As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Objectively discussing music (Or: Why My Chemical Romance is awful)

Pink MoonPink Moon Registered User regular
edited May 2012 in Debate and/or Discourse
So the other day, I was telling my friend about how I rediscovered the first Strokes album and how much fun it was to listen to. He responds by showing me My Chemical Romance, saying I'd probably like that if I like the Strokes and the Pixies.

The guy isn't stupid, he genuinely seems to enjoy MCR and other stuff that I personally consider beyond awful, and in fact straight up bad, and we get into the whole debate of how you can't objectively judge music.

Which is true enough, but I think it still stands to reason that My Chemical Romance is shit, and you can rationally show this by comparing it to other music in a similar vein- other pop/punk/rock, released around within a decade of.

But I'm trying to figure out where my bias ends and any kind of objectivity or truth begin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTgnDLWeeaM

This track bears all the hallmarks of songs designed from the ground up to get to the hook, which itself isn't particularly interesting, with a very boring and generic verse and bridge.

So what makes it boring and generic? The intro verse sounds like a cheap rip off of Tool's Stinkfist and countless other tracks. The hook itself sounds interchangeable with something Rihanna or pretty much any other manufactured artist would sing. The guitar has no nuance.

I could go on, but you get the picture. Yet, despite not enjoying Rihanna, I don't consider her music objectively bad, nor do I think that all bands that have crappy guitar or boneheaded vocals or song structures designed to be as catchy as possible make bad music. There are lots of bands I don't enjoy and would even say I personally hate that are nonetheless of some objective value or relevance. I present the following examples-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us8OhI-OTHg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9fLbfzCqWw


Those 2 songs objectively have many of the same characteristics that I claim make MCR awful, yet I don't consider them a crime against humanity the way I do MCR and Coldplay. They don't ring as hollow and cynically targeted specifically at 13 year olds or people who somehow haven't listened to very much music in their lives prior.

I guess what I'm trying to say is there's a way of judging music (I'd rather not expand the discussion into art in general) that goes beyond simply what you subjectively enjoy or don't enjoy, but you can't call it objective.

How would you think about music?

Pink Moon on
«1

Posts

  • OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited May 2012
    all art is ultimately viewed through our specific lens. there are innumerable little moments and reflections that make that up- not the least of which is our regard for the 'subculture' which the art inhabits, our critical education, what we enjoyed from a young age, etc

    certainly there can be nuance and depth to criticism. you can amass a body of evidence to say 'this work is very derivative of _____', or 'this work is targeted at ______' (which some regard as a slight and others do not), etc

    but ultimately those observations don't definitively determine 'quality'- even if all parties agree upon them. non-pandering music isn't necessarily 'better' in any resounding, qualitative way.

    Organichu on
  • Pink MoonPink Moon Registered User regular
    Here's the thing- The Offspring and Yellowcard are probably every bit as pandering as My Chemical Romance. I can honestly say I don't particularly enjoy the former- so why do I hate the latter so much? There has to be some kind of argument you can make for why shit smells like shit.

  • Tiger BurningTiger Burning Dig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tube regular
    edited May 2012
    Ha, weird coincidence that this came up right next to @MrMister 's thread, because that thread got me thinking about another thread that he made a while back on this very subject. Not that I agree with his overarching point there, but it was an interesting discussion and might provide fodder for this thread.

    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/107166/from-ethics-to-aesthetics

    edit: Although looking back, I guess that discussion restricted itself to mostly fiction, so maybe not so helpful. :(

    Tiger Burning on
    Ain't no particular sign I'm more compatible with
  • OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    Pink Moon wrote: »
    Here's the thing- The Offspring and Yellowcard are probably every bit as pandering as My Chemical Romance. I can honestly say I don't particularly enjoy the former- so why do I hate the latter so much? There has to be some kind of argument you can make for why shit smells like shit.

    well, you could rack your brain and figure out why it smells like shit to some people at least. i have no idea why some pop music annoys you and other bits don't.

  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Whether or not you can discern between commodity/entertainment versus music is the first step in figuring out if something is objectively not good.

    Rarely do commodity and quality work together in the realm of consumer entertainment.

  • Pink MoonPink Moon Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Organichu wrote: »
    Pink Moon wrote: »
    Here's the thing- The Offspring and Yellowcard are probably every bit as pandering as My Chemical Romance. I can honestly say I don't particularly enjoy the former- so why do I hate the latter so much? There has to be some kind of argument you can make for why shit smells like shit.

    well, you could rack your brain and figure out why it smells like shit to some people at least. i have no idea why some pop music annoys you and other bits don't.

    Well I'd like to think that I'm a somewhat reasonable person and there's something about the music and the way it's made- for example the blatant overproduction can be likened to Paula Deen's cooking, drowning everything under layers of butter. Sure, it's enjoyable for a lot of people and doesn't taste bad but it's a fucking crime against human decency.

    To continue the unwieldy metaphor, music like MCR is far less likely to provoke thought and curiosity or inspire any kind of careful listening, and if anything shortens attention spans and "spoils" the listener.

    Pink Moon on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    Pink Moon wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    Pink Moon wrote: »
    Here's the thing- The Offspring and Yellowcard are probably every bit as pandering as My Chemical Romance. I can honestly say I don't particularly enjoy the former- so why do I hate the latter so much? There has to be some kind of argument you can make for why shit smells like shit.

    well, you could rack your brain and figure out why it smells like shit to some people at least. i have no idea why some pop music annoys you and other bits don't.

    Well I'd like to think that I'm a somewhat reasonable person and there's something about the music and the way it's made- for example the blatant overproduction can be likened to Paula Deen's cooking, drowning everything under layers of butter. Sure, it's enjoyable for a lot of people and doesn't taste bad but it's a fucking crime against human decency.

    This is a bad analogy. There'd be nothing necessarily wrong with what Paula Dean does if it weren't directly harmful to your health to do it. It'd just be uninteresting.

    With music that's always the case: you can't hurt yourself listening to bad music. It doesn't have health consequences.

  • OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    Pink Moon wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    Pink Moon wrote: »
    Here's the thing- The Offspring and Yellowcard are probably every bit as pandering as My Chemical Romance. I can honestly say I don't particularly enjoy the former- so why do I hate the latter so much? There has to be some kind of argument you can make for why shit smells like shit.

    well, you could rack your brain and figure out why it smells like shit to some people at least. i have no idea why some pop music annoys you and other bits don't.

    Well I'd like to think that I'm a somewhat reasonable person and there's something about the music and the way it's made- for example the blatant overproduction can be likened to Paula Deen's cooking, drowning everything under layers of butter. Sure, it's enjoyable for a lot of people and doesn't taste bad but it's a fucking crime against human decency.

    To continue the unwieldy metaphor, music like MCR is far less likely to provoke thought and curiosity or inspire any kind of careful listening, and if anything shortens attention spans and "spoils" the listener.

    do you not think this is true of the other pop music which you award a pass?

  • Tiger BurningTiger Burning Dig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tube regular
    I agree that different types of music can evoke qualitatively different types of pleasure, and even that evoking one kind rather than another might require objectively greater skill or talent or creativity or whatever. But however it was produced, you still need an argument as to why one kind of pleasure is worse than another, and ought not be indulged.

    Ain't no particular sign I'm more compatible with
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    Ha, weird coincidence that this came up right next to @MrMister 's thread, because that thread got me thinking about another thread that he made a while back on this very subject. Not that I agree with his overarching point there, but it was an interesting discussion and might provide fodder for this thread.

    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/107166/from-ethics-to-aesthetics

    edit: Although looking back, I guess that discussion restricted itself to mostly fiction, so maybe not so helpful. :(

    I never read that at the time, but I just did and was a bit shocked to see someone claiming that language communicates meaning independent of time and culture.

    I can't see how there's any such thing as objectively good or bad music. There is plenty of music we can all agree is good or is bad, but that's not what objective is.

    Maybe you think the people are bad people, because they're selling a fake anti-commercial, anti-conformist message. You can see they're hypocrites. Fair enough. That's not the music, though. That's the people.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited May 2012
    i guess i feel like it's a bit disingenuous to pretend that complexity- or 'compelling a listener to be cerebral in how he/she listens'- is the golden standard of quality. why does making you sit down and think hard make it good... or rather, why does not forcing you to think hard to extract maximal value make it bad? it seems like an axiomatic chestnut without justification. most people aren't musically educated; most people do not have critical eyes or ears or noses. aside from the slightly distasteful elitism of smirking down at the plebes who don't get it, it's hard to imagine that 'enjoying listening' oughtn't be the primary impulse, and the most immediate determinant of quality.

    Organichu on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Organichu wrote: »
    aside from the slightly distasteful elitism of smirking down at the plebes who don't get it, it's hard to imagine that 'enjoying listening' oughtn't be the primary impulse, and the most immediate determinant of quality.

    Did you forget what high school was like? Music was a status symbol and your iTunes libraries and CD collections and whatnot helped your peers determine how hip you were.

    emnmnme on
  • Pink MoonPink Moon Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    The problem is, it gets to a point where the listener is actively encouraged not to think in any way.

    Pink Moon on
  • Tiger BurningTiger Burning Dig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tube regular
    edited May 2012
    Well, as suggested by the thread I may have mis-referenced, whether or not it (or anything else) is good (in the "you should listen to this and not that trash" kind of way) depends on the ethical model you're working under. Under Aristotle's ethical framework - that you should try to be the best you that you can be - you could argue that listening to music that engaged the rational faculties as well as the emotional ones was better, for instance.

    Disclaimer: The above is, for the love of god, not an endorsement of any of the examples used in the OP.

    Tiger Burning on
    Ain't no particular sign I'm more compatible with
  • OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    Pink Moon wrote: »
    The problem is, it gets to a point where the listener is actively encouraged not to think in any way.

    in any way? that seems a little sensationalist. everything is evocative in some way. heck, it evokes you to hate. for a 12 year old girl, some boy band might evoke the first kiss she's waiting for- 'stupid hoe' might make someone think of an old friend or rival they hated.

    and then you get more cerebral or primal thoughts that might be foremost with music lacking lyrics or distinctive melodies- a lot of music might not have any discernible 'message'. it can still make you feel, and people can still think about the structure and presentation.

    i'm pretty sure i reject the thesis that any art encourages a lack of response.

  • Tiger BurningTiger Burning Dig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tube regular
    Organichu wrote: »
    Pink Moon wrote: »
    The problem is, it gets to a point where the listener is actively encouraged not to think in any way.

    in any way? that seems a little sensationalist. everything is evocative in some way. heck, it evokes you to hate. for a 12 year old girl, some boy band might evoke the first kiss she's waiting for- 'stupid hoe' might make someone think of an old friend or rival they hated.

    and then you get more cerebral or primal thoughts that might be foremost with music lacking lyrics or distinctive melodies- a lot of music might not have any discernible 'message'. it can still make you feel, and people can still think about the structure and presentation.

    i'm pretty sure i reject the thesis that any art encourages a lack of response.

    I like this post. In spite of the fact that I made use of the distinction in my last post, I think that the criticism that "good" art engages the "higher" faculties where "bad" art does not, is a criticism that is too simple and too often leveled un-reflectively and without actual basis. It might be true sometimes, but not nearly as often as it is used.

    Ain't no particular sign I'm more compatible with
  • Pink MoonPink Moon Registered User regular
    That's not what I meant. I was talking about music that deliberately discourages active listening. Song structures that shorten attention spans.

  • OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    Pink Moon wrote: »
    That's not what I meant. I was talking about music that deliberately discourages active listening. Song structures that shorten attention spans.

    i'm not sure i understand what you mean. can you be more specific with examples?

  • LilnoobsLilnoobs Alpha Queue Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Organichu wrote: »
    Pink Moon wrote: »
    That's not what I meant. I was talking about music that deliberately discourages active listening. Song structures that shorten attention spans.

    i'm not sure i understand what you mean. can you be more specific with examples?

    This CNN article seems relevant to the discussion on hand. The article mostly summarizes broad viewpoints on the relationship of music to humans: brain, culture, evolution.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/26/health/mental-health/music-brain-science/index.html?hpt=hp_c1


    In regards to music that discourages active listening, I don't know. I think music, like other forms of art, does have an affect on the brain and the way we think--afterall, isn't music a language? and doesn't language affect the very way we understand the world?--so I'm not opposed to that idea and it probably exists. Would this be "elevator music"? I'm not sure. However, what I am sure of is the cultural (American) trend for art to get become more audience driven (videogames being the biggest culprit), rather than inwardly reflective. I'm painting broad strokes here, but I wouldn't be surprised if music has changed like other art forms to discourage active thinking (hello TV) and encourage mindless entertainment (hello Avengers).

    Lilnoobs on
  • Pink MoonPink Moon Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Organichu wrote: »
    Pink Moon wrote: »
    That's not what I meant. I was talking about music that deliberately discourages active listening. Song structures that shorten attention spans.

    i'm not sure i understand what you mean. can you be more specific with examples?

    Sure. Listen to the Yellowcard song in the OP. I'm not a fan of Yellowcard. But in that song, which happens to be a pop song that does have a hook, the beginning is more than just a placeholder to get you to the chorus, and in its own way it kind of makes you think- there's a tension when he sings "sleeping all day staying up all..." there's a tension created in the mind of listener before he sings "night" and when he sings the word it's accentuated by the lead guitar line. And that's not even the song's hook.

    In the My Chemical Romance song "Sing" also in my OP, everything just serves to build into the overstated chorus. Sure your brain is working to process the sound, but at no point does anything noteworthy happen cognitively- you're just being strung along until the hook, which itself is just loud chords with lyrics more likely to make you think about yourself than about anything else, and you were probably already doing that. The entire song is about shallow self validation. Other people don't like you? no one's paying you any attention? they must must suck. SING IT TO THE...etc. Lulling and shocking, if that's the entirety of what the song consists of, is pretty much the antithesis of active listening or paying attention, in the most fundamental way.

    I think it's a valid comparison, the Yellowcard song also uses the quiet verse to loud hook dynamic.

    Pink Moon on
  • Space PickleSpace Pickle Registered User regular
    You can't objectively discuss music. All art is subjective.

  • TehSpectreTehSpectre Registered User regular
    I like MCR. They've changed stylistically for each album, which is more than someone can say for a lot of bands.


    I mean, you go from

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSNKCfxcYvE

    to

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDWgsQhbaqU

    to

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4xq9_9QKJY



    9u72nmv0y64e.jpg
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Pink Moon wrote: »
    In the My Chemical Romance song "Sing" also in my OP, everything just serves to build into the overstated chorus. Sure your brain is working to process the sound, but at no point does anything noteworthy happen cognitively- you're just being strung along until the hook, which itself is just loud chords with lyrics more likely to make you think about yourself than about anything else, and you were probably already doing that.

    No offense, but this is a pretty subjective analysis right here.

  • SicariiSicarii The Roose is Loose Registered User regular
    The only MCR song I've listened to is Ghosts of You.

    But only because the music video is amazing.

    gotsig.jpg
  • Pink MoonPink Moon Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Pink Moon wrote: »
    In the My Chemical Romance song "Sing" also in my OP, everything just serves to build into the overstated chorus. Sure your brain is working to process the sound, but at no point does anything noteworthy happen cognitively- you're just being strung along until the hook, which itself is just loud chords with lyrics more likely to make you think about yourself than about anything else, and you were probably already doing that.

    No offense, but this is a pretty subjective analysis right here.

    If i'm wrong tell me how it does anything aside from lull and shock.

  • Pink MoonPink Moon Registered User regular
    TehSpectre wrote: »
    I like MCR. They've changed stylistically for each album, which is more than someone can say for a lot of bands.



    First track sounds like bargain bin Dragonforce. Second track is Pachabel's Canon in D.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcJuZIUeBME

    the third track's alright I guess. : P

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Pink Moon wrote: »
    The entire song is about shallow self validation. Other people don't like you? no one's paying you any attention? they must must suck. SING IT TO THE...etc. Lulling and shocking, if that's the entirety of what the song consists of, is pretty much the antithesis of active listening or paying attention, in the most fundamental way.

    And now, having actually listened to the song and read the lyrics, this is pretty subjective too. I can see a few different ways it would be interpreted, yours included.

  • LilnoobsLilnoobs Alpha Queue Registered User regular
    How about instead of derailing the thread into "lol art subjective dontchaknow" we begin with the premise that music has objective values to it? Like, certain chords, tension of sounds, harmonies, and so forth produce objectively verifiable results in the human brain: neurons firing, chemical reactions, "ear worm" and that there can be a space to discuss music in objective terms without shattering one's reality of "all art is subjective rawr".

    /rant off. I just don't want to see another interesting thread get derailed again (like all "art" threads do on this board for whatever reason).

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Pink Moon wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Pink Moon wrote: »
    In the My Chemical Romance song "Sing" also in my OP, everything just serves to build into the overstated chorus. Sure your brain is working to process the sound, but at no point does anything noteworthy happen cognitively- you're just being strung along until the hook, which itself is just loud chords with lyrics more likely to make you think about yourself than about anything else, and you were probably already doing that.

    No offense, but this is a pretty subjective analysis right here.

    If i'm wrong tell me how it does anything aside from lull and shock.

    Not everyone will agree the chorus is over stated. Not everyone will agree nothing noteworthy happened cognitively (which you really should define). No one will agree the song only makes them think about themselves, that they were already thinking about themselves, or that that's even a bad thing. The things you outright say are negative others will think are good. And even some concepts you use to imply negativity plenty of people won't think are negatives at all.

  • TavTav Irish Minister for DefenceRegistered User regular
    Lilnoobs wrote: »
    How about instead of derailing the thread into "lol art subjective dontchaknow" we begin with the premise that music has objective values to it? Like, certain chords, tension of sounds, harmonies, and so forth produce objectively verifiable results in the human brain: neurons firing, chemical reactions, "ear worm" and that there can be a space to discuss music in objective terms without shattering one's reality of "all art is subjective rawr".

    /rant off. I just don't want to see another interesting thread get derailed again (like all "art" threads do on this board for whatever reason).

    Except all neurons and chemicals and worms are going to vary from person to person. We don't all have the same brain!

  • Pink MoonPink Moon Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Oh it's an age old message that spans rock history, from the earliest songs about sticking it to the man, to Bob Marley's Get up Stand up.
    Today it's appropriated by bands who want to exploit adolescent angst.

    "They" who silence "you" are nebulous, and intentionally so. The intent is to easily get the listener to speak up against forces that work against them in the most general terms.

    If you say to me, You've got to stand up for yourself, You've got to represent the weak and silent, "They" are out to get you and silence you, I'm going to be thinking about myself- mainly because it hasn't been established who they is.

    Linguistic logic. Objective.

    Pink Moon on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Pink Moon wrote: »
    Oh it's an age old message that spans rock history, from the earliest songs about sticking it to the man, to Bob Marley's Get up Stand up.
    Today it's appropriated by bands who want to exploit adolescent angst.

    "They" who silence "you" are nebulous, and intentionally so. The intent is to easily get the listener to speak up against forces that work against them in the most general terms.

    If you say to me, You've got to stand up for yourself, You've got to represent the weak and silent, "They" are out to get you and silence you, I'm going to be thinking about myself- mainly because it hasn't been established who they is.

    Linguistic logic. Objective.

    For you it might be vague. Other people have very specific entities, be they people, organizations, or something else entirely, they have to face and fight against and can feel overwhelmed at times. I imagine they might quite enjoy the message you personally interpreted the song to be about. That it's a message that's been used before doesn't change that. That it's vague as to the who doesn't either. Arguably it improves it by allowing the song to be more accessible. If, you know, accessibility is a thing you consider important. You're still taking your personal preferences and applying them as objective.

    Quid on
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    Pink Moon wrote: »
    Oh it's an age old message that spans rock history, from the earliest songs about sticking it to the man, to Bob Marley's Get up Stand up.
    Today it's appropriated by bands who want to exploit adolescent angst.

    "They" who silence "you" are nebulous, and intentionally so. The intent is to easily get the listener to speak up against forces that work against them in the most general terms.

    If you say to me, You've got to stand up for yourself, You've got to represent the weak and silent, "They" are out to get you and silence you, I'm going to be thinking about myself- mainly because it hasn't been established who they is.

    Linguistic logic. Objective.
    Don't you think it would be possible, for listeners who do feel there are specific forces working against them, to have a particular "they" come to mind?

    What do you mean by "linguistic logic?"

  • Pink MoonPink Moon Registered User regular
    Don't you think it would be possible, for listeners who do feel there are specific forces working against them, to have a particular "they" come to mind?

    Sure, that's why it's disingenuous and exploitative.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Pink Moon wrote: »
    Don't you think it would be possible, for listeners who do feel there are specific forces working against them, to have a particular "they" come to mind?

    Sure, that's why it's disingenuous and exploitative.

    Broad and accessible.

  • Pink MoonPink Moon Registered User regular
    To a fault.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Not at all.

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    Can we shift the discussion to how Yellowcard is objectively awful? Because boy howdy.

    Also man, "linguistic logic" is just two words you heard and put together. It ain't a theoretical basis for music criticism.

    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Pink MoonPink Moon Registered User regular
    Can we shift the discussion to how Yellowcard is objectively awful? Because boy howdy.

    Also man, "linguistic logic" is just two words you heard and put together. It ain't a theoretical basis for music criticism.

    Yellowcard is awful but MCR is just...offensively bad.

  • Dark Raven XDark Raven X Laugh hard, run fast, be kindRegistered User regular
    I hated MCR's early stuff - my little sister loved it, I found it embaressing to listen to.

    Then a bunch of their songs showed up in Guitar Hero and they were awesome, this one especially;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSAUyNEG8mk

    You could call it a bland chordfest but each 'repeat' added a new layer, to the point that no section of the song was a copy paste repeat. That makes it good, imo. It's not formulaic, it has a little depth to it. I listened to the rest of that album off the strength of the Guitar Hero songs, and enjoyed most of it. Still couldn't listen to their first without feeling silly. Then the singles for their newer album were all horribly off putting so I haven't given it a go.

    So yeah, I like MCR's middle album. I shall defend it to the last! Or until ya remember opinions are subjective. :P

    Oh brilliant
This discussion has been closed.