So you're trying to pass yourself off as intelligent while using this kind of communication?--- wrote:Suck a dick.
And there you go putting words into my mouth. There's plenty of music that expresses emotion very well that I don't care for. So it's not my definition of good music. But far be it for me to try to convince a fan that it is no good.If you bothered reading, you'd realize that nowhere in here did I say that music is objective. It is not subjective appreciation that I take issue with; it's the naive idea that all music is good music if it expresses emotion (and variations on that idea).
Here lies the bullshit in your analysis: "creative use of..." = a subjective qualifier. "Authenticity of voice" = a subjective qualifier. Also, the generalization that a song needs to follow some kind of recipe to avoid being drivel is actually a pretty backward and limiting way of viewing things.But in any form of art, there are also objective standards, and if a song doesn't operate within these objective standards (creative use of line, creative use of metaphor, creative use of language, multiplicity of meaning, authenticity of voice), it's usually drivel.
I will agree that for me to like a band, at a minimum the musicianship needs to be skillful at a certain level, the words need to be literate at a certain level, etc. However, those are MY standards which in some areas are lower than other people's standards, and in some areas are higher.
