good for something.  

[murlough23]

Being "catchy" is not important to me.  Actually, "catchy" sounds just plain contrived to me most of the time.

I just think you tend to get different melodies and/or instrumental bits stuck in your head than most of us do. And plenty of Radiohead songs are catchy.

[bloop]

I mean that being "catchy", traditionally like Linkin Park or more non-traditionally like Radiohead, is not necessary for me to like a song, and often the radio kind of catchy seems contrived just to sell records, IMO.  It's true, a lot of the groups I like are catchy, but in a different way.  They do so in a way that doesn't insult my intelligence a larger portion of the time.  Very rarely, if ever, do I like a big hook that the song itself suffers under as that just seems cheap.  A lot of the radio-friendly bands do that on a near-constant basis so I go elsewhere.  

As I said before, complexity in some form (lyrically interpretive or even cryptic, layered instrumental bits, atypical instrumentation in a pop sense, and odd meters or rhythm patterns all help) is much more important to me than catchiness.  Give me something pretty, but atypical (and, I concede, catchy is alright so long as it does something else well).