[humndislocation]

Originally Posted by NoWave

I made a personal attack on you because in spite of repeating and defending my argument against your (admittedly well-reasoned but ultimately flawed) argument you simply continue to repeat the same point which boils down to "something must be technically complicated to be good". It is irrelevant whether your personal taste includes enjoying some bands that you consider to be not good as we are discussing the classification of good and bad music.

Well since it's clear we're not going to agree on this, I'm going to try not to continue arguing it, and agree to disagree. Nothing anyone is going to say is going to convince me that bands that produce more technically complicated music aren't better. Nothing I say will convince you that I am right, so assuming I have the willpower not to chip in, I'm going to try and stop arguing that point.

I will admit however, that where you set the threshold of complexity that seperates good and bad music, is entirely subjective. That said, to me, manufactured bands like westlife and girls aloud are so irredeemably bad, that I can't see how anyone could class them as good music.

I can understand how people can see bands like oasis as being good, although I don't agree with them, because at least they write their own music, but manufactured bands I just can't understand at all.

I did make a personal attack on you and for that I apologise. Allow me to rephrase. "Your definition of good and bad music comes across as arrogant, appearing to imply that "my music is more complicated than others, therefore mine is better." which is inherently incorrect."

Fair enough, I respect you for the fact that you backed down instead of continuing a flame war with this reply, something which I probably wouldn't have had the will power to do.

Attempting to have a intelligent discussion on UGS is like trying to have a debate while someone throws stones at you. The debate is interesting but the stones are irritating.

Hahaha, very true.

Now, back to the point. If you enjoy music that isn't technically complex how do you justify it not falling under your definition of good?

There's many reasons I enjoy music I consider not to have taken a lot of talent to create. I might enjoy the particular sounds of the instruments and rhythms used, or I might enjoy it purely for its aggressive/relaxed qualities. I might just enjoy the way it makes me feel when I listen to it.

Just as someone might ride a rollercoaster and really enjoy it, but not see it as some kind of deep important experience.


To me, comparing the music of someone like westlife, with the music of someone like Therion, is like comparing the art on a cereal packet with the mona lisa. (although I wouldn't say Therion were on a par with the mona lisa in terms of art, you get my point)