Can a song be considered worse than another song?

Discussion in 'Music' started by GiggleBlizzard, Jun 29, 2012.

  1. BattalionOfRed Mr. Fred Battaliono

    Member Since:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,793
    Likes Received:
    563
    Trophy Points:
    188
    Exactly, that just means it's worse to me, as I see it.
  2. Link NO SWAG

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,515
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    134
    Location:
    Koprulu Sector
    Obviously, a song can be considered better than another. If you disagree with that, you're just objectively wrong. What OP means to ask is whether a song can be worse than another song.
  3. Skyicewolf City States Godmod Patrol

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,666
    Likes Received:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I really can't tell if your just trolling, or being serious.
  4. Enjoythestruggle Member

    Member Since:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Message Count:
    64
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Of course. Friday is a worse song than Child In Time. That's because Rebecca Black could never do what Deep Purple does, while Deep Purple could easily create such crap if they wanted to. Originality, innovation, legacy (how long it lasts after its creation, you'll much notice a lot of mainstream, like Disco, doesn't live on so long), musicianship ( and how it inspires other musicians (Black Sabbath inspired a whole new genre of music) are all objective means you can rate an artist by.
  5. Link NO SWAG

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,515
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    134
    Location:
    Koprulu Sector
    If you don't see that I'm right, then you probably lack basic reading comprehension.
  6. GiggleBlizzard Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    431
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Location:
    Sweden
    What... why would he be trolling?

    This is exacly the kind of reason I was looking to bring up with this thread! I absolutely agree with you, Friday is objectively a worse song than Child In Time, for many reasons. I can name them if anybody really wants me to define why.
  7. Skyicewolf City States Godmod Patrol

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,666
    Likes Received:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Please, explain to me, why one song would be considered better then another.

    Some people might very well enjoy Friday more then Child in Time.
  8. Enjoythestruggle Member

    Member Since:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Message Count:
    64
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    That goes both ways. So we come to a standstill. So I call upon the factors I've already summed up, and see that Child In Time is superior in each and every regard.
  9. UnitRico Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,737
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    Trophy Points:
    193
    Location:
    Pangaea
    No, you find Child in Time to be superior in each and every regard. Saying Guns 'n Roses can make a song comparable to Friday, and Rebecca Black can't make a song comparable to Child in Time says nothing about the songs, but more about the artists, meaning that Rebecca Black is a far less talented artist than the bans members of Guns 'n Roses.
    Again, unless people unanimously find a song worse than another, it truly is.
  10. Enjoythestruggle Member

    Member Since:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Message Count:
    64
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Of course it says something about the song. It says that the one song requires no talent, and the other one does. In fact you could say the quality of the songs are the merit for the band member's talent rather than the other way around in most cases (Yngwie Malmsteen would sometimes be an exception to that rule imo), otherwise what do you base yourself on to say an artist is talented? That's right, nothing. A lot of popular music doesn't stand the tooth of time, because it lacks longevity, it has no meaning and is easily replaced because everything before it it replaced and everything after it that it's replaced by is exactly the same. People will buy what they're sold, meaning, if you advertise enough and spread the music through enough channels and tell enough people they'll be 'part of the group' when they like what they are told to like you will always attract a large audience (a whole lot of people don't even go looking for their own music and rely solely on the radio), so short term popularity is often not a good measure for quality at all. Disco for one, hasn't survived. Friday will not stand the the tooth of time either. Child In Time already has. So has Pink Floyd's music. People like Bach and Mozart made music that still attracts and inspires people today (yes, it does) even after all this time because it is good. You can't derive anything from a gigantic blob of nothing. When someone like Alice Cooper manages to write a song 'Eighteen', that speaks to the generations of his time, and years later still speaks to generations of young people in the same way, that's amazing and not something you can achieve by creating a run-off-the-mill disco beat and singing 'let's go out tonight!' over it.

    That's an objective measure for quality you can use for songs, rather than just saying 'uhh, I like this better and I have a right to an opinion so it's just as good, even if other people with the same right to their opinion say it isn't and I have no other way at all to support my claim!' If it wasn't for those talented bands, who used their talent to make good songs, Black Sabbath for example, music would never even have evolved. If it wasn't for talented musicians who were able to innovate and explore new sounds and techniques, the chances are high music wouldn't even exist today, 'cos it would have just remained the same for all eternity and become extremely boring, irritating even. There's a reason the terms good taste and bad taste exist, too.
  11. UnitRico Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,737
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    Trophy Points:
    193
    Location:
    Pangaea
    Yes, and that very reason is subjectivity, not objectivity. Again, you're using your opinion to justify a statement. What you said isn't false, yet it fails to say anything about a song being better than another one. Rather, you use those facts to claim that a song is better than another one, using your own definition of "better", ie, more complex, longer lasting, more inspirational, more talented musicians etc.
    All those don't make a song "better". The Eye of the Tiger, for instance, is a well known song from quite a while ago. I personally find it an overhyped piece of garbage, yet others find it inspirational and long lasting. Does that make my opinion wrong? Does it make their opinion wrong? Does that make the song either better or worse than others?
    Absolutely not.
  12. Enjoythestruggle Member

    Member Since:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Message Count:
    64
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    It is objectivity, based on ability and to a degree success (success being not the same thing as short term popularity), and the value it has for the music scene as a whole. I don't like the song Fast As A Shark by Accept (not the original, at least), but it has an inner quality because without it, Speed and Thrash metal wouldn't have come into existence the way it did. I don't listen to Michael Jackson, nor do I like his music that much, but I can objectively say he was capable of things others weren't, that he was a good artist and I can see why others would like his music (something I don't have with absolute garbage like Friday), me not liking the music so much has to do with my taste, not the inner quality of the music which, in Michael Jackson's case, is there (most of the time), even though it doesn't fit my taste. I can't stand Queen, but I can see the qualities their stuff has that makes people like it as opposed to overhyped pieces of garbage that are being vomited through the speakers on a daily basis nowadays. If someone can't sing and has to use autotune to make it seem like they can sing, that makes them worse than people who can legitimately sing well.

    I could sit down, take my guitar and improvise right now, and it would sound like shite. I could then call it a song and claim it's better than anything Dave Mustaine has ever done. Does that sound believable to you?

    A lot of music relies on commercialization (I already explained to you how this process works) to gain popularity, and then bases their 'musical genius' on the amount of people the record companies made sure they would reach, while their popularity (not succes!) has nothing to do with the quality, but rather what's behind it. When a band like Iron Maiden becomes famous without any airplay or other ways to convince people of their badassness, there must be a quality to their music.
  13. UnitRico Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,737
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    Trophy Points:
    193
    Location:
    Pangaea
    Having either a good or bad taste is based on ability and success?

    Again, this is your opinion, and has absolutely nothing to do with a song being better or worse than another.

    No, because you're claiming it's better. You're using a vague term that I avoid in debates about objectivity.
  14. Enjoythestruggle Member

    Member Since:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Message Count:
    64
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Good job ignoring 99 percent of my post. It does have something to do with it, because I already explained to you how my objective view can recognize inner quality even in songs I don't like ^^

    To top it off: Child In Time is a better song than Friday :) Your opinion is that you can't argue about this, so you're automatically conceding this to me, else you'd be going against your own logic.

    You know what, I'm just going to run with your logic from now on. 'I'm right, simply because that's what my mind tells me to believe. I do not have to care the music industry has made it so I probably won't get to know music I would otherwise like. Nothing anyone else says can have any sort of impact on the way I think. I like to keep things as simple as possible.'
  15. UnitRico Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,737
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    Trophy Points:
    193
    Location:
    Pangaea
    That means that you understand how other people are able to enjoy said music, and you feel like those songs are good, yet you don't listen to it because they're not within your taste. You cannot, however, understand how people could say the same of a song like Friday (and I'd share that). That, however, has to do with subjectivity. Your objective view is only what you can see, not what you think about that what you see.

    No, you just don't understand what I'm saying, that's something different. Using emoticons doesn't really help that in any way.
  16. Enjoythestruggle Member

    Member Since:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Message Count:
    64
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I understand the consequences of what you're saying. It just leads to a way of thinking that is very unproductive towards anything, not to mention boring, which is what I was pointing out. When you're talking about a song you like, you have ways to describe why you like it, right? Those things you describe point to certain qualities the song has, things you can appreciate in it, not 'umm, it's catchy?! All my friends listen to it so they'll think I'm cool if I listen to it too!' (see, there are reasons to 'like' something that have nothing to do with the actual quality of the song). There is a reason we recognize music as music and don't dance to the rhythm of the cars driving by (although that would be funny and perhaps possible if you're on drugs). That alone proves there are certain rules to determine what makes a song good or bad. If you did make a song that is the sound of cars driving by, well...

    My objective view on Friday, btw, is that a lot of people 'like it', because I know why 'so many people' like it, which is surprisingly the same reason so many people loathe it. It has nothing to do with the quality of the song, just the fact the music industry makes sure enough people are exposed to it. Believe me, if they pulled you into a studio and used all of their technology to make you sound professional, then did everything in their power to spread your song around, they would find people who liked it, they could make you sing a hit, but you wouldn't leave the studio feeling you just wrote a good song. Claiming the only way to determine quality is people's appreciation of the song would mean Friday is probably one of the best songs ever recorded. Does that sound believable?
  17. UnitRico Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,737
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    Trophy Points:
    193
    Location:
    Pangaea
    Again, this is personal preference. I personally like metal and rock because I enjoy heavy electric guitar music. I realise and understand that there is a majority of people who disagree with me. That doesn't mean it's necessarily better, which is what this is about. My stance is that a song isn't onjectively better than another one. I hardly see how that's boring, considering I said nothing about liking or not liking a song. It seems you're making assumptions about both me and my stance on this that are simply false.

    I damn near get a fucking orgasm when a Mustang drives by by just hearing it. That sound is beautiful, damn it.
    Oh, also:


    Which brings me to my next point. The song "Jessica" is what I'd call a decent song. However, when performed by cars, it sounds terrible to me, yet the song remains the same. Which is exactly why a certain song can't be better or worse than another one, as it would depend on the skills and gear of the musician(s). Of course, when you judge a song based on the artist, than you're simply judging the artist, and not the song.

    It would still mean Friday would be absolute garbage, as the official version on YT is disliked millions of times.
    Also, are you now saying people dislike it because it's (made) popular? Fucking hipsters.

Share This Page

Facebook: