WMN: t3_2mesct_t1_cm3nquu--TIO1

[TITLE]

CMV: Trap is objectively bad music

[WithPipeAndBook]

First of all, I want to say that there is room in this discussion for personal preference. Obviously music enjoyment is not some scientific enterprise. There is music that I don't enjoy listening to, but understand how others could or see quality that I can appreciate. Likewise, everyone has those guilty pleasure artists/songs where we know they're bad, but love them anyway. In either case, there is something *about* the music that we find good, whether an infectious melody or well-constructed lyrics or a wailing solo. Which returns me to trap. I find nothing about it aesthetically or musically appealing. I can't relegate it to "I'm not into it, but can see why others do" because I can't see why others like it, which is why I turn to you, Reddit. My objections are as follows: (1) Minimalism works against it. Minimalism in music is not always bad. I listen to other Electrohouse or DnB artists who use it to great effect. It creates a great tension-and-release element to a song and when used well is orgasmic. This tension is a staple in the Trap "sound", replacing the forceful Dubstep drop for a super low drone with a high minimalistic melody (generally speaking). On an subjective level, this is musical blue balls, but I think I can make a case for this on a more objective level. The reason the EDM staple of build-drop works is because of the tension-release cycle. It's like those amusement park rides that take you up 300 feet and then, well, drop you. The exhilaration and force of the drop is sharpened by the slow buildup. Trap, on the other hand, employs an almost identical build, and then the contrasted lack of sound at the drop serves as a different kind of experience. Imagine if instead of dropping the full 300 feet, the ride drops you 50 feet. You dont expect the stop and theres this juxtaposition of released tension and even more anticipation. Trap as a genre embraces this latter example as its core, never rleasing the tension fully. As a result, instead of effectively building a proper tension-release cycle, Trap leaves the listener unfulfilled. Possible rebuttal to (1): The amusement park model doesn't work for Trap. In that case, what is a better model with which to consider Trap? (2) Absence of complexity. I'm not looking for Mozart the DJ. Just something that gives the illusion of compositional knowhow. 1-3 note melodies are firstly boring and secondly a sign that the producer has no musical talent. I would like skill in my music. Trap as a genre feeds the instrumental-fetishist argument that electrobic music takes no skill because they don't play a "real instrument". EDM can do so much more, and I've heard it do so much more. Just never in this genre. Possible rebuttal to (2): (a)You're just being a snob and using it as an excuse for your subjective dislike. Possibly, but I don't think so. Even if the bar were set really low (like One Direction low) maybe the best choruses of Trap (that are distinctly Trap, not simply elements of other EDM genres which automatically set the majority of trap above 1D) could surpass them in terms of quality. Maybe. (b)Other genres have plenty of unremarkable musical complexity. Agreed; however no genre (aside from Ambient Drone) makes melodic simplicity a defining feature of the genre itself. (c) Simplicity is not always bad. Agreed. Some composers use simplicity very well and for a variety of aesthetic effects. My argument is that Trap does not. It's likely that I won't enjoy Trap music after this thread, but I do want to understand those that do like it, and if they like it, whether they actually think it constitutes quality music. Thank you. Edit1: Formatting Edit2: This is not "CMV: We can make objective judgments about aesthetic matters". My view includes as a presupposition that there is an objective (but limited) element to the appreciation of music. Edit3: I am referring to "Second Wave" characterized by heavy electronic music influences, rather than the original Trap which was a Hip-Hop offshoot. Edit4: Examples incoming Example 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZB_tXP84WU This is a fairly standard (in my mind) example of Trap elements. 808 steady drone with high-hats composing the background for a melody of, lets face it, one note with some ornaments. Example 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t_eU3tdy2g Remix also including elements mentioned above. Better than most, but only just. Example 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL9OzPY4byQ Changing up the formula a little with this one. The downtempo nature brings something different to the table, and its minimalism actually contributes to its overall feel. Definitely not the norm, though. Example 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYBLylKa-vI 10 songs that could serve as an adequate standard for what I mean by "Trap". Note that my argument is not that all sound the same, but that the similar features are the defining features of Trap, and that those features in themselves constitute poor music.

[GridReXX]

[STA-CITE]>Trap is objectively bad music [END-CITE]But it gets the people going. "Good music" is relative. I hate "trap music" when I have a headache and and/or driving to work. I'd rather zone out on classical or mellow jazz or Enya or FKA Twigs. But I hate classical when I'm trying to take shots and "turn up" for a party unless that classical is mashed up with trap music. Haha. You're attempting to objectify what people find sonically enjoyable.

[Glory2Hypnotoad]

You're claiming to make an objective aesthetic judgment yet your criteria are completely subjective. You haven't made a case for why complexity is inherently better than simplicity. The sentence you begin with "on an objective level" leads into a description of the subjective experience of the music. I don't think you have a firm grasp on what objectivity means.

[eli_way]

...Oh man you're really playing with fire here. I guarantee you that the "objectively bad trap music" you're referring to is loved by MANY, maybe just not you. I also guarantee that there's some trap out there that you'd love even. It's all subjective. Your definition of "good musicianship" is skewed and formed by contemporary trends by the way. In terms of the "one to two note melody" argument, take into consideration that Mozart built entire symphony movements off of four note motifs. There is no "bar" in music. Every song ever made is liked by someone or another. Sure, some songs are liked by more than others, but that doesn't make it "objectively bad." That's just the nature of art.

[PotatoMusicBinge]

[STA-CITE]>...a melody of, lets face it, one note with some ornaments... [END-CITE] [STA-CITE]>...those features in themselves constitute poor music... [END-CITE] According to the standard critical canon of "good music" a limited melodic range is not in itself a negative thing. There are hundreds of acclaimed and successful songs with similar melodic complexity to the one you posted. For example, Bob Dylan's [Subterranean Homesick Blues](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP4XP8CaX7k)

[billingsley]

You're right. I don't see how people accept violence in rap music. Dont see how the defend it.

[durkdurkistanian]

I would say that trap music is fairly complex in its beats, which is fairly easy to achieve with computer generated music. Your main argument may be with its lyrics, or completely subjective. For instance, I don't care for music not created with actual instruments. I don't want to live in a world where the best coder is the best musician.

[zinnenator]

You make numerical references to the argument and counter argument with the same digit haha? Anyway, theres nothing objective about this, I surprised you'd even try and include 'objectively' (questioning taking you seriously) but whatever, willing to discuss. The fact that you talk about all trap and electronic music as within/compared to EDM makes me think you're a rider of the [EDM bubble](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emily-orrson/lovestep-crunkstep-broste-edm_b_5594181.html). We can't really understand what you define as "trap" or "good EDM/electronic" unless you provide at least an example of both. Most of the trap that comes out/played in a *EDM* set is absolute shit (Diplo kinda shit). There are a lot of lesser known trap/future artists that put out a lot of good stuff on Soundcloud thats far better/more moving than popular EDM. EDM is exceptionally repetitive these days... Either way most of the depends on what you define as trap.

[WithPipeAndBook]

The second "1." is supposed to be "2." something went wrong in the formatting [STA-CITE]>_> [END-CITE]I do hold that aesthetics have some objective standards by which we can determine various levels of quality. I would like to discuss some of these determining factors apart from "enjoyment", which is my category for positive subjective tendencies towards a particular thing. I meant EDM to be electronic music broadly conceived, so I apologize if my language was vague. You're right about examples. I'll do some digging and see if I can post some. My exposure to Trap is broader than Martin Garrix, I assure you. If you could also post some of the quality Trap you mentioned, I would appreciate it. It would certainly be evidence against my current view.

[HiiiPowerd]

Trap didn't originate within EDM - that came about in 2011/12. Trap is a Hip-Hop sub-genre - you need to do some reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_(music) The problem with using the word 'Objective' is I get the distinct feeling I probably despise all the 'EDM' you listen to. Your taste is entirely subjective, and so is mine. There are objective qualities we can apply to individual artists, songs, albums - but it's impossible to do so for something as broad as a genre - at most you could criticize specific recurring elements within a genre. But today, in this case, you don't even have a basic understanding of 'Trap'.

[WithPipeAndBook]

My ignorance of its history is a fair criticism, but limited. Insofar as those specific recurring elements are definitive to the (in my experience, which could be changed via counterexamples) genre (or at the very least "Second Wave" Trap), and by that I mean that were they absent, it would no longer be considered "Trap", I think I can make generalizations about the genre. It's quite possible we have entirely different tastes. That's besides the point. Let me give you an example. I can't stand virtually any electronic genre/subgenre with "-core". It gives me a sharp headache after about 2 minutes. I would much rather listen to Trap than Hardcore. I still consider Hardcore, as a whole, better music.

[HiiiPowerd]

I mean are you at all familiar with trap (as a hip-hop genre)? It sounds very little like the EDM stuff. Trap would be Triple 6 Mafia, UGK, 8Ball & MJG, T.I., etc. By the way "second wave" in that article does not refer to the EDM movement.

[ultrasawblade]

Music can be listened to with the mind (appreciation of structure/content), heart (appreciation of expressed emotion), or body (where it arouses physical sensations in you). Trap is body music - you aren't supposed to sit down and listen to it and ponder it, you're supposed to be drunk at a club dancing/moving/trying not to tip over your red Solo cup to it in the presence of other drunk people. Also that type of music is designed to be part of DJ mixes, so there is less emphasis on what a single song does than if it can play well with other songs in a mix.

[KruxOfficial]

I partly agree, and would rate trap as inferior to Neurofunk, Dubstep and stuff like that. --- But firstly... you can't generalise the whole genre into "it's all shit", there is such thing as good trap music, but you need to know where to look. For Example: [Aero Chord - Warfare](https://soundcloud.com/trapmusic/aero-chord-warfare-edmcom-exclusive), hybrid trap; combining the overall style with more complex and interesting sounds... I like it. [Aero Chord - Richochet](https://soundcloud.com/trapmusic/richochet-by-aero-chord). Aero Chord again, with more use of interesting basses. [Krux - Ninad](https://soundcloud.com/kruxofficial/ninad). Combining the trap 808s with neuro basses. So I think that saying "all trap is bad" is not fair, but I'd agree that most of it sounds empty. --- Secondly, we have to consider how accessible it is for the 'general public'. Its simplicity does it good when you have to flog it off to a load of drunk/high ravers with no appreciation for production value. And [pounding neurofunk](https://soundcloud.com/inspected/teknian-disprove-ordure-lockheed) is something of an acquired taste, and wouldn't work in a music festival.

[the-incredible-ape]

[STA-CITE]>Trap is objectively bad music [END-CITE][STA-CITE]>I want to say that there is room in this discussion for personal preference. [END-CITE]Well, which is it? Is personal preference valid or is there an objective standard of music? These two ideas are fundamentally incompatible.

[WithPipeAndBook]

As I and others have stated multiple times, this is not a thread about which qualities in aesthetic judgments are objective, subjective, or don't fit nicely in either category. That said, where subjective reasons may not change my view, I hold them as valuable insights into why people have their personal preferences.

[the-incredible-ape]

Well, you shouldn't have made the view to be changed "trap is objectively bad" then. What IS the view you want changed?

[HiiiPowerd]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_(music) You are talking about trap offshoots from 11/12 on - not the two decade + history of trap music. Aside from trying to shove subjective opinions into 'objectivity', you lack a basic knowledge of trap music. You would do well to educate yourself on it's history - and the fact you are actually referring to small portion of trap music

[WithPipeAndBook]

This is a fair criticism, but I think it is limited. I will edit my original post to reflect that I am referring to "Second Wave" Trap, characterized by its blend of electronic music and hip-hop roots.

[Indon_Dasani]

Addressing point 2. A lot of very popular music [has extremely similar chord progression](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOlDewpCfZQ). Is that a sign the musicians lack skill, or that pop music has musical simplicity as a defining characteristic?

[WithPipeAndBook]

Ah I love Axis of Awesome :D You pose a good question, one that I can address in a couple of ways. Considering "pop music" as a genre is arguably problematic, since it is defined by popularity rather than musical style, but that's not a huge problem. It could be either. If large proportion of an artist's songs lack in quality, or are super simplistic, we might say that that artist lacks skill. For most of the artists in the video, we can point to songs which display their skill in other songs they have written and performed, and so redeem them from the charge of lacking skill, despite them also writing a song using the most generic chord progression ever. I have yet to be pointed toward a Trap song that displays skill in the way one can say about some (but not all) of those Pop artists. I do, however, think that Pop music, similarly to Trap, has simplicity as an endemic part of the very genre. It has to appeal to a mass audience, and that's just easier if the music is simpler.

[Indon_Dasani]

If simplicity increases accessibility, then doesn't it provide an objective benefit along with the associated downside, bringing judgment about the music's quality back to being subjective?

[WithPipeAndBook]

I would argue that accessibility is not a benefit for music in itself. Accessibility is a means to an end (fame, mass appeal, etc), whereas complexity contributes to quality of music as its own end. Objectivity entails that it does not depend on the appreciation or acknowledgment of others.

[Indon_Dasani]

But don't people benefit from enjoying music? If you consider the goal of an artist to cause such joy, then there are two ways you can readily increase it - increase the intensity of the joy per listener, or allow for more listeners. Both ultimately have the same result - to increase aggregate musical experience.

[Albaek]

You need to consider that Trap is literally made for the big stage. It's the music of festivals, clubs and events. It contains simple beats and melodies that everyone is able to dance and follow. The simplicity just makes it more accessible, so I wouldn't consider it a bad thing considering most of the people aren't fully focused on the song (or fully focused in general, i.e. under influence(s)). Take for example the opposite end of the electronic music genres. Glitch Hop and Complextro are often very complex in both melody and beat, which makes them hard to dance to - especially if you're not fixed on following the music. Most of the popular House and Pop music follow the same progression towards simplicity.

[WithPipeAndBook]

I think this is a good explanation for its popularity. Accessibility is a huge factor in virtually all popular music genres. Of course, I have similar criticisms against the quality of Pop and many mainstream House artists. Trap seems to have in simplicity as its essence in a way that other genres have by accident of being mainstream/accessible. Except maybe big arena House, as you mentioned. I also happen to be a fan of Glitch Hop and Complextro, so take that for what you will.

[KarmaCasino]

Let's for a moment forget about the actual compositional qualities of trap music and think more about its application. From my experience, the only time I ever really hear trap music (as a person who would not choose to listen to trap as a genre frequently) is when I'm in a club that's playing it, or when someone puts it on at a house gathering or something along those lines. Trap is loaded with extremely simple verbal hooks, which are absolutely great to shout out with your friends after a few beers or when you're in a party environment. I have the exact same opinion with Oasis, I find their music to be bland and unendurable if I listen to it whilst sober, but I will always grab a friend and sing along if it's played in a social situation. Now imagine that scenario, but with an individual being exposed to trap more and more frequently, until the point where it "grows on them" for lack of a better term. The first time I heard Sugar Coated Sour by Dillinger Escape Plan, I thought Mathcore was just pretentious noise and unlistenable, but now it's my favourite genre. People may understand that the music itself isn't the most groundbreaking step on into songwriting, but it fits its purpose, and that's why it's good.

[WithPipeAndBook]

I like this argument. Considering music as being-for-something is not how I usually conceive of it, but seems a valid perspective that sidesteps my criticisms. My criticisms still persist (Trap and Oasis may both be bad music), but on this view Trap can be (in some sense) appreciated apart from those criticisms.

[-HZ-]

The title itself has a little ambiguity in the use of 'bad': does this mean that it is bad as in unappealing, unenjoyable & low quality, or bad as in negatively contributes to society... or both. Since the idea of it negatively contributing to society would be an extremely complex issue that couldn't be covered by the lengths of your post and mine combined - I'm going to assume you mean 'bad' as in unappealing/unenjoyable. It seems that a lot of what you seem to believe is 'objective' about the quality or enjoyability is instead your preferences being projected onto to all perspectives that exist - this is the problem in your arguments. - I think I can make a case for this on a more objective level. The reason the EDM staple of build-drop works is because of the tension-release cycle. Works in what way? Appealing to you, appealing to everyone, or appealing to the audience? EDM isn't loved by everyone, so it can't be the second option. Trap clearly has an audience, so the third is out as it 'working' wouldn't distinguish it from trap as your post suggests. - It's like those amusement park rides that take you up 300 feet and then, well, drop you. The exhilaration and force of the drop is sharpened by the slow buildup. Yes, but the experience is personal and to what extent it is enjoyed subjective. Some people (even though they are a visibly smaller group) really just enjoy this initial buildup. - Trap, on the other hand, employs an almost identical build, and then the contrasted lack of sound at the drop serves as a different kind of experience. It's different. This doesn't mean it's bad. - Imagine if instead of dropping the full 300 feet, the ride drops you 50 feet. You dont expect the stop and theres this juxtaposition of released tension and even more anticipation. Except the fans do expect the stop and it's the restrained feeling of it that may be appealing as you still hold some of that built-up tension while the music continues. - As a result, instead of effectively building a proper tension-release cycle, Trap leaves the listener unfulfilled. What do you mean by 'unfulfilled'? Do you mean that all of the tension was not properly removed? The trap fans still feel fulfilled at the end, but they achieve this by seeking a different experience from you: you expect a build and release, while they expect to retain the build beyond the peak, maybe because they enjoy the tense feeling as you enjoy the feeling of being thrilled. Our experience of tension and thrills is completely subjective in itself, so the perceived quality of different tracks in EDM - which is mainly based around pursuing a certain experience that audience finds enjoyable (this extends to a large proportion of music) - would be subjective. - Absence of complexity. I'm not looking for Mozart the DJ. Just something that gives the illusion of compositional knowhow. First - why? Second - isn't the use of simple strings of notes and rhythm to create a precisely defined experience in itself demonstrative of some 'compositional knowhow'? Third - this is what you're looking for, which doesn't necessarily apply to everyone or to an objective gauge of quality. - 1-3 note melodies are firstly boring Subjective - and secondly a sign that the producer has no musical talent. Talent is unlearned skill. I suppose you mean to say skill, in which case I addressed this above. - I would like skill in my music. How would you gauge the skill of a composer? Also, this part is about what you'd like. - Trap as a genre feeds the instrumental-fetishist argument that electrobic music takes no skill because they don't play a "real instrument". Really the 'instrumetal-fetishist argument' isn't a valid argument as what is a 'real instrument' is completely arbitrary so whoever uses the argument is trying to rationalise their stubborn view. This means that whatever supposedly strengthens this argument actually doesn't because there is no argument. - *EDM can do so much more, and I've heard it do so much more. Just never in this genre.* Personal experience; subjective; etc Just so you know - I'm not a fan of trap either. Edit: formatting

[WithPipeAndBook]

Thank you for addressing my arguments directly, and showing their flaws. * I'm going to assume you mean 'bad' as in unappealing/unenjoyable. This is not what I intended to conclude; I meant "bad" in terms of musical quality, but if my arguments never got there, then they failed. * It's like those amusement park rides that take you up 300 feet and then, well, drop you. The exhilaration and force of the drop is sharpened by the slow buildup. Horror works in a similar fashion. The book/movie/game builds tension with atmosphere, hints at danger, etc. Then when the actual scare comes, the tension is released, fulfilled. If the tension is too long without any release, or there is no tension built between releases, the particular horror effect stops working. It would be a worse effect than were it done properly. These metaphors was supposed to give a model for why Trap's use of the tension-release cycle doesn't work. By this particular "doesn't work", I mean that given the model, there is an absence of "release" in Trap. It seems that there are two ways to argue against this. (1)Arguing that Trap in fact has a properly functioning tension-release cycle, I just don't see it. (2)Giving a different model that better explains Trap. * Absence of complexity Looking back on my argument for (2), I see how lacking it is, and how unnecessary the sarcasm is. * isn't the use of simple strings of notes and rhythm to create a precisely defined experience in itself demonstrative of some 'compositional knowhow'? This is a good point. It does, but only minimally. I would argue that the particular precisely defined experience may not display quality in composition. The reason I use "composition" is because electronic music is concerned with composition in a way other genres are not. * How would you gauge the skill of a composer? Use of controlled complexity and displaying creativity or originality are large factors. I do have to concede, however, that Trap could be seen as having great use of rhythm, if not melody. Hip-hop and genres influenced by hip-hop are pioneers in exploring the depths of rhythm. I say "could be" because I don't think it succeeds. Trap seems to forego rhythmic complexity of its influences (at least in the heavily electronic-influenced Trap I have identified in the examples in the edits above). If it is present, it is only as bits of flavor on an otherwise immobile central rhythm line. So Trap fails both melodically and rhythmically. * Talent is unlearned skill. I suppose you mean to say skill As you pointed out, I wrongfully used the terms interchangeably. * Really the 'instrumetal-fetishist argument' isn't a valid argument You're right. Not only is this a bad argument, but it's at best a straw man. :( *Subjective...subjective...subjective You're right to point out my imprecise language. Given my bold claim in the title, I should have been more careful to weed out the preferential parts of my argument. I think there is a difference between "subjectivity" and "opinion", but you rightfully pointed out where I was actually subjective. * Personal experience I would love to be proved wrong by personal experience :)

[-HZ-]

- By this particular "doesn't work", I mean that given the model, there is an absence of "release" in Trap. It seems that there are two ways to argue against this. (1)Arguing that Trap in fact has a properly functioning tension-release cycle, I just don't see it. (2)Giving a different model that better explains Trap. Trap as a genre hasn't got the conventional tension-release cycle - this is its appeal to some: the tension is retained or released slowly, leaving the listeners in a tense/strong/'pumped' state which they enjoy. For others, such as yourself, this is uncomfortable. This is where the subjective nature of art and music applies as the audience of tap music enjoys the experience while others don't and these differences are the reason for the diversity of genres. - Trap seems to forego rhythmic complexity of its influences (at least in the heavily electronic-influenced Trap I have identified in the examples in the edits above). If it is present, it is only as bits of flavor on an otherwise immobile central rhythm line. So Trap fails both melodically and rhythmically. Trap as a genre doesn't require the 'rhythmic complexity' that you seek in music - and this is a part of its appeal; we have already identified the appeal of its simplicity to some as the minimal use of sound provides a precise experience. Trap only 'fails both melodically and rhythmically' if you define success as having complexity or appeal to yourself, both of which are arbitrary terms based on your subjective preferences in music. Some people enjoy the simplicity or don't want particularly intricate music as they prefer the experience rather than the message or beauty: club music and ASMR are examples of this. - I would love to be proved wrong by personal experience :) Of course this music isn't for everyone. But if you want to try to enjoy trap or genres with similar appeal, try focusing on how you feel when listening to the sounds as opposed to what you hear - the sounds have noticeable effects on your senses; try to immerse yourself. This isn't guaranteed to work.

[WithPipeAndBook]

Again, thank you for your helpful responses. I've done some real thinking, thanks in large part to your critiques, and think I've changed some of the assumptions I hold which have led to the view in this thread. I have not changed my particular view about, yes, the objective lack of quality that, if not essential to the Trap genre, is nearly universal. What I have changed is the idea that this matters. I'll do my best to explain myself. First, (1)I draw a sharp distinction between "quality" and "enjoyment". One can enjoy poor quality music. A couple of my mistakes were thinking that (2) there is any way to put that respectfully without sounding pejorative or like I have a stick so far up my ass that it's coming out my mouth and (3) that a lot of others share this opinion as an assumption to how they look at music. One of my all-time favorite bands whom I love dearly has a history of poor quality music. I love their lyrics and I love the "sound" that the band creates, but only recently have they proved themselves as being good technical musicians. On the one hand, I really enjoy this band; on the other, I don't consider them extraordinarily skilled musically. I hold both those views without cognitive dissonance. Not many people do, though. They equate aesthetic pleasure with aesthetic quality. Another one of my assumptions that has been debated in this thread is that (4) we can make objective judgments about music. This view has not changed. This is not to say that music is wholly objective. Furthermore, the fact that music has strong subjective elements does not negate those objective elements. I don't enjoy a lot of music that I respect as having quality in creativity, originality, complexity, structure, etc. Some of it I can't stand. I still think they're quality compositions and performances. Is there an objective qualitative difference between "Bohemian Rhapsody" and "Shake It Off"? Of course. Can someone find more enjoyment in "Shake It Off" than "Bohemian Rhapsody"? Of course. Just because the criterion for making such a claim isn't immediately obvious doesn't mean we should discount the claim. Just as "music is an entirely objective matter" is false, "music is an entirely subjective manner" is false. So why, if enjoyment can be separated from quality, do I voice the claim that a particular genre is of poor quality? What's the point? Here we come to my next assumption: (5) We, as listeners, ought to support good quality music rather than poor quality music. I still hold this. We expect physicians to treat afflictions well. We expect Olympic runners to be fast. We expect construction workers to create quality buildings that will stand strong. Art is not so different. Why do we think J.K. Rowling is a better author than Stephanie Meyer? Because she created characters in meaningful relationships with depth and realistic motivations in a well-realized fantastical world rather than empty caricatures driven by shallow desires in an ambiguous and incomplete world. That millions enjoyed Rowling's work is just as irrelevant with respect to literary quality as the fact that millions also enjoyed Meyer's work. So I've explained what hasn't changed in my views. I'll now explain what has. (6)Belittling an entire genre, whether in one's mind or on the internet, will aid in accomplishing (5). This was implicit, but present as one of my presumptions. Honestly, I should know better. The only thing this thread would ever accomplish is to anger those who enjoy Trap. You don't build something up by breaking it down. If I truly want electronic (and hip-hop) to advance in quality, I can't go around saying its developments aren't good. It's not useful, it's not helpful, and it's not fair to the creators within the genre. (7)A genre can be essentially poor in quality. You're absolutely right; my first argument is terrible and doesn't show anything with regards to Trap's quality. Genre differences are style differences, and those have no bearing on quality. My argument is bad and I feel bad. Furthermore, the implied assumption, (7a)all Trap music is bad, was also shown false. /u/KruxOfficial gave 3 examples of what I have to admit is good quality use of Trap genre conventions. Do I *enjoy* them? Not particularly. Do I think they show care, attention to detail, and skill in combining a number of styles and expressions? Yes. (8)Music should be judged only in itself. /u/KarmaCasino and /u/ultrasawblade pointed to music's appropriateness in certain situations. This is an aspect I neglect in my assessment. Certain music is good *for* something else. This doesn't so much deny my views as it lessens the efficacy of my evaluation, even if successful. Do I think (8) ought to be emphasized more in our culture? Absolutely. But I can't hold that it is the *only* way to approach music. I think this is in large part what you were trying to encourage in me with your evaluations(or perhaps as I considered your posts while keeping my distinction between enjoyment and quality); and without belittling me as I have done Trap. There is a diversity of purpose in music, and getting rid of those experiences wouldn't do anything to actually advance music meaningfully. Lastly, (9) I have been thinking clearly and objectively in my evaluation of Trap music. This is not to say that I reject (4). I still think there are objective means of evaluating quality in music. My reasoning on the basis of that assumption, however, has been of poor quality. I give complexity, for instance, far too much weight in evaluations. I still think it holds *some* objective weight, but clearly not as much as I have been giving it. I acknowledge that I have failed to adequately defend my views, although I am remiss to give up some of them entirely. In light of my changed views, I resolve to promote quality music for the enjoyment of all, without putting down the work of others. And so, to you, /u/-HZ-, I give my Delta. ∆

[-HZ-]

For the second half of your post - it's great that you are able to reflect on your own views, scrutinise them and transform them so as to improve your outlook and clear your thought process somewhat; this ability is admirable. For the first half of your post, which was mainly about whether music can have an *objective* quality and that we can assess this: it is certainly possible that music has an objective quality, but how this quality is assessed would be completely based on the intended and interpreted functions/purposes of the music as each function would demand more of one characteristic and less of another. An example would be the function of providing enjoyment vs the function of communicating a profound message - the former would have the use of sounds to create a desired feeling as one of the main aspects of its 'quality' while the latter would have clarity and innovation as a main part of the quality; these are only two examples out of an unknown but extremely large amount of possible functions. The fact that the quality could be assessed by both *interpreted* and *intended* functions/purposes also adds another extremely large amount of variables to assess. Even if you want to disregard the *intended* part of this, the amount would be too large to count. Furthermore if one were to find some sort of way to assess the *objective* quality of music that doesn't require any subjective input then it would be represented by a matrix of objective functions(based on all possible purposes that music could have) that would be essentially impossible to represent or calculate. This is all without even defining and justifying any criteria. It's better to just leave music to subjective evaluation, right?

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/-HZ-. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/-HZ-)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[EroticCake]

There is no such thing as objectively bad music. It's entirely subjective. THAT is an objective fact - some people probably enjoy listening to the literal grinding of gears. It would be incorrect for me to go up to them and say "that's objectively bad" - because the very fact that someone DOESN'T think it's bad nullifies the statement. How you experience music is an entirely subjective phenomenon. It's impossible to rationally argue otherwise.

[FlipflopFantasy]

Artists have said it before and I'll say it again, it's not supposed to be taken seriously, it's supposed to be fun.

[Snafu_Coaxer_2013]

It's very, very easy to argue that music isn't entirely subjective, and indeed most people think that there are at least some objective elements to music (as attested to by that fact that, for the most part, people seem to agree on what music is good. While it might be hard to find a song that the majority of people like, it's very easy to identify songs that are 'classics' within a period or a genre, that the majority of people who like that period or genre will like)

[EroticCake]

But a majority =/= everyone. All it takes is one person to disagree - then it's subjective.

[Snafu_Coaxer_2013]

Not at all: Firstly, you've said music is 'entirely subjective'. Now, assuming you mean that musical *quality* is entirely subjective, what you've implied is that there are no objective elements to musical quality. I would say that people's widespread agreement on what music is good and, more importantly, *why* particular music is good, would suggest that there are in fact objective elements to music Secondly, it's entirely possible that someone who disagrees could be *objectively wrong*, so it's more complicated than simply 'all it takes is one person to disagree' Thirdly, subjective doesn't mean the same thing as 'people perceive it differently'. Something is *subjective* if the truth of it is dependant on the person saying it. 'I like this song' is a subjective statement. 'This is a good song' might not be. EDIT: To expand on my third point: Almost all subjective statements are statements about *yourself*. It's unusual to find a statement that is subjective and about an object (e.g. a song) divorced from someone's feelings and sentiments towards it. The fact that we make a distinction in language between 'music we like' and 'good music' would suggest that people feel like there is a serious distinction between those ideas.

[EroticCake]

How could someone be subjectively wrong about something as subjective as music quality? It's impossible. It would obviously be OBJECTIVE to say something like "Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon is regarded as a classic of the psychedelic genre" because clearly it is. But that is NOT the same as saying "Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon is objectively the best example of a psychedelic album" because then someone could come along and say "Hang on - I actually think King Crimson's In The Court of the Crimson King is a better example"... and you reasonably wouldn't be able to refute them. You can explain why YOU think particular music is good - but I could equally explain why I think that particular piece of music is not good. I could enjoy Cannibal Corpse for their use of uncommon time signatures, their heavy riffs and the crushing vocals - and you might find these same things completely inaccessible and boring. Neither of us would be objectively right or wrong.

[Snafu_Coaxer_2013]

Then why is it possible to give *aesthetic reasons* for things? Like, for example, Cannibal Corpse's uncommon time signatures. Also, you haven't addressed the fact that it's *highly unusual* for a sentence that doesn't refer to a subject (e.g. 'this a good a song') to be a subjective one (or, rather, have more subjective elements than objective ones). If what you were saying were true, the statement 'This is a good song' would actually be incorrect always, because it takes the form of a sentence that is describing the properties of an object (note that this might actually be a valid position to take, many people take similar sentences on things like ethics, where they believe that ethical propositions are statements about your own emotions that are structured to look like statements about properties of the world, but that people are mistaken in doing this). Another thing to remember is that subjectivity is not the same as something being socially constructed. If you believe, for example, that what constitutes 'good taste' in a society is determined by the people with the most cultural capital (e.g. the most educated, accredited people), it would follow that musical quality is both socially constructed *and* objective

[cyrusol]

Even if _everyone_ agreeing to something doesn't make it objectively right. Something is objectively right if the presumptions are true and it can be concluded from them consistently. Some basic assumptions cannot be proven true of course, i.e. axioms.

[vethlock]

You can't say its objectively unenjoyable if someone else enjoys it. But you can say that its objectively devoid of complexity, subtle nuances, creativity, and other factors that make up a piece of music. Its good music for people to dance to that don't know how to actually dance, but the music itself has no meaningful content. Its an example of laziness from the composer and musical ignorance from the people who find it to be mentally stimulating.

[Sadsharks]

Why should complexity, nuance and creativity define what's good or bad? Since when is "meaningful" the same as "good"? Things don't need to be mentally stimulating, thought-provoking or innovative to be good.

[vethlock]

I never said that those things define how "good" or enjoyable a piece of music is.

[EroticCake]

Musical ignorance or otherwise, it's still subjective. What I find nuanced and sophisticated you might find shallow and boring. What does "meaningful" mean? When do a collection of sounds become meaningful? There must be some kind of musical threshold where music stops being bad and starts being good if what you're saying is correct. If it can't be defined - it must not exist.

[vethlock]

You know nothing about composition, harmony, and rhythm if you think that trap music is equally or more sophisticated than things like bebop and various forms of classical music. Music can be broken down theoretically and mathematically, the theory behind Liszt piano pieces are being studied by undergraduate music students at serious music colleges. An ignorant amateur could not easily break down everything that is going on in a Liszt piece, but any decent musician would have no problem understanding everything going on in a trap song immediately. You could not find me a trap song that features drum beats and melodies that I (a self taught amateur) couldn't easily emulate on real instruments. Ask me to solo over giant steps though, and I would look like I'm the shittiest musician ever. There's nothing objectively wrong with trap music, I'm just saying that it doesn't require serious thought to compose or understand it, which is an indicator that it is a bland, unsophisticated form of art. Edit: is your name a Guthrie govan reference?

[EroticCake]

I don't think it's equally or more sophisticated for reference - but the point I'm making still stands. The opinion is still subjective, even if unpopular.

[vethlock]

The opinion of enjoyment and "good" or "bad" is subjective. The complexity of a piece of music isn't subjective and can be measured. The more things that are going on in a piece of music the more complex it is, its as simple as that.

[ghostofmybrain]

[STA-CITE]> What I find nuanced and sophisticated you might find shallow and boring. [END-CITE]That's all personal opinion. I used to think rap was shallow and boring until I learned more about it. But is it possible to say that something is *objectively* shallow and boring *even if* others enjoy it? For example, I could say *objectively* that plain white walls are lacking in complexity compared to "tie dyed" walls, but I may still *prefer* them. Can we talk about the objective qualities of music, or is it impossible?

[EroticCake]

You can talk about objective qualities of music, what key a piece is in, what instruments are playing, the time signature etc. - but saying that any piece of music is OBJECTIVELY more nuanced or complex is wrong. I'm sure if you showed Mozart ANY piece of trap music he'd be fucking AMAZED with how complex the strange electronic sounds in the music are. It's completely in the eye of the beholder. I might find the very subtle differences of shading as light hits the white wall more nuanced and complex than the tie die wall - which I could find obnoxiously colorful. Complexity in this regard is subjective.

[vethlock]

He would be amazed with the software that they use to make music, but I can assure you that he would dismiss the compositions themselves as garbage. He was writing vastly more complex music under the age of 10 than some of these trap artists have ever written in their life.

[ghostofmybrain]

[STA-CITE]> OBJECTIVELY more nuanced or complex is wrong. [END-CITE]Why? It seems like nuance or complexity would be incredibly easy to define. For example, a human is objectively more complex than a bacterium. [STA-CITE]>he'd be fucking AMAZED with how complex the strange electronic sounds in the music are. [END-CITE]Complex? Wouldn't he be more amazed with how strange they sound rather than how complex they are? [STA-CITE]>Complexity in this regard is subjective. [END-CITE]It really sounds like you're just making up definitions for words. Complexity doesn't have to do with your perception. It could easily be defined by a particular rubric of some sort.

[EroticCake]

Okay, then what's the rubric? Who get's to make up this rubric?

[ghostofmybrain]

I don't know. I'm just challenging your view that complexity is some how subjective.

[n6ap1z]

Seriously - I wish this sub would just ban these kinds of CMVs. "I think x sucks because I don't like it and can't see why others like it. CMV." I can't get somebody to like a certain song or genre just as much as I can't get them to like a certain flavor of food.

[limerick_santorum]

[STA-CITE]>There is no such thing as objectively bad music. [END-CITE]To expand on this, there's no such thing as objectively bad anything. The definition of bad is predicated on subjectivity.

[PotatoMusicBinge]

Oh man. Yesterday I tried to convince someone that it is possible to argue that war is not objectively bad. It did not go down well.

[limerick_santorum]

The problem is that a lot of people assume that if everyone agrees on something, that means it's objectively true. Even if literally all 7 billion humans agree that "x is bad", the criteria that they're applying is necessarily subjective because "bad" doesn't have an objective definition.