Two things.
One. I would only turn this into an intellectual exercise sometimes. But when you are assessing the quality of a year's music that would be one of those times. Many other times you just listen and enjoy.
Two. People are influenced by all sorts of factors even when they think they aren't. One factor being people would not like to think they have poor taste in music, would they?
Perhaps you could answer the first two questions I posed as I'm a tad confused as to where you stand on the measurement of 'quality' when it comes to music. To me it seems like you're kind of talking in riddles instead of stating your opinion clearly.
So I guess you're saying that it's not possible to measure the 'quality' of a year's music since no one can listen to all the music released in a year? Or that you can't measure music 'quality' anyway as it's all just down to personal taste?
To answer the questions then.
Well if you were able to listen to all of the music produced in a year then you would have a much better chance of assessing the quality of music in that year. But the quantity is so great that it is unlikely anyone could listen to it all. Therefore you are at best going to listen to a sample of music from any year and that sample is not going to be randomly selected it is going to be the music which you are exposed to. And we all filter what we like and what we don't like. We're quite selective about our tastes, quite biased actually.
On the second question, most of the posters here are simply saying that quality in music is simply the music which they enjoy, that's a personal, subjective, biased standard not an objective standard. Quality has to have some objective element. In other words there is good music around which you as an individual don't enjoy but it is still objectively good.
What's actually good? The criteria you use have to be concerned with composition, performance and production at least. Then there is innovation, complexity, variation, genre identification, musical and social context. (Then you might consider factors like influence over time, so music that is not immediately recognised of quality will be through reassessment over time. Not possible in one year really). Some music never gets the recognition it deserves.
For example, The Wire magazine picked Julia Holter's album 'Loud City Song' as one of the best albums of the year. I have listened to that record a number of times now. And through her older stuff and whilst it may not be my immediate personal taste, I have to recognise that this is quality in music.
Another example, If you want a simple measure, many polls/charts have Daft Punk's 'Get Lucky' as the best song of the year. And I like it myself. But when a song that would probably have been no more than an album track in Chic's heyday is considered the best song where does that put the quality threshold?
If it's just about music you enjoy, how would you know if 2013 is any good?
In my reply I said for me, personally, it has been a good year for music. Many artists i like have produced new music and most of it I have enjoyed and I have also discovered many new bands.
All you are talking about is your own journey, what's that got to do with quality?
I don't go in for all this psychobabble about "the sound track to my life" or "my musical journey". It is music, end of. I either like it or I don't.
How do you define "quality"? Music is purely subjective, of course you can look in terms of musicianship, production quality, etc, but people connect to music on a purely personal, emotional, level. It is like comparing CD and vinyl. In purely technical terms a CD should out-perform a vinyl album on every level but people who love vinyl have an emotional attachment for the format, and it is the same with music.
In my reply I said for me, personally, it has been a good year for music. Many artists i like have produced new music and most of it I have enjoyed and I have also discovered many new bands.
I don't go in for all this psychobabble about "the sound track to my life" or "my musical journey". It is music, end of. I either like it or I don't.
How do you define "quality"? Music is purely subjective, of course you can look in terms of musicianship, production quality, etc, but people connect to music on a purely personal, emotional, level. It is like comparing CD and vinyl. In purely technical terms a CD should out-perform a vinyl album on every level but people who love vinyl have an emotional attachment for the format, and it is the same with music.
I have an exceptional taste in music according to the one person who matters... Me.
Whether you think I have a good taste in music is irrelevant, as I listen to music for my enjoyment and not to gain the approval of others.
I've always considered that many of the youth of every generation, have "tunnel vision" when it comes to music. So many seem oblivious of some great music of all genres that has been instantly available for many decades.
A lot of music of any era, could be considered "throw away" but there's so much more that is enduring.
Much of today's offerings are bland concoctions churned out from little more than music factories, accompanied by raunchy videos in an attempt to increase sales.
My tastes ranges from pre war "big band" recordings, the classic "standards" singers of the forties and fifties, USA pop of the fifties, Motown and some more contemporary pop.
In fact I'll listen to anything with a good tune and sung well.
Why do you think record execs are so different from yourself?
And why wouldn't execs or music writers who hear far more music than any of us know a little about what's good?
If it's just about music you enjoy, how would you know if 2013 is any good?
All you are talking about is your own journey, what's that got to do with quality?
Your taste might be rubbish, I don't know. I've only your word for it.
Because I know my own tastes, something no one else on this planet does.
Anyone who tries to convince me that I have bad taste in music can f*** off quite frankly. I like what I like and no one will tell me otherwise.
I called called a hipster on another forum when I posted my top 5 albums of the year. Why do people get called hipsters just for liking something that is not in the mainstream? It's all bullshit.
Anyone who tries to convince me that I have bad taste in music can f*** off quite frankly. I like what I like and no one will tell me otherwise.
I called called a hipster on another forum when I posted my top 5 albums of the year. Why do people get called hipsters just for liking something that is not in the mainstream? It's all bullshit.
I think far too many people essentially "confine" themselves to their chosen genre of music and push that at the expense of everything else being "crap". But then it's as subjective as you liking what you like I suppose.
Me, I love all music, in all it's forms. Apart from possibly Himalayan Whistle Music
Because I know my own tastes, something no one else on this planet does.
Only if you studiously avoid YouTube, Amazon, iTunes, Spotify and Tescos. Otherwise somebody knows exactly what you like. It's a conceit to think we are that eclectic anyway. For me it's only if we do listen what others say that might be good that we actually expand our horizons.
I think far too many people essentially "confine" themselves to their chosen genre of music and push that at the expense of everything else being "crap". But then it's as subjective as you liking what you like I suppose.
Me, I love all music, in all it's forms. Apart from possibly Himalayan Whistle Music
Yes!
Remember "South American Pan pipes?" they became "flavour of the month," even naffin' albums of 'em were released. Now you never hear them....thankfully!
In my town centre you often do, they play chuffin' Hallelujah and stuff
Actually I think pan pipes are very peaceful, that doesnt mean the style goes with every song.
To answer the questions then.
Well if you were able to listen to all of the music produced in a year then you would have a much better chance of assessing the quality of music in that year. But the quantity is so great that it is unlikely anyone could listen to it all. Therefore you are at best going to listen to a sample of music from any year and that sample is not going to be randomly selected it is going to be the music which you are exposed to. And we all filter what we like and what we don't like. We're quite selective about our tastes, quite biased actually.
On the second question, most of the posters here are simply saying that quality in music is simply the music which they enjoy, that's a personal, subjective, biased standard not an objective standard. Quality has to have some objective element. In other words there is good music around which you as an individual don't enjoy but it is still objectively good.
So if no one can really say just how good or bad a year in music has been it's not really worth over-analysing it then? It just comes down to what each individual thinks depending on their tastes and what they've listened to, which is basically what people have been saying.
What's actually good? The criteria you use have to be concerned with composition, performance and production at least. Then there is innovation, complexity, variation, genre identification, musical and social context. (Then you might consider factors like influence over time, so music that is not immediately recognised of quality will be through reassessment over time. Not possible in one year really). Some music never gets the recognition it deserves.
For example, The Wire magazine picked Julia Holter's album 'Loud City Song' as one of the best albums of the year. I have listened to that record a number of times now. And through her older stuff and whilst it may not be my immediate personal taste, I have to recognise that this is quality in music.
Another example, If you want a simple measure, many polls/charts have Daft Punk's 'Get Lucky' as the best song of the year. And I like it myself. But when a song that would probably have been no more than an album track in Chic's heyday is considered the best song where does that put the quality threshold?
Critics aren't that different to anyone else. They may be trying to be objective but the music/genres they cover and their ratings are still influenced by their personal taste and subjective opinion. That's why when it comes to these end of year lists you'll see wild variation, some genres poorly represented and loads of stuff just completely overlooked.
So if no one can really say just how good or bad a year in music has been it's not really worth over-analysing it then? It just comes down to what each individual thinks depending on their tastes and what they've listened to, which is basically what people have been saying.
Critics aren't that different to anyone else. They may be trying to be objective but the music/genres they cover and their ratings are still influenced by their personal taste and subjective opinion. That's why when it comes to these end of year lists you'll see wild variation, some genres poorly represented and loads of stuff just completely overlooked.
I think you need to read the first post again because you have just stated almost the exact opposite of what I said.
High quality or just plain good music is an objective standard and I've listed the criteria plus given you examples of where quality is not about about personal taste. The Julia Holter example is to illustrate the idea that even though I don't personally like her music, I recognise that it is of a high quality. It is well composed, uses complex rhythms and words, interesting sounds and is quite innovatory in its approach and it's crossing of genres. It came out in 2013. I don't happen to like any of the songs on the album but it is music of a high quality, irrespective of whether I like it or you like it or think it's good. And I'm sure there are many more examples.
Indeed I am suggesting ways of removing personal taste from the assessment. I don't know if I can express this any more clearly. And critics are different or at least good ones are, because they try to apply some sort of standards to their work. You don't have to agree with them and they don't always get it right but they show the music the respect it deserves.
I thought 2013 was an excellent year for new music, in the fields that I am passionate about - Blues, Roots [ including RnB - the original RnB, not the pop rubbish we also have - Americana, Folk, Acoustic, World, Celtic ] and also Rock.
I wanted to put together a Top 20 for my radio show and ended up listing nearer to 50/60 that I really enjoyed. And I think that 2014 is shaping up to be as good.
Just ignore the lists that the likes of the BBC put up, who are more interested in trying to drop cool names, than recommend properly good tunes!
I think you need to read the first post again because you have just stated almost the exact opposite of what I said.
High quality or just plain good music is an objective standard and I've listed the criteria plus given you examples of where quality is not about about personal taste. The Julia Holter example is to illustrate the idea that even though I don't personally like her music, I recognise that it is of a high quality. It is well composed, uses complex rhythms and words, interesting sounds and is quite innovatory in its approach and it's crossing of genres. It came out in 2013. I don't happen to like any of the songs on the album but it is music of a high quality, irrespective of whether I like it or you like it or think it's good. And I'm sure there are many more examples.
Indeed I am suggesting ways of removing personal taste from the assessment. I don't know if I can express this any more clearly. And critics are different or at least good ones are, because they try to apply some sort of standards to their work. You don't have to agree with them and they don't always get it right but they show the music the respect it deserves.
I haven't misunderstood what you're saying but why do you assume that people aren't applying those objective measures? Obviously people are going to concentrate on what they enjoy but that doesn't mean they haven't put any thought into why they enjoy it and why they think it's good. And it doesn't mean they think that's the only good music or that everything they don't like is bad music.
But at the end of the day, personal taste and some subjectivity does always come into it, even with the best critics. Just as no one can listen to all the music released in a year, no one can truly like and appreciate all types of music equally. Personal opinion always plays a part somewhere.
I haven't misunderstood what you're saying but why do you assume that people aren't applying those objective measures? Obviously people are going to concentrate on what they enjoy but that doesn't mean they haven't put any thought into why they enjoy it and why they think it's good. And it doesn't mean they think that's the only good music or that everything they don't like is bad music.
But at the end of the day, personal taste and some subjectivity does always come into it, even with the best critics. Just as no one can listen to all the music released in a year, no one can truly like and appreciate all types of music equally. Personal opinion always plays a part somewhere.
I wasn't assuming anything. I was reading the posts.
In earlier posts it was all down to personal taste, now it's about why it might be good.
You can't make a judgement on whether a year's music is crap or not based on personal taste.
Your second point is much closer to my point of view, personal taste is difficult to marginalise when making evaluations but you have to try.
I wasn't assuming anything. I was reading the posts.
In earlier posts it was all down to personal taste, now it's about why it might be good.
You can't make a judgement on whether a year's music is crap or not based on personal taste.
Your second point is much closer to my point of view, personal taste is difficult to marginalise when making evaluations but you have to try.
Maybe, but I didn't really take it as literally as you. As I said, when people are deciding what they think of the year in music they are going to concentrate on what they've enjoyed listening to. That doesn't mean they haven't applied any objectivity to the stuff they've enjoyed or that they can't appreciate that there is other good stuff around.
I took it more as people saying they don't need to be told by someone else if it's good or not because they can apply their own objectivity based on their own knowledge and experience of the type of music they're listening to. Not that their own taste and the music they've enjoyed is the only measure of whether it's been a good or bad year but that it's the most important one for them.
As we've already established that all anyone can ever really have is a snapshot of the year in music and that personal taste and opinion will always play a part when assessing music, I don't really see a problem with that.
I feel a bit of a cliffhanger surrounding what I shall think about music in 2014. 2012 was my worst year since 1996 but 2013 my best since 2005. So how will this music rollercoaster continue?
I wouldn't judge a year of music based on MTV and BBC's lists - though I'm interested in quite a few names on the list, Sam Smith, Ella Eyre, Banks, MNEK and Joel Compass in particular.
I don't see these lists as trying to set a trend, or the "sound" of a year, but more as promotion for up and coming artists which is only a good thing in my opinion.
I've always considered that many of the youth of every generation, have "tunnel vision" when it comes to music. So many seem oblivious of some great music of all genres that has been instantly available for many decades.
A lot of music of any era, could be considered "throw away" but there's so much more that is enduring.
Much of today's offerings are bland concoctions churned out from little more than music factories, accompanied by raunchy videos in an attempt to increase sales.
My tastes ranges from pre war "big band" recordings, the classic "standards" singers of the forties and fifties, USA pop of the fifties, Motown and some more contemporary pop.
In fact I'll listen to anything with a good tune and sung well.
This is a good post but I have to point out the irony that you made this in reply to Glawster2002, who is far from the 'youth of today' (sorry mate ) and he is a huge rock/metal fan so doesn't tend to listen to the music factory stuff.
I suspect he'd also raise the point that for every young'un today who refuses to listen to anything more than a year old, there is an old'un who refuses to accept that music made today can be just as good as music made when they were young. Good new music has just become harder to find from mainstream sources.
Critics aren't that different to anyone else. They may be trying to be objective but the music/genres they cover and their ratings are still influenced by their personal taste and subjective opinion. That's why when it comes to these end of year lists you'll see wild variation, some genres poorly represented and loads of stuff just completely overlooked.
I've read plenty of reviews in my time which start.. " I don't know why the editor has asked me to review this band's <album/gig>, they know I can't stand them..."
This is a good post but I have to point out the irony that you made this in reply to Glawster2002, who is far from the 'youth of today' (sorry mate ) and he is a huge rock/metal fan so doesn't tend to listen to the music factory stuff.
I suspect he'd also raise the point that for every young'un today who refuses to listen to anything more than a year old, there is an old'un who refuses to accept that music made today can be just as good as music made when they were young. Good new music has just become harder to find from mainstream sources.
Apology grudgingly accepted.... :D
I know plenty to will happily spend hours telling you there has been no good music produced since 1976! I, however, think there is as much if not more good music around today as there was 10, 20, 40, 50, years ago.
As you say, the real difference today is how narrow the music range covered by the mainstream is today compared with in the past.
2013 wasn't a great year for me - 4 of my favourite acts released a new album and none of them were among the best stuff those artists have released. Didn't really find any new exciting acts this year either. Chart pop music from the bits and bobs I hear was pretty damn awful as well.
2014 promises a new Mew album so I can't be all bad!
Comments
clearly .. it's all about "real" music don't ya know ?
every year is a good music year because there's always good music out there.
To answer the questions then.
Well if you were able to listen to all of the music produced in a year then you would have a much better chance of assessing the quality of music in that year. But the quantity is so great that it is unlikely anyone could listen to it all. Therefore you are at best going to listen to a sample of music from any year and that sample is not going to be randomly selected it is going to be the music which you are exposed to. And we all filter what we like and what we don't like. We're quite selective about our tastes, quite biased actually.
On the second question, most of the posters here are simply saying that quality in music is simply the music which they enjoy, that's a personal, subjective, biased standard not an objective standard. Quality has to have some objective element. In other words there is good music around which you as an individual don't enjoy but it is still objectively good.
What's actually good? The criteria you use have to be concerned with composition, performance and production at least. Then there is innovation, complexity, variation, genre identification, musical and social context. (Then you might consider factors like influence over time, so music that is not immediately recognised of quality will be through reassessment over time. Not possible in one year really). Some music never gets the recognition it deserves.
For example, The Wire magazine picked Julia Holter's album 'Loud City Song' as one of the best albums of the year. I have listened to that record a number of times now. And through her older stuff and whilst it may not be my immediate personal taste, I have to recognise that this is quality in music.
Another example, If you want a simple measure, many polls/charts have Daft Punk's 'Get Lucky' as the best song of the year. And I like it myself. But when a song that would probably have been no more than an album track in Chic's heyday is considered the best song where does that put the quality threshold?
In my reply I said for me, personally, it has been a good year for music. Many artists i like have produced new music and most of it I have enjoyed and I have also discovered many new bands.
I don't go in for all this psychobabble about "the sound track to my life" or "my musical journey". It is music, end of. I either like it or I don't.
How do you define "quality"? Music is purely subjective, of course you can look in terms of musicianship, production quality, etc, but people connect to music on a purely personal, emotional, level. It is like comparing CD and vinyl. In purely technical terms a CD should out-perform a vinyl album on every level but people who love vinyl have an emotional attachment for the format, and it is the same with music.
I have an exceptional taste in music according to the one person who matters... Me.
Whether you think I have a good taste in music is irrelevant, as I listen to music for my enjoyment and not to gain the approval of others.
I've always considered that many of the youth of every generation, have "tunnel vision" when it comes to music. So many seem oblivious of some great music of all genres that has been instantly available for many decades.
A lot of music of any era, could be considered "throw away" but there's so much more that is enduring.
Much of today's offerings are bland concoctions churned out from little more than music factories, accompanied by raunchy videos in an attempt to increase sales.
My tastes ranges from pre war "big band" recordings, the classic "standards" singers of the forties and fifties, USA pop of the fifties, Motown and some more contemporary pop.
In fact I'll listen to anything with a good tune and sung well.
Because I know my own tastes, something no one else on this planet does.
I called called a hipster on another forum when I posted my top 5 albums of the year. Why do people get called hipsters just for liking something that is not in the mainstream? It's all bullshit.
I think far too many people essentially "confine" themselves to their chosen genre of music and push that at the expense of everything else being "crap". But then it's as subjective as you liking what you like I suppose.
Me, I love all music, in all it's forms. Apart from possibly Himalayan Whistle Music
Only if you studiously avoid YouTube, Amazon, iTunes, Spotify and Tescos. Otherwise somebody knows exactly what you like. It's a conceit to think we are that eclectic anyway. For me it's only if we do listen what others say that might be good that we actually expand our horizons.
Yes!
Remember "South American Pan pipes?" they became "flavour of the month," even naffin' albums of 'em were released. Now you never hear them....thankfully!
Actually I think pan pipes are very peaceful, that doesnt mean the style goes with every song.
Critics aren't that different to anyone else. They may be trying to be objective but the music/genres they cover and their ratings are still influenced by their personal taste and subjective opinion. That's why when it comes to these end of year lists you'll see wild variation, some genres poorly represented and loads of stuff just completely overlooked.
I think you need to read the first post again because you have just stated almost the exact opposite of what I said.
High quality or just plain good music is an objective standard and I've listed the criteria plus given you examples of where quality is not about about personal taste. The Julia Holter example is to illustrate the idea that even though I don't personally like her music, I recognise that it is of a high quality. It is well composed, uses complex rhythms and words, interesting sounds and is quite innovatory in its approach and it's crossing of genres. It came out in 2013. I don't happen to like any of the songs on the album but it is music of a high quality, irrespective of whether I like it or you like it or think it's good. And I'm sure there are many more examples.
Indeed I am suggesting ways of removing personal taste from the assessment. I don't know if I can express this any more clearly. And critics are different or at least good ones are, because they try to apply some sort of standards to their work. You don't have to agree with them and they don't always get it right but they show the music the respect it deserves.
I wanted to put together a Top 20 for my radio show and ended up listing nearer to 50/60 that I really enjoyed. And I think that 2014 is shaping up to be as good.
Just ignore the lists that the likes of the BBC put up, who are more interested in trying to drop cool names, than recommend properly good tunes!
But at the end of the day, personal taste and some subjectivity does always come into it, even with the best critics. Just as no one can listen to all the music released in a year, no one can truly like and appreciate all types of music equally. Personal opinion always plays a part somewhere.
I wasn't assuming anything. I was reading the posts.
In earlier posts it was all down to personal taste, now it's about why it might be good.
You can't make a judgement on whether a year's music is crap or not based on personal taste.
Your second point is much closer to my point of view, personal taste is difficult to marginalise when making evaluations but you have to try.
I took it more as people saying they don't need to be told by someone else if it's good or not because they can apply their own objectivity based on their own knowledge and experience of the type of music they're listening to. Not that their own taste and the music they've enjoyed is the only measure of whether it's been a good or bad year but that it's the most important one for them.
As we've already established that all anyone can ever really have is a snapshot of the year in music and that personal taste and opinion will always play a part when assessing music, I don't really see a problem with that.
I don't see these lists as trying to set a trend, or the "sound" of a year, but more as promotion for up and coming artists which is only a good thing in my opinion.
As always, it's a good time to be a rock/metal fan.
I gleefully ignore BBC 'Sound' polls and other such garbage as the hype driven nonsense that it is
This is a good post but I have to point out the irony that you made this in reply to Glawster2002, who is far from the 'youth of today' (sorry mate
I suspect he'd also raise the point that for every young'un today who refuses to listen to anything more than a year old, there is an old'un who refuses to accept that music made today can be just as good as music made when they were young. Good new music has just become harder to find from mainstream sources.
I've read plenty of reviews in my time which start.. " I don't know why the editor has asked me to review this band's <album/gig>, they know I can't stand them..."
I've heard plenty of good reports on Within Temptation's new album, Hydra.
Apology grudgingly accepted....
I know plenty to will happily spend hours telling you there has been no good music produced since 1976! I, however, think there is as much if not more good music around today as there was 10, 20, 40, 50, years ago.
As you say, the real difference today is how narrow the music range covered by the mainstream is today compared with in the past.
2014 promises a new Mew album so I can't be all bad!