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-OTHghttp://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?
Posts
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.
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.
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.
Rarely do commodity and quality work together in the realm of consumer entertainment.
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.
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.
do you not think this is true of the other pop music which you award a pass?
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.
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.
Disclaimer: The above is, for the love of god, not an endorsement of any of the examples used in the OP.
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.
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).
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.
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
No offense, but this is a pretty subjective analysis right here.
But only because the music video is amazing.
If i'm wrong tell me how it does anything aside from lull and shock.
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
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.
/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).
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.
Except all neurons and chemicals and worms are going to vary from person to person. We don't all have the same brain!
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.
What do you mean by "linguistic logic?"
Sure, that's why it's disingenuous and exploitative.
Broad and accessible.
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.
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