Does objectively good and bad music exist?

[ahammel]

One issue that you all seem to be skirting around is the actual definition of music - is music just organized sound? If so, I guess the best piece of music would just be constantly switching octaves on the same note name for the entirety of the piece.

I have absolutely no idea how you got to that conclusion from "music is organized sound", but I'll go with it because it makes Ligeti György the greatest composer of all time.

Seriously, though, there is no agreed-upon definition of 'music' (ask John Cage).

[Роберт]

One issue that you all seem to be skirting around is the actual definition of music - is music just organized sound? If so, I guess the best piece of music would just be constantly switching octaves on the same note name for the entirety of the piece.

WTF?

Food
Noun
Any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink, or that plants absorb, in order to maintain life and growth.

I guess water is the best food.

[Maraki]

You guys do get that the whole organized sound definition was facetious, right? I was pointing out the absurdity of people who use that as the definition, which is why, if you notice, I continued much farther along than saying "Music is organized sound, so there!" -- in fact, all of my observations were to point out the fact that we cannot define music in any clear and concise way - did you guys actually read my post or were you just scanning for things to disagree with?

[brenok]

But why would organized sound imply pure randomness or pure order? Midi files are "just organized sound" but I have seen much better pieces presented on its form.

[ahammel]

You guys do get that the whole organized sound definition was facetious, right? I was pointing out the absurdity of people who use that as the definition, which is why, if you notice, I continued much farther along than saying "Music is organized sound, so there!" -- in fact, all of my observations were to point out the fact that we cannot define music in any clear and concise way - did you guys actually read my post or were you just scanning for things to disagree with?

Perhaps you didn't make your point in a particularly effective way.

[Maraki]

You guys do get that the whole organized sound definition was facetious, right? I was pointing out the absurdity of people who use that as the definition, which is why, if you notice, I continued much farther along than saying "Music is organized sound, so there!" -- in fact, all of my observations were to point out the fact that we cannot define music in any clear and concise way - did you guys actually read my post or were you just scanning for things to disagree with?

Perhaps you didn't make your point in a particularly effective way.

I agree; I was obviously unsuccessful with getting my point across

[Роберт]

You guys do get that the whole organized sound definition was facetious, right? I was pointing out the absurdity of people who use that as the definition, which is why, if you notice, I continued much farther along than saying "Music is organized sound, so there!" -- in fact, all of my observations were to point out the fact that we cannot define music in any clear and concise way - did you guys actually read my post or were you just scanning for things to disagree with?

I didn't understand the point of your post. I think "organized sound" almost a good definition of music. However, the spoken word is also organized sound, and not considered music. The best "spoken word" is not just "constantly switching octaves on the same note name for the entirety of the piece" whatever, even if it is organized sound. I really didn't follow the non-sequitur there, or understand your point.

I mean, the definition of food is:

Any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink, or that plants absorb, in order to maintain life and growth.

but that doesn't mean it makes sense to call water the best food.

I mean, you went on to say:

I, personally would go about trying to define the first definition, specifically on the last half of it - all you have to do is define what the best rhythm, melody, harmony, and colour are. Most of these can be answered by deriving them from the golden ratio, if that's an agreeable 'best number', and the colour part really means (according to my interpretation) the actually sound of all other elements - and, mathematically speaking, the clearest sound is a sine wave.

...which is again pretty nonsensical. I still don't understand your point.

[DR6]

Out of these three definitions left, I think number 6 is the hardest to define, followed by number 2. I, personally would go about trying to define the first definition, specifically on the last half of it - all you have to do is define what the best rhythm, melody, harmony, and colour are. Most of these can be answered by deriving them from the golden ratio, if that's an agreeable 'best number', and the colour part really means (according to my interpretation) the actually sound of all other elements - and, mathematically speaking, the clearest sound is a sine wave.

So there you go, you can now define the best possible music (mathematically speaking), and then compare other music to see how 'bad' it is in relation to this 'perfect' music.

You say "all you have to do is define what the best rhythm, melody, harmony, and colour are", as if that was doable, easy, or made any sense at all. It doesn't. You are assuming that:
-A best, ideal music is possible in theory.
-The four properties you mention are independent, that is, if a rythm is good, it will be good with any melody. I don't think you seriously believe this.
-Those four properties are also ordered, and a best, ideal of each exists(what's better, a 3/4 beat or a 4/4 beat?)
-The beauty we are looking for is mathematical beauty.
-The golden ratio is more beautiful than other numbers(I thought the importance of the golden ratio in beauty of art had been disproved long ago)

Do you really believe those?

[ahammel]

Do you really believe those?

Maraki has made it pretty clear that the post was intended in to be sarcastic.

[DR6]

Do you really believe those?

Maraki has made it pretty clear that the post was intended in to be sarcastic.

Oops, I'm sorry then. It flew completely over my head AND I failed to read the rest of the conversation.

[stkncb28]

yes it's called Hybrid Theory. Hybrid meaning when you combine 2 different elements to form 1 mixture. Symbolizing the rule of combining 2 or more different chords or sounds at once to create one more beautiful, powerful, eargasmic sound.

[Ginger]

I think musics and songs and raps are in the realm of arts. Not sciences. So there is no, "objectively good and bad music," because the arts are more about personal expressions and feminine/masculine feelings than objectivity. Does that mean people can have preferences about what they believe is objectively good or bad music based on their own feelings and definitions? Sure. Yet no one can say with sciences what good and bad music is because it is a craft of artists and artists are not science based, they are not based in facts all of time, and they write about highly volatile and emotional personal meanings in pop songs. Or composers writing soulful melodies with only instruments. They mean something to the artists and their consumers only. No objectivity needs applying.