I think it's time we addressed the elephant in the room: there's a serious problem on this board stemming from an attempted Marxist revolution of musical taste disguised as the philosophy of "subjectivity".
It's an unspoken but well-understood rule that /mu/ is a board for music lovers. People with well-rounded tastes that is built upon a preference from theoretical, emotional, and sonic elements that they've found makes up their favorite pieces of music. You asked these people why they liked a song and they could tell you. If the quality of their taste was challenged, they at least had the capacity to explain where their taste came from.
Somewhere along the line, an undesirable population infiltrated the community and their concentration became more than insignificant. These people's musical tastes are derived from hedonism and cultural stigma. When asked why they like a song, they say things like "it's catchy" or "it's hype". When the quality of their taste is brought into question, they fall back on "taste is subjective". They may also spew buzzwords like "pretentious", accuse you of coming from a different online community, and resort to personal attacks.
People with underdeveloped tastes see themselves as an exploited proletarian class who need to revolt against the evils of those who have put thought into their musical taste. The quality of music can be subjective but there's a clear boundary between "Shake it Off" and a piece of music with actual expression, foundation, and craftsmanship. Stop the revolution.
Sora no Woto was a pretty fun show.
The atmosphere was great, humor pretty good, animation was fairly well done. Overall it was one of my favorite shows. I haven't seen an Sora no Woto discussion around here lately, thoughts?
For example, let's compare Justin Bieber to Miles Davis. Yes, I know Justin Bieber is an easy target, but I need to keep it as broad as possible so even the biggest of plebs can understand. Now, Justin Bieber is a corporately manufactured artist used to sell image to teenage girls. His music lacks substance and aesthetic, and he is based more on selling image than anything. The only time you hear people talk about Justin Bieber is when they are talking about his haircut or girlfriend. Never his new single or album and the direction he is taking as an artist. Miles Davis, on the other hand, actually put effort into making music, thus giving it substance and aesthetic. Few people talk about Miles Davis' image, and discussion of him is always about what album you like best, if you prefer his "cool" work or his "electric" period work, which lineup of his band you like best, etc.
Now, let's further expand on this by talking about fans, and compare a 13 year old girl with virtually no knowledge of music to an adult man with an actual knowledge in and interest in music. Obviously, the 13 year old girl isn't going to like Miles Davis very much so she will like Justin Bieber better, whereas the adult man will (most likely) prefer Miles Davis. And given the situation, the adult man has a greater basis for judging the quality of music, even though Bieber's music does more for the 13 year old girl than Miles does. Simply: The man has good taste but the girl has bad taste, objectively. Even though the taste in music is subjective, that taste is objectively good taste or bad taste. Taste and perception doesn't change objective quality.
Music is the only medium of entertainment where this phony "subjectivity" argument plays a part. Nobody ever says John Green is better than William Faulkner because "literature is subjective". Nobody ever says Michael Bay is better than Stephen Spielberg because "film is subjective". This only happens in music, and it needs to stop.
Hahahaha are you serious dude.
This is the gayest thing i've probably ever read.
Stop trying so hard bro.
>people take musical taste this seriously
/mu/ is a board that is mainly populated by teenagers, many of whom are new to music or don't take music very seriously. it has always been like this.
relax. it's just a board on 4chan. you don't need to feel obliged to try and 'save' it from anything, and you certainly don't need to attach some kind of bizarre political element to it. just ignore them. if they want to discuss shitty top 40, they have that right. if you want to discuss serious music with depth, you also have that right. if people give you shit about it, just let them. you're anonymous, you don't have to try and save face by arguing with people about trivial things.
besides, if you really want consistently sophisticated, niche discussion, 4chan is the wrong place for that, considering it's the largest chan.
small forums are the best for serious, intelligent discussion.
But couldn't we say that Justin Bieber and Miles Davis are aiming for different goals? Justin Bieber might lack substance, but he's not trying to have any. His artistic intent is to sell his image, and he does that better than just about anyone at the moment. Miles Davis' artistic intent, however, was to make revolutionary music with real soul and invention. Thus, couldn't we assess who is more successful at their individual pursuits rather than whose music is more complex, artistic, etc.? (Miles would still win.)
A lot of tracks from soundtrack are jaw-droppingly beautiful, though. Helpless Child and How They Suffer spring to mind. Its the same case with The Burning World
In fact, some of their early music is completely anti-hedonistic. Cop may not be a technical masterpiece but its crafted in a way that powerfully displays its meaning: the crushing soullessness of modern life
>pretentious is a buzzword
Maybe you just think so because you hear it too often.
it's a buzzword when so many people use it without having any sort of warranted space to apply it within the discussion.
Look it up in the dictionary and try to think of the last time the word was used in this context nf the Four Chan Music Board.
>compare a 13 year old girl with virtually no knowledge of music to an adult man with an actual knowledge in and interest in music
Yeah but you can't 'prove' they are shit.
There are many definitions of 'art'. There are many different value systems that people utilize to decide what discerns greatness from shit. There are an infinite amount of ways to apply such values.
i actually can prove that the work of manzoni is shit
>tfw closed tab and it doesn't say (you) after the post so i can prove it wasn't samefagging
but seriously, i hate this subjectivity bulshit. even if music taste is subjective, when it isn't backed by any form rationalization it's just lazy , it's just liking what sounds good in your ears and it doesn't help you find any creative or intelectual qualities in music. and even when it is subjective, there's no reason to finish a discussion with "lel subjective", because it's stopping both people from getting to know why is it that they a piece of music. and they might even realise their reasoning is broken, and there are qualities in a piece of music you didn't notice previously. it still may not be your thing, but at least you get better at hearing
But you would have to utilize some sort of self established axiom of what makes art good or bad. But someone else may utilize different axioms, or utilize the same axioms in a different way. So your proof would be inherently disagreeable.
Good posts supporting subjectivity in music, but mutants would rather say "fuck subjectivity " followed by paragraphs of pretentious contentless drek.
Because if there is no objective "best" taste in music, how can I congratulate myself for being so superior to my high school peers?
This so much. The way teenagers talk about Justin Bieber isn't much different from the way /mu/tants talk about their favourite memerap artist either. Just look at Lil B. People aren't talking about his music, they're posting funny gifs and typing things like "thank you based god."
And now people are trying to listen to mainstream pop like Katy Perry and take it seriously to show how "open minded" they are.
OP seems to be suggesting that the top 40 fans on this board are consciously 'marxist' and that they are attempting to perpetrate a 'revolution' on /mu/ by insulting other people and spewing buzzwords to try and defend their taste.
this really isn't the case. it's just insecure teenagers being snarky and defensive. OP's attempt to link this phenomenon to some kind of socialist revolutionary thing is totally ridiculous.
this is somewhat true, but there are some core notions that pretty much every respectable art critic agrees with. mainly, it's the notion that the artist that can more succesfully transmit an emotion, with more artistic vision and technical prowace (even though the latter's importance has been considered increasingly smaller) is the best
the thing is there are many ways to interpret this, and each factor can be taken as more or less valuable depending on the person
>And now people are trying to listen to mainstream pop like Katy Perry and take it seriously to show how "open minded" they are.
Hey bud, I don't take her music seriously, I just listen to it cause it's alright and I like her voice.
>get that spooky-ass album away from me
i assume you meant to link to antz's post
the fact that you think antz's post is devoid of any valid points based on the fact that antz has a history of being a chode-muncher and that it was a copypasta kind of shows your true colors--that you care more about stigma than content.
HAHA! you weren't even talking about antz's post!!! you were actually trying to dismiss a levelheaded statement with real talking points as "noise" because you disagreed with it! man that speaks even more volumes
It was an artistic statement, dont judge me
like you need to be born with a superior individual discernment and musical understanding to enjoy music in any form, as a hedonistic sense.It’s sort of stupidly obvious— visual and auditory clues trigger empathetic neurons.What kinds of pretentious thoughts passed your mind that make you think your experience is more rich
I think the reality is somewhere in between.
Anyone with a brain can realize how much more craft is put into say even a Pink Floyd song than a Justin Bieber song. But there's no way to objectively measure that a Pink Floyd song is better than a King Crimson song, you just can't do it. it's impossible.