Modern music - trash?

Discussion in 'Off Topic Discussion' started by Mr. Disco, Jun 7, 2018.

  1. You know "hole" is slang for asshole? Maybe you should get that checked out
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. -tyler

    -tyler My trial was filed as a crazy suicidal head case. VIP Bronze

    Well, actually most things I believe are subjective.
    Someone could view anything as evil when to me it really is not.
    And, the only reason this thread turned to influence wasn't because of the original thread creator.
    The simple question was, is modern music now trash?
    My stance is:
    1) Modern music is wayy easier to make than before
    2) The most popular songs nowadays aren't as lyrically meaningful as before
    3) I do NOT care about the influence of music, that doesn't make the song trash, in my opinion.
    4) What makes a song trash for me is, bad lyrical content, there's no story to be told, the instrumentals are just lacking, and the singing isn't even that great.

    Influence has NOTHING to do with whether or not a song is bad or not. A song being bad or good, is all in the ears of the listener.
    You keep brushing off music being subjective as if it doesn't mean anything, it kinda does my guy.
    If a song has a bad influence on kids, that doesn't mean I'm going to consider that song trash. Maybe there is a song or two about violence and drugs. That I actually like.
    Just listen to your music and stop caring about "influence."
     
  3. Yes, it wasn't @Mr. Disco 's intention for this thread to turn to this you're right, lol. And like @Opalium first said, he prefers not to bring this kind of level into the discussion, for the obvious reason of the last 2 pages of this thread. Be that as it may, it happened.

    On you four "My Stance" points, you are 100% right.

    If I understand you correctly, you don't believe in moral absolutes. I am not brushing off that music is subjective insofar as liking the way it sounds or not. That is a given, and is always in the ear of the listener.

    Allow me to illustrate this with a hypothetical scenario:

    Song A has content that promotes violence, etc., all that bad stuff. However, it is written and sung in a way that is pleasing to the ear. So, subjectively, it is a good song. Since you believe that music is purely subjective, you don't concern yourself with the fact that the content is objectively wrong/not good, even though some bits of the song talk about murder, etc., in a positive light.

    On top of this, (not saying you do, but you did say you might consider what others think good bad and vice versa) you may not disapprove of these things sung about at all, since you are a relativist, and you believe that decision is down to each individual, i.e everyone decides what is right and wrong for themselves, with no rule that everyone has to follow.

    And why should we care about "influence", you say? Well, imagine Individual A, who is not an upright member of society, maybe has some mental issues, etc., listens to Song A. A lot. And one day, he decides he is going to go out and emulate what is sung about in his favorite song, Song A. He heads out his door, probably on some drugs, with a knife in his pocket. He encounters a relative of yours, who shares the same views as you. Now, Individual A doesn't care that you or your relative never told him what he did/listened to was wrong. You never believed it was wrong. That doesn't matter to Individual A, who, deciding for himself it wasn't the wrong thing to do, stabs your relative to death. Suddenly, you might start to think that the content of Song A was objectively wrong, and you might start to care a lot more about the influence such content has on people who consume it.

    The truth is that the content of this song is wrong, it's bad. Even if the song is subjectively good, as in likeable, pleasing to the ear, it's objectively bad because of what is sung about in it. And letting every individual decide what they think is right and wrong, with no objective, unchanging rule of good and bad is the literal description of anarchy.

    I understand this is a rather extreme example, but it is far from unrealistic. I based this off what I gathered of your beliefs reading your responses, and hope I did not misunderstand you.

    I hope this helps. I am open to learning new things as well, but so far what I have heard in this thread is people saying we shouldn't care about destructive influences in popular entertainment. If that extends to not caring about the glorification of violence and other wrongs in music, I don't see there is much to learn there. Of course, that presupposes that you believe that violence is objectively wrong.
     
  4. Han

    Han       VIP

    here's my quick 0.02 since I have been a little active with ratings in this thread.

    I don't think you have a good definition of what makes music objectively bad. The content is nearly always irrelevant, it's the actual musicality of the song. People do not like songs where the vocalist is awful and out of tune. People do not like songs where the guitarist is bad at playing their instrument and botches the solo every time. That is objectively bad music, because they're just bad at making music that the majority of people would find below their standards. The technical skill is just not there.

    Objectively refers to something that is not influenced by personal views or feelings, but the things you've defined in a previous post ( uplift, inspire, and deepen ) are subjective things that vary based on the personalities and experiences of separate individuals. What inspires me may not inspire you; what uplifts you may not uplift me. The only things thing that I really define as objective here is if the musicians are actually good at what they do. And even then, it can get complicated because some people love the "so bad, it's good" genre. But that's the standard I personally set to judge if music is objectively good or bad.

    What you seem to be missing is that to judge objectivity, you need to have a standard that both parties agree on. For me? I don't care if music is divisive, race baiting, or a "bad influence". I don't care if it doesn't uplift, inspire, or deepen. I reject that "good" music has to be ( or not be ) any of those things. I can appreciate the musical value - if it's there - in songs that talk about all sorts of mature, even disturbing, subjects, even though I may not choose to listen to that. It's still not "objectively bad" music. You disagree? That's fine, but stop waving around the fact that some music you dislike is "objectively bad" like it's the trump card in an argument, because it isn't.

    I've rated you dumb for a couple different points - rap and the black community, attributing music to the "decline" in society, but the repetition of the objective good and bad spiel is the primary reason. I don't know if you realize this or not, but you come across as being a music elitist to the point of ridiculousness. It's not enough that your preferred genres might sound better or be the result of hard work and passion versus computer generated everything. Now, certain music you don't like is damaging to society itself. That it will seriously injure humanity. That allowing mindsets that approve certain genres of music is to "court our own destruction". I'm sure you have good intentions, but what you are doing is just voicing moral panic over a music genre.

    Just to touch on the point you made about influence and why I don't see it as an issue: I'm not going to deny that music does influence us, as humans are susceptible to being influenced, but whatever effect violent media has - whether it is in film, literature, or music - it is ultimately not the motivating factor in violent acts. Crime is heavily linked to poverty, mental health, and social conditions. To blame media for something that happens is to turn a blind eye to the true issues. Furthermore, the percentage of people who are truly going to commit violent acts due to media is incredibly low. Censoring music with adult themes under the guise of upholding standards is going to stop 0.000001% of violent acts. Why not ban men from being at playgrounds? Overwhelmingly, males are more likely to be child molesters. Should Muslims be banned from flying on airplanes? What about TTT, a game that revolves around murder, deception, and terrorism? Why not ban that because of the danger it poses to our society? These are absurd arguments, but under the logic you're outlining, they would make sense.

    That's all I got really. Feel free to respond if you'd like, but I'm not really in the mood to keep this type of argument going. It's not really worth arguing about music to this extent. You're free to believe all that you do about music, but honestly, you're just going to end up wasting your time trying to spread an idea like that on the internet.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Togo ✿

    Togo ✿ Nobody Gets it VIP Silver

    After studying this thread for many months and gathering information, I've come to two conclusions.
    1. Animals is the best Pink Floyd album
    2. It Was Written is as good as Illmatic
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. I noticed lol. Thanks for your response, and it was a lot better than I was expecting; kudos. I'll try to keep this short, but I will inevitably end up repeating myself.

    I want to address your last point first, yes, this is not really worth the time I have spent, and my ideas will likely not gain much traction at this venue, as you said. Still, I would like you to know my true intentions aren't to be elitest, or push my tastes in your face, but I genuinely want to see people have better lives, and that is what I am working towards. Yes, this forum post is not doing much at all for that, but you get the idea.

    As to the first two paragraphs of your reply, I apologize; what's happening here is it's unclear where the topic of this thread went from good and bad in the area of how music sounds, to good and bad in terms of what is being sung about, the content of the song. Posts got long and rambling and a little out of order.

    To your third, I already addressed, unfortunately, this form of communication lends itself very easily to disguising the true attitude of the author/listener. I know we all have experienced that.

    As to the influence part, first I have a question: what good reason can you think of for defending the use of content for songs that glorifies violence, drugs, general lawlessness? I find it slightly strange how this is something to be protected. Obviously, we have to be careful of inhibiting free speech, but the wanton promotion of content that goes against the very order of society? Where is the good in that?

    I can recommend some reading to you on the subject, but our society is definitely in decline. That isn't to say we can't pull up out of this nose dive, but we are certainly not as good as we once were. Consider the late years of the Roman Empire, before it collapsed: immorality, vulgarity, lawlessness, all things which in the early days of the empire, while never non-existent, were at least shunned, discouraged, and in some instances prosecuted. Towards the end, they abounded, and were "normal", "approved", not unlike present day America. There is no arguing that a society that upholds the dignity of life and its people, shuns violence and indecency, is going to do better and last longer than one that does not. That's thermodynamics in a very real sense: the maintenance of good order.

    Yes, music of an objectively wrong nature is not the primary cause of societal ills, such as in the black community, you are correct. It is a symptom of larger ills, but it isn't to be discounted, and I pointed that out because this thread was on the subject of music. We can have a whole other thread on poverty if you wish. I would contend, however, that these kind of influences account for a lot more than the 0.000001% you state. I have already shared some documentation towards this, and I will provide more if you wish.

    Back to the decline, the music is a very real indicator of where are society is at: if we are going to sing about violence, rape, drugs etc., how very real and strong must the presence of such evil be in our society, that we are entertaining ourselves with it?

    I found your three examples quite interesting. You will notice I never proposed banning this music outright. Men on playgrounds: banning this is like banning guns,and I would not advocate for it. How about we address the problem behind the pedophilia? Muslims on planes: not going to do much; on that note, though, Islam is a real issue, nothing good has come out of it, and it will have to be dealt with; subject for another thread. TTT: you make a good point. It is certainly not the best way for any of us to spend our spare time, but I don't see it as being the huge problem that exists elsewhere. It's largely comedic in nature, and I would consider it more akin to a sport. Now, games such as Postal or Manhunt: those are real problems and certainly not doing us any good; and I would say it would be pretty damn hard for anyone to find a good reason to defend those. Same goes for movies, etc., that have no merit other than just endless killing, violence, sex, etc.

    Like I said, a lot of this is the result of larger issues within society, but that doesn't automatically discount the relevance of these as more specific problems as well.
     
  7. Pffff
     
  8. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ic-gang-influence-turner-20151105-column.html
    Quick article I found on the subject. Some food for thought there. Not many people from many different locations should know as well as the man interviewed here.

    Also consider this: cult activity, such as what culminated in the events at "Jonestown" is somewhat similar: large numbers of people enamored by the preachings/discourse of their leader figure. You can bet that the thousands of dedicated fans of a musical artist are going to take very seriously what he says, such as the encouragement and promotion of criminal activity.