Is 'good' music objective or subjective?

[MVE]

One of Merriam-Websters definitions of "Subjective" is: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind.

As Music must be "perceived" by a human in order to qualify it as "good", it is therefor by definition "subjective".

If you could make a computer program to listen to music and quantify it according to defined and specific parameters independent of a person's "mind" to qualify it a "good", you could then call it "objective".

Tell your friend that he is wrong, no matter how vehemently he argues his point, as he is simply misusing or misunderstanding the terms "subjective" and "objective".

A similar comparison would be looking at a paint sample and calling it "red". You and I may both agree that it is "red." But it is only subjectively "red" as it has only been perceived as red by human minds. Only after we scan it with a spectrophotometer and it confirms that it is "red" can we call it objectively "red."

[EDIT]
I would like to add, in defense of your opinionated friend's position, that if his only measurement used to determine good vs bad music is Nickleback (Y/N) and or FooFighters (Y/N), as their names are totally removed from the human experience of hearing either band, then yes he could "Objectively" state that FooFighters equals "good" and Nickleback equals "bad" based solely on his own list of what is good music and bad music.

 

[BKBassDude]

If a trained chef were to say that McDonalds is objectively bad food, no one would think twice. Millions of people eat McDonalds every day and enjoy it.

But a trained musician saying pop or rap or country or whatever is objectively bad, despite millions of people enjoying it, is thought to be wrong?

I don't get it. I think there is objectively good and bad music. But everyones relationship to music is different. To most people, the quality of arrangement or technicality behind a piece of music is not important.

 

[MVE]

If a trained chef were to say that McDonalds is objectively bad food, no one would think twice.

No one would think twice, but he might still be WRONG if he is commenting on the taste, smell, or other characteristic as perceived.

The health content of food (ie. calories, saturated fat, sodium, etc...) is objectively quantifiable and therefore he could be correctly commenting on those parameters.

Words have definitions and our language has points of fact that must be accepted and agreed upon or else logic, law and philosophy have no meaning or purpose.

 

[Gaolee]

"Good" music is objective. My opinion is objective. Therefore, music I think is good is good music. Music I don't like is bad music. Any more questions?

 

[the yeti]

to be objective it would have to meet a measurable standard. so if you say "music played above 100db is good", or "music played at 160 bpm or faster is good" that would be fairly simple to distinguish good from bad. but that's not how it works. maybe your friend just doesn't know the meaning of the word?

 

[ShredderMaximus]

I bet 50 bucks I could sit down and write an objectively bad song right now.

 

[KevInDaBassment]

To bring everybody harmony and peace with one another, I'm sure we could all agree that Video Games by Blackout is objectively bad music.

Don't believe me? Go look it up on Youtube, I dare you

 

[smeet]

It's ridiculous to even contemplate that goodness or badness of music is objective.
I love Kind of Blue, the Brandenburg Concertos, Metallica's Black Album, Weather Report's Heavy Weather, Mr. Bungle, John Zorn/Naked City, Aphex Twin, Zeppelin, Return to Forever's Romantic Warrior, Mahavishnu Orchestra, and Coltrane's A Love Supreme. Some of that wouldn't even be considered music by some people. It's just vibrations in the air, the music actually happens inside your head when you put it together into a percieved structure. That's the definition of subjective.

 

[chuck norriss]

@VanillaThundah some people don't like blackpus I like that crap

 

[chuck norriss]

It's ridiculous to even contemplate that goodness or badness of music is objective.
I love Kind of Blue, the Brandenburg Concertos, Metallica's Black Album, Weather Report's Heavy Weather, Mr. Bungle, John Zorn/Naked City, Aphex Twin, Zeppelin, Return to Forever's Romantic Warrior, Mahavishnu Orchestra, and Coltrane's A Love Supreme. Some of that wouldn't even be considered music by some people. It's just vibrations in the air, the music actually happens inside your head when you put it together into a percieved structure. That's the definition of subjective.

it took me a long time to appreciate love supreme
i would like a taco bell burrito supreme

 

[smeet]

To bring everybody harmony and peace with one another, I'm sure we could all agree that Video Games by Blackout is objectively bad music.

Don't believe me? Go look it up on Youtube, I dare you

OK, It's kind of horrible IMO, although maybe it's ironically really good. But play that, the Ramones, Sex Pistols, and The Clash to my parents, and they honestly probably couldn't tell much of a difference. They might actually like this because it's sung by a kid. Hey, that's their subjective reality.

 

[bluesblaster]

If it makes you happy it must be good. What else is necessary.

 

[smeet]

it took me a long time to appreciate love supreme
i would like a taco bell burrito supreme

I think taco bell is a subjective experience.

 

[smeet]

If it makes you happy it must be good. What else is necessary.

I think the point is that it's good or bad FOR YOU if you think it is. There is no objective good or bad, in any sphere of life, death, science, or art.

 

[chuck norriss]

I think taco bell is a subjective experience.

it's a diarrhea experience

 

[KevInDaBassment]

OK, It's kind of horrible IMO, although maybe it's ironically really good. But play that, the Ramones, Sex Pistols, and The Clash to my parents, and they honestly probably couldn't tell much of a difference. They might actually like this because it's sung by a kid. Hey, that's their subjective reality.

I stand corrected, sir lol.

The first time I heard it, I thought "Somebody gave that Ernie kid from Billy Madison a record deal!!" I'll take it any day over Friday by Rebecca Black or that other little girl who did the one about Chinese food. It took Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Fallon, and Taylor Hicks (along with the Roots Crew band) to make Friday bearable.

 

[smeet]

Diarrhea is a subjective experience.

I'm very glad it is. I don't want to experience other people's diarrhea. Although I assume it feels the way the word looks. Diarrhea.

 

[chuck norriss]

I have a confession: I don't like bela fleck & the flecktones. But I really like Wooten!

 

[smeet]

WRONG!!!

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

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."

Well - that isn't music. It's "product". I compare it to fast food. Unless one is mentally challenged (or circumstances preclude other options), one does NOT go to McDonalds expecting a good dining experience - one goes there to get cheap fuel. So when diva-o-the-week music comes out, chock-full-o autotuner and horrid writing, it's the same thing. Product for undeveloped pallets.

Perhaps there's another way to view this - as a matter of maturity. When I was a teenager, I liked some really awful music, much as I liked some really awful food. No mas. What baffles me is when I meet adults who never "Grow up" with respect to their aesthetic sensibilities; Their choices are frozen an amber (hence the depressing proliferation of "classic rock" music stations).