Come to think of it, even shit isn't objectively awful. It's highly valued in some parts of India. I mean it's one thing to appreciate that something that stinks has many practical uses, like fertilizer or fuel. But there's a ceremony where a family consumes something called "Five gifts of the cow" which aside from milk and clarified butter and some other stuff I don't recall also contains dung.
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...
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.
This seems to be the nut of OP's criticism of MCR. And while I suppose criticizing something for being overly derivative is fair enough, to call it "objective" criticism is kind of spectacularly ironic when one of your counter-examples is Yellowcard.
ed: also, when you're criticizing music for being "targeted" at particular groups of people whom you describe in an unflattering manner, it might be time to just abandon any claim of objectivity completely
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Come to think of it, even shit isn't objectively awful. It's highly valued in some parts of India. I mean it's one thing to appreciate that something that stinks has many practical uses, like fertilizer or fuel. But there's a ceremony where a family consumes something called "Five gifts of the cow" which aside from milk and clarified butter and some other stuff I don't recall also contains dung.
Has anyone strayed outside the category of consuming MCR's songs as music in order to address your arguments?
edit: or perhaps this is the rub. Can you define an objective set of criteria to determine the musical utility of something? Like we can talk about energy density of food and fuel?
Come to think of it, even shit isn't objectively awful. It's highly valued in some parts of India. I mean it's one thing to appreciate that something that stinks has many practical uses, like fertilizer or fuel. But there's a ceremony where a family consumes something called "Five gifts of the cow" which aside from milk and clarified butter and some other stuff I don't recall also contains dung.
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...
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.
This seems to be the nut of OP's criticism of MCR. And while I suppose criticizing something for being overly derivative is fair enough, to call it "objective" criticism is kind of spectacularly ironic when one of your counter-examples is Yellowcard.
I did say that I didn't think Offspring and Yellowcard were great in anyway. Just not as tear inducingly shitty as MCR.
Come to think of it, even shit isn't objectively awful. It's highly valued in some parts of India. I mean it's one thing to appreciate that something that stinks has many practical uses, like fertilizer or fuel. But there's a ceremony where a family consumes something called "Five gifts of the cow" which aside from milk and clarified butter and some other stuff I don't recall also contains dung.
did i actually just read this
wha
I'm just saying that no one would be able to discuss anything if everyone kept playing the everything is subjective card. There are aspects of subjective observation that, if backed up by rational logic can hold water. Not all criticism should be dismissed treated as inconsequential personal opinion on the same level as whether you like potatoes or not.
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...
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.
This seems to be the nut of OP's criticism of MCR. And while I suppose criticizing something for being overly derivative is fair enough, to call it "objective" criticism is kind of spectacularly ironic when one of your counter-examples is Yellowcard.
I did say that I didn't think Offspring and Yellowcard were great in anyway. Just not as tear inducingly shitty as MCR.
It doesn't seem like it matters how terrible you think something is; if we are talking about 'objective' judgment we need to consider the criteria you are using. You think one of the three is worse than the others, but mostly because of prior assumptions you have formed, not because of some qualitative difference.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
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...
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.
This seems to be the nut of OP's criticism of MCR. And while I suppose criticizing something for being overly derivative is fair enough, to call it "objective" criticism is kind of spectacularly ironic when one of your counter-examples is Yellowcard.
I did say that I didn't think Offspring and Yellowcard were great in anyway. Just not as tear inducingly shitty as MCR.
You also never explained how it's objectively bad but instead gave multiple subjective complaints.
You also never explained what linguistic logic is.
but the basis of your 'rational complaints' are entirely subjective- this buildup is suspenseful, this buildup is trivial, this slow increase in tempo 'makes you think' while this one is just blasting your ears to prep you for the chorus... this is incredibly subjective.
MCR is bad because aside from being shamelessly derivative, the music lacks nuance. I pointed out a minor example of what could be considered "nuance" in the Yellowcard song. The MCR song lacked even that.
0
Options
TavIrish Minister for DefenceRegistered Userregular
MCR is bad because aside from being shamelessly derivative, the music lacks nuance. I pointed out a minor example of what could be considered "nuance" in the Yellowcard song. The MCR song lacked even that.
No, you pointed out what you would consider nuance.
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
not subjective. if i'm talking to you and suddenly in mid sentence I
stop talking for a few seconds, that's going to create tension that isn't resolved until I finish the sentence. The guitar line does serve to accentuate when he sings the word/note "Night", because it's a new element introduced during the silence between where his sentence cut off and when he sings the last word of it.
MCR is bad because aside from being shamelessly derivative, the music lacks nuance. I pointed out a minor example of what could be considered "nuance" in the Yellowcard song. The MCR song lacked even that.
Really all you did was point out that you didn't like their message cause it's been done before. But that's true of just about every message in any medium today. And then complained that it was vague on the details of who but haven't explained why being vague on that is objectively bad.
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
not subjective. if i'm talking to you and suddenly in mid sentence I
stop talking for a few seconds, that's going to create tension that isn't resolved until I finish the sentence.
This is true. But what about that is objectively good or bad? Some people like tension. Some people don't.
0
Options
TavIrish Minister for DefenceRegistered Userregular
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
not subjective. if i'm talking to you and suddenly in mid sentence I
stop talking for a few seconds, that's going to create tension
Or just make me think that you have a speech impediment.
Why is it bad that the song is vague about oppressors? because that makes it insincere, it makes the song a yes-man, a false friend. Some people like yes men, and I'm sure they do great things for people. But objectively, they're not a good thing.
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
not subjective. if i'm talking to you and suddenly in mid sentence I
stop talking for a few seconds, that's going to create tension that isn't resolved until I finish the sentence.
This is true. But what about that is objectively good or bad? Some people like tension. Some people don't.
No but the tension engaged your faculties. It made you think.
almost all western music has tension and a buildup towards crescendo! you still haven't really explained how MCR fails in that regard. i just searched for them on spotify, not being a fan, and the first couple of songs i listened to all have a slowly driving buildup which has you waiting expectantly for the chorus.
Why is it bad that the song is vague about oppressors? because that makes it insincere, it makes the song a yes-man, a false friend. Some people like yes men, and I'm sure they do great things for people. But objectively, they're not a good thing.
How specific does something need to be in order to be "objectively" good? Are all love songs terrible?
Why is it bad that the song is vague about oppressors? because that makes it insincere, it makes the song a yes-man, a false friend.
Why? How does it do this? What about the song itself is insincere? By being accessible? By broadly applying to what many people feel they're dealing with?
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
not subjective. if i'm talking to you and suddenly in mid sentence I
stop talking for a few seconds, that's going to create tension that isn't resolved until I finish the sentence.
This is true. But what about that is objectively good or bad? Some people like tension. Some people don't.
No but the tension engaged your faculties. It made you think.
Music is so temporally subjective. People's musical tastes are hugely informed by the times when they first discovered new types of music, what was going on in their life at the time, and how non-musical experiences are associated with it.
Case in point: Most people my age think The Smashing Pumpkins are amazing. I love 'em. But any time I actually try to listen to their lyrics, the poetry is fucking fuck-awful. If I try to pull out specific components of the music I think about how badly synthesized a ton of it is. I'd fault no teenagers today for hating it, but it's firmly entrenched not only as a band I enjoy but also as an entire sub-genre of music that I have positive associations regarding.
Why is it bad that the song is vague about oppressors? because that makes it insincere, it makes the song a yes-man, a false friend. Some people like yes men, and I'm sure they do great things for people. But objectively, they're not a good thing.
How specific does something need to be in order to be "objectively" good? Are all love songs terrible?
In this case? it unconditionally validates the listener.
Why is it bad that the song is vague about oppressors? because that makes it insincere, it makes the song a yes-man, a false friend. Some people like yes men, and I'm sure they do great things for people. But objectively, they're not a good thing.
How specific does something need to be in order to be "objectively" good? Are all love songs terrible?
In this case? it unconditionally validates the listener.
well if it unconditionally validates the listener without context, is composed mainly to deliver the hook at the expense of the rest of the song, and is thoroughly unoriginal to boot, that makes a song bad.
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
Don't feel bad. The Black Parade is a pretty great album.
Music is so temporally subjective. People's musical tastes are hugely informed by the times when they first discovered new types of music, what was going on in their life at the time, and how non-musical experiences are associated with it.
Case in point: Most people my age think The Smashing Pumpkins are amazing. I love 'em. But any time I actually try to listen to their lyrics, the poetry is fucking fuck-awful. If I try to pull out specific components of the music I think about how badly synthesized a ton of it is. I'd fault no teenagers today for hating it, but it's firmly entrenched not only as a band I enjoy but also as an entire sub-genre of music that I have positive associations regarding.
well if it unconditionally validates the listener without context,
Still haven't explained why this is bad.
is composed mainly to deliver the hook at the expense of the rest of the song and is thoroughly unoriginal to boot, that makes a song bad.
I don't really see it at the expense of the song. And originality is great and all but it not being original doesn't make it objectively bad either.
well there's degrees of unoriginality, and the fact that aside from the unoriginality there are other things that suck about the song.
the parts of the song that aren't the hook are pathetically short and unremarkable. imagine if you didn't have the hook and only had to listen to the intro and verse of that song. There wouldn't be much to speak of.
so? what do you mean so? if a song is designed entirely around the idea of getting a 5 second jingle in your head, it would be better off as a jingle, not a song.
why is validating listeners unconditionally with no context a bad thing? because it equates to sucking up. and it's simplistic.
Posts
Which is an opinion you are free to have! But, alas, not objectively true.
This seems to be the nut of OP's criticism of MCR. And while I suppose criticizing something for being overly derivative is fair enough, to call it "objective" criticism is kind of spectacularly ironic when one of your counter-examples is Yellowcard.
ed: also, when you're criticizing music for being "targeted" at particular groups of people whom you describe in an unflattering manner, it might be time to just abandon any claim of objectivity completely
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
edit: or perhaps this is the rub. Can you define an objective set of criteria to determine the musical utility of something? Like we can talk about energy density of food and fuel?
wha
I did say that I didn't think Offspring and Yellowcard were great in anyway. Just not as tear inducingly shitty as MCR.
I'm just saying that no one would be able to discuss anything if everyone kept playing the everything is subjective card. There are aspects of subjective observation that, if backed up by rational logic can hold water. Not all criticism should be dismissed treated as inconsequential personal opinion on the same level as whether you like potatoes or not.
It doesn't seem like it matters how terrible you think something is; if we are talking about 'objective' judgment we need to consider the criteria you are using. You think one of the three is worse than the others, but mostly because of prior assumptions you have formed, not because of some qualitative difference.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
You also never explained how it's objectively bad but instead gave multiple subjective complaints.
You also never explained what linguistic logic is.
No, you pointed out what you would consider nuance.
not subjective. if i'm talking to you and suddenly in mid sentence I
stop talking for a few seconds, that's going to create tension that isn't resolved until I finish the sentence. The guitar line does serve to accentuate when he sings the word/note "Night", because it's a new element introduced during the silence between where his sentence cut off and when he sings the last word of it.
Really all you did was point out that you didn't like their message cause it's been done before. But that's true of just about every message in any medium today. And then complained that it was vague on the details of who but haven't explained why being vague on that is objectively bad.
Then you made up the phrase linguistic logic.
This is true. But what about that is objectively good or bad? Some people like tension. Some people don't.
Or just make me think that you have a speech impediment.
No but the tension engaged your faculties. It made you think.
Why? How does it do this? What about the song itself is insincere? By being accessible? By broadly applying to what many people feel they're dealing with?
Not really, no.
Case in point: Most people my age think The Smashing Pumpkins are amazing. I love 'em. But any time I actually try to listen to their lyrics, the poetry is fucking fuck-awful. If I try to pull out specific components of the music I think about how badly synthesized a ton of it is. I'd fault no teenagers today for hating it, but it's firmly entrenched not only as a band I enjoy but also as an entire sub-genre of music that I have positive associations regarding.
In this case? it unconditionally validates the listener.
that's sleazy.
Says who?
Don't feel bad. The Black Parade is a pretty great album.
So far, I haven't liked any of their other stuff.
You bite your goddamn tongue!
I don't really see it at the expense of the song. And originality is great and all but it not being original doesn't make it objectively bad either.
And I still want to know what linguistic logic is.
well there's degrees of unoriginality, and the fact that aside from the unoriginality there are other things that suck about the song.
the parts of the song that aren't the hook are pathetically short and unremarkable. imagine if you didn't have the hook and only had to listen to the intro and verse of that song. There wouldn't be much to speak of.
counter example:
This is a song that you could take the chorus out of, and it would still sound interesting.
So?
Also still waiting for why validating listeners is bad and what linguistic logic means.
why is validating listeners unconditionally with no context a bad thing? because it equates to sucking up. and it's simplistic.