Comment by j_mo
1 day ago
I'd say good music is objective. Whether it's hard to play, uses complex polyrhythms etc. which most listeners aren't even aware of - and those people tend to think good music is subjective as they can't perceive the quality, only whether they like it or not. There's also some incredibly skilful metal music with no "shredding" whatsoever.
I don't particularly like Mozart but I'd be an idiot to say it's not good music. On the other hand most people agree Taylor Swift does not make good music, having released lots of samey 4 chord songs with incredibly simple melodies, but she's one of the most listened artists of all time.
This attitude promotes eliteism in music, which I am very opposed to.
If the goal of music is to induce an emotional or intellectual response in a person. Then only the listening person can decide if a response was induced and if that experience impacted them in a positive or negative way. It is the definition of a subjective experience.
The complexity of the music or the technical skill of the artist has nothing to do with it being good or bad. Music anywhere on the spectrum from simple ambient noise to symphonic formalism to simple and infectious can be good or bad based on the taste of the listener.
I think the easiest example there would be the Ramones, who had a lot of songs using thr same four, three, or even two chords with almost no musical complexity, and yet capitvated and inspired a huge number of people and contributed to the foundational sound of later pop and rock music.
Ironically, Mozart, as a progeny of the Classical era, uses a lot of the same 4 chords with incredibly simple melodies.
Complexity isn’t really the thing either. I’ve heard a ton of terrible but technical songs. Often the coolest songs are remarkably simple, yet manage to do something that feels new. A modern example: https://youtu.be/ga8K_diGviw