My declaration of my musical bias

“Is there such thing as an objective good or bad music?”

It is my belief that there are no objective good or bad music (or any other art). However everyone does have preference/paradigm/bias on what they are looking for in music. These preferences are often determined by intrinsic personality that are developed in childhood or when their musical taste are developing and for the most part is pretty difficult to change once it is set. Although certain preference are more common and some may argue is more universal (such as listenability), none of them are more objectively right.

“So if there are no objective good or bad music, what’s the point of discussing whether the song is good or not.”

There may be no such thing as objectively good or bad music but people have subjective taste/criteria or preference that can objectively applied to the music (to a point though, as most criteria have a subjective component to them and people aren’t always consistent with their preference all the time).

Someone may prefer music to be well-paced and display high technical skills and although you can't say that objectively music must have those properties to be good. You can say objectively that a specific song has those properties. Therefore based on objective properties in the song, you can make recommendations to people with certain taste.

An album with lush arrangement and dreamy vocals but perhaps is repetitive would suit someone who values atmosphere but may not suit someone who values the song to be well-paced as they may find the song to be boring. Therefore you can make recommendation of the album to people of certain taste and make discouragement of the same album to people with different taste based on the objective properties of the album.

What’s the point of a music review?

The core elements of a music review is to:

 Describe the objective properties of the album. A person should be able to read a review and get a decent idea on what the album sounds like and should be able to decide for themselves whether the album would suit them or not irrespective of the recommendation from the author. Stuff like the genre of the piece, the tempo of the song, the basic mood it creates, the instrumentation used, the technique they used playing the instruments or singing the song etc are objective properties. Sometimes people may debate strongly about the objective properties of the album but there is an objective answer out there even if it sometimes hard for people to know what the answer is.

Reveal your subjective perception of the album and make recommendations out of it. The point of a music review isn't to say whether one album is objectively better than another. However it is there for people with specific subjective taste in music to recommend album to other like minded people. If people who don't share the same taste in music, they can still benefit from the review to learn about why people have different opinions on the same album. I also believe that reading people perception of the album is entertaining itself irrespective of how similar their taste is to mine. Reading about the album filtered through the personality of another individual makes me believe that a good review is a self-expressive art-form itself. You realised that there isn’t one “Revolver” but many “Revolver” to each individual who listen to the same album and the ability to described the unique personal perception of “Revolver” to other people makes it entertaining because you are expressing your personality in an artistic way via your reviews.

Historical discussion of the album is important to know what role (if any) the album plays in the development of the genre of music which can help a person appreciate the album even more. Background information and trivia of the album can assist making the review more educational and entertaining for people who have already listen to the album and are big enough fans of the band to have heard the albums many time but not big enough fans to know all the trivia associated with the album.

Jokes and humour can make the review entertaining to read irrespective of the discussion of the musical content (think of Mark Prindle’s review).

So why is it important for people to declare their criteria/bias on music?

If we read a good review of an album but we don't know their taste or the criteria they used to judge that music. Then we don't know how applicable their recommendations are to you. However if we do know their criteria in judging music and they matches your own than we know that their recommendation would be useful to you.

Also a set criteria points out where the reviewer could be convince to change their mind about the album and can help focus discussion on an album. If a reviewer write that this album is repetitive and someone else points out that it isn't repetitive and points out to a part of the song that does change. The reviewer could change their opinion on a song if that point is accurate. However if someone writes who cares if the song is repetitive or that well constructed repetitive music is a good thing and improves the song as the repetitiveness helps the song to become hypnotic and more atmospheric. Then the chances are that the two people would just have to agree to disagree on that matter as they judge music by a different standard and they get pleasures or displeasure out of different things in music.

Aren't we overcomplicating things with stuff like criteria, paradigm or musical philosophy? Isn't good music just something you enjoy listening to without thinking too much about it?

That is right, music is just something people enjoy or not enjoy listening to. In fact, I don’t think many people sit there with a check list when listening to an album to see whether the music matches their taste. It is of my belief that with art, the person has the conclusion first before creating the premise which goes against basic logical principles that underpins other academic fields. You like or dislike the album instinctively and then create reasons justifying your emotions. Although it can happen the other way around where people discover elements in album which help them change their opinion of the album, I do believe that is far less common.

When I started listening to bulks of music and I started to sort out the music that I enjoyed listening to and the music that I didn’t enjoy listening to, eventually I discover that there are common trends in music that link together music that I enjoy and music that I didn't enjoy. The criteria are developed by looking at the common patterns that link together all of the albums that I like.

It’s not an absolute rule as there are albums out there that I don’t rate too highly despite it objectively fulfilling some of my criteria and vice versa as people aren’t always consistent. However, the criteria set a general rule that gives a good indication whether I would personally like the album or not.

Isn't having a set criteria put unnecessary limitations to art and limits creativity which goes against the foundation of art itself?

I don't believe in putting a set limit to art. People can do whatever they want when creating music or any other forms of art. I'll never say that a form or genre of art is illegitimate and I don’t believe in putting rules in people creating art. However, even if music itself is unlimited and boundless, my personal appreciation of music isn't limitless. I'm not going to pretend that I enjoy everything that goes outside my bias and stylistic preference and I can only judge works of art against my own bias and my own preference not anyone else (including the bias of the artist creating the work). If I rate an album badly, I'm not saying it is objectively bad, just that it's objectively doesn't suit my taste in music.

So what are your criteria in judging music?

The Primary or core criteria in judging music is Listenability, Emotional Resonance, Atmosphere, Arrangement and Pacing

My Secondary criteria are diversity, originality and lyrics

For a song to be considered to be good by me than they have to be competent in most of the primary criteria (it is possible for a song to fail one of the primary criteria but I still consider it a very good song if they excel in the other category). For a song to be considered great then they have to excel in all of the primary criteria. In my mind, none of the criteria are self sustaining by themselves. A song can't be reliant solely on melodies or solely on atmosphere or emotional resonance at the exclusion of anything else.

The secondary criteria are things I consider optional and although songs don’t need to fulfill these criteria for me to like or even love the song. Songs that do excel in these criteria can make me like the song even better

Listenability

There are songwriting 'conventions' that are known to be pleasant to the ear and these things we naturally respond well to. It has been demonstrated that the pentatonic scale is something that the human race respond to and cross cultural boundaries (listen to 3:00 mark on this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnbOWi6f_IM)

Other conventions are more specific to western culture such as having melody that is in the same key as the song, having chord progression with a focus on the primary triad etc. These ‘rules’ and convention developed because songwriters have discovered that people respond well to them and these convention generally bind together the majority of popular music.

There are two stance on this issues, good songs should follow traditional ‘conventions’ because those conventions exist because people respond well to them and some of them are universal and therefore these conventions should be preserved.  The other stance is that good music should break conventions because music that slavishly follows conventions leads to generic music and leads to stagnation in the culture of music. That convention is actually fluidic and constantly expanding and developing because musicians are out there willing to break conventions.

When you listen to music that follows these conventions, do you look at that song and say that is a really pleasant and catchy song? Or do you look at that as conventional boring garbage?

There's nothing objectively wrong with either viewpoints but I personally choose the former as that is my subjective bias. In my mind, if there are music conventions that binds together majority of the human race than those conventions should be preserve. There’s nothing wrong in preferring more experimental music but from my subjective taste, I’ll declare that the very best music that I personally enjoy has some degree of genericism in it.

To me, a song is listenable when the melodies are pleasant to listen to and the music is arranged in a cohesive and natural manner. Listenability is a category that is semi-objective. There’s an objective component on whether the song follows songwriting conventions and if there are dissonance in a song then I could objectively say that they break the listenability criteria of music. There’s definitely a subjective component because only subjectively can a person decides whether one song that follows songwriting conventions is more catchy than another  

It is not an objectively good or a bad thing when songwriters break conventions and there are people but I will make a value judgement by saying it makes that breaking convention regularly does make the song less “listenable”. I don’t believe music should be restricted to these conventions (see emotional resonance) but I don’t believe these conventions should be completely abandoned. My view is that songwriters should know these conventions so they know when to break them.

Emotional Resonance

Music and I guess art itself is basically meaningless without some basic level of emotional resonance. However since people look for different things in music for pleasure, this definition makes this criteria very subjective.

If I listen to a catchy song that makes me want to sing along to it or dance along to it. That is the basic pleasures of enjoying music which I generally get if the song fulfill all my other primary criteria  (Listenability, Arrangement, Atmosphere and Pacing) of what makes a good song.

The main question of whether someone enjoys “emotionally resonant” music or not is when you listen to John Lennon screaming at the end of Mother or PJ Harvey screaming in agony in the middle of Legs, Is your reaction is "wow that is emotional powerful" and do you buy into that emotion or not? If your response to those moments was that it was over the top and overbearing and that music shouldn't be personal or  autobiographical and that music should just give the basic emotion of  pleasure out of listening to it (Ron Mael from Sparks was quoted in saying  that autobiographical lyrics has no place in music and in the liner notes  of David Bowie's Ziggy Stardust album celebrated the fact that this was  insincere music and state it was a reaction against "personal" singer  songwriter that was popular at that time) then you look for different things in music than me.

The way I define emotional resonance is not just the basic pleasures of listening to well constructed music but music that is design to capture a deep emotional state. I define emotional resonance to have a subjective component which is whether I’m personally moved by the song or not and an objective component which is whether the song has an emotionally resonant arrangement and performance. However, whether the songs arrangement that reflects the mood established by the lyrics of the song can be objectively determine. Songs that reflects extremes in emotion and has emotional outburst can be objectively determine. Singers who belt out the song in emotionally passionate way can be objectively determine. Songs that are personal or at least personal to the character the songwriter created can be objectively determined. Songs that slowly builds up to an emotional climax can be objectively determine. All these things covers the “emotionally resonant” arrangement.

Every person wants to be emotionally moved by music but not every person is emotionally moved by “emotionally resonant” arranged music. I’m declaring a bias towards that type of music and I consider music with these properties to be superior (which is short hand way to say, suit my taste) to music without these properties.

The relations between listenability and emotional resonance

Listenability and emotional resonance can be both complementary to each other and contradictory to each other.

It can complement each other in a way that a catchy melody is pleasant to listen to and if the emotions of the song is supposed to be pleasant and fun to listen to then it certainly complements the song.

However listenability and emotional resonance often have contradictory effects to each other and advancing in one category often has a trade off in sacrificing quality in the other category and it’s up to songwriters to find the right balance between listenability and emotional resonance.

I do believe that above a certain point a song that is extremely listenable where every note has been designed to create a pleasant effect has an overly polished feel to it that is incompatible with natural emotions. People’s emotion aren’t précised and therefore songs with less professionalism and less cohesive and less catchy can be more emotionally moving as it more accurately reflects the emotions. Of course this can go too far and create song that is just unlistenable but songs should aim to get the right balance between the two.

Also certain emotions are incompatible with listenability. If the song is trying to capture the emotional state of a schizophrenic mind or the capture the state of anger and violence then it makes sense that there is some aggressive discordant and non-cohesive collection of notes being played.

Arrangement

This is every single note that is captured in a score of music. It is my basic philosophy that every single note in a song matters and every single performer of the song matters. Songwriting isn't just basic chords and melodies. Every instrumentalist in a band is a composer as they are creating their own instrumental part that adds to the enjoyment of the song. It is of my opinion that even if the core chords and melodies of the song is good, if the supporting instrumentalist add nothing to the song than that is a negative strike against the msuic.

Often in music I hear bands that are perfectly competent. They have good melody, the singer has a decent voice,  the band plays together in a cohesive manner, the guitarist banging out the chords of the song, the bass guitarist just plays the root notes of the chord and the drummer plays a basic rock beat. I listen to the song and think "that's pretty good" and I may listen to it a few times but then I forget about it and would never seek out to listen to that song ever again.

When I listen to music, I normally listen and concentrate fully on the music and I’ll try to notice the details of the music. I believe that every song has a shelf life and if we listen to the songs continuously, eventually you will reach the stage where you will get bored with it because you reach the stage where you know every detail about the song on the top of your head.

My view is that everyone has to contribute to the enjoyment of the song and if the song has a thick arrangement, high technical standards of the vocalist and instrumentalist, variation in song structure and dynamics, multiple melodic parts, then I believe it will increases the song shelf life because it takes more listens to notice everything in the song. Even basic arrangement such as adding fills and licks to a song adds a lot more to the music then just simple chords strumming. Often people points out that they notice something new about a song even after listening to a song continuously over many years and I believe this is due to good arrangement of the music. I strongly believe it is important for songwriters to ask the question “How much can we add, whether through arrangements or complexity or other features, without undermining the music itself?"

In my mind, I prefer music to be more complex. There are people out there who believes that less is more and although I do somewhat sympathises with that (see the comparison with emotional resonance), my personal bias is that when a complex song is superior to a simple song when they have equal emotional resonance and listenability.

This category is the one where people can make the most objective judgement towards. We can objectively determine whether one song is more complex than another song even if whether that is a good or bad thing is purely subjective.

Relations with Arrangement and Listenability and Emotional Resonance

Songs that are complex and have multiple sections of the song and great variation in tempo and dynamics can negatively impact listenability especially when done poorly. A really busy and complex arrangement can just sound messy and uncohesive. 

There is also a trade off with emotional resonance as complex arrangement is often inconsistent with the emotions of the song. A song with an emphasis in the raw emotions of the vocalist can be undermined by complex arrangement. Complex arrangement can distract the listeners from the raw emotions of the vocalist and this often leads to accusation that the song is “overproduced”.

Also flashy show off technical skills of the performers may not always be conducive to creating instrumental part that is listenable or emotional resonant or atmospheric. I believe that every instrumental part must have a context and must have a role and must either be pleasant and melodic to listen to or reflect a mood or an atmosphere. A superfluous flashy instrumental part can have a negative effect in the mood of the song when done inappropriately.

It is up to songwriters to find the right balance between conflicting goals and to find complexity within the limitation of the intended goal of the song.

Atmosphere/Production/Performance/Timbre

The quality of the music isn’t just decided by the notes that are written on the page. The quality of the music is also determined by the sound of the instruments and the sounds of the voice and the balance between the instruments.  The same notes may sound incredible with one guitar tone and may sound bad with another guitar tone. The same melody may sound great with a certain singer but sound terrible with another vocalist.

The tonal qualities of music determine the atmosphere of the song and this often has works synergistically with the emotional resonance in creating the mood of the song.

When you listen to an “atmospheric” song, do you feel the song to be boring or do you find yourself flooded with imagery and carried away by the mood of the song? If you have been carried away by the atmosphere of the song at least some of the time, then atmosphere probably plays an important part in enjoying music.

Writing a song is like creating your own world or universe. Whilst the lyrics are there to tell a story, the music is there to create the background and setting of the story. In a sense the producer and the arranger of the song is the musical equivalent of the director. An atmospheric song should be able to elicit imagery to the listener where they feel they are in the place of the songwriter intent.  

This is the most subjective category of music. I can’t objectively say that this particular tone of the instruments sounds good and this tone of the instrument sounds bad or this voice sounds nice and this voice sounds bad (beyond the technical ability to be on the pitch of the song).  The only objective component is with the production on whether the instruments sounds clear and whether a person can clearly hear each individual instruments. There are people who prefer a more lo-fi atmosphere but from my perspective I generally (after taking in consideration emotional resonance) prefer a high fidelity in music

Relations of atmosphere and Emotional resonance

Atmosphere and emotional resonance are very much interconnected. To create a song that reflects an emotional state, the song has to create the right tones to reflects the emotional state. Although saying that there is more to atmosphere then emotions as it can reflect other various imageries. All emotional resonant songs are atmospheric but not all atmospheric songs are emotionally resonance.

Pacing

One of things that frustrate me is when I hear a great riff or a good chord progression or a good melody and then they ended up repeating it again and again and again with no variation in the arrangement. When you end up repeating something for so long than no matter how good it is, it will become stale to my person ears.

Songwriters who commit this error can make a 3 minute pop song sound too long and songwriters who avoid this can create a song that goes for 20+ minutes and yet always be engaging throughout. If the song sounds too long then there is a problem with the pacing. I think pacing is crucial in making the song interesting and preventing the song to become boring. I will declare that I have a short attention span and this is influence by the fact that I generally concentrate on the music and I don’t really do other task whilst listening to music. I judge music that changes alot positively as it adjust for my short attention span.

I have a rule in songwriting. Do not repeat a section of the song more than once without changing the arrangement.

This means if you got a specific phrasing of the song (let say in the verse) and you want that verse to repeat the chord progression twice. Then on the 3rd chord progression, the songwriters should change something from the song. This could mean adding/subtracting vocals or adding/subtracting a guitar lick or riff or adding/subtracting instruments or changing the melody/tempo/dynamics of the song. Also songs with multiple verses, it is a good thing to make each verse sound a little bit different to each other. A bridge and an instrumental break in a song are also good at breaking up the song and keeping it interesting and preventing the song to become repetitive.  If a songwriter can’t achieve this then it is better for songwriters to go straight to the next section of the song and keep the song short and snappy. Advance songwriters can avoid this issue by creating songs with multiple sections and avoid repetition all together. 

I'll also add that pacing doesn't just apply to variation in arrangement. It also applies to variation in mood and atmosphere. Songs that vary the arrangement can still be monotonous if there are no variation in intensity or dynamics. Songs with changing moods and changes in intensity and atmosphere is something I'll prefer over song that maintain a constant atmosphere.

Relations with listenability and atmosphere

Songs with a lot of variation to achieve the well-paced status can have problems with cohesiveness.

There is a trade off between pacing and emotional resonance/atmosphere. This is because it takes time to set the atmosphere or mood of the song and it takes time for the mood to sink in. Having the song that is constantly changing can impede in letting the mood and atmosphere sinks in to the listeners. Often a repeating rift or groove or drum pattern can be described as hypnotic and avoiding repetition can impact on this. However, I will state that the best songwriters who write songs that are based on hypnotic grooves and repetitive rifts still vary the supporting instruments to prevent the song to become repetitive.

Secondary Criteria

Diversity

I do consider albums that cover diverse range of style and moods to be a positive thing. An album that is not diverse, I have to be in a very specific mood and frame of mind to enjoy the album. A diverse album is likely to have something to enjoy irrespective of my personal mindset. Also a diverse album is likely to be less monotonous to listen to and generally has a longer shelf-life.

When I consider diversity, I factor in diversity in terms of style as well as mood. A group that covers multiple genres of music but mostly focus on the sad and depressing side of emotions would be less diverse then an artist who covers multiple genres as well as cover the whole gamut of human emotions.

Individual songs that are diverse and has multiple song sections and multiple moods if written well would resonate strongly with me as well.

The reason why this isn’t a core criterion because there are albums that aren’t diverse but I still personally enjoy them. 

Originality

From a historical perspective, people who develop a style of music or create an innovation in musical technique or used new instrument help develop various conventions in music should be given credit for that. Musicians who are original help me appreciate them from an intellectual perspective and I liked the idea that musician does something that nobody else has done before.

However, I will state the reason why it is not a primary criterion is because I don’t really get any emotional pleasures out of listening to original music. In the end I consider the quality of songwriting to be more important for emotional pleasure that original music.

I guess the idea of listening to the song and then systematically comparing that song across the history of rock and roll before deciding to like it seems to take the fun out of music to me. Sometimes it feels like an "original" song is a song that rips off a song that you never heard of before. I hate the idea of having to downgrade a song I previously like just because I heard another artist on a later date done the same idea before earlier. I also believe that from one perspective song is original, from another perspective the song is obsolete and I can sympathise with the latter thought of view even if I don't completely agree with it. This is because someone may develop a certain style but later artist may took that style and developed it further and combined it with better songwriting and may add different innovations over the top of that. The original innovator can sometimes seem obsolete or dated in comparison.

Also I don’t believe that originality is good for its own sake. Originality is only a good thing if you demonstrate how that originality improves songwriting in general. How do I decide whether the originality improve the song? Well check out my primary bias in music. When Robert Johnson decided to pioneered the entire idea of playing a bass line over the melody of the actual song, at the same time and on the same guitar as the actual song. The reason why this is impressive isn’t just because it was original, it’s because playing the bass line over the melody expands the tools of the songwriter. Having an bass line allows the creation of a bass melody and having a catchy bass melody to complement catchy vocal melody increases the listenability of the song. Having a bass line creates arrangement complexity and makes the song more interesting to listen to increasing the arrangement possibility of the song.

One of the landmark pioneers of the suspended chord was the opera Tristan Und Isolde by Wagner. It was considered great usage of the suspended chord because it’s usage helps create an atmosphere of sexual tension which was integral to the plot of the opera. The innovation of the suspended chord was important because it helps increase the emotional resonance of the song not just because no one else has done it before.  The innovation and breaking of conventions has to serve a purpose and not be there for the sake of it

Despite my scepticism of overtly judging music on originality, I do admit that a song that sounds generic is far less likely for me to notice it. Songs that sound unique are more likely to grab my attention and are more likely for me to give that song more listens and give it more of a chance.

That's why I generally used originality as a competency (minimum standard) rather than as a gradient (the more original the better). The only thing I expect from a band is that they don't plagiarize and there is certain uniqueness about the band. This is where if you rip off one artist you are derivative but if you rip off many different artist from different genres and create unique combinations out of the artist then you are original.

After you have a unique identity and pass the minimum standard of originality and demonstrated why that originality serves a purpose, I judge the music purely by songwriting and judge it on an even footing as someone who has invented a genre of music.

Lyrics

The reason why this isn’t a primary criterion is because I listen to music for the music. If the song has great lyrics but bad music then the lyrics might as well be poetry. There are great instrumentals out there that I enjoy and I see no reason why I should punish the song if the instrumental line is replaced by vocals with mediocre lyrics (although if it is bad lyrics and the lyrics have a large emphasis to the music then I may punish a song due to that).  I judge the vocals in the same way as a judge the lead instrument (such as a flute or a guitar or a violin) in an instrumental. Which is the quality of the sound of the vocalist (equivalent to the timbre of the instruments) and the strength of the melodies.

Nevertheless a great lyrics can elevate a song and increase the emotional connection to the song if the lyrics are personal, can make a person laugh or be insightful and intelligent and this can elevate the entertainment of the song.

I will also state that I have a bias towards more direct lyrics and I like the idea of the lyricist telling a logically consistent story. I’m not a fan of more extreme interpretive and surrealistic lyrics and I believe that the idea of a song having no meaning and is filled with vague imagery and it’s up to the listener to find their own meaning to be insulting as it is telling the listener to do the job of the lyricist. Now I’m all for interpreting lyrics (I’ve even written essays on this including some interpretation that is vastly different to the songwriter) but I don’t believe in the idea of having to draw a long bow to get the interpretation. The lyrics normally have to make logical sense for me to value it.

Ultrasubjective factor

Despite my declaration of my preference in music, there are always music that I like more than the criteria would suggest and music that I dislike more than the criteria suggest. When it does happen I’ll try to point out my own inconsistency and try to justify why the exception is the case but sometimes there is no reason. Sometimes I just like or dislike the sound of the voice for an inexplicable reason and these type of ultrasubjective things tend to overrule every other criteria.

 

I point out a few of ultra-subjective things that don’t always match my criteria I lay out but I inexplicably react negatively towards. I’ll generally avoid discussing groups that fit these categories (unless I like them despite my negative bias) because I can’t be objective about it at all. I do hope that one day these ultra-subjective bias are overcome as I tend to think these to be my personal problems rather than the music itself.

Negative bias

Electronic music /80’s synth tone – It just annoys me when I hear it. Popular 80’s music has a strike against it for this reason. Synths can be used well but I generally appreciate good usage of guitar or piano playing more than good usage of synthesiser and electronic instruments

The soft pop electric piano sound - When I hear that electric piano sound that is present in modern boy band music as well as in ABBA, I instinctively react negatively to it.

More heavy/Metal music – Although I’m growing appreciation to certain groups (Black Sabbath and Deep Purple comes to mind) I still react negatively to the genre and even if a metal group meets the objective component of my criteria. I’m far more likely to relate to music that sounds “beautiful” or “sad” then aggression even if I recognised that objectively all those emotions are equally artistically valid.

Country music – although I’m growing used to rock bands converging on that genre (thanks to The Rolling Stones, REM), I’m far less enamoured by a pure country act. The country sounding “melody” just irritates me even if the song meets a lot of the objective components of my criteria I set out.

My positive bias

Electric guitar – generally music based on electric guitar would rate higher than music based on other instruments such as the keyboard. I’m a guitarist after all

I have an inexplicable love for dynamics and although that is covered with the criteria arrangement, pacing and emotional resonance, I tend to emphasise the dynamics aspect of those components more than most people.

I tend to prefer vocals that come from British Isles or artist from other countries that sounds like they have been listening to a lot of British music. If the vocalist sounds like they come from the United States, I’m less likely to be enamoured by their singing (especially if they have the pop punk vocal style).  I know that is more of a problem with me rather than the problem with US singers but I can’t change how I react emotionally to music

What is not in my criteria?

Influence

I believe influence to be a trendy version of the logical fallacy “argument from authority”. It seems like praising a band for its influence is sort of like saying these famous musician rates this band highly and they know more about music then you do and therefore it's stupid for you to disagree with them as these entire famous musicians can't be wrong. I believe that the opinions of the musicians are no more valid then mind or anyone else and the opinion of other musicians doesn’t affect the way I enjoy music

Adequacy

George Starostin judge music by adequacy and he defined it as the ability  for the songwriters to have their skills to match their ambition. I don’t necessarily have a problem of punishing an artist for their inadequacy but the reason why I don’t have that as a specific criterion is because I believe it is a redundant category.  

If an artist tries to make a lengthy song but ended up achieving the long length by being repetitive, that is inadequate. It’s also has poor pacing. If the song has a multipart epic that was done in an uncohesive manner, that is inadequate but it has poor listenability. If the person attempt to have deep and meaningful lyrics but they ended up producing pseudo philosophical nonsense than that may well be inadequate but that also detracts from the lyrics category as well as emotional resonance. I don’t think adequacy is necessary when you can create more specific complaints of an album.

Judging the music according to the artist intent

There are groups of people who believe that music should be judge on how successfully they are in achieving their goal.

I don’t really accept that for the short reason that what the artist intent doesn’t always match what I like to hear in music.

Also, I just think that when artist release an album for other people to listen to, music should always be judge by the audience perception of the album rather than the artist because the album is release for the audience to listen to and for them to get entertainment from it. If the artist intent is the only one that matters than the artist might as well restrict the song for them to hear. 

Judging the music via genre convention

I have been criticised before of judging music via criteria that contradicts genre convention. That I expect technique and complexity in punk music, I expect melodies in a rap song, I expect dance music to be non-repetitive and I expect emotional sincerity in an electronic music etc. There are people who believe that you should only judge music according to the standards accepted of the genre.

I disagree for certain reasons, firstly this hinders originality as bands who progresses music are people who ignore convention and incorporate aspects of other genres of music. Judging according to genre conventions in the end produces bands who are generic to be rated much higher than bands that transcend the genre by incorporating aspects of music that other bands within the genre won’t do.

Secondly, I don’t like all genres of music equally. I have my own bias and preference and they are sometimes in direct contradiction to stylistic conventions of certain genre and that bias restricts my appreciation of certain genres of music. I don’t pretend to have the ultimate eclectic taste in music.

Real life personality/Public Image

I couldn’t care less whether the musicians are arrogant, misogynist, racist, Nazi sympathesiser, arseholes, paedophiles, serial killers etc. I rate albums based on the quality of the music and not the quality of the person writing the song.

Sometimes, the negative aspect of the personality of the songwriter may sometimes spread to the music and sometimes that may impact my enjoyment of the song (even then though if it is well written and gives an insight why someone has the negative personality I may not care) but I would only judge the personality if it impacts the music itself. If someone is an arrogant person in real life but their songs sound humble then their real life personality wouldn’t impact my enjoyment of the song.

Politics

There are people out there who like the song a lot more when the album has a political message that they agree with.

Although I won’t negatively downgrade a song because it is political, I will not positively rate the song higher due to the politics either. I do not believe that political lyrics are intrinsically superior to non-political lyrics and me agreeing with the message is not enough to elevate the song.

This is because if I really want to learn more about politics, I’ll read more about the issues, I would not be turning to music for political inspiration.

Lyrics (Over)Analysis - English Blood by Trung Doan

This song was written about an English girl who I enjoyed playfully teasing (although I doubt that she would describe that in those words). I had a stupid joke about sucking her blood,  although I'm not entirely sure the context or the reason why I said that. Nevertheless I thought at that time it would be fun to create a song based on that idea to make it even more creepy and disturbing.

This was the time when vampires didn’t have the stigma attached to them and I thought it would be a cool idea to create a vampiristic love song. Nowadays with the released of Twilight, I'm kind of embarrassed by this song. They just have to ruin everything don't they.

Nevertheless, this song is just dumb fun for me.

Cold night
I see you
Oh your warm white neck
Midnight
So soon
Keep on drinking my friend

So we have the vampire who see the girl for the first time and he looks at her neck and gets turned on. This is because vampire generally have a neck fetish. It also looks like this particular vampire has a thing for Caucasian girls as well.

The vampire also feed the girl alcohol as we all know the real meaning why guys buy drinks to woman they fancy.

Which is preparation to suck their blood of course.

Chorus
As the moon rises up
As the wind brushes your hair
Your warm neck becoming cold
Warm English blood

Part of the lyrics set the scenery that this is night time. The "warm neck becoming cold" is foreshadowing the death of this girl which occurs later in the song and the vampire sings in ecstasy "warm english blood" as this vampire is an anglophile and English blood just taste better than other races blood according to this vampire.

It's not that the vampire in this song is racist; it's just that some vampire just have personal preference on the race of people they want to suck blood of. You hear guys talk about how they have a thing for Asian chicks and how exotic they are so this is just the vampire using those same principles.

Approach you
Unaware
No marks I can see

So the vampire couldn't see any bite marks on the neck of this English girl which shows that she is a virgin in terms of having her blood sucked out of her from the neck and this turns the vampire on.

After all we never see two vampires sucking the blood of one person or sucking the blood of a person who is already dead for a lengthy period of time as that's just sick and unsanitary with the risk of spreading blood bourn infection.

Fresh blood
I feel
The alcohol flowing in your veins

We all know that vampires like their prey to drink alcohol before drinking their blood and the reason is simple. We know that alcohol actually travels in your bloodstream after ingestion. So if we feed alcohol to people before drinking their blood, you would think that their blood will taste a lot better. Vampires can get their nutrition from the blood and get drunk at the same time.

You would think that it would be boring for vampires to drink plain old blood all day long and they have to spice it up with alcohol.

Now I think about it, I wonder does vampires have recipes of the blood they drink. If you have a person of a particular race, which type of alcohol goes well with it? Is it with the French, you used wine, with the English you used lager and with Japanese you used sake?

It's not that I hate you
It's the way I show my love

So the vampire is going to drink the blood of this girl and kill her but this is only because he cares about her and this is his way of showing his affection he has for her.

I can't change who I am
Get close before the sun rise up

The vampire wished that perhaps he doesn't have to kill her but resigns that he has to do that because it is part of his nature.

He also wants to drink her blood before sunrise as vampires are very photosensitive and they don't have access to a dermatologist.

I take a bite
You're stunned
Collapse in ecstasy

So the vampire drank the blood of the girl and she died. However it turns out the blood drinking is just as pleasurable to the victim as it is to the vampire so it was a win-win situation in the end.

Sure the girl died but what a way to go.

I'm quite sure if you asked many teenage girls what is their preferred method of death, death by getting their blood sucked by Edward Cullen is probably high up there.

You look at me
Your last words were
"Man, that's sexy."

Originally the line was supposed to be "Man, that's creepy" because that was what the English girl said to me in real life.

However I changed it to "Man, that's sexy' because that's the reflection of today’s society with the whole Twilight popularity. For some reason, vampires who suck blood of people are now sexy amongst teenage girls as shown by the whole Edward Cullen popularity.

Damn, why didn't anyone tell me that back in high school? The whole awkward teenage years would have went across hell of a lot more smoother if I knew that fact.

Oh it's such a shame
I really did like you
Your body is now cold
Warm English blood

So now that the girl has died. The vampire is feeling regret for causing her death. It's this catch 22 situation. On one hand you can kill the girl you like or on the other hand you miss out on a delicious delicacy of English blood with a high BAC (blood alcohol content). Ah the dilemmas of life that a vampire face on a daily basis.

As a lot of divorce woman will vouch, when a guy is given a choice between getting smash with alcohol or a long lasting relationship with the woman you are with. Well the alcohol usually wins out as demonstrated in this song.

© Lyrics written by Trung Doan 2005

Lyrics (Over)Analysis - Born To See The Light by Trung Doan

I just want to state that this song isn't anti-religion in general. However this song does criticise specific interpretation of religious belief.

This song tells a story about a hypothetical scenario where one religion is right and people who believed in a different faith or no faith will be damned to go to hell. This story is told from the perspective of a person who was born in a different culture who never heard this religion ever existed before dying.

I woke up
I saw a flash of lightThis establish that the person has died and has now entered the afterlife (which is often symbolises by a flash of light)

A man appeared
Said “why don’t you know my name?”
God appeared and asked the main protagonist about why that person didn't worship that religion and why he didn't worship the right god.

At my home, your name has no meaning
But I fear you won’t accept that answer
The main character responded that he is from a culture that never heard of that religion before. However he suspected that god will not accept that as a satisfactory excuse.

Here we are
They say you’re the chosen one
Here we are
You’re born to see the light
Born to see the light yeahIn the chorus, the main character is saying that the people who were from the culture that followed the right religion are the "chosen one" and are destined to go to heaven (born to see the light). That god deliberately created people who were destined to have a better chance to go to heaven or hell.

Many beliefs divided in different lands
It turns out only one land was blessed
This established that there are many different religions out there where their popularity is basically divided into different geographical regions but only one religion is true. That god has effectively created a classist society and that all people aren't born equal to god because they don't all have the same opportunities to discover the true religion.

We exist to give the blessed a job
To show us the way, to guide us to the light
The main character is saying that the only reason why cultures that follow the wrong religion exist is so that the true believers are employed by god to become missionaries to try and convert them.

I was born in the land of sinners
Forbidden fruit is our only crop that grows
The main character came from the culture that has never heard of the true religion and only the false religion and therefore they are in the land of sinners. Hence, they have no choice but to follow the wrong religion. He is pleading to god that he has only taken the "forbidden fruit" because the forbidden fruit is the only thing he knows.

They may be an absolute right or wrong
It goes beyond what you think
So send me to hell
My conscious is clear
A lot of people define morality as anything that god believe is right and frame moral debates on what would god believe is right and wrong. The main character of the song rejects that ideology and says that right and wrong is independent to god's interpretation of morality. That sending someone who has never heard of the "true religion" to hell is wrong irrespective of what god thinks it is.

So the main character is accepting that he is now going to hell because he followed the wrong religion. However, he realised that he is in the moral right and that he is going to hell with a clear conscious

I'll repeat that this song isn't anti-religion. There are people who are religious who believe that the pluralism of religion is due to a singular god speaking through people via the prism of different cultures and that are why there is an explanation of many religions. There are also many religious people who justify their political and social views with logical arguments instead of relying on "because my religion said so". The message of this song doesn't apply to those people and only applies to people with a more intolerant approach to people with different beliefs.

Lyrics (Over)Analysis - Looking Back by Trung Doan

https://soundcloud.com/trungsmusic/looking-back

So this song Looking Back is a spiritual sequel to No Secrets which I wrote in detail on the previous blog post.

I was in a process of writing another broken hearted love song and then in the middle of that process. I thought to myself "this is stupid and retarded", "get over it" etc

So instead of another song about being broken hearted and miserable about lost love, it became an anthem for moving on and not looking back at past mistakes paralysed with regret. This song goes through the transformation process that the person goes through during the "moving on" process. Firstly, there is the abject depression that a person feels after a rejection/break up etc. Secondly, it's the realisation that the depression is counterproductive to getting the things you want in life. Thirdly, it's a feeling of euphoria and freedom that a person feels once the chains of depression has been broken and lastly, when the person looks back at their past, it's not with regret but a bit of nostalgia. The character has come in terms of past events and can reflect on them without getting overly emotional over it.

Out of all of the songs I've written, I'm proud of this one the most and I believe this song is the strongest song I have written especially from a lyrical stand point.

I believe I did something a bit unique in this song. Most broken hearted love songs focus on the emotions of depression. The few songs about moving on focus on that process. However I don't think there are many if not any songs that encompass the transformation between one point to the other and I believe this song is unique in that aspect. Of course, being original these days in rock/pop music means ripping of a song that you never heard before and I'm quite sure there is a song out there that covers this same topic but I'll settle for being original amongst the songs I have heard before.

Lyrics
I bump into you
One of many faces in my life
But you are not just any person where our paths collide

So the main character has bumped into a person he recognise (one of many faces in my life). However that person is obviously more special to him than any other person he has met before.

So this line sets up the story where the main character has bumped into an ex-lover or friend.

Also notice the melody during these lines. Whenever I sing that melody, the lyrics is usually just a description of what is going on in the song.

I used to have a purpose
I used to be alive
I used to feel the fire running through my heart
I used to have a passion
I used to have a goal
Now I'm binded by the chains of love

Meeting with this person has obviously had a drastic effect on the mood of the main character. The main character starts reflecting on how empty the person feels about his life. He is just listing off the emotions he used to feel but doesn't anymore because he is in love (and obviously the love is not returned).

Everytime I sing this melody line, the lyrics take on an introspective outlook where the main protagonist explores his emotions on what he is feeling right now.

(Ooh, I want to run, run away from you)

So the main character is feeling awkward talking to this person

You say hello
Only because it's polite
And then we talk
While your eyes keep fix at the time

So returning to the descriptive narrative, it turns out that the feelings that the main character had were one sided and that the only reason why the conversation is taking place is because it is polite and not because of any real desire to have the conversation.

I used to have a dream
I used to look forward
I'm walking through time while people speed ahead
What have I achieved?
All this time
I stayed still while nothing changes

This time when the person is reflecting, it is no longer with self pity but with a growing realisation that his depression is counterproductive. "I used to have a dream" may seem like continuing the self pity that was there during the first "I used to" section of the song, however the tone has changed. Whilst in the first section, the person is lamenting the lack of passion in his life. This time, the person is berating himself for letting things slide this far.

The rest of the band comes in and this signifies the awakening from the depression

Look at you now
You're living like you should oh

He looks at his ex-lover/friend and realised that she has moved on and asked himself why he hasn't moved on yet.

I throw away the photos
I throw away the keys
I close the door behind me leaving past memories
I loosen the chains
I try to break free
I feel my heart starts beating

So at this moment, the main character is throwing away the burdens of his past which is signifies by throwing away the photos and the keys.

In doing so, the main character feels alive for the first time in a very long time (feel my heart starts beating)

Freedom
Is never looking back
Freedom
I guess I'm never coming back

In the climax of the song, the main character feels a sense of freedom from his own chains that he has created for himself. He defines freedom as not looking back with regrets (I know freedom is a lot more than that but for someone who just feels liberated from their own depression, at that point of time, it feels like freedom equals exactly that). He also tells himself that now he is free from his own depression, he claims that he will never return back in that dark place again.

Maybe I could have done better in the past
Maybe I could have walked left instead of right
Maybe I'll keep on falling down
As long as I'm moving that's ok
 
The whole message here is that every person make mistakes and that they will continue on making mistake. However the difference is people's attitude toward their mistakes. Some people just strugged it off, learn from it and move on. Other people dwell on it and let the regret from that mistake consume them which leads the person paralyse to do anything useful for themselves.

Often in depression, people aren't just regretful about mistakes in the past, they also are worried that they will forever make mistakes and that they will never get better at that.

However, the character now realised that it doesn't matter that he made a mistake and recognised that he did stuff up in the past but now he accepts that. He recognised that he doesn't know everything and still always learning and that he will continue to make mistakes in the future but he will accept it as that is part of being human.

I say goodbye
You smiled as you walk away
I feel the chains
Slide away from my shoulders

So the main protagonist says goodbye to that person. However, he is not just saying goodbye literally but also goodbye in a sense that he is finally accepted that he is not in her life and that he is letting go.

In that process, the last remnants of that love that was enslaving him is gone

Was it just a dream?
Looking through the past
It all seem funny when you're on another path 

This lyrics were inspired by a song called Shakespeare’s Sister by The Smith with the line "Oh, I can smile about it now, but at the time it was terrible" but with a focus on the smile rather than the terrible.

When you are looking back at past events that are long ago, you sometimes just laugh at your own foolishness and lack of perspective and think why it was such a big deal (and sometimes what did I see in her in the first place).

This time, the person looks back with a touch of nostalgia and a bit of humour. The character realises that part of freedom is not "never looking back" like he mention before but rather not looking back with regret.

Maybe when we meet
Another time
We'll look back and start to laugh

The song ends on a hopeful note that perhaps the other person will see things the same way and eventually both people can talk to each other without the baggage of the past hanging over them.

____

So that's Looking Back and I have to say that it's the strongest song I have written.

This song is not autobiographical even if the emotions in the song are absolutely real. This is because it's completely unrealistic to have a person meeting up with an ex-lover and then within that conversation have an epiphany and have a massive transformation from depression to a high self esteem and acceptance of themselves and past events. That story is completely made up even though the emotions of depression/euphoria/self acceptance etc are real

People don't change overnight and they change gradually over time and they have to contend with relapse as well.

Nevertheless, although this story isn't really applicable in real life if you interpret the story literally, it works well within the confines of the song where you have to tell a story in 4 minutes.

The story of the person meeting the ex-lover is far less importance than the introspection and the transformation that the main character undergoes and I feel that I nailed that emotion very well.

This song also answered a question that I ask myself during my own self doubt. Why would people listen to my music when they are better artist out there? I felt like I answered that question with this song.

Now people may say that shows some egotism from me but I really don't care. I’m proud of this song and I believe it can stand up to any other music written by anyone else in the world.