>>41991969>Think about it, the majority of people can tell, even without a background in music, when something sounds off or out of tune.>However, you can not sit there and say there is no such thing as 'bad' music because that is objectively false. If that were true musical theory wouldn't even exist and any random combination of sounds would be considered music when it most definitely isn't. Music has rules and while pushing those rules can yield interesting results, there is a point in which those rules become blatantly broken and once you do that you are no longer making music, you're just stringing sounds together at random.
I don't even know where to start with this, you have neither the musical background, nor the knowledge to be making these claims. There is no inherent, objective standard of quality in music, like that's literally not how art works.
I guess the first thing to tackle would be >the majority of people can tell... when something sounds off or out of tune.
This is laughably false. Not only does the untrained ear have difficulties sometimes even recognizing the intervalic relations between pitches (for example being able to hear the difference between a major third and a perfect fourth and correctly identify them) but your notion that people can go beyond that and understand when multiple notes being played together are out of tune (and be right a large percentage of the time) is beyond silly. Sure the human ear can distinguish between intervals roughly 5 cents away from each other, an interval much smaller than the ones you are likely to be talking about, however the layman usually can't accurately identify a detuning. For example people commonly mistake resonances within the harmonic series that clashes with notes to be out of tune. If you have a C Major triad across three voices, and say the voice playing the E of that chord has a particular build up in the 6th or 9th harmonic, it is not uncommon for the untrained ear to hear the chord as being out of tune, which it isn't. Further more without being told the average layman would have no concept that all of the music they listen to is out of tune (unless they are listening to something in just intonation or 56/200+Edo) because of our tempered system of tuning. Furthermore many styles of music built on the lineage of west African music (blues, R&B, earlier styles of rock and so on) are frequently played with chords that are demonstrably out of tune from a western perspective. Both the major third, and dominant seven in a pentatonic African tuning system will not only be slightly off our equally tempered system, but in the case of the major third, will also be off in a system of just intonation, and even pythagorean intonation. Chords played with these intervals are demonstrably out of tune by the western system you are no doubt applying here. This is also to say nothing of the microtonal intervals that would sound dissonant (or out of tune) to our western ears, but are commonplace in Indian, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and various other Asian cultures.
Your point about pushing the rules vs braking the rules is also equally laughable. Question: Are the works of Arnold Schoenberg, or Béla Bartók, objectively bad music because the harmony they employed would have been considered noise in the time of Bach? The way we hear, and relate, to music has been an obvious progression, and to assert that we will one day reach a brick wall that divides good and bad music is both a lofty claim, and unsubstantiated. Contrary to what some consider in academia the western ear is still becoming more and more accepting of dissonance and dense harmonic information. It wasn't that long before Bach that the music of Europe was still mostly monophonic, and it wan't that long after Beethoven that we invented 12 tone serialism. While the average layman may not listen to Stockhausen on a regular basis the modern ear is equipped to understand his music. This doesn't only relate to harmony, but complex rhythmic structures, as well as harmonic content in regards to individual voices. The rules about what are good arrangements of sounds, and how to produce those sounds are in constant flux. 100 years ago the guitar distortion from the 70's would have sounded like Merzbow does today, which is to say nothing of modern gain sounds that are much richer in harmonic information. This doubly applies to modern subtractive synthesis (or FM synthesis for that matter) as 100 years ago the sound of a Moog Model D would have been considered ugly, or harsh. These things are always in flux, and generally move in the direction more complexity, and more adventurous sounds. You literally only need to look back 50 years to the music of the 60's to see just how fast this process is.
From all of the other posts you make in music threads your argument boils down to: I don't like X because it sounds bad to me/is too harsh/is too experimental therefor this music is obviously objectively bad. This makes you look dumb, don't do this.