|
|
#21 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
I think I'm going to just abort this entire second page like the unwanted and perplexing pile of strangeness that it is. Let's pick up from the post before "Let's sticky this"
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 23
|
When music is judged subjectively, a person's individual preferences and what the listener relates the sounds to deem the piece good or bad. However, when examined objectively, a musical piece is judged by the way it uses techniques and if it accomplishes any goals the author had in mind.
in both cases, a song can be improved; subjectively by what the listener wanted to hear and objectively how techniques could have been applied better to make the piece sound more pleasing (and what defines pleasing goes into the science of the brain) thus, songs quality can be improved. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
(The Fat's Sabobah)
|
Do all songs serve the same purpose?
No. Pop music is designed to be catchy, and simple. It is designed to get people to dance, or make money. It's designed to be mindless and fun. Art music is designed to push musical boundaries and musical virtuosity. It is the exploration, and understanding of the elements of sound. Folk music is a sort of hybrid of Art and Pop music. It is a medium for cultural or individual expression of the human experience. It, typically, goes hand-in-hand with poetry, though not necessarily. There is also an element of virtuosity, but it is usually accompanied by an individual's self exploration of their instrument. One needn't understand the various components that make up a song to utilize them. Of course, this is very simplified view of the three music worlds, and, while distinctly different, they are not isolated from each other. The three worlds of music do overlap and they borrow elements from each other. The point is: not all songs serve the same purpose. For example, John Cage's 4'33" was designed to challenge one's understanding of what is music. To the lay-person, it is four minutes and thirty-three seconds of silence. To someone who has an understanding of the art music world, and the history of music, it is a revolutionary experimentation with sound that is on par with many Eastern schools of thought. It's not so radical when placed in the context of the artistic movements that preceded it (for example: dadaism), or when placed in the historical context of a post-war conformist society. It was a response to what was happening in the world. It's not the song itself that is deserving of praise, but the thought that went behind it. It's important to ask what the intention of the artist was and how well he or she accomplished the task. Can music be judged objectively? Yes, it can. But, ultimately with the arts, subjectivity trumps objectivity. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|