Objective Definition of "Good" and "Bad"

[WhiffleBallTony]

So, I know that just about everyone here (including me) thinks of the words "good" and "bad" (in terms of music) are very subjective and hold no factual weight.

However, I've been thinking about if there actually can be a true factual definition of the words. After thinking about this, I came up with something that I believe in.

I think good should be defined as how well an artist/band is able to get the sound that they envision.

Basically, if an album ends up being exactly how a given band envisioned it in their mind, then it's amazing. But if Katy Perry wants to make a catchy, chart-topping single, but it ends up coming out as an erratic progressive death metal song, then it is absolutely horrible.

The thing about this is that the only way to truly judge music with this definition is if you are actually the artist, which of course we aren't. However, I think it's actually a good definition. What do you guys think?

[Alright_Computer]

Well, I could create a song similar to brokencyde's Freaxxx and intend it to be a catchy, chart-topping single. By that definition, it would be good. However, I'd still think it would be horrible (and hopefully everyone else would too).

I don't think good and bad have objective definitions. It's really just up to the listener to decide which one it is.

[afterstasis]

i can't agree with that definition, partially because i feel many truly great musical moments are quite accidental (or at the very least unplanned).

[MronoC]

Good is what is expected and acceptable to society as a whole. Bad the characteristic of being something other than what is accpeted by society as a whole.
In short good = boring, bad = interesting

[WhiffleBallTony]

i can't agree with that definition, partially because i feel many truly great musical moments are quite accidental (or at the very least unplanned).

I can feel this. Maybe a more accurate description would be how well the artists feel about their finished product?

Good is what is expected and acceptable to society as a whole. Bad the characteristic of being something other than what is accpeted by society as a whole.
In short good = boring, bad = interesting

That's a pretty close-minded opinion.

[Hungryfreak]

I still think it's subjective. Your definition in itself relies on the subjective opinion of the bands in question.

[afterstasis]

I can feel this. Maybe a more accurate description would be how well the artists feel about their finished product?

even then there are loads of examples where i strongly disagree, particularly after some artists grow old and think their older (and far superior) material is weak and/or amateur.

[instantdeath999]

I think it's impossible to give a clear cut definition of "bad music", to be honest.

[afterstasis]

I think it's impossible to give a clear cut definition of "bad music", to be honest.

yep... as convenient as it would ultimately be, it's totally impossible.

[MronoC]

I can feel this. Maybe a more accurate description would be how well the artists feel about their finished product?



That's a pretty close-minded opinion.

Something can still be good if the creator of it ends up dismissing it, Rivers Cuomo spoke ill of Pinkerton shortly after its release, but that doesn't make it a bad album, and, for a non-musical example, Wes Craven seems to be doing everything in his power to escape from his older work, but that doesn't mean that the remake of Last House on the Left won't suck compared to the original.

Also, my first post was partly a joke, and partly a way of saying that any non-subjective definition of good or bad would be totally contradictory to anyone with a mind of their own.