A tired old debate--Good Music?

[theskald]

I am aware that starting off this thread like this, considering the huge amount of metal fans here, will be an incredibly volatile move: Nu-metal, what's the problem with it? Don't worry though, it's about more than Nu-metal, just bear with me.

To be honest, I only know of Nu-Metal because I was looking up info on my favorite metal band, System of a Down, on Wikipedia, and here's what shows up:

Nu metal or not?

A common debate amongst fans of the band and heavy metal fans in general, is the topic of the band's genre: Are they nu metal (a term which to some people brings negative connotations) or is their music better described as simply heavy metal?

System of a Down have been labeled as nu metal by fans and media since their incarnation. This can be attributed to the release of their first album, which occurred during the nu metal boom of the mid-to-late 90's. Adding to this, the band toured with Ozzfest, a festival that typically features many up-and-coming nu metal bands. In addition to this, their music contains what some see as nu metal traits; they rarely feature guitar solos, use simple guitar riffs and often use a song structure typical of nu metal bands (verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus).

Those who do not believe the nu metal genre applies to System of a Down argue that they have not included rapping or used turntables in any of their songs, these hip-hop influences are typical, if not defining traits of nu metal. Also, it does not appear that the band consider themselves to make nu metal music, guitarist Daron Malakian was quoted in the magazine Guitar World as saying that he was glad that System of a Down had not slipped into the nu metal genre.

My question is not over wether or not they are "Nu-metal," I think if one get's too caught up in genre, he'll miss the entire point, that being good music. Still, I have to wonder why the term "Nu-metal" carries such negative connotations. Here's what Wiki told me:

Nu metal is a controversial subgenre of alternative rock. It sometimes bears some influence from hip-hop, because rhythmic innovation and syncopation are primary.

Just want to interrupt here and mention that rhythm synoptication, for those that don't know, is kind of like using dramatic changes in rhythm in place of the beat to emphasize certain musical phrases, or something to that effect. It's a common element in more opera-like singing (and rap, amusingly enough) as the singer is in control of the music for the most part. Serj, the lead singer, was once an opera singer, so it's no surprise that he can control rhythm so adeptly. Really, I think this results in better metal, Serj is a real singer, a talented man that can really control his voice. Any, I don't think this is any reason to dislke the sub-genre. Let's read on.

Nu metal bands also feature aggressive vocals (either rapped, shouted, or sung), drop-tuned guitars that are clean or distorted, (with riffing similar to the Seattle scene of the early 1990's) a funk-based rhythm section, and occassional DJ techniques such as turntables and sampling.

Kinda sounds like Linkin' Park... Anyway, many bands have demonstrated how well many genres can culminate, such as 311 and the Gorillaz. In fact, new genres have arisen from this, such as the Jazz genres of Bebop and Fusion. I can see Rap Metal being done well, it just takes some skill. I don't recall any Hip-Hop rants from SoaD, but plenty of aggressive shouting and singing, what metal band doesn't sing and shout aggressively? It's the modus operandi, power itself is an element of all metal, much like calmness and coolness in raggae. Well, no reason to hate it yet, let's continue.

Generally speaking, the emphasis is on either communicating feelings of angst and hostility, or motivating a crowd to move with the beat -- ideally, both at once. The popularity of such music in the late 1990s led to widespread negative associations with the phrase "nu metal", particularly due to commercialisation, and many nu-metal fans and artists reject the term, which has become almost an all-purpose musical insult. A related term, mallcore, is used similarly to dismiss aggressive music that is seemingly calculated to appeal to angst-filled young teenagers."

A-ha, bingo, it went mainstream. Now, I am a teenager, but not much angst, I know I've got it good (american white male in an upper-middle class family? Easy); admittedly, though, many people that have it just as good as I do are ridden with needless angst, so maybe there's something to this. For now I'll focus on the popularity bit. It's pretty common to see people shunning something only because it's mainstream. For example, a multitude of punk rocker types (I know way more than can be healthy) shunned Nirvana the instant Nevermind came out and topped the charts. I can see why in some ways, the mainstream is infested with people that go with the crowd for the sake of doing what's "in," but I think going against the mainstream because it's what's "in" is just as bad. The reason is simple: if you base your tastes on what everyone else likes, whether you adhere to them or oppose them, then you really have no taste of your own--Personally I just like what I like, musical taste is nothing to be ashamed of or to ridicule others for.

So, with that taken care of, I now pose this question: what makes music good? Is it something that can be measured or does it just vary from person to person? Maybe a bit of both? I'm not sure myself, so I'll see what everyone else has to say.

That was much longer than intended.

[Xaenn]

I can see why in some ways, the mainstream is infested with people that go with the crowd for the sake of doing what's "in," but I think going against the mainstream because it's what's "in" is just as bad. The reason is simple: if you base your tastes on what everyone else likes, whether you adhere to them or oppose them, then you really have no taste of your own--Personally I just like what I like, musical taste is nothing to be ashamed of or to ridicule others for.

Agreed, but that really applies to everything, not just music.

So, with that taken care of, I now pose this question: what makes music good? Is it something that can be measured or does it just vary from person to person? Maybe a bit of both?

Music being "good" is extremely subjective. If there was an objective measure for this, then people would agree on the bands they like. It is personal preference.

But in general, it is possible to categorize how "good" the musicians are. Of course this has somewhat to do with how difficult the music they play is, but at the same time balance. Just playing the complicated thing possible is not necessarily good...

For instance, I am a big fan of Anti-Flag, but I'll be the first to say they are nothing great as musicians. They aren't bad, but they are not great by any means. However, I think as a band they are awesome.

That said, certain genres really don't appeal to me. Heavy Metal (and all of those other sub-genres, any bands that border on metal that I enjoy, the metal fans probably wouldn't consider metal), rap, hip-hop, etc. Even given that though, I feel like I am fairly open to different styles of music. Unlike people that only listen to one genre. I can't really understand that.

[theskald]

Agreed, but that really applies to everything, not just music.

Yup yup, any entertainment medium, I'm just focusing on music since it's the music forum =P

I agree for the most part on the second part, but I have to wonder... I mean, there are many bands well near everyone would agree suck, such as the "one hit wonders." At the same time, there are bands like Green Day--Hugely popular, but I think they suck, and I also have faith in my musical taste. Also, I try to think of it like I do painting and sculpture. I think most anyone who new of Michelangelo's work wouldn't be able to deny that he was great, even if his aren't isn't their thing, while I think Picasso is much more of a "love it or hate it" thing. So with that said, I wonder if it works the same way with music. Perhaps their is a way to measure it, to say Stevie wonder couldn't sing or write would be questionable, but he may not be everyone's cup of tea.

I don't know, it's really hard to say if it's entirely subjective or not for me

[Dr Mario]

Just an observation: in my experience, much of the dislike of Nu-Metal comes from the fact that Nu-metal is only distantly related to most forms of Heavy Metal, and Metalheads have generally gotten sick of Nu-Metal being considered part of the genre, or of it being the "face" of the genre in the eyes of many people.