June 17, 2007

Good Post, Bad Post

Good music is good for a reason, but what's infinitely important is that "good" is a completely subjective and ultimately relative word. As long as people have freedom of speech and thought, good music will forever be obscure and open for interpretation. This of course leads me to the obvious implication that "good" and "evil" may possibly be all in the eye of the beholder. In order to keep good and evil from intertwining and interchanging with each other, we have to attach some set of guidelines to each term to give them meaning and purpose apart from each other. Of course, much of this meaning is interpreted intuitively, meaning that men and women have a certain idea of what is good and evil, right and wrong. We know the good from the bad; we teach our children what it is to be well-behaved as opposed to deserving of a beating.
So, I guess what I am really getting at in all of this word soup is that good or bad music is only open for interpretation to a certain point. Any collection of sounds with some form or version of rhythm, pattern or structure can be given the label "good", "bad, "right" or "wrong", whereas no one really enjoys a bunch of earsplitting noise. No one calls general ambience, the day-to-day sounds of our houses settling, or of cars driving along the streets "music".
So, there is a basic, generally accepted understanding of what good, or bad, music is, but only because we also know what it is for something not to be music at all. It must be the same with most anything else that we've labeled "good" or "bad".
I think I'm up way too early. This post lacks the punch I was intending to pack.
blog comments powered by Disqus

>> << <