Is 'good' music objective or subjective?

[esa372]

Is good music objective or subjective?

Objective... no opinion necessary.

Opinion comes in when someone decides that they do, or do not, like it.

 

[raventepes]

I think it's all subjective, with the caveat of technical musicianship. Weather the musician is self-taught, went to school for it, or studied in private lessons is irrelevant. Lets take Dragonforce as a good example. They're a technical band with plenty of skill, especially in guitarists Herman Li and Sam Toteman. We see two outstanding musicians, one is classically trained, and the other is self taught. Would you ever know it? Probably not. They're skills are on par with each other's. The band's arrangements are well put together, and generally everything is well written.

Do I like them? Yes, I do! But if you were to ask someone into, say the country genre, the chances are, they won't care for it.

In another example, lets take The Misfits. They don't have nearly Dragonforce's complexity, and their music is pretty basic in comparison. I still like them, and others would have a different opinion. The same is true with The Ramones. Again, "basic" music, where they're essentially driven by power chords. They're nothing complex about them, and their songs are very straight forward. All three bands are highly praised in their respective genres.

I enjoy a plethora of musical styles, ranging from bands like Nightwish, to the aforementioned Dragonforce, Ramones, and Misfits, to Metallica and Anthrax, to Cradle Of Filth, to Wednesday 13. I like bands like Skillet, My Chemical Romance, AFI, Tool, Nine Inch Nails, Seether, and Pentatonix. I enjoy KISS, and WASP, Dimmu Borgir, and Lady Gaga (One of the VERY few pop-stars I care for). Black Sabbath, Daft Punk, Skinny Puppy, The Prodigy, Wolfsheim, Front Line Assembly, Led Zeppelin, Elvis. Mozart, Wagner, and Tchaikovsky! You get the idea, here.

I don't care for country music, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the level of musicianship it takes to produce that type of music. I respect musicians for what they are and what they can do.

Just because, say Dream Theater is technically a "good" band, based on skill set, doesn't mean some people like them. They're just not some people's thing.

Michael Manring is one guy where I appreciate his chops, but I don't care for his music. Same thing goes for Victor Wooten, and Bela Fleck and The Flecktones. I don't care for their music. Period. Do I think they're great musicians? Of course! Same can be said for Jaco! *ducks*

Music, like everything is subjective. Some people like steaks, some like veggies.

 

[KevInDaBassment]

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).

True that. I do get what you're saying, I always viewed some of those stations as serving a dual purpose. Back when people still listened to radio, it was a doorway to classic music that you might not get exposure to anywhere else as a kid. Nobody was pumping Cream, Boston, or Lynyrd Skynrd (spl?) on Nickelodeon or MTV back then lol. My mother was very "strict" in what music she let me listen to, but I thought it was the coolest when I rode in my dad's truck and got to listen to classic rock stations with him. Some of it might have just been overindulgent arena rock, but I'd say this is anecdote exhibit A on sentimental attachment to music. When I inherited the truck at age 19, spent many a days jamming out to this

 

[wlater]

I had a music professor (years ago) who I always thought summed it up rather nicely. Paraphrased: "People don't know what they like, they like what they know." Over the years, I've found that to be pretty accurate with regards to music (as well as other subjects) and probably is just as applicable to good/bad as it is to like/dislike.

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

I had a music professor (years ago) who I always thought summed it up rather nicely. Paraphrased: "People don't know what they like, they like what they know." Over the years, I've found that to be pretty accurate with regards to music (as well as other subjects) and probably is just as applicable to good/bad as it is to like/dislike.

Very valid.

I was lucky - somewhere along the line, college perhaps, someone (I don't recall who) drilled it into my head that the world is FULL of new things that were good and so I should keep an open mind/ear. So I do. The flip-side is that I can barely endure many of the things that I used to "love"!

 

[Brelic]

Do I like them? Yes, I do! But if you were to ask someone into, say the country genre, the chances are, they won't care for it.

Music, like everything is subjective. Some people like steaks, some like veggies.

Ok, but I think this is something other than the original crux of the discussion (and I'm not picking on you, it just happened to be the last message I read )

There's an important difference between music someone would say they "like" and music someone would classify as "good". I know that most everyone would have a different definition of "good," and for some people, it would be pretty close to what they "like."

Is this where wide musical exposure and years of refinement come in to play? If the only thing you grew up on and listened to is country (or classic rock, or pick one), your evaluation of other music is probably not very refined. In other words, many of the finer points of what might make something else "good" would not be obvious to the uninitiated.

I think a wonderful modern example is a music reviewer who posts his review of a band's new album on the same day it is released. I saw one today on the new Yes album. The reviewer admittedly listened to it for the first time that day. And declared the album to be a piece of garbage. It sounds more like this particular person was sharing an opinion of an album that did not meet his expectations based on how much he enjoyed previous albums of Yes.

And that's ok...

BUT, that's not a "review" IMO. I haven't listened to the new album, and I probably never will - it's irrelevant to the point, really. What you see here is someone who is just giving his opinion, and because he didn't like it compared to old stuff, well, it's garbage. Because you can't possibly fully absorb an album in one listen - and I believe this to be true of even the simplest of music. You might be able to determine if you "like" it or "think it's total garbage" in one listen, but that's just a reaction to it. Not a fully formed thought on something you've fully absorbed over time; something you've understood and internalized.

Just more food for thought

 

[mellowinman]

Objective.

Good:

Beethoven
Zeppelin
Jim Croce
Pavarotti
Johnny Cash
Mozart
Beatles
Hendrix
Glen Miller
Weather Report
Crosby Stills and Nash
Stevie Wonder
The Ramones
Little Richard
The Rolling Stones
Dolly Parton

Bad:

Nickelback
Creed
Hole
The Knack
Schürmann
Billy Ray Cyrus
Poison
Ratt
Trace Adkins
Florence Foster Jenkins
Paris Hilton


Note:

This post is sort of a joke. Of course it's subjective. While many will agree with my choices of good and bad above, that doesn't mean it's correct.

 

[Tom Bomb]

There is one hole in your argument, sir! Congratulations!

 

[bluesblaster]

he seems to have a knack for bad music

 

[raventepes]

Well, lets consider this. Lets say, we have a band formed in High School, say, members in the 16-17 range. They're barely coming into their own, musically, if at all. Their music is a combination of covers and crudely written new material. None of the members of this band have ever preformed in front of an audience before, and all of them, while possibly good for their age, but are in a broad sense, mediocre at best. This could end up being called "Bad" music. A lack of skill, essentially. Before anyone mentions the likes of Silverchair, there's an exception to every rule. Granted, I never cared much for their music, but that's not the point here.

Now, lets put them up against a headlining band. Any headlining band you want. To me, this is the difference between "good" music, and "bad" music. The kids wouldn't stand a chance in a Battle Of The Bands scenario. Yeah, they might be okay to listen to. Maybe even pleasant.

I remember, when I was still in school, a band called Gateway. They were a local group, still in school. I was friends with their drummer and lead singer/guitarist. I really liked them at the time. I figured out how to play a few of their songs, and even to this day, I play them. It was all fairly simple bar chords with the bass mostly playing the root. Typical power trio. Despite the lack of quality if their demo, it was, as I would call it, bad music by sheer comparison, but not without potential.

At any rate though, all else equal, I stand by the notion that "good" and "bad" music is subjective. Take talent and musicianship out of the equation, and to me, good music is still good. Bad is still bad. Hey...just look at Justin Bieber! He can sing. I'll give him that, but his music still sucks!

 

[Robus]

To the OP. In one sentence each, as precisely as you can:

1. Explain what you mean by the phrase "good music is objective."

2. Explain what you mean by the phrase "good music is subjective."

Then we can have a conversation about which phrase makes the most sense, or if either does.

 

[Brelic]

To the OP. In one sentence each, as precisely as you can:

1. Explain what you mean by the phrase "good music is objective."

2. Explain what you mean by the phrase "good music is subjective."

Then we can have a conversation about which phrase makes the most sense, or if either does.

1. It could have two different meanings:
a. There are universal categories of 'good' music that hold true over time, across geography, and across all ethnicities. This is no different than the belief in a universal god, for example. These categories are external to human experience - in other words, they would exist whether or not we exist. Mozart's Requiem, or Beethoven's Piano Concerto No. 5 would be considered 'good' by any societies in any place at any time.

b. There are forms of 'good' music that are generally accepted but ultimately created by us. In other words, they are objective forms which we have created (subjectively) to evaluate 'good' music. And I would say in here you can't just lump in artists - you would have to evaluate each song on its own merit for its adherence to the form. The artist is unimportant in the evaluation - it's really only a fancy label. So, to say that The Beatles are 'good' is a false evaluation.

2. In this case, there is absolutely no such thing as objective categories of 'good' and 'bad' for music. The experience is entirely subjective and belongs entirely to the listener. I would argue that 'good' and 'bad' become 'like' and 'dislike', as that's the only thing that matters.

Does that help?

 

[bluesblaster]

I think this is being over analysed to death, music is one of those simple pleasures of life.

now go do something constructive like clean your room.

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

You guys DO know that this is a subject folks have been studying/debating pretty much forever, right? Analyzing aesthetics & taste is nothing new.

 

[Brelic]

You guys DO know that this is a subject folks have been studying/debating pretty much forever, right? Analyzing aesthetics & taste is nothing new.

Yet here we are, continuing the debate.

 

[Robus]

1. It could have two different meanings:
a. There are universal categories of 'good' music that hold true over time, across geography, and across all ethnicities. This is no different than the belief in a universal god, for example. These categories are external to human experience - in other words, they would exist whether or not we exist. Mozart's Requiem, or Beethoven's Piano Concerto No. 5 would be considered 'good' by any societies in any place at any time.

b. There are forms of 'good' music that are generally accepted but ultimately created by us. In other words, they are objective forms which we have created (subjectively) to evaluate 'good' music. And I would say in here you can't just lump in artists - you would have to evaluate each song on its own merit for its adherence to the form. The artist is unimportant in the evaluation - it's really only a fancy label. So, to say that The Beatles are 'good' is a false evaluation.

2. In this case, there is absolutely no such thing as objective categories of 'good' and 'bad' for music. The experience is entirely subjective and belongs entirely to the listener. I would argue that 'good' and 'bad' become 'like' and 'dislike', as that's the only thing that matters.

Does that help?

Thanks. 1a. would be absurd in my opinion. "Good" is an evaluative term. There can't be evaluation without an evaluator. To take an extreme example, imagine a dead planet in a dead universe. Imagine that the random sound waves caused by raindrops falling on the bare rock of the planet's surface approximated the chorus of Mozart's Requiem. Would it make sense to call that "good?"

For an example of 2., imagine a baby slapping his bottle against the slats of his crib. The baby likes the sound. Nobody else likes hearing it. To them it sounds like racket. We could say that whatever musical quality is in the sound is "subjective" to the baby.

Neither of these examples do justice to the subject. Music happens in a context were certain aesthetic values are shared between the musician and the listeners. In that context we can say that a piece of music is "good" or "bad." I think it was Stanley Fish who used the term "interpretive communities" to describe a group of people who share a given set of aesthetic values. Within such a community there is going to be broad agreement about what constitutes "good" and "bad" art. You could say those qualities are "inter-subjective."

Take Led Zeppelin. If you are my age and listened to certain kinds of radio stations at a certain point in your life, you probably have great respect for their music. Whether or not you care to listen to it any more, you consider it excellent within its genre. If you grew up listening to Indonesian gamelan music and never listened to anything else, you probably wouldn't care for Zeppelin if you heard it. This would not be a subjective difference of opinion over Led Zeppelin. It would reflect the gap between the aesthetic values of two different interpretive communities.

The best answer among those you gave is 1b.

Or so it seems to me.

 

[Robus]

You guys DO know that this is a subject folks have been studying/debating pretty much forever, right? Analyzing aesthetics & taste is nothing new.

Well, you could always call for the thread to be locked/banned. That seems to be the pattern when some members of the community are annoyed to discover that other members of the community want to write or read about topics that they, themselves do not want to write or read about.

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

Well, you could always call for the thread to be locked/banned. That seems to be the pattern when some members of the community are annoyed to discover that other members of the community want to write or read about topics that they, themselves do not want to write or read about.

I have no interest in raining on anyone's parade - I'm just pointing out that this this is *thoroughly* covered ground, both here and in academia.

 

[Gaolee]

I have no interest in raining on anyone's parade - I'm just pointing out that this this is *thoroughly* covered ground, both here and in academia.

And now it is being covered again on TalkBass. The discussion here will supersede any mere academic discussion. This thread will supersede any previous discussions and become eternal truth.

 

[KevInDaBassment]

Is this where wide musical exposure and years of refinement come in to play? If the only thing you grew up on and listened to is country (or classic rock, or pick one), your evaluation of other music is probably not very refined. In other words, many of the finer points of what might make something else "good" would not be obvious to the uninitiated.

I think this is a very valid point to bring up. If you don't know any better, you'll never grow in your tastes if you are so inclined. I know most times nostalgia or the whole "When I was a teenager, we had GOOD music!" perception is a very common problem. Every generation will view their young adult years as the best ever and nothing with ever surpass it. Some people transcend beyond this and can adequately judge music without bias. These people are usually musicians as compared to casual listeners. Somebody who only listens to country might listen to classic rock or prog metal and just find it to be utter noise and dislike it thoroughly. People who gravitate to what's familiar will probably not generate an open-minded approach to music.

To sound like broken record, I can only state what music I feel is good, but acknowledge there is some music I like that is admittedly bad music or "guilty pleasure" music. Green Day and Blink 182 would be two great examples for me. That and some of Black Flag's early stuff might not be considered really deep or meaningful stuff (TV Party, Six Pack, etc). While not everyone likes their music, I'd say a lot of effort and talent went into making the Diorama album by Silverchair. Mixing the alternative rock elements and orchestral stuff into a cohesive album was mind-blowing to me. Might seem like child's play to some guys, but I'd say I'm impressed by it. Their earlier stuff I'd lump into the punk style stuff, grunge music with a lot of energy and straightforward music. Not too hard to learn, but a hell of a lotta fun to play. Lots of musical styles I jumped into and liked without any real exposure to them, reggae being one of them. I can't say funk because my dad did like funk as well. Kool and the Gang or Isley Brothers got played in the truck along with the classic rock stuff