Jimmy Eat World - Integrity Blues (October 21, 2016) Album • Page 105

Cool.

 

It started bad but it's gotten kinda fun

 

I will absolutely check this out when I get out of class later. Thanks for sharing!
@Craig Ismaili for some reason my post didn't quote yours

 

People use words like good and bad because it's a quick way to convey your own personal feelings and opinions. In reality there is not "good" and "bad" art. If you believe there is then this conversation will go nowhere

 

This thread is off the rails..

 

What about progressive music / avant-garde / art rock / post-rock or generally music that uses a lot of dissonance? If something is scientifically appealing to a wider subject of listeners then that doesn't mean it is objectively better. If that's the case then Rihanna is definitely better than Jimmy Eat World because a lot more people enjoy her music. If someone finds artistic merit in music that is basically a cat meowing for 5 minutes then more power to them, really. If that elicits some emotional reaction in them that makes it worth their time then I can't argue that their opinions are wrong and I don't think anyone can.

 

Sure, maybe there's music that appeals subjectively to more people, but I'm not sure how that makes it objective at all

 

And I'll also say the problem with that argument is that then you get people who say popular things are objectively worse, so, I mean....it can't be both

 

Debating the objective merits of music takes away any reason to discuss the music. I don't care if something's good. I care why it's good. "This chord progression is objectively pleasing to the ear" means so much less to me than "I can connect with this song because of [x]"

 

Exactly. It doesn't. Nickelback has broad appeal by using those "scientifically proven" (lol) progressions and structures. So are they objectively good?

 

I mean idk how you can listen to Chad Kroeger's voice and not swoon

 

Philosophy of musical objectivity and subjectivity 101

 

How you remind me is a jam tho!!!

 

This is interesting, and something that drives me insane. I have a friend who always says "x" is better than "y" because "x" is selling out arenas and "y" is playing small clubs. I've resorted to just exerting myself out of the conversation at that point..

 

Yeah that just makes it boring to me, I appreciate that kind of thing because I've taken a lot of music theory but it doesn't interest me much in the music we talk about here

 

Geoff Rickly has a pretty bad voice. I still think he's a great singer

 

I think art is a personal thing and if one person enjoys it then that personal experience that they have with it can't be criticised.

Anyway this is an interesting conversation that has been a nice distraction from anxiously waiting for the album to come out.

 

Nickelback are a great band is this the unpopular opinions thread I mean cmon

 

Absolutely. This is a fair, reasoned point and I think a completely valid counterargument. I'm not convinced my argument for objectivity was even valid, and I'm sure that art philosphers have made more cogent arguments, but this was what I was looking for all along, a coherent, reasoned debate.

 

Is Chad Kroeger technically a better singer than Bob Dylan? But what does that mean? Absolutely nothing..

 

this conversation happened about a thousand times back on ap and i remeber jason having a lot of great things to say about it since he's actually read up on a lot of the philosophy being discussed

 

They may not be great, but they're way better than the general public gives them credit for. And I'd much rather listen to "How You Remind Me" than Royal Blood to be honest.

 

Chad Krueger should've gotten the literature award instead of Jimmy buffet or whoever it was something Dylan I think

 

never made it as a wise man
couldnt cut it as a poor man stealing
tired of living like a blind man
im sick of sight without a sense of feeling

 

Jimmy Buffet>Jimmy Adkins