So, in the dubtrack room last night, people were showing off their horrid musical tastes, as per usual, when someone played a song that was so bad, it genuinely pissed off and bewildered me. It led to an argument about what level of experimentation in music is acceptable--personally, I think a line has to be drawn somewhere, and everyone else seemed to disagree. The argument was cut short, however, and I was left rather unsatisfied, so I thought I'd carry the discussion over here.

I've stated repeatedly and earnestly--if you want to make experimental music, go ahead. Just make sure it's good. Don't make it sound like the song I posted above (you're gonna want to listen to it if you haven't, by the way). If the music you're making sounds like utter shit, don't release it. Or at least explain whatever it is you're trying to do.

I don't normally have a problem with experimentation. In fact, I highly encourage that sort of thing. I think modern music has been largely homogenized, and most pop artists nowadays are the bane of all music. They're all talentless hacks whose craft has almost no art value whatsoever and appeals to the lowest common denominator.

Yet, simultaneously, I still believe that if you're going to make music at all, it should still be enjoyable on some level. It doesn't have to appeal to the masses--but if your music is going out of its way to sound different for the sake of being different, it's not going to sound good. It's gonna sound bad. And I, as a consumer, will describe it as such.

Now, what's the problem with the song I posted? Well, it doesn't really have any discernible pattern or flow to it. It's all just a bunch of seemingly random noises at seemingly random intervals--that's it. As opposed to how I believe music should be--filled with clear, discernible patterns that you can listen to and enjoy without having to decipher anything along the way. There's nothing to enjoy about it, as far as I'm concerned--so, naturally, I did what I always do whenever I'm forced to sit through some shit that I can't jive with--"Why do you like this?"

Didn't receive any good answers. Jim simply made a reflexive argument--"we like it because we like it, and that's all you need to know."

Well, no, that's not all I need to know. That doesn't tell me a single thing. It doesn't say anything about your tastes or my tastes, it doesn't say anything about the music's structure and what specifically about it appeals to you, it doesn't do any of that. It doesn't help me understand why you like it--I'm aware that you like it. That's what I'm so confused about.

Then he just told me that there was "no better way to explain it".

Which is horsecock. I could write a twenty page essay for every single Nine Inch Nails album, explaining (in excruciating detail) precisely what I liked about each and every record. Nothing is stopping anyone else from doing the same thing, except laziness or incompetence. Jim, if you are physically incapable of explaining why you like that shit, then just say that. "I don't know how to explain why I like it--I just do." At least that would be honest, and the discussion would end there.

Aria (the person who played the song) was making some bizarre-o points I was having a lot of trouble following, which I'll just attribute to it being a bit late by the time we were about finished. She was saying shit like, "This kind of music breaks the established rules of music-making, and that's exciting." Okay. How, exactly? "Well, maybe they're not rules--they're just recommendations." All right. How is choosing not to follow the recommended formula for music "exciting?" And how does that make it enjoyable, just because you're not following the recommended guidelines? The fact that it's not following the recommended guidelines is the reason the music sucks in the first place. You don't give someone a pat on the back for shitting the bed, just because that's a "unique" and "creative" place to take a shit.

That's pretty much where it ended, and I never received a satisfactory answer. I don't know if I ever will. So to her, I'd refer to what I said to Jim, too--if you can't explain it, just say that you can't explain it.

In my opinion, music MUST have some kind of clear organization in order to be enjoyable. It can't be organized in some retarded-fuckwit way, either, like this:

4214921391203421492139120342149213912034214921391 2034214921391203

Does that look organized to you? It is. It's the number sequence 4214921391203 repeated a few times. Doesn't look that way at a glance, though, does it? Yeah, it looks like a jumbled mess of nonsense--kinda like that music.

1234123412341234123412341234123412341234123412341 234123412341234

Now that's a lot cleaner, and a lot more pleasant to look at. Music that's structured this way tends to be a lot better, too. Go figure.

I'm okay with ambient or "irregular" elements, so long as there's an underlying melody (that actually makes sense and sounds good) underneath or over it. Otherwise, it's all just a random assortment of noises that I think barely qualifies as music, and much more closely resembles a large pile of shit.

TL;DR

Do you like this? If so, please give a detailed explanation as to why.

I like it. It's jazzy, it's got a flow, dude. Fuck this is amazing.

What do you make of this?

Quote from: Penis Parker: Sexy Squid on January 12, 2016, 06:32:43 AM

No opinions allowed

Yeah, totally. That's why I'm specifically asking for opinions.

We'll see about that once we reach page 3

We'll see about that once we reach page 3

If you can't substantiate your opinion as well as I can, what does that say about your opinion?

It literally comes down to "because this music sounds good to me"

No, it doesn't. Like I said--I can explain why music sounds good to me in detail. Every song I've ever liked, I could write a five page essay on. If you couldn't do that, then your opinion means shit, and you have bad taste. You have a bad opinion.

That's not a controversial thing to say. It really shouldn't be that difficult to explain why you like something.

Quote from: Elegiac on January 12, 2016, 06:35:30 AM

It's jazzy, it's got a flow, dude.

What flow? There is no flow.

"Jazzy" is a detriment, as far as I'm concerned.

Alright, what do you make of this classic piece of jazz then? It's a couple of minutes.

Alright, what do you make of this classic piece of jazz then? It's a couple of minutes.

YouTube

I don't like it, but at least it has a beat. 4/4, inoffensive flow, nothing too erratic. I just don't like jazz.

Quote from: Elegiac on January 12, 2016, 06:47:55 AM

Alright, what do you make of this classic piece of jazz then? It's a couple of minutes.

YouTube

I don't like it, but at least it has a beat. 4/4, inoffensive flow, nothing too erratic. I just don't like jazz.

You'll like this.

What did you think of the two I posted? I'm genuinely curious.

For once I actually 100% agree with you.

Once you actually start enjoying free jazz there's no hope left for you as a person.
And when you listen to Japanese noise music unironically, you need to hang yourself.

A good way to expand your horizons without all that experimental nonsense could be this awesome 1996/1997 playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgDP5UKLWaCBWVTfT9nGf8okbZ85RkdRq

come on man, the 90s is so much better than anything we have today

There's no Beck, that playlist is invalid.

Quote from: Elegiac on January 12, 2016, 08:15:21 AM

A good way to expand your horizons without all that experimental nonsense could be this awesome 1996/1997 playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgDP5UKLWaCBWVTfT9nGf8okbZ85RkdRq

come on man, the 90s is so much better than anything we have today

There's no Beck, that playlist is invalid.

Well, let's listen to this and then go find some Beck

Vaporwave is a bad meme

2:38-3:40 sounds kinda nice

curious to come and test the waters with my weird music now