Okay, one of your arguments is stopping me from agreeing with you. It involves what you said here:
Listening to music about rape or extreme ignorance shouldn’t meant you are for rape and extreme ignorance. Cuz at the end of the day, if you look at a song from a objective standpoint, it won’t be judged by the content, but by the quality. Like how well the message is conveyed you know? Some dude once said that art disturbs the comforted and comforts the disturbed, I think this is exactly what happens here.
Let me break down the quote, section by section.
Listening to music about rape or extreme ignorance shouldn’t meant you are for rape and extreme ignorance.
Agreed and I don’t think anyone would disagree with you. If someone were listening to the music because they advocate rape, our warning sirens would be going off. That is not normal or even okay behavior.
Cuz at the end of the day, if you look at a song from a objective standpoint, it won’t be judged by the content, but by the quality.
Sure, but what do you mean by content and quality? Do you mean do you look at the music (the notes themselves) by itself, the lyrics by themselves, or at the song as a whole - lyrics, music, and all? Because I could look at a piece and say, “The music is fantastic, but the lyrics don’t make sense.” That doesn’t mean the whole song is bad, but that the lyrics that are set to the music are bad. You can say the same thing about the music itself, “This music doesn’t fit these lyrics - it’s really happy and the lyrics are depressing.” That doesn’t mean the lyrics are bad, but that the music is not good - either in how it’s laid out or how it is executed.
I guess my point is that people do judge songs by their content (both what notes are played and what topics are in the lyrics) as well as their quality (the music is well-executed and is well-written and the lyrics are sensical).
But really, music is very subjective. Some people love country. Others hate it with a passion. Some could sit through symphony after symphony glued to their seat while others couldn’t stay awake five minutes into it.
Like how well the message is conveyed you know?
Okay, so this puts a standard to what you mean by quality. Quality = how well message is conveyed. This makes sense with what I said above. A song can be good if it’s executed well. If not, it’s not that the song is bad, but that the person singing or playing it may have not done the song “justice”.
But what kind of message is a song about rape trying to convey? Particularly if the song talks about raping someone for the fun of it. Is it trying to convey rape is okay?
Because I could see making the case if the song is talking about how someone has overcome rape (a very sad, stirring song, I’d imagine). But I could never see a song that condones rape being considered a great song even with fantastic, orchestral music to go with the lyrics.
Some dude once said that art disturbs the comforted and comforts the disturbed, I think this is exactly what happens here.
This “dude” apparently understands that art is also subjective. If art were objective, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Objective means free of any bias or prejudice caused by personal feelings. According to the definition of objective, that means being disturbed or comforted by art
is a subjective feeling. Otherwise, we would agree that all art is one or the other: good or bad. But we don’t. And it is not that way in music either.