What defines 'Really Bad Music'?

Does this mean a 13-year-old girl can not possible have a concept of whether their favourite record is good or bad? Why doesn't the fact that she simply enjoys it make it a good record?

Also, if I understand calypso slightly more than you do, can I truly tell you that what you are listening to is good or bad? And conversely, can someone who knows calypso better than me know if something is 'better' than I do?

As opposed to the crepitation of Fred Durst.

Which we all were at one point. (Except the 'downstairs from Alex in NYC' part.)

Sorry, I'm a pixie? Happydust for everyone!

I'm actually amazed how boring most pop music nowadays. I only ask that you be entertaining god damn it.

Yes.

IF YOUR BAND LOOKS LIKES THIS

I don't think it's boring, but I don't agree with it. If only cuz I have enjoyed too much good music created by people who didn't seem to have a clue as to what they were making. Or by people who created something bigger and better than anything that they could have dreamed of making or understood that they were making at the time. Of course, I don't always know if someone has a clue or not. Just that understanding" or not understanding what you make isn't always a sign that what you are making will end up good or not.

And yes, boredom and entertainment are completely subjective. But I don't believe in absolute or objective standards in music. I generally judge art on content vs. form. Form is just the question "is it pleasing to me?"

`Cos I find it to be absolutely irritating. It's like listening to a goddamn car alarm.

I usually hear it booming out of cars when people are in them, so I guess that's sorta apt in a way.

Yeah, I agree - I think I worded the original statement a little badly. This includes artists like this definitely. God help us if 'good' music is defined by the 'technically proficient' or whatever - quite often that's the worst kind of pseudo-superior nonsense (see: Prog Rock).

But those who "don't have a clue as to what they were making", that's them understanding what it is they are trying to do, d'you see? Or perhaps someone can word it better than me.

Just people who are really into what they do.

Which is why S Club 7 were always better than Steps, for example. *ducks*

Exactly. So really by saying something is 'good', 'bad' or whatever, are we not just protecting or projecting our own egos?

I spent years exalting some pretentious objective standard of music, and I realize now looking back on it, how immature it was.

Mmm, yeah, I think that's where I'm really at now. But I just find it so hard to really really dislike anything - unless it is, of course, exceptionally bad, say like Feeder or summat.

"Also, if I understand calypso slightly more than you do, can I truly tell you that what you are listening to is good or bad? And conversely, can someone who knows calypso better than me know if something is 'better' than I do?"
a: i think you can tell me that something is good or bad and explain why. But i don't need to accept your answer, i don't need to stop to listen to the music I like just because you said it is bad. But you have more conditions to say something is good or bad than i am.

But if we completely accept subjectivity, it leaves us with some uncomfortable opinions, i.e. Jeffrey Archer is as good a writer as Shakespeare; Limp Bizkit are as worthwhile as J.S. Bach, etc etc etc.

So, whilst accepting the idiosyncracy of individual taste, it might be possible to prescribe rules for the measurement of art. My guess would be they would work along the lines of estrangement of reality, avoidance of cliche, suitability of structure to matter - a lot of Greek stuff, etc

So my idea of "really bad music" would be the kind of pompous, obvious shite that its fans think is Art, man.

It's not important for somebody to agree with me in order for me to respect their opinions, just for their opinions to be coherent.

Poison the well aren't that bad! I mean, have you heard Avenged Sevenfold?

At the very least they'll turn kids onto better heavy stuff.

Absolutely not, far from it. I use it as an example of those people who seem to be forgotten about in so-called "serious" discussions of music, but are equally (and in my opinion even more so) relevant to the culture of popular music that a thousands fanboys.

“I’ve always had pretty girlfriends” sighs singer Paul, scanning the tables of an upmarket West End beer garden for inspiration.

“It’s not that it comes easy to us but we do seem to get a lot of attention after our gigs and the next thing we know we’re getting all sorts of offers.”

The reason for Paul’s problematic personal life stems from The Glitterati’s shameless stage show. Where others mope and bluster through live engagements, The Glitterati swagger across stage with an insane bravado rock hasn’t seen for years. Lizzy, Aerosmith and Guns ‘N’Roses are all in there somewhere, but it’s the good-time charm of The Faces which most spikes their space-glam cocktail. The Glitterati have dirt under their fingernails and in their lyrics.

“I think we’re all about making the show one that no one will ever forget”
declares Paul nonchalantly.

For him, life is an endless re-run of David Essex’s role in classic Brit rock road movie ‘That’ll Be The Day’.

“We’re into the whole idea of rock’n’roll bands getting in a van, playing a great show, meeting girls and learning how to be the best there is. We’re not called the Glitterati for nothing, we want to cause a reaction, even if they hate us we’ve done something right.”

Having met in the time-honoured fashion via school and shared gig experiences, the band (Paul vocals: Nick guitar: Jamie bass: John guitar: Billy drums) served an apprenticeship in various bands around Leeds. Inevitably they found their gaze being drawn to the smoke.

“We got to the point in Leeds where we’d just play a gig and however good it was, nothing would come from it.” continues Paul.
“We had to test ourselves to see if the band could really work…”

Relocating to the wilds of South London, the band moved into a shared house and set about recreating the mood of of The Monkees ‘Head’ had it been filmed on the set of ‘Withnail And I’. Too broke to pay for rehearsal rooms, they found themselves rehearsing in a derelict church (“It was the greatest drum sound you’ve ever heard” swoons skin-batterer Billy) whilst living off their wits.

Quickly attracting vast music biz interest, the band rapidly signed a publishing deal and played a host of riotous secret gigs under the name The Highly Davidson. No wonder. Songs like debut single ‘Do You Love Yourself?’ reference everyone from ‘Aladdin Sane’ era Bowie to Bolan and suggest that, in a post-Darkness universe, The Glitterati have all the credentials for a rapid rise through the ranks. They’re already at the point where people write breathless mini-biogs about them. Clearly, their sleazy, gloriously rock’n’roll trail starts here.

“I think people will be intrigued by us” drawls lead guitarist Nick as another tray of Jack Daniels arrive.

“We’re called The Glitterati but we dress like tramps”.

Not for long."

I have an answer to this question.

uh so i saw the winklevoss twins' band? tonight? like, it's really them pic.twitter.com/xVqYwQrztL

— Arch Nem (@arch_nem) June 10, 2022

They even look like preppies on stage.

I'm not going to listen to the music because I want to imagine it's boy band yacht rock

The first thing that came to mind was the kind of formulaic stuff that comes out of Nashville nowadays. I have nothing at all against country music per se, but too much of the contemporary stuff is just mass produced. It follows a very predictable pattern with little or no creativity, and is designed merely for mass appeal (and sales). To me, that's truly bad music.

not a poptimist i see!

more and more i feel like really bad music is music that takes itself too seriously, has no lightness of touch, no humor, no sense of itself being ephemeral.

music that doesn't live in the moment, that looks to justify its existence in reasons that are all outside of itself.

Music created with the explicit goal of being a product usually comes out watered down and safe to be marketable. Not all successful pop sounds like that obviously. The exciting notable stuff is popular and better than that.

I think of really bad (but competent, as opposed to just like a toddler with a piano) music as having a kind of smoothness - all rough edges sanded off, nothing interesting to grip mentally. A lot of Nashville pop country, a lot of Christian rock, the kind of music made my former American Idol winners.

Lack of originality or at least some personal reinvention customising things to fit the band. It is possible to be a band reexploring existing tropes and be somewhat worthwhile if one revitalises it. It is just very difficult because of constraints etc that come with that.

I have thought that it is possible to work with rather obvious influences as long as on e has a way of making the music made the performer's own. Otherwise one is going to be overly generic which is inherently negative

Lack of vitality, leads to boring music unless one finds a way around it. & again that would be pretty rare. I think ambient work may be debatable but assume it must need some of its own energy.

Feeling forced. & deeply false. Needs some form of authenticity even if one is being ironic by choice. Authenticity to self at least.

Following trends is a bad sign unless one has a real sense of development in doing so. Flavour of the week colourisation like totally sucks. THough can be interesting to look at it from a novelty perspective, if it ain't felt it is going to suck. Music made for bonus tracks? Would think one would need to think the area of exploration might be of worth for some other reason than sales for it to be valid. But exploration can lead to chance discovery of things that are of worth, texturally etc. May depend on focus.

I would tend to think the idea of a teleological path with a fixed destination instead of experiential learning causing great detours even if they do tend to be fruitless initially is inherently negative. Like a band depends on teh chemistry and interplay between various disparate human beings which is always going to be in some form of flux and so on. So will either increase in mutual communication or cause teh lineup to change and so on. Hoping that finding a point of mutual communication doesn't lead to a point of stagnation and so on. Like.
The points at which members are at loggerheads and the tension ensuing can be some of the most interesting for the audience but not necessarily. So forcing a situation like that is never a good idea. Can be good to know when to take a rest for a while , can also lead to more productive results.

music with no joy

Counterpoint: Radiohead

I think there's a Nietzschean joy on many of the best Radiohead tunes

even a dirge like Fake Plastic Trees, well, it's a funny title isn't it? like a joke that makes you want to cry

I think their completely depressed stuff like Videotape is their worst (or least enjoyable for me) but even on a song like that you have that secret syncopation thing that made Thom laugh at some live performance iirc

but I derail

xps No Joy makes good music though

Anyway, I'm inclined to agree with map & milo's takes; when music has no rough edges and takes itself too seriously, that is truly the worst music.

Even Radiohead has a lightness of touch to it, IMO. I also tend to think anyone who plays music for music's sake is expressing joy, even when the music doesn't sound that way to the audience.

music with no joy

― corrs unplugged, Tuesday, June 14, 2022 6:31 AM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUx9uGqNcXo

The first thing that came to mind was the kind of formulaic stuff that comes out of Nashville nowadays. I have nothing at all against country music per se, but too much of the contemporary stuff is just mass produced. It follows a very predictable pattern with little or no creativity, and is designed merely for mass appeal (and sales). To me, that's truly bad music.

― immodesty blaise (jimbeaux), Monday, June 13, 2022 4:50 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

Country has been the example of choice for my entire life, as if formulaic, unoriginal, predictable music isn't the norm in nearly every genre. EDM and ambient have literal computers churning out Spotify playlist hits now, but people are still incensed by songs about trucks.

I love goofy music that takes itself too seriously, love the feeling of getting a look into someone's brain who is entirely convinced of the righteousness of their mission. Not everything has to have a wink, in fact much is made worse by it.

I also enjoy stuff that has all rough edges removed because, as a child of the 90's, that is the kind of music that ends up sounding most forbbiden and satanic to me.

corrs unplugged,

music with no joy

100% on board with this. this also allows for the fundamental subjectivity of the question. we bring joy to music, and different things bring people joy.

also agree with your radhiohead take, they would be bad if they weren't pretty funny about the alienated situations they bring out in their songs. early on the humor was more cutting then it got a kind of meta warmth to it i think.

Joyless is an excellent band however.

The worst era of music I lived through was probably 97-98, the horrible bloated album/novelty single era of Britpop, circa Be Here Now & "Ballad of Tom Jones", but it's really my own childish fault because I never realised I could listen to another radio station instead of Radio 1.

First time hearing Ballad of Tom Jones right now.

I didn't know this band had other songs. I'm familiar with "Female of the Species" which is also bad.

I love goofy music that takes itself too seriously, love the feeling of getting a look into someone's brain who is entirely convinced of the righteousness of their mission. Not everything has to have a wink, in fact much is made worse by it.

Blind Guardian with tongue in cheek would suck. po-faced BG is where it's at.

100% agree with this.

What defines "really bad" imo relies on context. So for me it's going to be different depending on the genre or era.

The best pop music relies on the ways refreshing elements are placed within a standardized song structure and/or within standardized production methods. Whereas the worst pop is typically stuff that sounds like an artist or band is checking boxes based on what's already been established as marketable, with no attempt to present the listener with anything refreshing or different.

"all rough edges sanded off, nothing interesting to grip mentally"

I'm basically agreeing with this. There has to be something to hang onto, or a reason to come back to it. Most of what I've heard from charting singles in the past 5 years are songs that sound like they're trying to avoid this at all costs. And the best reason I can think of is that the 3 big labels only want to invest in hits that feel like they have global appeal. And they think the best way to go global is the remove anything remotely edgey.

I don't listen to new pop that often, I'm not sure I'd be able to tell between something that's "refreshing" or just "ticking boxes"

A lot of Sun-El is very samey, but I don't mind

It kinda depends on the listener as well. What sounds fresh to some ears may sound formulaic or stale to people who are more seasoned/jaded. For example, I loved 90s indie rock when I was younger. It was all new to me, then (and also I was a teenager). The current crop of bands inspired by 90s indie aren't as interesting to me, but it's certainly not because they're any worse; there's just less novelty in that sound for me these days. Conversely, I've been getting into old techno and dnb and IDM sounds that are probably uninteresting/dated to the heads who have been following that stuff for decades, but to me they're still relatively fresh.

Even the most box-ticking of genre exercises will hold some interest to someone who hasn't yet learned all the boxes.

Parallel fifths, improper augmented 6th resolutions

corrs unplugged,

_music with no joy_

100% on board with this.

stoner/doom is a genre i like and i like a lot of bands in it, but there is an increasing glut of bands that have confused making quality music in this genre is just playing two chords very slowly, with none of the atmosphere and deliberation of actual droney bands that do it well.

like y'all can't do a Dopesmoker by just following a formula

Name names

Bong Goblin
Witch Stench
Hairship

I just made those names up but might as well be real, Desertfest is full of this kind of crap

hmm lol that's hard cos when I hate stoner, I tend to move on reaaaaaal fast.

there's a local band named Cardinal here in town where it literally seems like they do the thing John Mayer did in his jokey "how to steal songs and make them into new songs" video from a decade ago, AND don't even have the chops to pull it off (the guitar leads were uhm....mediocre at best), couldn't lock into a groove.

anyway they = inspiration for post

(I've spent most of today listening to the awesome Weedeater, in contrast)

Hairship would be an amazing band name.

otm