Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie Whitmarsh
Would you not agree that evolving as an artist and getting to know yourself better often can cause you to write 'better'?
I agree with your second paragraph, but not with your first. To me, I can see something that someone else wrote and say "That is good, but I don't like it" The two are separated because while I can hear the composition and I can study it and I can see all the intricacies and the form and all that stuff, I can see that it's good. None of that factors into my personal tastes, however. I know examples are tough to use, but let's take some Schoenberg. I hate listening to Schoenberg. I've heard 5 or 6 of his pieces and I hated them. We studied a few in Theory class. I saw all the work that went into these 12 tone pieces. I can recognize that they are very well done. But I still don't like them.
I don't know if that clarifies what I mean or if it's just me repeating myself again, but I hope that helps clarify what I think.
|
Well, that's the thing though, I guess your definition of "good" is something which shows effort according to you, or elaboration, or something along those lines. I think process music pieces are really neat and good, but they're extremely plain and often aren't more than a couple of instructions or a diagram or two. I happen to like this sort of thing quite a lot, so that's why I say I find it "good."
But when it comes to "bad" I don't really think there's "bad" music, just different tastes. I'd rather say "this isn't my thing" than "this is shit." I'm more generous with my standards, I guess.