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

What the rest of the world thinks about it.

I'm not sure he means that.

But in any case, I'm with rob. If it sounds good to me, it's good. That's about it, pretty simple. "Good" can only be applied to personal taste in this case so why bother specifying? It's OBVIOUS that I'm not saying it's "objectively good" since that is impossible. Nobody in their right mind would try to claim that unless they are willing to be judged by their own parameters back and get messed up in the process.

If you're saying X or Y piece of music is "good" and you mean it in an objective way, you have to give objective facts that put it above other pieces, objectively. So anyone who dares do such idiotic thing ends up with a circular argument since you can handwave any notion of objectivity since music has no functional design or doesn't abide by any real aesthetic, etc etc.

"Why is this good?" "Because I say it is." "Why do you say it is?" "Because it's good." "Why is it good?" "Because I say it is." "Why do you find it good?" "Because it's good." ad nauseum.

There are pieces I enjoy that I do not consider to be great or masterful pieces of music. I like the look of my trousers but I do not consider them to be a great work of art.

If I can do something that merely looks good, do you think it is comparable to something that looks good and requires tremendous amounts of effort, training etc. Do you think looking sexy is artistic? Of course, it is very impressive but it's not really as artistic as somebody who can draw sexy people.

Photography is an art form, and yet all you really do is... take pictures. scraggy, no effort there compared to the amazing levels of quasi photo-realistic painting in the western world, lol.

Since when is effort important? The end product is all that matters.

Since when is effort important? The end product is all that matters.

So when somebody writes a computer program that can write better music than a human, and all the effort required is typing in a few formulae should we accept it? I for one would not listen to music written by a computer.

Oh and surely there is more to photography than pointing and clicking?

But yes effort is not the be all and end all. It takes me more effort to draw a one dimensional character than it does for an artist to paint an entire landscape. But my drawing would not be hard to achieve on the grand-scale of things and there would be millions of people if not billions able to draw as well as I.

Well, no. Flatus is not a symphony - unless the term symphony (used unironically) has expanded a LOT greater than I'm aware.

I would even argue that 4'33" wouldn't be a symphony, in a sense of a 5-mvt work with differing tempi.

There are objective standards - a baroque chorale cannot be composed atonally - but a chorale of itself might be. This is where SSC's right - eventually, its the composer's intent matters. However, if that intent is lost on the audience, then the piece is less successful in that respect - it does not evoke, in a general sense, the intent causing it.

If evocation is not the intent of the composer, then it cannot be used as a criterion. On the other hand, other criteria must be used: was the song perceived to have a "buildup" at a certain point; did the feel perceptibly change; was what the composer was attempting successful in objective eyes?

There's this local New Orleans artist, George Rodrigue who paints mostly three things: trees, cajun people, and a blue dog. He styles his people in a very specific way, all the time. This, to him, evokes a certain mindset of the cajun people. Ignoring the fact that I think his work is largely boring, repetitive, and bleak.I can see what he sees as bringing this out, therefore it is a successful piece.

Oh and surely there is more to photography than pointing and clicking?

The point was the effort. According to your reasoning, photography objectively poor artform because it's not nearly as difficult to work with as painting people ala Da Vinci or any of those guys.

It IS easier to point and shoot pictures. Much easier than to study and practice 30 years to paint those same pictures with a brush and a palette.

But is photography really any less artistic? No. Of course not.

Yes but, swearing can make 12 year old's giggle with delight. Does this mean that simply dropping the 'f-word' is a successful comedic enterprise? On the grand-scale of things, I would say that it isn't and to say that it is, would be to disrespect actual comedians.

But is photography really any less artistic? No. Of course not.

Well I think it is. Do you feel that taking a picture of Michaelangelo's David makes you as good an artist as Michaelangelo himself?

Of course, good photography takes a lot of skill and ability. It is not a coincidence that most professional photographers can also draw.

Oh and yes effort does matter to an extent. That boy who paints/painted with his feet. It's not suprising that most people are impressed by that.

That's something entirely different, lol. Comedians have a very good objective way to know if what they're doing is working: Laughter.

If dropping profanity every now and then gets a few laughs, why not? It works all the same and ... uh...

Disrespectful to comedians.

....

Right. They'll probably laugh it off, so I'm not too worried ;P

Laughter is enjoyment of comedy. So enjoyment of music is the objective criteria? I thought it said it didn't matter what people thought? By that reasoning Rachmaninov is doing something right after all. I'm sure if you said that at youngcomedians.com your comedic double would tell you to "get scraggy through your head".

It's disprepectful in the sense that a man on stage simply shouting gently caress and walking off doesn't require any comedic talent. Do you now see where I'm coming from? If you want to value that as much as your favourite comedian fine, but in your own words: "IT MEANS NOTHING!"

Well I gather you are 'pretending' to write something by watching this website to waste my time! Clever.. Impressive even!

Well I think it is. Do you feel that taking a picture of Michaelangelo's David makes you as good an artist as Michaelangelo himself?

Of course, good photography takes a lot of skill and ability. It is not a coincidence that most professional photographers can also draw.

Oh and yes effort does matter to an extent. That boy who paints/painted with his feet. It's not surprising that most people are impressed by that.

Uh. I'll have to use the Xerox example to show why that is such nonsense. Taking a photocopy of a Bach's invention and saying it's your art is as valid as Bach's own invention, like it or not. It's a philosophical argument and an artistic one.

It doesn't matter if you don't LIKE it, it's still just as valid. Sure, what skill did it take to just make a photocopy? Not very much. Even so, it's just punctuated by the fact that art isn't something for anyone except the artist to decide what it is.

As for the kid that paints with his feet, uh, freak shows are always great, but if I don't like the end product he could've painted it with his nose, donkey or ear (or all of the above) and I couldn't care less.

Likewise, maybe a photo of Michaelangelo's David means more to someone as art, a statement, or just overall, than the actual statue. This type of thing has no standard or objectivity like I've been saying all along.

Taking a picture of the David or a photocopy of any of Bach's inventions is a variation on an existing piece of art, making the fork a derivative piece of art by itself which can as well stand alone even if the original it was derived from ceased to exist.

Then there's the concept of "open art" which (one of the meanings) is that, well, you can just keep adding scraggy to existing art and get new art as result. If the David got vandalized, would it stop being art? Would it be any less important?

Chances are, it'd be a bad thing for art historians, but who knows maybe a lot of artists would love it.

Look at collages for example, you have a lot of different completely unrelated (or sometimes related) things put together in order to form a "new" thing. Be it verbatim quotes, musical or not, photos, paintings, whatever. Is it any less artistic or relevant? No it isn't even if YOU don't happen to think so.

The great thing about art is that because it's subjective, the only actual OBJECTIVE truth that exists is that either ALL artwork is the same, or ALL artwork is irrelevant. You can't apply to one without applying it to another and all subsequent artworks since there's no real criteria other than taste involved.

So, if you say photography is "Less" art than the David, then I can argue that the David is less art than photography and it's a "go nowhere" argument since they're just opinions.

But if I say that objectively both things are just as relevant, if you disagree you HAVE to give objective grounds for this otherwise you will end up falling into either absolute "It all sucks" or "It's all great" as only taste can tell one from the other and only at a personal level.

Laughter is enjoyment of comedy. So enjoyment of music is the objective criteria? I thought it said it didn't matter what people thought? By that reasoning Rachmaninov is doing something right after all. I'm sure if you said that at youngcomedians.com your comedic double would tell you to "get scraggy through your head".

It's disprepectful in the sense that a man on stage simply shouting gently caress and walking off doesn't require any comedic talent. Do you now see where I'm coming from? If you want to value that as much as your favourite comedian fine, but in your own words: "IT MEANS NOTHING!"

Well I gather you are 'pretending' to write something by watching this website to waste my time! Clever.. Impressive even!

lol you didn't get it;

The point was that comedy has an OBJECTIVE parameter, while music has none. Comedy has laughter, music has...? Appreciation is entirely subjective, laughter isn't.

Sure, people's tastes in comedy vary, but it's still a functional thing. People have comedy, because they like to laugh. You can tell the success of a joke because of the result it produces as it's objectively oriented to DO that. If it ISN'T it's not a JOKE and it's either poetry, a form of art of some kind, etc etc. Comedy has as it's prime and only objective to get a specific reaction, period.

Music, does not.

What about incidental music? Is it somehow more objective than concert/pop music? Does music that is put to a film have an objective criteria in which it can be judged?

For instance - a 12 tone piece playing during a love scene would make most people cringe, but it might work well in a monster or horror flick. Can its "fitingness" be objectively judged?

Of course - if the intent of placing the atonal piece into the love scene was acheived: did it enhance the scene in the way the composer and director intended?

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

Long as you don't fart while you're performing. I hear most people don't consider that viably artistic.

Unless your John Cleese playing a stuck up French solider.

"I'll fart in your general direction!"

Uh. I'll have to use the Xerox example to show why that is such nonsense. Taking a photocopy of a Bach's invention and saying it's your art is as valid as Bach's own invention, like it or not. It's a philosophical argument and an artistic one.

...

Personally, arguing that if philosophically impeccable, then it must be true, is dishonest. Maybe it's just an opinion of mine, but be it objective or not, I feel a photocopy of a Bach's invention... just a loving photocopy of a Bach's invention! Am I being so blind or stubborn?:(

Anyways, I agree that the effort put into a work of art does not matter at all. What I care is the final thing I get, be it the work of years or of ten minutes, or just the result of chance. Not that it is skillful, farting could still be artistically valid, of course. I'm not being ironic (not that much). I truly understand, 'cos I share it, the position of enjoying artistically what has not been commonly considered so -either some bird singing, or someone's fart (if I dislike the farting it's not because of its lack of merit, just a matter of personal taste). I really take pleasure, musically, in the silence home at night.

Now, let' us not be hypocrite. If we're going to apreciate silence, of farting, as music, let's change our artistic standards: I'm not going to go to a concert hall to listen to someone farting. That may be art, but perfectly free art, I'll just enjoy it on daily life. Just common sense, you know.

What about incidental music? Is it somehow more objective than concert/pop music? Does music that is put to a film have an objective criteria in which it can be judged?

For instance - a 12 tone piece playing during a love scene would make most people cringe, but it might work well in a monster or horror flick. Can its "fitingness" be objectively judged?

They are of course sub branches of music which have some kind of purpose behind them. That's fine. But to say music at large has an objective is silly and simply not the case.

I can right as well argue that a love scene can as well have any type of music in the background. We're not talking much about music now and more about context, cultural cliches and symbolic interaction. Just because a lot of people accept that "minor is sad" does necessarily make it objectively TRUE. It's just a statistical majority, nothing more, nothing less. It says nothing about the actual objectivity of said opinion even if it's held by a large group.

They are special cases where statistical majority opinions are sought out and used to a certain effect, but just as well it can fail if this opinion is not held by the viewer.

It's a little like comedy in that sense, sure. Different humor standards can make you "not get" or be insulted, etc by certain jokes. But the main idea behind comedy is always the same even if it didn't work practically for any given reason.

Comedy also works with the same "What the majority finds funny" and so on market research principles, but it's hard to say this is a sub branch of "comedy" rather then its entire purpose whereas music's main purpose is just as well as undefined as any other artform's.

For this matter we can also look at road signs as "art being used in an objective manner," and sure why not. A "stop" sign can as well be artistic despite it's non-artistic intention. But it does not mean that visual arts are therefore objective just because a branch uses symbolic interaction to get meanings across.

...

Personally, arguing that if philosophically impeccable, then it must be true, is dishonest. Maybe it's just an opinion of mine, but be it objective or not, I feel a photocopy of a Bach's invention... just a loving photocopy of a Bach's invention! Am I being so blind or stubborn?:(

K, see now, that is the point. A photocopy of Bach's invention is just as art as the invention itself. It's a byproduct of one but it can have it's own special meaning, artistic or not, due to context, circumstances, etc.

A photocopy is not, after all, a 1:1 reproduction. It's a photocopy, and you can tell it's a photocopy. The colors are faded into black and white, and you get little anomalies where the light didn't bounce back that well. It's as valid as taking a photograph of the David, it's NOT a 1:1 copy, and given an artistic context it can mean many things.

Like, say, a statement in how the modern world is based on copying older things and reviving corpses (never as accurate as the real thing?) Why not? If it causes outrage, if it causes thought, inquiry and indeed, if it causes a reaction (good or bad), it might as well be art.

Anyways, I agree that the effort put into a work of art does not matter at all. What I care is the final thing I get, be it the work of years or of ten minutes, or just the result of chance. Not that it is skillful, farting could still be artistically valid, of course. I'm not being ironic (not that much). I truly understand, 'cos I share it, the position of enjoying artistically what has not been commonly considered so -either some bird singing, or someone's fart (if I dislike the farting it's not because of its lack of merit, just a matter of personal taste). I really take pleasure, musically, in the silence home at night.

I can as well say that any sound, no matter what kind of sound, within a musical state of mind or context can be a musical element. That's just how amazingly flexible music can really be. You can take a tape of someone screaming in agony while they're being raped or tortured and use that as your main sound for a symphony. Where's the difference in "trying to imply it with violins" and simply playing a tape of the actual crude reality of such situations? Not many people will enjoy it, but it'll be powerful to say the least and it certainly has a lot more punch than dancing around it abstractly if we're talking about audience here.

Now, let' us not be hypocrite. If we're going to apreciate silence, of farting, as music, let's change our artistic standards: I'm not going to go to a concert hall to listen to someone farting. That may be art, but perfectly free art, I'll just enjoy it on daily life. Just common sense, you know.

Well, I'd also agree with this, but quantifying art in monetary value has always been and always WILL be bullshit. "A fart is not worth my money" because you hear it every day, how about if you heard a Mozart concerto every day, would you also not pay to go see it since it's so common as to be not worthy of monetary investment?

Sure as hell I don't pay or go to concerts where they play music I can just pop a CD in and hear it. What's the fun in hearing the same damn thing played ad nauseum by just about everyone such as the old classical warhorses? Likewise, I wouldn't go to a rock/pop concert since the tendency today is to try to emulate the exact CD sound, so why bother?

I'd gladly go to a jazz session, however, because people are actively creating things on the spot, improvising, etc. I'd go to modern music concerts because I can't hear this music regularly enough and certainly I'd pay to see and support the making of new music today EVEN IF IT MEANS a piece = 1 fart. I don't care. It's about supporting artistic liberties and freedom because I don't know if tomorrow I'll have an urge to write a concert piece that's just 1 fart, or maybe 2 farts if I'm feeling risky. Support people, and you'll be supported back, at least there's a good chance of that.

And likewise, don't do to others as you wouldn't like done to you. Automatically dismissing the "concert fart" situation is absurd since there are million things that may as well prompt you to attend or even actually make YOU write the damn thing yourself. Suppose someone you knew wrote it and you wanted to support their efforts, or you were hired as the "fart technician (LOL)" and had the intentions of getting paid at least something for the performance of the piece.

Besides, when you put something on a stage, it stops being mundane even if it is so outside of it. The context is different and certainly the reactions are different. The stage is a spotlight, it's like a looking glass or a prism, you see things but at the same time you're inclined or encouraged to always look for other ways to see it.

Like the Bach photocopy, if the "stage fart" piece causes a rise out of people, outrage, inquiry, caused a reaction what so ever, it's doing what art is generally known to do and as such is indistinguishable from any other artwork in that sense.

Well I think [photography] is [less artistic than painting].

wat?

You're really making yourself look bad. Stop it. :(

Good photography requires much of the same skills as good painting--all that can be contained in the term composition. The only point where painting is different is the technical issues of handling your brushes and colors and canvas well (much like the photographer has to deal with lenses, film, focus and exposure, which also isn't too damn easy), and those issues are really minor, technical and of the "anyone can learn it" variety. The hard stuff is the same.

I think your willingness to put down an entire art form that you evidently know very little about is very hurtful to your entire case, but that aside, it also seems to contradict your prior statements. If a fart-like sound produced by an exotic instrument or a sophisticated electronic music studio might as well be a fart, why might not a photorealistic painting just as well be a photograph? What is it that decides if you decide to value a work based on the end result only, or based on the nature (and skills and effort required) of its production? Make up your mind.

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

it's a little bit skewed Kantian take on the aesthetical - the thing is that, if you find something good, you will probably make a universal judgement and project it on everyone - if i like it, i may hope that any other being will like it as well. it's a base of any true judgement - being open. i may, as well, like anything that any other human being will like. there's no such thing as personal taste. at least, not in arts. all of it is intersubjective and its (arts) address is universal. not the taste matters, on the contrary - art is to transcend any particular taste (which is nothing else but a functional psycho-physiological habit - you like something because it gives you this and that, for example - emotions (rock and hip-hop being mostly popular among young people, cause their message is quite clear and has a simple function in the brain economy)).

now, when things come to really experiencing art, it goes completely to the contrary - no artist or open-minded listener has anything to do with getting interested in the function part of art. no. rather the goal is to get to hear something out of order, something new and open. and because of that art belongs to everyone and anyone can and must will that his experience of art be transcended - that is - be subject to a universal judgement (its possibility).

on the other note, it most probably is like this, because of human mind being not exhausted by psycho-physical laws. there's no way to get consciousness sorted out by physicalist reduction. thing like experiencing ('what is it like to see red?') colour, sound and etc. is still a strange animal among those neurons and fibres. consciousness is like a global opening, a little extra in the otherwise physical (as we know it from science) world. being that it could be the source of such things as art and love, things that human beings could really do without, for there's no necessary functions of art and love in the economics of world.

therefore, an experience of art is double - it breaks the rules of psycho-physical habit (saying that anyone can enjoy any work of art. that is its transcendental character), and , on the other side, because consciousness is known only from the first point subjective experience, it is usually thought that judging art is subjective, which is true, but, having in mind, that there's nothing individual in this subject.

to experience art he/she has already lost him/herself in the work of art.

If a fart-like sound produced by an exotic instrument or a sophisticated electronic music studio might as well be a fart, why might not a photorealistic painting just as well be a photograph? What is it that decides if you decide to value a work based on the end result only, or based on the nature (and skills and effort required) of its production? Make up your mind.

I think that's an excellent point, one that will no doubt require a lot of thought for me to attempt to properly counter! I'll make a quick stab at it!:

There is a big difference between a fart-like sound and a photo-realistic painting. A photo or painting of a landscape for example; who could build such a landscape? A recording of a fart or instrument that sounded almost exactly like a fart; who could produce a fart? Well anyone. If the end result merely looks good or sounds cool, but is easily produced by anybody with no skill, then your sole basis for it being good art is that you enjoyed it. In the grand-scheme of things, one person's enjoyment of a particular piece does not necassarily mean it should have great value within our society. Have you heard of the autistic, savante, bizarre yet genius twins who think that Dick Clark's show '$10,000 Pyramid is the greatest show on Earth? Should we therefore assume that showing re-runs of this program on prime time TV is good for cultural standards?

And in regards to photocopying being regarded as high an art as composition, you should think about why Bach's copyist is not as renowned or as revered as he. I have not yet heard of any school that accepts musicians under the pretense that they can merely fart or an art college looking for skilled photocopyists to become great artists.

How would you feel if you spent a year on a symphony only to have somebody photocopy your work and gain a higher reputation than yourself? How would you feel if you were Michaelangelo and you applied for the position of painter of the Sistine Chapel, only to find out that somebody with only the ability to draw 'squiggles' got the job. This would simply be a great injustice.

I can't remember exactly what recent artist said that he was irrelevant compared to the classical painters. He produced works that I really enjoy and possibly even more so than rennaisance art, but essentially he had a point.

Like the Bach photocopy, if the "stage fart" piece causes a rise out of people, outrage, inquiry, caused a reaction what so ever, it's doing what art is generally known to do and as such is indistinguishable from any other artwork in that sense.

There was a piece recently, as I mentioned earlier where an artist got a dog from off the streets, put it in an art gallery and left it to die in the name of art. It provoked a lot of concern and made lots of people sign a petition to stop this kind of thing from happening. It made people think, but it is not art. 9/11 made people think, and I hate to bring Stockhausen up since you care so much about his work (and he was taken out of context), but there is a point at which things can become objectively obsurd and disgusting. And is art that merely exists to provoke thought that meaningful? Everything makes me think, in fact I'd be hard pressed to find a single action that I did not analyse in some way. Why should things that make us think be automatically deemed as art? Surely it is the things that make us feel that have more artistic importance?

UMMMMM..........

Back to OP now.

When I first started composing, everything I wrote sounded quite horrible to me. Of course, I had some neutral people to ask for opinions (actually they leaned more to the antagonistic side, but whatever), so I could get their view of things. Now, whatever I listened to of mine that I disliked was usually what they disliked too.

I guess the first thing you should do is develop a good ear for what is right and what is wrong. A person who has listened to hard rock music all of their life will only have a simple (I think) view of what works and what doesn't work in a piece that is in a similar style to Beethoven. So, I think you should start listening to more music in a similar style to what you write in. That way, you'll be able to absorb the conventions.

Now, again, when I first started to compose, I didn't really listen to much classical music, so that might be the reason why it sucked! Now I listen to a lot more pieces and more variety of composers....

Right now, when I listen to a finished product of mine, I am quite surprised by how good it is. In reality, you yourself probably should have the harshest opinion of your own music and if you like your own music, then it probably is good.

You set the highest bar for your own work.

UMMMMM..........

In reality, you yourself probably should have the harshest opinion of your own music and if you like your own music, then it probably is good.

You set the highest bar for your own work.

I agree. Satisfaction is ignorance of what could have been!

K, see now, that is the point. A photocopy of Bach's invention is just as art as the invention itself. It's a byproduct of one but it can have it's own special meaning, artistic or not, due to context, circumstances, etc.

But why? It is very dishonest to think so. Why make claim to be something you are not; of course Bach's work more artistic than somebody copying it. If you can photocopy Bach's music does that mean you can write fugues in your head? No it doesn't!

If you don't think that, why do you even bother to write music of your own? When was the last time we went to a concert to watch a photocopier print out his manuscript? In my opinion doing so would be utterly pretentious and completely bizarre. Are you really as equally impressed by Bach's music as you are by somebody pressing a button on a photocopier? Are you as impressed by this : "#asodijaspoijad" as you are by a Voltaire quote? Would you be impressed if everything I said was a quote?

The things you say are the foundations of modern art, yet you said the art world was incredibly phoney? I don't see where you are coming from.

Bye! I need to go! Lovely to hear from you SSC, good to see you are refraining from being rude. Maybe this has not been a complete waste of time after all!

But why? It is very dishonest to think so. Why make claim to be something you are not; of course Bach's work more artistic than somebody copying it.

Prove it. I literally mean this. Prove it in objective, scientific terms. Otherwise? LOL OPINION, which invalidates just about everything else you've said as I can handwave it as "lol your opinion," which, essentially, proves my entire argument about subjectivity.

You can appeal at "well it's not as IMPRESSIVE!" but to me Bach's fugues are not really impressive either. I write fugues myself, why are his any better than mine? They aren't, nor are mine better. There's no objective truth here, only taste. What is objective is that either all art is equal, or all is scraggy. You can't avoid the absolutes as there's no objective quality to judge or decide by*. I've said this numerous times.

I won't address everything else as the point was not only grossly missed but you have quite literally backed yourself into an intellectual corner that, well, is embarrassing enough already. I won't try to make it worse.

---

*I addressed the exceptions to this in Marsbars' reply concerning film music and music with objective purposes, and how they're not representative but rather a branch of the overall artform itself. Thx.

K, see now, that is the point. A photocopy of Bach's invention is just as art as the invention itself. It's a byproduct of one but it can have it's own special meaning, artistic or not, due to context, circumstances, etc.

A photocopy is not, after all, a 1:1 reproduction. It's a photocopy, and you can tell it's a photocopy. The colors are faded into black and white, and you get little anomalies where the light didn't bounce back that well. It's as valid as taking a photograph of the David, it's NOT a 1:1 copy, and given an artistic context it can mean many things.

Like, say, a statement in how the modern world is based on copying older things and reviving corpses (never as accurate as the real thing?) Why not? If it causes outrage, if it causes thought, inquiry and indeed, if it causes a reaction (good or bad), it might as well be art.

Again, I cannot stand that conceptual "either everything sucks or everythings is just as valid" conclusion. Sure I can't prove Bach's invention is of more artistic value. Nor do I have any specific problem with the photocopy being a byproduct. Yet the fact that one can't prove it changes nothing, it still may be better -can I dare say so? I really think the invention IS more valuable!

I'm just as openminded as any. But the mere logical possibility that a photocopy can be more valuable (let's say just not less) than its original -in other words, the lack of proof against it- cannot be used as defense. That's fooling people with false arguments. Sure I can take a photograph of some work that's as worth as the work itself, but that doesn't legitimize every knucklehead with a camera.

Well, I'd also agree with this, but quantifying art in monetary value has always been and always WILL be bullshit. "A fart is not worth my money" because you hear it every day, how about if you heard a Mozart concerto every day, would you also not pay to go see it since it's so common as to be not worthy of monetary investment?

Sure as hell I don't pay or go to concerts where they play music I can just pop a CD in and hear it. What's the fun in hearing the same damn thing played ad nauseum by just about everyone such as the old classical warhorses? Likewise, I wouldn't go to a rock/pop concert since the tendency today is to try to emulate the exact CD sound, so why bother?

I'd gladly go to a jazz session, however, because people are actively creating things on the spot, improvising, etc. I'd go to modern music concerts because I can't hear this music regularly enough and certainly I'd pay to see and support the making of new music today EVEN IF IT MEANS a piece = 1 fart. I don't care. It's about supporting artistic liberties and freedom because I don't know if tomorrow I'll have an urge to write a concert piece that's just 1 fart, or maybe 2 farts if I'm feeling risky. Support people, and you'll be supported back, at least there's a good chance of that.

And likewise, don't do to others as you wouldn't like done to you. Automatically dismissing the "concert fart" situation is absurd since there are million things that may as well prompt you to attend or even actually make YOU write the damn thing yourself. Suppose someone you knew wrote it and you wanted to support their efforts, or you were hired as the "fart technician (LOL)" and had the intentions of getting paid at least something for the performance of the piece.

Agree with the concert thing. Now, if I EVER express my intention of writing a fart symphony, please prevent me from doing so, laugh at me, insult me, just you guys don't let me do so. ;) I might truly regret it afterwards.

...

Anyway, Maelstrom is quite right, this was once about someone whose opinion about some music collided with his friends'. The matter is all subjective, but that doesn't mean that any opinion is equally valid. Build your own judgement, really BUILD it, its not a I-like-this-I-don't-like-that thing. Listen to people views, but do not consider them all on the same level. Then if your views don't match with this one or that one, well, that's fine in itself, isn't it?