• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Is 'good' music objective or subjective?

#21
Technically: objective! Good composition, good arrangements, good musicians, sound recording and sound production are technical things. Emotionally: music can be subjective, influences of the era, style, location, our emotional condition, age, etc. There are many factors that make music objective or subjective, or both. Inspiration? Maybe, I don't believe much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tangentmusic
#22
Brelic said:
Consider Mozart's Requiem. Do you think there is any real basis for arguing that it is a 'bad' piece of music? In other words, could we say that someone who judges that piece of music to be 'bad' to be lacking in some sort of discerning ability to even judge or understand what is good music and what is bad music?
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a wide basis for arguing. It is a bad piece of music to play in a nightclub while people are dancing.
Once again, definition is needed. Maybe not the term 'good' alone, but the term 'good music'.
And now it gets interesting. You can either argue that music has to fit the purpose - so in a club full of people that are currently enjoying R&B Music,
you can not play Wagner, Hendel, Dream Theater or Monk and expect the audience to judge the music as good. It does not fit.
If you continue down that road, you will quickly realize that you've expanded your term 'good music' into 'good music for [...]' and since that is
connected with an audience which itself consists of subjects - you're in the 'Good Music is subjective' ballpark again.

You could also argue that someone who will prefer Justin Beiber to Coltaine has serious lack in the skill of discerning the quality of music and only
qualified people are able to judge - and after having aquired the necessary education and skill there will be some level of objectiveness because people who are qualified to judge music will agree on certain tracks to be good music - even if they themselves do not like it.

But i think the answer is more simple.
The simple fact that there is such a big argument is in itself proof for its subjectiveness and here is why:
Music serves a clear purpose: It is made to be listened to by human beings for different reasons with different desired effects.
Some trainstations play classical music to get rid of homeless people and drug addicts.
Some joggers listen to agressive music because it spurs them on.
Some lovers listen to music to get into the mood.
Some concert goers listen to music to appreciate the masterful execution of a piece of art and some to bang their heads.
Music is played in the background of shops and in elevators.

Music is, however, usually not played where there are no people who might listen to it.

So there is a necessary relationship beween music and listener. And if the Justin Beiber fans detonate the J-Bomb which will kill every non fan and start repopulating the world with Justin Beiber as some kind of deity ... and generations later, someone discovers an old Hifi set with an intact
copy of a classical genius and listens to it - It will be interesting to know what this person will think and if it even will be able to identify this as music since there are no beats and no synths in it.

You can see it in ethics:
What is considered good and what is considered bad behaviour is subject to change over the years.
The same might go for music.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bswag, Mockyngbyrd and Brelic
#24
I would argue that any use of the term good or bad must be subjective. I feel we only use those terms as a measurement against something relative to ourselves.

If I get 65 on a math test, to someone else perhaps I am bad at math. But maybe since I was I'll prepared, and for me I thought it was good.

So same goes with music IMHO...good or bad, like everything else is how we relate to it, and must then be subjective
 
#25
It's good if I say its good, it's good if you say its good. So it must be subjective. Anyways everything is good until it isn't good (Scorpions good until 78) or someone might argue Scorpions best stuff was "Blackout" around 82. Either way who cares?
 
#26
Subjective. I'm really scratching my head at people who say that there's an objectively "good" arrangement or "good" musicianship. Measured how? A song can be idiot-simple but nevertheless very pleasing to the ear, to everyone's agreement. There's nothing measurable about its being "good" other than the collection of subjective opinions. Likewise, a very skilled musician may play very simply - "tastefully," as we often say around here - and get a general reaction that his playing is "good," whereas another may rip out a dizzying whirlwind of notes and get slammed for being "too busy" or "wanking" even though he unquestionably displayed greater technical skill. What makes the one musician's playing "good" and the other "bad" is nothing objective but the subjective reaction of the listener.

However, I do think there are some qualities of music that are objectively measurable. Some pieces are more complex than others, or require greater technical skill to play. There's an objective difference between playing Bach and playing the Troggs. That doesn't mean that Bach is objectively "better" than the Troggs. Going into a Bach composition at a frat party would be a really bad idea, neither because it's "bad" music nor because the partygoers only like "bad" music; just because it's the wrong music for that setting. But Bach is objectively more sophisticated, more complex, more demanding to play.
 
#31
If you can experience the music in any way, you have the right to judge it on an opinion basis. However, your level of theoretical knowledge, technical skill, and other factors are likely to change your perspective. Saying that people can't judge music because they aren't qualified is akin to saying "they're not as smart as me, so I don't have to listen to them" IMO.
 
#32
gully_jones said:
I would say "good musicianship" is objective and that "good music" is subjective.
Click to expand...

The problem with trying to divide it that way is that there are just as many criteria in place by which to judge the quality of a piece of music's craft/construction as there are for judging the quality of a performer's musicianship.

iow, both require that you first establish (and agree upon) the context, the criteria by which all this Good vs Bad judging is taking place.
 
#33
I've always thought this was a silly question, because the answer is obvious. "Good" is completely objective and absolute, and I am the ultimate judge. No, that doesn't make it subjective--subjective means that if your opinion differs from mine that you are also right. In this case, I am always right and the ultimate judge. :)

This is why systems (Spotify etc) that suggest songs "you may also like" don't work. They can find other music that has similar characteristics to music that is good. They can suggest music that is listened to by people who also listen to good music. But the only truly accurate way to discover good music is to play it for me and see whether I think it is good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tracii
#34
Every musical work ever written and performed has been an exercise in rhetoric. The OP's friend's argument would make more sense if the words "good" and "bad" were replaced with "effective" and "ineffective." He finds the songs of the songs performed by Foo Fighters to be persuasive but not those of Nickelback.

Think of the times you've listened to or read arguments supporting a political view different from your own. The speaker may have been technically adept at persuasion, but the argument still left you unpersuaded. Nickelback's songs are effective for the intended audience, just as Foo Fighters' songs are for their intended audience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brelic
#36
the problem with this discussion is that in many cases, people just don't "get" good music.

i studied music formally, have my Bachelors in it. I was in music school for 2 years before I really was fully appreciating great art-music. I'm still discovering more and more about the great composers and the nuances in their scores every day.

so, a group of musicians who were trained in music formally, would probably agree that Bach wrote great music. I can't imagine anyone who's heard a full piece by Bach trying to argue that the music he wrote wasn't great. Comparing the violin partitas, cello suites, or the art of the fugue, to nickelback or britney spears, provides an obvious answer to the OP's question.

regardless of the people involved in the discussion and the extent of their music education, drawing specific lines and boundaries between great music and bad music is impossible. Comparing Brahms to Justin Bieber is easy. But where would the Beatles fall in this discussion? lots of pretty simple tunes, many 12-bar blues, ext. I'm sure the majority of us here love them- does that make them "Good music?" but then what about the number of fans going to the Justin Bieber concert- if they all love him isn't his music good too? but then what about when we go back to listen to Bachs mass in B minor one more time- then suddenly the number of people at the concert don't matter anymore, and we're back at the beginning of the debate!

at the ends of the spectrum, i agree 100% there is junk and there is good music. but those middle areas- the rock or funk groups we all love- defining any of that is good or bad seems impossible to me.

and even among the stuff I consider to be unquestionable in its greatness- is the finest wine still great if its sipped by someone who plain and simple does not enjoy wine? or is it only great when someone who's put years into tasting many different wines and someone who cares deeply about fine wine, tastes it?
 
#39
wilberthenry said:
Q: Can 50,000,000 Ellvis fans be wrong?
A: Sure--------if you don't like Elvis.
Click to expand...
^^^^
This made me giggle.

Music like anything else art related has both objective and and subjective components.

Composition, technique, and theory are all things that can be objectively viewed as long as it is in context of the genre or culture.

anything else is subjective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fernando Costa

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back