Which music do you dislike the most?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aufbauwerk 2045
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    art music sleep
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
228 replies · 24K views
Aufbauwerk 2045
If you were able to vote for a certain type of music that you dislike, which would it be? This poll is inspired by the fact that I never got back to sleep after being disturbed by yet another obnoxious person playing hip-hop in his car. I am happy to start the voting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
No music should be banned. Even hip-hop can be fantastic if you know who to listen to. Anything mainstream is total garbage. But there are plenty of rappers that are really poets.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: OmCheeto, bhobba and fresh_42
Greg Bernhardt said:
No music should be banned. Even hip-hop can be fantastic if you know who to listen to. Anything mainstream is total garbage. But there are plenty of rappers that are really poets.

I guess I can change the question to "Which music do you dislike the most?"
 
Beside that I miss Rap, which I would consider at least a bit as an option, I definitely have to vote for another missing option: NONE! It is against every single fiber of myself to forbid ANY kind of art. Too strong are the reminders of occasions when this had been and has been done, too strong my sentiments against any form of regulation of free will and expression. I well-nigh hate those who try.

If you don't like a certain kind of art: don't consume it.
If you were forced to, e.g. by a passing car at night, account it under "sh... happens".
If you were repeatedly forced to, then it's a matter of courts and police.

In any case, my objection against such a regulation tops any kind of unpleasant instances by far.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: cnh1995 and bhobba
All branches of musical expression have value. What I personally find noisome is the overuse of autotuning and DNC (dynamic range compression) in modern audio engineering.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
Now, generally I'm all for inclusiveness and freedom of expression, but there's this local-bred genre of music called 'Disco Polo'...
It's been persistently popular among certain groups of people around here, including my erstwhile flatmate. I'm struggling to classify it in a way that'd highlight the precise extent of the horror it can instil, the neural genocide it can cause - so I shan't even try.
A curious mind shall seek examples on youtube, but a fair warning from the surgeon general - listening to it may cause cancer, visits from the Spanish Inquisition, early arrival of the Armageddon, and/or unexpected reruns of Star Wars prequels.
My personal opinion is that it should be banned by the Geneva convention, its fanbase reeducated in uraniun mines, its practitioners drawn and quartered, and all extant records scrambled beyond repair.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DennisN
Aufbauwerk 2045 said:
If you were able to vote for a certain type of music to be banned
You've already changed the poll title -- I'm not at all for banning any type of music, but there are some genres that I really dislike.

Asymptotic said:
All branches of musical expression have value.
I strongly disagree. John Cage once recorded 4 hours and 33 minutes of silence. Exactly what value is there in doing so? How does this compare to works of classical composers?

One could say that "all branches of art have value," a statement that is falsified by such "art" as Serrano's jar of urine with a crucifix in it or another prominent piece of "artwork" displayed in London that consisted of an empty room with a light switch.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters and Bystander
I like many styles and types of music, but I have preferences, of course. The style I like the least on the list is atonal, I don't enjoy it and it can even make me nervous or even annoyed :biggrin: (when I think atonal, I think mainly of atonal contemporary classical music). I'm also not very fond of ska, it is too fast and "jumpy" for me, and it makes me nervous.

Speaking of fast music, here's a guitar player that can play 999 bpm: :wideeyed:
(at 5 m 42 s it gets completely insane)
 
  • Wow
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970
Bandersnatch said:
A curious mind shall seek examples on youtube
...and now I'll head over to youtube to have a listen... :smile:
 
DennisN said:
I like many styles and types of music, but I have preferences, of course.
Me, too. I even listen to Schönberg from time to time, free Jazz, and I very much like coloratura soprano. And I found out, that I can sleep best to techno. It's always a matter of time, occasion and mood. Dislike (and originally: forbid) is simply far too strict in my opinion.

You don't like it? Don't listen to.

Whether something disqualifies as art is also a matter of taste. 4:33 of silence? Why not? Reminds me a bit of a very long rosary prayer, and I think I wouldn't stand it, but hey, they make money with recorded ocean sounds. "Is that art, or can it go away?" found it's way into common language here, after a cleaning woman once did this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fettecke
 
Bandersnatch said:
and/or unexpected reruns of Star Wars prequels.
No worries, that won't happen in my home as long as my remote control is working.

Bandersnatch said:
A curious mind shall seek examples on youtube, but a fair warning from the surgeon general
I've listened to a couple of songs and I understand what you mean. I hear some similarities with some popular domestic music I've heard when in Germany and Austria. There is also some similarity to a music genre in Sweden which is called dansband.
 
fresh_42 said:
And I found out, that I can sleep best to techno.
And I've found out that I get very relaxed by psytrance music, even though it's often pretty fast.

EDIT: By the way, the four first internet radio channels on this page are very good psytrance/chillout channels. And these two channels are also good.
 
Last edited:
Bandersnatch said:
Now, generally I'm all for inclusiveness and freedom of expression, but there's this local-bred genre of music called 'Disco Polo'...
It's been persistently popular among certain groups of people around here, including my erstwhile flatmate. I'm struggling to classify it in a way that'd highlight the precise extent of the horror it can instil, the neural genocide it can cause - so I shan't even try.
A curious mind shall seek examples on youtube, but a fair warning from the surgeon general - listening to it may cause cancer, visits from the Spanish Inquisition, early arrival of the Armageddon, and/or unexpected reruns of Star Wars prequels.
My personal opinion is that it should be banned by the Geneva convention, its fanbase reeducated in uraniun mines, its practitioners drawn and quartered, and all extant records scrambled beyond repair.

I never heard of it, but I was intrigued by your warning, so of course I immediately checked it out. If I didn't know it was from Poland, and they sang in Spanish, I could believe it was from somewhere in Latin America. I can't say I enjoy it, but on the other hand I've heard much worse music than this.
 
DennisN said:
And I've found out that I get very relaxed by psytrance music, even though it's often pretty fast.

EDIT: By the way, the four first internet radio channels on this page are very good psytrance/chillout channels. And these two channels are also good.
Reminds me on Koyaanisqatsi. How can I say this within the rules? Well, I guess you'll have to prepare yourself before watching / listening to it. But large parts of your channels cover what I called techno. I once programmed the radio alert to wake me up with such music. The result was, that half asleep I listened until my heartbeat has been synchronized and then I slept even better, instead of getting up. The most important aspect beside the bass and the beats is, that it's not interrupted by words of any kind, in which case my brain starts to listen to the words and I cannot sleep. However, I also tested a radio program in Finnish. That worked as well.
 
Mark44 said:
John Cage once recorded 4 hours and 33 minutes of silence.
This is false. There have been many recordings, but Cage never did one. The name 4’33” comes from the duration of the initial performance. The score simply says “tacet” over three movements.
Edit: also, it was 4 minutes and 33 seconds.
Mark44 said:
Exactly what value is there in doing so?
To answer your question with a question: what is music? This is a difficult question that essentially every influential composer has struggled with. Think of the musical version of the sorites paradox—is it still Beethoven’s ninth if the oboe misses a note in measure 223? How about if it misses two notes?...By induction is it still Beethoven’s ninth if all the instruments miss all the notes?

A certain school of thought asserted in answer to this problem that a musical piece is anything that happens within a given time frame. Cage’s 4’33” was a response to this answer (it’s a matter of some debate whether he was for or against this viewpoint: most lean toward “for.”)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: billy_joule and fresh_42
Greg Bernhardt said:
No music should be banned.
Agreed. There are some forms of music that I strongly dislike, but I would never select any to be banned, so I didn't answer the poll.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: fresh_42
TeethWhitener said:
Edit: also, it was 4 minutes and 33 seconds.
Yes, I misread the time as hours and minutes rather than minutes and seconds. That doesn't alter my point, though. Certainly, 4' 33'' of silence couldn't be considered "music" in any sense, or to my way of thinking, art.

TeethWhitener said:
A certain school of thought asserted in answer to this problem that a musical piece is anything that happens within a given time frame.
To which I respond -- BS.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
fresh_42 said:
Ephraim Kishon once called modern art a big rip off.
That's a broader brush than I would use. I gave some examples earlier of recent "art" that could be categorized as fraudulent, that foolish people with more money than sense spent too much on.
 
Mark44 said:
John Cage once recorded 4 hours [sic] and 33 minutes of silence. Exactly what value is there in doing so?

Mark44 said:
Certainly, 4' 33'' of silence couldn't be considered "music" in any sense, or to my way of thinking, art.

4'33" has become part of our culture. It is a performance (non performance?). Arguing that is not music is reasonable. Arguing that it is not art really misses the point.

The point in doing so is evident in this conversation.

BoB
 
Mark44 said:
One could say that "all branches of art have value," a statement that is falsified by such "art" as Serrano's jar of urine with a crucifix in it or another prominent piece of "artwork" displayed in London that consisted of an empty room with a light switch.
I agree. And I don't even think it is that difficult to define a criteria to determine whether something is art or not.

To me, art should neither be abusive nor pornographic (and I don't just mean in terms of nudity). "Art" that is intended simply to abuse the consumers into reacting to it is not art. "Piss Christ" was just supposed to make you mad at the "artist", it wasn't intended to actually convey any meaning. And in other words: such "artists" know that what they are creating isn't art.
 
Mark44 said:
That's a broader brush than I would use. I gave some examples earlier of recent "art" that could be categorized as fraudulent, that foolish people with more money than sense spent too much on.
I guess I'm a bit more tolerant as I really like modern art. E.g. I find still life extremely boring. I heard of a guy who painted big rocks on his ground orange. He didn't explicitly called it art, but in my view it is. But as I said above: Is it art or can it go away? In general I'm no friend of any restrictions of this kind. It doesn't have to please me.
 
rbelli1 said:
4'33" has become part of our culture. It is a performance (non performance?). Arguing that is not music is reasonable. Arguing that it is not art really misses the point.
You don't see to be able to decide whether it is a performance or nonperformance. It boggles my mind to think that anyone would consider this art. To extend the idea of nonperformance to the graphic arts, I seem to recall a gallery showing of a completely blank canvas. Art? Really? I guess when you run completely out of ideas, doing nothing and calling it "art" is a good Plan B.
 
Mark44 said:
You don't see to be able to decide whether it is a performance

True.

I don't see why my indecision of performance or not should inform the validity of a work of art.

Is this art?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_statue

Is it performance? They don't seem to be doing anything.

BoB
 
Bystander said:
"There's a sucker born every minute." --- P. T. Barnum (W. C . Fields?)
The exact same thought came to my mind...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
rbelli1 said:
I don't see why my indecision of performance or not should inform the validity of a work of art.
So you're saying that even though you can't decide whether someone is performing or not performing, it has no bearing on whether such a performance/absence of performance can be considered "art"?

I could easily believe that members of an arts forum would have such a belief, but in a forum dedicated to physics and the sciences, I have a harder time believing this.

Let's try this in a different realm. I now present my beautiful mathematical theorem: Q.E.D.

Tada! Didn't you get all tingly with its elegance, its simplicity?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters