Is 'good' music objective or subjective?

[PortlandBass77]

Music is both: When a person says "I don't like this" about music it is implied that the music isn't their taste but they still have respect for it. On the other hand when a person says "this sucks" about music, they imply that it isn't their style of music AND they don't have respect for it.

 

[Robroy]

But music isn't about art anymore ... it is more of a product of marketing and so diluted with visual "art" that the "hearing" part just don't have any value

When I went to one of my daughter's high school basketball practices around the turn of the century, I saw something that gave me absolute clarity on the future of RECORDED music. On the bleachers were a bunch of personal cd players and tons of cd's scattered all over the place.

Every one of them was home recorded. Every. Single. One.

And this was BEFORE Napster. I've used Kasaa, Limewire, and, finally, uTorrent. I have never downloaded a single iTunes song. I'd do it for a dime. Anything else is highway robbery.

I make a lot of wrong predictions, but I made one back in the day that was actually correct: Recorded music will become the equivalent of the free toy in a happy meal.

 

[Robroy]

Music is both: When a person says "I don't like this" about music it is implied that the music isn't their taste but they still have respect for it. On the other hand when a person says "this sucks" about music, they imply that it isn't their style of music AND they don't have respect for it.

Sometimes when I say "this sucks" it means I like the songs but the band is butchering them. Actually that happens a LOT where I live.

 

[Robroy]

But music isn't about art anymore ... it is more of a product of marketing and so diluted with visual "art" that the "hearing" part just don't have any value

I fell in love with Comfortably Numb after watching the Pulse concert. The music is good, but the light show and music together was magical. It brought tears to my eyes the first dozen or so times I saw it.

 

[Piggy8692]

I don't really like Nickleback, but I've been in other 'bad' bands that never topped any charts.. So to some, they are 'good'.

I vote subjective.

 

[PortlandBass77]

Sometimes when I say "this sucks" it means I like the songs but the band is butchering them. Actually that happens a LOT where I live.

LOL great point I forgot about that.....

 

[Clef_de_fa]

When I went to one of my daughter's high school basketball practices around the turn of the century, I saw something that gave me absolute clarity on the future of RECORDED music. On the bleachers were a bunch of personal cd players and tons of cd's scattered all over the place.

Every one of them was home recorded. Every. Single. One.

And this was BEFORE Napster. I've used Kasaa, Limewire, and, finally, uTorrent. I have never downloaded a single iTunes song. I'd do it for a dime. Anything else is highway robbery.

I make a lot of wrong predictions, but I made one back in the day that was actually correct: Recorded music will become the equivalent of the free toy in a happy meal.

I buy a lot of music through iTunes. Where I live we have two big store for books, movies and music related stuff and yesterday I went to both of them to find a CD and both of them can't even order it for me. I was looking for Babymetal, a Japanease band that came to HeavyMetal not so long ago and also made the first part of Lady Gaga's show ...

I can't find everything on iTunes either but at least it is better than the store now.

 

[Robroy]

I buy a lot of music through iTunes. Where I live we have two big store for books, movies and music related stuff and yesterday I went to both of them to find a CD and both of them can't even order it for me. I was looking for Babymetal, a Japanease band that came to HeavyMetal not so long ago and also made the first part of Lady Gaga's show ...

I can't find everything on iTunes either but at least it is better than the store now.

I have an extremely wealthy relative. They have the Apple tv system in their homes, both yachts and their private jet. They stopped using iTunes and went to Limewire several years ago (when limewire was around) not to save money (obviously) but to be able to get music that was as portable as it was in the days of records, cassettes and CD's. iTunes songs were just a serious hassle to use in multiple locations. Going to "free mp3's" completely solved the situation.

Like me, they've moved on to uTorrent. At first I didn't like it because I typically just want to download a single song. But when I saw what it could do and what I could get, I was stunned. Entire discographies of your favorite band, complete with album art, etc. As a single folder and all separate subfolders and files as a single download? Yeah, baby!! And my relatives and I both have satellite internet due to our remote locations. It's throttled once you go over 16 gigabytes except for use between midnight and 5 am. And I can schedule my downloads for that time slot. Incredibly nice.

 

[bswag]

And I was trying to say- It's not the same for everyone, even when everyone agrees on "objective" criteria like "A = 440 Hz." (On which many, of course, don't agree!)
Objectively, I think one can compare Barque composers and find that, overall, J.S. Bach beats Handel (not to mention Telemann). But Mr. Handel is hardly lacking for fans, is he?
As others have noted, "cultural bias" is often taken for "objectivity." If you can really get your ears around that, you'll hear that any "objective" criteria have to be strictly marked as to their cultural boundaries. Or in other words, if we're talking about the entire world of music, there are very few, if any, "genuine" objective measures for diddly-squat.
For example, some (you know who you are) would dare set the Ramones above the Trashmen! To which I can only reply: Steve Wahrer!!! Was he in the Ramones? NO. And there is not, nor ought there be, any truly exemplary rendering of "Surfin' Bird" without Mr. Wahrer. And as we are tragically bereft of his presence, that case is closed! []
Still and all, the very fact that very few can even agree on what's objective and what's subjective must tell us something.

 

[lfmn16]

Still and all, the very fact that very few can even agree on what's objective and what's subjective must tell us something.

It tells us that people on TB try to redefine words in such as way as to support their argument. It happens all the time. Objective and subjective are pretty easy to define and understand:

• Objective - not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
• Subjective - based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Objectively, I think one can compare Barque composers and find that, overall, J.S. Bach beats Handel (not to mention Telemann).

What would be your objective criteria for making this assertion?

 

[teleharmonium]

It tells us that people on TB try to redefine words in such as way as to support their argument. It happens all the time.

It does happen all the time, and I'm not at all disagreeing with where you are applying your statement, but I think this is a huge problem for our whole society. It comes from us mostly being self absorbed people who are addicted to value judgments and who don't know the difference between our own mental constructs and reality.

We think that our subjective viewpoints are objective, and other people's objectivity is subjective. (Not unlike George Carlin saying "Have you ever noticed that their stuff is poopie, and your poopie is stuff ?")

 

[bswag]

My "objective criteria for making this assertion" are a few centuries' worth of critical opinion and (would you believe) scholarly pontification re: Baroque music. Of course, if we expand our critical/scholarly universe sufficiently, we might form different opinions. See how that works?

Sure, we could start with a set of axioms based on the acoustic properties of Stuff That Makes Sound (as does, eg, Hindemith when he seeks to base the derivation of intervals, &c, on the overtone series). But even if we all agree on "natural" phenomena like overtones, how we perceive (let alone like or dislike) subsequent intervals or melodies, &c, is up for grabs. Yes, everyone can hear the mellifluous glory of the major triad, but not everyone will necessarily like or prefer it to other possible combinations.

No-one's trying to redefine the words; for that matter, I'm not rabid about my "argument" or "being right." But all the confustication should indicate that "defining" either term here is actually not so easy.

Once more for the world: In this case (at least), we can only define the "objective" within a strictly delimited subset of the "subjective." If there's a greater "objective" which encompasses all of our possible subjectivities, it's one we lack the perspective to define.

 

[Robroy]

My "objective criteria for making this assertion" are a few centuries' worth of critical opinion and (would you believe) scholarly pontification re: Baroque music. Of course, if we expand our critical/scholarly universe sufficiently, we might form different opinions. See how that works?

Sure, we could start with a set of axioms based on the acoustic properties of Stuff That Makes Sound (as does, eg, Hindemith when he seeks to base the derivation of intervals, &c, on the overtone series). But even if we all agree on "natural" phenomena like overtones, how we perceive (let alone like or dislike) subsequent intervals or melodies, &c, is up for grabs. Yes, everyone can hear the mellifluous glory of the major triad, but not everyone will necessarily like or prefer it to other possible combinations.

No-one's trying to redefine the words; for that matter, I'm not rabid about my "argument" or "being right." But all the confustication should indicate that "defining" either term here is actually not so easy.

Once more for the world: In this case (at least), we can only define the "objective" within a strictly delimited subset of the "subjective." If there's a greater "objective" which encompasses all of our possible subjectivities, it's one we lack the perspective to define.

Which is better: A rainy day or a sunny day?

BTW, my corn crop has not seen rain in two weeks...

 

[flam]

I like music that if you asked me what I thought of it, I would say it sucks. I also dislike music that I think is very good. I don't know where the puts me, but the fact that it's about my own personal thoughts implies that it's subjective.

 

[mellowinman]

For example, some (you know who you are) would dare set the Ramones above the Trashmen! To which I can only reply: Steve Wahrer!!! Was he in the Ramones? NO. And there is not, nor ought there be, any truly exemplary rendering of "Surfin' Bird" without Mr. Wahrer. And as we are tragically bereft of his presence, that case is closed!

Heh. I think everyone should get in on this

Trashmen

Studio:



Pseudo Live:



Live:



Ramones

Studio:



Live:

 

[lfmn16]

My "objective criteria for making this assertion" are a few centuries' worth of critical opinion and (would you believe) scholarly pontification re: Baroque music. Of course, if we expand our critical/scholarly universe sufficiently, we might form different opinions. See how that works?

If opinion is involved, it is no longer objective, it is subjective. Not influenced by opinion is the very definition of objective. See how that works?

 

[bswag]

Some people are maybe taking this a bit too seriously... But still and all and nonetheless: scratch an "objective" statement about Music, and you'll usually find an "opinion" lurking beneath.

And let us all salute those who really get in the spirit here- Five versions of "Surfin' Bird?!?" A-Poppa-Oom-A-Moww-Moww!!!

 

[MidnightRunner]

Musical taste is subjective, but I genuinely believe there is some objective musical or artistic 'quality' and merit in music.
That's the reason why you just can't put i.e. Prince and Justin Bieber or Led Zeppelin and Nickelback in the same class.

 

[two fingers]

I was out with some friends the other night, and we stumbled upon a very interesting discussion. I won’t rehash our entire debate right now because I’d rather hear what some of you think on this topic.

Basically, one friend was arguing – quite vehemently – that ‘good’ music is objective. There is good music and there is bad music, and they are – or should be – universal. In other words, Nickelback is ‘bad’ music regardless of whether or not someone likes it, or whether or not they are popular. If you like Nickelback, you like ‘bad’ music. End of discussion. It’s pretty darn convenient that ‘good’ and ‘bad’ music lines up perfectly with what he likes and doesn’t like, isn’t it? Almost like he just made up the categories himself…

Which led me to defend my position that ‘good’ music is entirely subjective. Of course, because it was specifically focused on Nickelback as the example, I told him we had to pull back for a second… and examine what we mean by ‘good.’ I asked him for an example – he said Foo Fighters. I asked how they were any different than Nickelback. He did NOT like that! But in the entire history of music, Nickelback and Foo Fighters occupy the same extremely narrow space of music we call modern hard rock.

The entire discussion felt very derivative after a while, and he never let up for a second that there is some sort of objective ‘good’ for music. In other words, for something to be objectively ‘good’ would mean that in any time, place, and with any peoples, it would be judged as ‘good.’ That there’s some sort of universal category of good music.

It’s an age old philosophical debate – some have argued that there are natural, universal laws governing us (Locke, Hobbes, Hegel), and others have argued that there is no transcendent ground of knowledge or morality (Nietzsche).

What say you? Is there such a thing as objectively ‘good’ music that is based on something other than personal preferences? Is ‘good’ even the right word? Or is ‘good’ music a subjective experience, infused with the zeitgeist, personal preferences, mood, situation, environment?

Can a stronger case be made for the objectivity of 'good' music?

Your friend is a narcissistic overgrown 4 year old. He thinks that any music he likes is universally "good" and that any music he doesn't like is universally "bad".

That's a clear case of "I'm right. Anyone who doesn't see it my way is stupid".

That level of abject immaturity is startling. I'm assuming he was both drunk and 14 years old?

 

[two fingers]

well, the problem is not the answer to that question. The problem is defining the term 'good'.

If you look up the word good in the cambridge online dictionary,
you get the following results:

1. very satisfactory , enjoyable , pleasant , or interesting

So if you go with that definition, the answer is no - good music is purely subjective.

2. healthy or well

no help here as that definition does not really apply to music.

3. High Quality

there you have it - the cambridge dictionaries' third result will back your friend.
Quality is something that can be measured in absolute terms and therefore objective.


The list goes on and the answers vary with the different approaches on defining the term 'good'.

This is simply not true. Define "high quality" with regard to music. Give me an example of both high quality and low quality music. It would be exactly the same as defining "good" and "bad" music. Who gets to decide what is "high quality" and what is "low quality".

(Answer: Each individual listener = subjective)