I think this is subjective too. Art and entertainement are really really close ... so close they may be inseperate. So for me art doesn't mean anything especially for music, it is all entertainement.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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?
- Thread starter Brelic
- Start date
I guess at the end of the day it all boils down to do I enjoy listening to this certain song, album or musician. What I will do is give any form of music I come across a fair chance. Because someone put their time and effort into making it and hopefully a little bit of their heart and soul into it as well. If I like it, great. If you do too, even better. I don't really care who is playing it or what their skill level or lack thereof is . I also don't care about their race, gender, nationality, politcal affiliation or anything else is. At the end of the day it is about the music. As bass players we should recognize that more anyone.
I have discussed many times with people like you, who think everything is subjective and relative, everything is just entertainment and that everything in life revolves around money. It's tiring. I respect the way you see things and their opinions, but I'm not like you, just that, I'm a composer, an artist, I make art, It's called music. We're very off topic, and don't want to bore others guys right? All the best.
There is not such thing as good or bad music. There is music that someone may like a lot, a little, not much, or not at all. 
So if there is no distinction, couldn't one just as easily say all entertainment is art? If there is no difference, what is the point of your original statement?
It is, I think to anyone who doesn't kid themselves about being more important than the next guy, obviously subjective.
But there is an interesting thing that happens among listeners of certain kinds of music, or people who enjoy poetry, painting, sculpture, literature; that when they enjoy and interact deeply with the art (I will use that word- if you disagree just think of it as a place-keeper label for "creative work") for a period of time, that as a group a certain gestalt coalesces, an aesthetic forms.
So while any single person judging a single work is indeed subjective, you also arrive at the realization that The Beatles, Mozart, and Van Gogh were all on to something. Any sufficiently humble person who actually thinks about these works seriously may arrive at the conclusion that they may not be to their taste, but also recognize that they are, in fact, good, due to the judgement rendered by many people through the coalescence of an aesthetic.
The aesthetic can change through time, and often they do.
Likewise, I may enjoy some Nickelback songs, but would have to admit that it is not a body of work that will stand the test of time; it is not really good. My enjoyment is more of a guilty pleasure, like eating a McDonalds hamburger.
But there is an interesting thing that happens among listeners of certain kinds of music, or people who enjoy poetry, painting, sculpture, literature; that when they enjoy and interact deeply with the art (I will use that word- if you disagree just think of it as a place-keeper label for "creative work") for a period of time, that as a group a certain gestalt coalesces, an aesthetic forms.
So while any single person judging a single work is indeed subjective, you also arrive at the realization that The Beatles, Mozart, and Van Gogh were all on to something. Any sufficiently humble person who actually thinks about these works seriously may arrive at the conclusion that they may not be to their taste, but also recognize that they are, in fact, good, due to the judgement rendered by many people through the coalescence of an aesthetic.
The aesthetic can change through time, and often they do.
Likewise, I may enjoy some Nickelback songs, but would have to admit that it is not a body of work that will stand the test of time; it is not really good. My enjoyment is more of a guilty pleasure, like eating a McDonalds hamburger.
buldog5151bass
Kibble, milkbones, and P Basses. And redheads.
Unless you can come up with an objective definition of good music (before you decide whether a piece of music is good or bad, all music is subjective.
Nah, brother, it's not just entertainment. It's enlightenment as well. Education. Celebration. Evocation.
You think Rage Against The Machine is just entertainment? Have you ever listened to Zac's lyrics?
Countless works of visual art, music, literature and film have appeared throughout history to examine social, political and human issues.
Art of any kind is used to make people think, feel, and sometimes act...
So if i get your argument right, you claim that for both ends of the spectrum, one can deal in absolutes and in the middle it gets muddy and subjective.
I did not study music but philosophy and my knowledge of the history of classical music is too limited to make an educated next point, but i guess you will be able to help me, since for my point, we need to dig a little deeper into the history.
I know that there used to be intervals in the past that were omitted because they were believed to be impure and i know that this changed at some point.
Since i did not study musical history i can not name the epoch or the composers.
But for my point, that is not relevant, only the fact that certain intervals were not used in classical music because the leading elite did agree that they were not to be used - and the fact that this changed at a later time in history.
Because that means that the educated musical elite of another epoch may totally agree on certain pieces that are nowadays considered pieces of art masterfully written and composed, as total garbage - thus rendering the argument that if you studied enough to get the necessary knowledge, you will be able to identify the top end of the musical spectrum as 'good' in an absolute way.
diminished 5ths were "not allowed" in gregorian chant, it was believed to be the "devil in music-" this was a rule made by religious officials, and the composers of the day had to follow their rules (all written down music was religious music at this point). i wish i had them on hand, but i've seen examples of chant where the highest and lowest notes of a passage will outline this interval, and in this way its really still "there," and its beauty and expressiveness can certainly be felt, but the clergy could not point to two successive notes on the page and say "your fired, you've included the devil in your music!"
so, no- if the monks of the 14th century were to have heard a piece of Bach, they wouldn't regard the music as garbage- these rules were 1. rooted in religious superstition, and 2. not made by musicians.
i hope that clarifies it- and yes, the original point of my argument was that there are great composers and there is junk, but theres a lot of "pretty good" music in the middle that can't be defined as "good or bad."
Good lord. Internet myths running amok. The medieval church never went around making any rules of any kind dictating what kind of music one could or could not play. You can read Gratian's Decretum and the rest of the corpus of canon law and you will find exactly zilch on that one.
The tritone was classified as dissonant in the music theory of the 11th century monk and choir director Guido of Arezzo, who forbade his choirs to use it. As far as its being a rule goes, it was a choirmaster's rule (and last I checked, choirmasters count as musicians), not a church rule.
The expression "diabolus in musica" ("the devil in music") was not used until the 18th century, hundreds of years after the Middle Ages were over, and had nothing to do with religion or the devil. It was just an emphatic way to describe the dissonance of the interval.
Art is a form of communication, so I would argue that it is not useless.
In Hegel's Philosophy of History, he argues that the course of human history is in fact objective in that there is a teleological endpoint. Our individual subjective experiences are insignificant because they are miniscule in the context of the entirety of human history and evolution, and will not affect the endpoint. In his philosophy, art is essential because it is often the vehicle through which we can detect future changes to society - in other words, it is a leading indicator, not a lagging indicator.
The postmodernist movement sharply critiqued that kind of objective viewpoint - but it is still very much present in society today. All major religions have objective viewpoints.
In other words - if the majority of the world's population can hold an objective viewpoint with respect to religion, why could there not be an objective 'good' in the form of music? Plato argued that soldiers should only be allowed to listen to music in Dorian or Phrygian. He believed the harmonic and tonal characteristics would make them stronger.
Complex music has been proven to disrupt brain patterns the first time they are encountered largely because the brain has a certain expectation based on learned knowledge, and when that expectation is not met, the brain must use a lot more power to understand and make sense of the new complexities. Upon repeated listens (and then other similar complex music), the brain no longer struggles because it has adjusted its expectations.
Music also has (or can have) an enormous effect on mood - you wouldn't play metal in a prison if you wanted to calm prisoners down. You wouldn't play dance music at a funeral because it disrupts deep thought and reflection. Loud and very chaotic music has been used in torture. Would this hold true at any point in history? I'm not sure - there is a ton of social conditioning that goes into what we do every day, so it's possible that it would not hold up. But, there might also be something in the way the brain is wired and interprets melody and tonal characteristics that remains constant, regardless of the level of brain development, historical placement, ethnicity, culture, etc.
So on some of these points, it might be possible to argue that there is an objectivity to music, and that in fact, you could label some music 'good' and some music 'bad', but I think you would need to add a specific purpose.
I think it depends on various factors - and context is a big one. Each musical style has a set of parameters that have been reinforced over time and have helped establish musical "codes" which we can use to "make sense" of the music and which give us/our ears certain expectations. These "codes" (for lack of a better term) can be anything from rhythmic structures to song structures to sonic textures (instrumentation, effects) to vocabulary (appropriate style of playing, for example). So a salsa song with the wrong clave is probably going to be universally condemned by salsa musicians as "bad", just as a reggae song preaching about the merits of satan and with a skank played on each beat will probably be considered "bad" amongst reggae listeners. But for most people, talk of good versus bad music probably involves more of an idealistic perspective, and that generally comes down to one or to both of two things: personal taste and perceived "coolness" or "authenticity" (often the "commercial" versus "artistic" argument).
Music fulfills a lot of non-entertainment functions in societies throughout the world. Communication with god is a big one, as is the preservation of history. West African griots, for example, have long been an important part of their respective societies for reasons much greater than being "entertainers". There are countless examples of musical practice that functions on a super-entertainment level (a more recent example is the rap battle as an extension of "playing the dozens").
Basically all music sucks except for the music made by a couple of dozen Jazz musicians who I won't bother to list here. Pretty simple actually. 
The judgement is subjective, but the criteria judgement may not be.
Example: I lump certain genres of music into a category I call "immature/simpleton" music. I pay zero attention to this music and so it does not impact my life unless I am forced to endure it in places/circumstances outside of my control. It is only then that I really am forced to think about why this music is bad - but normally, I just ignore it. So why do I think this music is bad? When music is painfully formulaic, boringly repetitive or uses dull/simple/unskilled cliches to define itself, that is - to me - BAD. I won't touch on which genres I see this way as it would result in me getting flamed - but as I formulate my opinions based on my experience, it's really no one else's business what I think is bad - or good, for that matter.
But this notion that because someones says something is music / art makes it so is silly. It's just "not all good, bro" - it isn't. Some stuff IS bad. Really.
To sum up: Dumb is usually bad, as goes art.
Does that makes sense?
Example: I lump certain genres of music into a category I call "immature/simpleton" music. I pay zero attention to this music and so it does not impact my life unless I am forced to endure it in places/circumstances outside of my control. It is only then that I really am forced to think about why this music is bad - but normally, I just ignore it. So why do I think this music is bad? When music is painfully formulaic, boringly repetitive or uses dull/simple/unskilled cliches to define itself, that is - to me - BAD. I won't touch on which genres I see this way as it would result in me getting flamed - but as I formulate my opinions based on my experience, it's really no one else's business what I think is bad - or good, for that matter.
But this notion that because someones says something is music / art makes it so is silly. It's just "not all good, bro" - it isn't. Some stuff IS bad. Really.
To sum up: Dumb is usually bad, as goes art.
Does that makes sense?
I liken it to food, actually. Everyone has different taste buds. Some of us because our palette was developed in a certain region, while some of us just plain have things we cannot stand to eat. This is the best way I can describe music people like or don't like.
Now onto the music itself! This is where things are still very subjective. Complexity doesn't always make the music better, too much makes it uninteresting or it comes off as noise. Too little complexity and it becomes repetitive and boring...bordering on or fully achieving the status of "annoying". Back to the food analogy, people will have different expectations and certain emotional attachments to various foods. I think the real difference becomes when you can identify what might be generally classified as good/bad or high/low grade food. I don't go into McDonalds expecting a world-class hamburger and the highest quality fries on the planet, it's inexpensive food that is edible and quick. I realize it's not the same as a steak dinner at Perry's or some other fine steakhouse, but I can recognize that more went into that steak than the hamburger at Mickey D's. My favorite semi-fast food restaurant is Steak n Shake though, sort of a happy medium, but still brutally unhealthy.
Likewise, I don't listen to punk rock or indie rock expecting to be wowed by their use of syncopation or chordature (lolz)...a song like Who Needs You? by The Orwells or What's My Age Again? by Blink 182 is definitely not the height of intellectual poetry or complex music theory application, but it's not really meant to be. It's music you play loudly in the car and beat on steering wheel while you're stuck in traffic, and you sing your lungs out between outbursts at other drivers! I recognize it as this and don't go around saying "OMGZ thiz is liek teh best music evaarrr!" and claiming it to be the pinnacle of songwriting, it's simplistic music that is catchy. They play their own instruments, write the songs, and put a lot of energy into it. For an originals band, I would say that at least deserves the respect of fellow musicians whether they like the music or not, because it's their art and I can't necessarily judge it based on my tastes alone. When I listen to bands like Animals as Leaders, Rush, Led Zeppelin, Dream Theater, or countless other bands...I can perceive the complexity of this music and how it is still cohesive to the end product. That's a steak dinner, but likewise KISS would be a big, greasy bucket of fried chicken. Sure it might not be as fancy or meticulous, but it's still good eating and it will make a turd the next day
Where my respect ends is people who get all the fame for music they had no part of and are auto-tuned to hell while they just stand up there and look pretty. People who use a midi keyboard to generate simplistic beats and sample other people's music, maintaining the whole time that they are a god of music and have no equals (coughkanyewestcough). Lack of humility can be a killer for darn near any band/artist in my books. My dad used to tell me "Never worry about being the best, there's always somebody better around the corner. Just do the best you can and put your heart into it."
Now onto the music itself! This is where things are still very subjective. Complexity doesn't always make the music better, too much makes it uninteresting or it comes off as noise. Too little complexity and it becomes repetitive and boring...bordering on or fully achieving the status of "annoying". Back to the food analogy, people will have different expectations and certain emotional attachments to various foods. I think the real difference becomes when you can identify what might be generally classified as good/bad or high/low grade food. I don't go into McDonalds expecting a world-class hamburger and the highest quality fries on the planet, it's inexpensive food that is edible and quick. I realize it's not the same as a steak dinner at Perry's or some other fine steakhouse, but I can recognize that more went into that steak than the hamburger at Mickey D's. My favorite semi-fast food restaurant is Steak n Shake though, sort of a happy medium, but still brutally unhealthy.
Likewise, I don't listen to punk rock or indie rock expecting to be wowed by their use of syncopation or chordature (lolz)...a song like Who Needs You? by The Orwells or What's My Age Again? by Blink 182 is definitely not the height of intellectual poetry or complex music theory application, but it's not really meant to be. It's music you play loudly in the car and beat on steering wheel while you're stuck in traffic, and you sing your lungs out between outbursts at other drivers! I recognize it as this and don't go around saying "OMGZ thiz is liek teh best music evaarrr!" and claiming it to be the pinnacle of songwriting, it's simplistic music that is catchy. They play their own instruments, write the songs, and put a lot of energy into it. For an originals band, I would say that at least deserves the respect of fellow musicians whether they like the music or not, because it's their art and I can't necessarily judge it based on my tastes alone. When I listen to bands like Animals as Leaders, Rush, Led Zeppelin, Dream Theater, or countless other bands...I can perceive the complexity of this music and how it is still cohesive to the end product. That's a steak dinner, but likewise KISS would be a big, greasy bucket of fried chicken. Sure it might not be as fancy or meticulous, but it's still good eating and it will make a turd the next day
Where my respect ends is people who get all the fame for music they had no part of and are auto-tuned to hell while they just stand up there and look pretty. People who use a midi keyboard to generate simplistic beats and sample other people's music, maintaining the whole time that they are a god of music and have no equals (coughkanyewestcough). Lack of humility can be a killer for darn near any band/artist in my books. My dad used to tell me "Never worry about being the best, there's always somebody better around the corner. Just do the best you can and put your heart into it."
