If a piece sounds good to me, does that mean it's good?

Opinions may be opinions, but if SOMEONE in the world thinks that something sounds good, then, technically, isn't it? I am sick and tired of hearing people (my friends) listen to something that I think sounds great, and then they say "OH GOD TURN IT OFF! That SUCKS!" Are they just not accepting the music, or is it REALLY that bad?

state your thoughts. :toothygrin:

Nothing artistic will ever be universally "good," not even the Mona Lisa

The short answer is, if you think something is good, then it is good, TO YOU. For others it's bad. Unfortunately I don't think we can come up with a more satisfying answer than that

The short answer is, if you think something is good, then it is good, TO YOU. For others it's bad. Unfortunately I don't think we can come up with a more satisfying answer than that

Really.

What other answer could there possibly be?

Where do people come up with the idea that anything has to be absolute?

Everything's subjective.

But is a fart as artistically viable as a symphony?

I think there is such a thing as an absolute, and that there is such as thing as bad taste. Some people are more fortunate than others.

At a certain point it becomes impossible to say what is 'better' or 'best', but to say that my drawings are as artistic as Michaelangelo's David would be pretentious, self-indulgent lunacy. I also don't think you should try to argue that farting requires as much skill, talent, creativity, self-discipline etc as symphonic writing.

And what is artistic/talented? In my opinion, it is the ability to do something that many other people can't. If everyone could run the 100m in less than 10seconds, would we be impressed by somebody who ran it in 10 seconds? Why is it that most people are not impressed by a cheese sandwich!?

There is a reason why things that are hard to achieve should be and usually are rewarded.

I think there is a standard to some degree in most things, and it is important to uphold it, lest we want our head chefs to be unable to cook anything other than beans on toast; our musicians to be unable to play anything other than the aeolian mode; our artists unable to produce anything more than an unmade bed and our composers unable to write anything more than one note.

There is no best but one of the principle rules of life is: There is a better!

But is a fart as artistically viable as a symphony?

I think the fact that "nothing" (John Cage's 4:33 or whatever the time is) is considered viable as a symphony can validate pretty much anything else.

I think the fact that "nothing" (John Cage's 4:33 or whatever the time is) is considered viable as a symphony can validate pretty much anything else.

But that is only your opinion and I do not see it that way. If you see 4'33'' as being as viable as a symphony you might as well say that a chef who hands you a plate with nothing on it is able as one who cooks you a lasagne. Shakespeare is more artistic than a blank piece of paper, if not only for the reason that everybody on the planet can produce a blank piece of paper. If you find that you are impressed by a blank piece of paper as you are by your favourite piece of literature (which I do not for one second believe) then you are being uninstinctive in your judgement, and I would argue that you have bad taste.

But that is only your opinion and I do not see it that way. If you see 4'33'' as being as viable as a symphony you might as well say that a chef who hands you a plate with nothing on it is able as one who cooks you a lasagne. Shakespeare is more artistic than a blank piece of paper, if not only for the reason that everybody on the planet can produce a blank piece of paper. If you find that you are impressed by a blank piece of paper as you are by your favourite piece of literature (which I do not for one second believe) then you are being uninstinctive in your judgement, and I would argue that you have bad taste.

Mumble mumble, I hate to get involved in the same old tired discourse but I want to repeat what always needs repeating:

Art is Art for the sake of Art being Art, made by an artist.

Art isn't objective, it can't be compared to food, of all things, which can be judged on a lot of objective factors which simply don't apply to music (such as taste developing biases towards certain kinds of chemicals due to evolution and natural selection, etc etc. The ear doesn't have such an important role as to account for a similar specialization in detecting certain types of sounds and labeling them "pleasant" or "unpleasant" to avoid having you eat your own poop.)

Your opinion about Art isn't better or worse than the next guy's. However, given that opinions can also be criticized, this particular opinion of "Well OF COURSE a symphony is better than a fart when it comes to artistic merit!" is a non-argument. Same could be said in reverse and be just as valid ("OF COURSE a fart has more artistic merit than a symphony, what are you thinking!")

A blank piece of paper can be a powerful piece of art, as can be a Shakespeare play. A fart can be a powerful piece of music as much as a symphony can be. There's no universal concept of aesthetic that accounts for all the scraggy going on the world, as much as there's no discourse on taste that is absolute.

Deal with it.

But that is only your opinion and I do not see it that way. If you see 4'33'' as being as viable as a symphony you might as well say that a chef who hands you a plate with nothing on it is able as one who cooks you a lasagne. Shakespeare is more artistic than a blank piece of paper, if not only for the reason that everybody on the planet can produce a blank piece of paper. If you find that you are impressed by a blank piece of paper as you are by your favourite piece of literature (which I do not for one second believe) then you are being uninstinctive in your judgement, and I would argue that you have bad taste.

Actually I hate John Cage but that's just the thing - despite whether or not I like him or his music, he's expressing something through music (or lack thereof) and thereby creating "art," and you better believe someone out there likes it.

And that's pretty much the answer. To the man who appreciates a fart as a symphony, then yes, that is "good" music.

*applauds SSC for a post well posted*

If a piece sounds good to me, does that mean it's good?

Short answer: yes.

Deal with it! I actually predicted you'd write that! Shame on us for wasting our time once again...!

It's upto you to decide whether a fart is as valuable as a symphony. My decision as to why I do not want to value a fart as much as a symphony is obvious. I fart about 100 times a day, and I'm not the only one. If you think that something that anybody can do, with no training, effort, or even intention in some people's cases is as impressive or as emotionally enfused as any sympony, then I expect to see you pay money to go and see somebody walk on stage, fart, and then walk off in the near future. Except you won't, because you don't really believe what you are saying.

It is important to have a universal or cultural standard. Should we encourage flatulence as an art, merely because philosophically speaking it is artistically viable? Should we put particularly flatulent children into the high-flyers class, merely for the fact that they can fart? If somebody gets into the 'high-flyers' music or even english class it won't be through their ability to fart, it will be through their musical or linguistic abilities. Why? Because farting is not as artistically viable as rare talents or skills in a sane world.

When you have kids, I hope for your sake that they are particularly gassy.

Oh and I suppose that dog being murdered for an art exhibition (thanks to Guillermo Habacuc Vargas) is good merely because some sick people like to see dogs dying?

Deal with it! I actually predicted you'd write that! Shame on us for wasting our time once again...!

It's upto you to decide whether a fart is as valuable as a symphony. My decision as to why I do not want to value a fart as much as a symphony is obvious. I fart about 100 times a day, and I'm not the only one. If you think that something that anybody can do, with no training, effort, or even intention in some people's cases is as impressive or as emotionally enfused as any sympony, then I expect to see you pay money to go and see somebody walk on stage, fart, and then walk off in the near future. Except you won't, because you don't really believe what you are saying.

It is important to have a universal or cultural standard. Should we encourage flatulence as an art, merely because philosophically speaking it is artistically viable? Should we put particularly flatulent children into the high-flyers class, merely for the fact that they can fart? If somebody gets into the 'high-flyers' music or even english class it won't be through their ability to fart, it will be through their musical or linguistic abilities. Why? Because farting is not as artistically viable as rare talents or skills in a sane world.

When you have kids, I hope for your sake that they are particularly gassy.

Oh and I suppose that dog being murdered for an art exhibition (thanks to Guillermo Habacuc Vargas) is good merely because some sick people like to see dogs dying?

I wasn't debating with you. It wasn't a SUGGESTION or a COMMENT, I ordered your donkey to DEAL with the reality that YOU are WRONG and that YOUR OPINION will BITE YOU in the donkey the moment you even slightly veer off your own stupid bias for any single reason.

The sooner you accept this, the better it'll be for you as an artist. Period.

But is a fart as artistically viable as a symphony?

Let me tell you a little story. A true story.

I bought a CD that had piano music with "Whale Songs" in the background. I thought it would be great to listen to this nice relaxing piano music with whale songs in the back ground.

I put it in the CD player and laid down to go to bed. The piano music started (Clair de Lune by Debussy) and it was nice a slow and well-played. And then the whales started singing.

Well, the first thing that ran though my mind was that it didn't sound like a whale all at all. It sounded to me like a constipated ape in a jungle trying to relieve itself to no avail. As the whales continued to 'sing' the only picture I could see in my mind what this constipated ape in the jungle trying to have a bowel movement.

I laughed so hard I actually laughed myself to sleep.

Well that's not the end of the story.

I didn't want to give up on this thing so I had to figure out a way to "save the whales". So what I did was set up an aquarium next to my bed. Seriously I did. I figured that the bubbling water would help me to envision the ocean. Also started studying photographs of whales and started imagining whales in the deep ocean. Then I went to bed again and put the CD and this time I was able to focus on images of whales. And I could really get into.

I'm not joking either. This is a true story. But I think one thing that it truly points out is that we often associate sounds with what we think is making them. The very same sounds can sound like a constipated ape howling in a jungle or a whale singing mating calls in the deep ocean. And how your mind perceives this same sound in two entirely different ways can actually create two entirely differnet experiences.

So when you ask if a 'fart' an artistically viable sound perhaps not, if you know that's what produced the sound. However, if this same sound was coming from some exotic instrument from some foreign culture and you accept it as being that you may very well accept those very same sounds as being artistically viable.

I truly believe that everything is subjective ultimately.

Of course, that's just my subjective opinion. ;)

So when you ask if a 'fart' an artistically viable sound perhaps not, if you know that's what produced the sound. However, if this same sound was coming from some exotic instrument from some foreign culture and you accept it as being that you may very well accept those very same sounds as being artistically viable.

A brilliant example of what I'm talking about, thanks!

So when you ask if a 'fart' an artistically viable sound perhaps not, if you know that's what produced the sound. However, if this same sound was coming from some exotic instrument from some foreign culture and you accept it as being that you may very well accept those very same sounds as being artistically viable.

That is a good point. However, if it was being produced by an exotic instrument that took years to learn to play and to master, but the end result was indistringuishable from a fart, then it might as well be a fart! Would so many people bother to learn to play the violin if it sounded like a fart, or indeed if it sounded like something that could be produced or replicated by every single human being on the planet? There is a desire to value the violinist more than there is to value the farty-bottomed..

I don't think anybody really can possibly believe in total subjectivity of everything. There are times when you have to let your biases and instincts drive your actions. Is racism acceptable for instance? Subjectively it is not, but philosophically you could argue that is isn't. For the good of mankind it is NOT! The same goes for artistic standards. It is something I care passionately about, I do not believe that farting should be considered as artistically viable as symphonic writing, in the same way I don't think farting should be considered as comical as situation comedy!

I fart about 100 times a day.

I'm glad to hear that.

I've been farting about 25 times a day and I was starting to worry that I was having a problem. I looked it up though and found that about 15 to 25 farts a day is normal. So I'm still hanging in there as pretty normal.

I am going to start watching my diet though and see if I can get back into the middle of the normal range at least.

I'm glad to hear that.

I've been farting about 25 times a day and I was starting to worry that I was having a problem. I looked it up though and found that about 15 to 25 farts a day is normal. So I'm still hanging in there as pretty normal.

I am going to start watching my diet though and see if I can get back into the middle of the normal range at least.

I have too much fibre in my diet, but at the very least I can claim to be a prolific artist!

Oh and SSC once again you talk about subjectivity, wave it around like a trophy girlfriend and yet: I AM WRONG! Just a little ironic?

The sooner you realise that expressing an opinion is not as bad as telling people 'to get scraggy through their head', you'll be a better human being...

Oh and SSC once again you talk about subjectivity, wave it around like a trophy girlfriend and yet: I AM WRONG!

um...yes?

I have too much fibre in my diet, but at the very least I can claim to be a prolific artist!

Oh and SSC once again you talk about subjectivity, wave it around like a trophy girlfriend and yet: I AM WRONG! Just a little ironic?

The sooner you realise that expressing an opinion is not as bad as telling people 'to get scraggy through their head', you'll be a better human being...

Got the part where I said I wasn't debating you?

Get it now?

um...yes?

Exactly.

Got the part where I said I wasn't debating you?

Get it now?

Good, maybe I can discuss this with some people who don't react so bizarrely and violently to differing opinions. Infact please, for the love of God don't reply to my posts ever again and I won't reply to yours. Don't even read them for fear of what might happen!

If a piece sounds good to me, does that mean it's good?

Short answer: yes.

Actually, short answer: no.

If the piece sounds good to you, all it means is that the piece sounds good to YOU. It says absolutely nothing about any relative worth of the piece.

Actually, short answer: no.

If the piece sounds good to you, all it means is that the piece sounds good to YOU. It says absolutely nothing about any relative worth of the piece.

Then the answer would be "maybe," wouldn't it? Just in case the opinion IS the same as the "relative worth" of it.

... What is relative worth, again?

What the rest of the world thinks about it.

Actually, short answer: no.

If the piece sounds good to you, all it means is that the piece sounds good to YOU. It says absolutely nothing about any relative worth of the piece.

If I enjoy and appreciate something, it IS good... There's many things I considers GREAT and WONDERFUL musics that would not be judged "good" by many other listeners.

So what!

It's still GOOOOOD!!

The relative "worth" of a piece means nothing to me when deciding if it's any good or not.

;)

Well. I think my music does not yet have the same relative worth as for example, Daphnis et Chloe especially the first few pieces I wrote. In relation to the very first piece I wrote, it took me about 5 hours to write, I didn't require any music training or studying to write it; essentially I was just winging it. If somebody had come up to me and told me that it was to be played at the Proms, I would be disappointed. You just have to ask yourself what was necassary in order to create the Daphnis et Chloe suites. Is it fair that Ravel's music should be played at a grand concert in favour of my own? I believe it is!

If not having a standard is important for becoming an artist, I don't know what to say. You need something to aspire to other than your own aesthetics or you run the risk of failing to achieve that potential.