Listen to piece of music

lmao retard you can just like the music you like, your taste in music is the least objective thing there is so stop pretending it has to be.

fpbp

How come some people can explain why something they like is good though, I want to do the same

Tastebuds are more grounded in biology than our love for wiggly air though

Start with the greeks

i love mustard crackers, but nobody else seems to understand my love of mustard crackers. so tastebuds can be just as subjective.

you are all deeply retarded

Okay, but just remember you have no obligation to be able to explain why you enjoy something as subjective as music.

But I would start from searching for words that describe feelings and emotions the music gives you.

This is literally true for everyone. No one knows why they like anything they just make up reasons and believe them. You're brain is not capable of actually telling you why you like things, you just do or don't and try to guess why after the fact.

All music is subjective who cares if someone else doesn't like it. No one likes everything

>another wojak newfaggot

>>realize I have no logical or coherent argument to make if someone were to tell me the music was shit
OP why can't you listen to music without one of your first thoughts being how to argue with someone about whether it's good or not?
Do you do the same for books? Movies? TV shows?
I don't see how you could enjoy ANYTHING this way

You're just smoothbrains who can't articulate your thoughts, is all. I can give a reason for all the music I like even if it's as fucking simple as "the melodies are good" or "the guitar playing is very good".

The autism is powerful in this thread

They can't, what they are able to do is identify the elements that make them like something, and you probably like those elements as well so to you it seems as if they are logically explaining why it's good, but those elements are not good in of themselves, they are said to be good because they give you the feeling that associate with "goodness" but there's nothing inherent in the element that is "good", think about it like colors, they do not exist in the object they are fruit of how your brain interprets the data received from the senses.

>"the melodies are good"
That doesn't solves the problem, it just pushes it further and begs the question of why is the melody "good"

>Not engaging the thinking component of emotion

Just say you enjoy music on emotional level. There, problem solved

But you can enjoy music on an emotional level while still understanding WHY you appreciate it. E.g., if you feel an emotional connection to a song because you share experiences touched-on by its subject or narrative or whatever.
I think you mean something closer to "visceral" than "emotional", where you just get a physical response out of hearing a song/type of music without feeling a substantial connection to it which you can explore.

Somebody can tell you if music is shit using 3 (or more idk) ways:
i) based on some socio/subcultural/clique basis, i.e. there is a never ending loop of
a) you are not aware of music a lot
b) you go to Yas Forums and start explore more music
c) everything you listened to before must be shit, now you can laugh at normies who "are not into it"
e) go back to step a
this gives you normies, Yas Forumscore drones, scaruffi fags, then mudrones who realize they are drones and try to move on and pretend they are not ones and so on
everyone is a part of this process and can observe it in others and try to pindown someone into some stage of taste development and based on that brake their balls by embedding given peace of music into larger (if implicit) context of the stage
this is basically highschool politics tier

ii) by associating given peace of music with some type of emotion, and a way to deliver that emotion. you can disqualify emotion, for example numetal has some anger in it, well that's gay and for teens. or the emotion is ok but delivery is bad, for example anger is ok in deathcore, but creation of it through cringy "aggressive" shouting is bad, as opposed to some brutal death where the same is achieved through instrumentation and more complex riffage.

iii) by using some contingent music theory properties: bach is cool because he has mindblowing fugues and minimalism is gay because it has simple melody on repeat

your defence
i) to deny the context:
-- i like pink floyd
-- oh babies first pseudo prog? mucore much?
-- fuck off, i just like it
ii) to defend emotion (it's emotion that you like everybody can fuck off), which is easier, defending delivery will be trickier
iii) to point randomness of the complexity\simplicity, they are not good in themselves

>the virgin music theory vs the chad "sounds nice"

they literally cant user, they only identify WHAT they like about the music but not WHY its good (because its subjective)

obviously you enjoy SOME aspects of it. the atmosphere, the emotion, the tone, the instruments, the riffs on 0.42-0.52.
you can try to create a web of descriptors like RYM has for each album like
melancholic, anxious, futuristic, alienation, existential, male vocals, atmospheric, lonely, cold, introspective, pessimistic, longing, dense, depressive, sarcastic, serious, progressive, urban, passionate
then associate them with the parts of the piece