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
Quoted from Gus Backus when I was in his band, "The difference between good music and bad music is how it is performed."
I believe that to be true, even for songs like The Bird is the Word and Grandmother Got Run Over by a Reindeer.
I believe that to be true, even for songs like The Bird is the Word and Grandmother Got Run Over by a Reindeer.
OK Buddy, that song is "Surfin' Bird" by the almighty Trashmen, nor shalt thou defame it! Because nobody, I repeat, nobody, could (or has) ever played it like they did. I'm pretty sure that's an objective opinion, too...
But among the many tangents touched on in this thread, I'd encourage anyone to peruse the chapter "All About Music" in The Real Frank Zappa Book, where FZ compares/contrasts the sociological universes of "pop" and "classical" music (for example). Required reading, and it will be on the final!
On the "art is useless" tip, Gilbert Sorrentino made amusing hay with this point in his fiction and (rare) criticism. Yes, by most (at least contemporary) standards, Art is pretty much useless, certainly in any sorta "objective" way. And- so what?
A point where several previous posters meet Zappa is on the matter of "product"- in today's wonderful world, "art" and "entertainment" alike, however so defined, are treated as commodities, aimed by marketing at their target demographics. But wasn't it always so? It's just reached the point now where it's pretty impossible to ignore, and where, since at least The Monkees, a lot of the "art" is actually created by the marketing and demographic intentions- ie, to make more money (for someone other than "the artist").
There is also the matter of exposure, or, how large is your musical universe? Zappa contends that most Americans, at least, really don't know what we like because, on the average, we're exposed to such a minute piece of the available musics. And although I'd contend that my own MU is pretty big, I think he's got a valid point. He's not, so far as I can see, arguing for any set of "objective" criteria there; rather that someone whose only musical exposure is to say, Top-40 radio, really can't judge, on that basis, whether or not the stuff they've never heard is "good" or "bad." Let's see, 15-yr. old me loved Zeppelin (and still does), while 60-yr. old me, having heard most of the stuff they nicked from by now, can make a better, or at least more informed, judgment of their work and its context, blah blah blah.
Then again, while I don't really have the education to "objectively" compare Bach to say, Handel, I wouldn't hesitate to tell you that Mr. B is frankly just a better composer; I can just, well, hear it. I can't pontificate on their respective uses of counterpoint and such, but- because I imbibed so much Baroque, literally with my mother's milk- I can judge their relative merits in pretty much the same way that many of us would judge the difference between, er, Foo Fighters and Nickleback. Or in this case, it's more like Zeppelin vs. Bad Company- both in the genus Hard Rock, but Zep pretty clearly superior, yes? How do we know? Because we've subconsciously absorbed the pertinent criteria for making such a judgement by hearing buttloads of rock music. If you've heard equal buttloads of classical music, or blues or folk or traditional Japanese or jazz or whatever, you can form similar judgments.
Finally, "objective" criteria can certainly be formulated for various types of music, but there's no reason they should be the same criteria for different musics. Eg, "distortion" and "impure" tones would be "bad" in pre-20th-century classical music, while they've always been considered marks of excellence in many traditional African and Asian musics. It is the glory of American music to have heard the African traditions collide/collude with the European (which were, of course, already long built on Asian/African and Middle/Near Eastern influences), which, apart from Jazz/Blues/Rock/Country/Hip-Hop/Whatever, has likewise thrown many a massive monkey-wrench into the theory and practice of modern Classical music. So I'd say, yeah, it's largely "subjective," but that depends- "objectively?"- on how much of what you've been exposed to, with the rule-of-thumb being, The More The Merrier! Big Ears can only threaten a narrow mind.
But among the many tangents touched on in this thread, I'd encourage anyone to peruse the chapter "All About Music" in The Real Frank Zappa Book, where FZ compares/contrasts the sociological universes of "pop" and "classical" music (for example). Required reading, and it will be on the final!
On the "art is useless" tip, Gilbert Sorrentino made amusing hay with this point in his fiction and (rare) criticism. Yes, by most (at least contemporary) standards, Art is pretty much useless, certainly in any sorta "objective" way. And- so what?
A point where several previous posters meet Zappa is on the matter of "product"- in today's wonderful world, "art" and "entertainment" alike, however so defined, are treated as commodities, aimed by marketing at their target demographics. But wasn't it always so? It's just reached the point now where it's pretty impossible to ignore, and where, since at least The Monkees, a lot of the "art" is actually created by the marketing and demographic intentions- ie, to make more money (for someone other than "the artist").
There is also the matter of exposure, or, how large is your musical universe? Zappa contends that most Americans, at least, really don't know what we like because, on the average, we're exposed to such a minute piece of the available musics. And although I'd contend that my own MU is pretty big, I think he's got a valid point. He's not, so far as I can see, arguing for any set of "objective" criteria there; rather that someone whose only musical exposure is to say, Top-40 radio, really can't judge, on that basis, whether or not the stuff they've never heard is "good" or "bad." Let's see, 15-yr. old me loved Zeppelin (and still does), while 60-yr. old me, having heard most of the stuff they nicked from by now, can make a better, or at least more informed, judgment of their work and its context, blah blah blah.
Then again, while I don't really have the education to "objectively" compare Bach to say, Handel, I wouldn't hesitate to tell you that Mr. B is frankly just a better composer; I can just, well, hear it. I can't pontificate on their respective uses of counterpoint and such, but- because I imbibed so much Baroque, literally with my mother's milk- I can judge their relative merits in pretty much the same way that many of us would judge the difference between, er, Foo Fighters and Nickleback. Or in this case, it's more like Zeppelin vs. Bad Company- both in the genus Hard Rock, but Zep pretty clearly superior, yes? How do we know? Because we've subconsciously absorbed the pertinent criteria for making such a judgement by hearing buttloads of rock music. If you've heard equal buttloads of classical music, or blues or folk or traditional Japanese or jazz or whatever, you can form similar judgments.
Finally, "objective" criteria can certainly be formulated for various types of music, but there's no reason they should be the same criteria for different musics. Eg, "distortion" and "impure" tones would be "bad" in pre-20th-century classical music, while they've always been considered marks of excellence in many traditional African and Asian musics. It is the glory of American music to have heard the African traditions collide/collude with the European (which were, of course, already long built on Asian/African and Middle/Near Eastern influences), which, apart from Jazz/Blues/Rock/Country/Hip-Hop/Whatever, has likewise thrown many a massive monkey-wrench into the theory and practice of modern Classical music. So I'd say, yeah, it's largely "subjective," but that depends- "objectively?"- on how much of what you've been exposed to, with the rule-of-thumb being, The More The Merrier! Big Ears can only threaten a narrow mind.
Kind of surprised this thread is still going.
just to be sure we're on the same page (I don't think everyone has been): To be "objective," a characteristic has to be measurable and concrete, such that there is no individual feeling or interpretation involved and no reasonable person could disagree on it. It is an objective fact that I am five foot eleven inches tall. "Subjective" means that personal feeling or interpretation is involved in assessing the characteristic. Whether I am an attractive guy or not is a subjective judgment.
There is a great deal about music that is objective. Its tempo, the key it's in, how many notes it uses, its harmonic complexity, and so on and so forth. You can analyze two pieces of music and conclude that one is more complex than the other, or that it uses more unusual forms (and thus is presumably more original or creative), or that it is more technically difficult for the musician to play. You could presumably measure musicians' skills objectively to some extent, by testing whether they could play technically challenging pieces.
The problem is that none of these objective measurements guarantees agreement about the music's quality. There are lots of of blindingly complicated, technically difficult pieces of music out there that leave audiences and even musicians totally cold - impressed by the technical skill but not caring otherwise. That kind of a chops-fest wouldn't be ranked by most people as "really good music." There are also very simple pieces of music that resonate deeply with people - Tom Dooley, Danny Boy, Amazing Grace. Nothing complicated, but many would agree that they are powerful classic tunes. Bach is undoubtedly a more complex, more skilled composer than Ravel. Is a Brandenburg Concerto a "better" piece of music than Bolero? That's clearly a subjective judgment.
just to be sure we're on the same page (I don't think everyone has been): To be "objective," a characteristic has to be measurable and concrete, such that there is no individual feeling or interpretation involved and no reasonable person could disagree on it. It is an objective fact that I am five foot eleven inches tall. "Subjective" means that personal feeling or interpretation is involved in assessing the characteristic. Whether I am an attractive guy or not is a subjective judgment.
There is a great deal about music that is objective. Its tempo, the key it's in, how many notes it uses, its harmonic complexity, and so on and so forth. You can analyze two pieces of music and conclude that one is more complex than the other, or that it uses more unusual forms (and thus is presumably more original or creative), or that it is more technically difficult for the musician to play. You could presumably measure musicians' skills objectively to some extent, by testing whether they could play technically challenging pieces.
The problem is that none of these objective measurements guarantees agreement about the music's quality. There are lots of of blindingly complicated, technically difficult pieces of music out there that leave audiences and even musicians totally cold - impressed by the technical skill but not caring otherwise. That kind of a chops-fest wouldn't be ranked by most people as "really good music." There are also very simple pieces of music that resonate deeply with people - Tom Dooley, Danny Boy, Amazing Grace. Nothing complicated, but many would agree that they are powerful classic tunes. Bach is undoubtedly a more complex, more skilled composer than Ravel. Is a Brandenburg Concerto a "better" piece of music than Bolero? That's clearly a subjective judgment.
Objectivity negates any judgement at all.
If you separate art from music itself and replace "objective" with "intersubjective" then I think there is stuff that`s simply better than other stuff.
A singer that has great pitch, time and is able to sing a 3 part harmony without the need to tune it or time-align IS a better singer than a dude that can barely spit out basic 3 note melody and ends his notes differently every time.
A bassplayer that can play in time with little support IS better than a guy that speeds up every time the drummers stops playing for a second.
Etc. Etc.
Whether these people use their skills to create something you enjoy lisening to - that IS purely subjective. I have no problem enjoying music from people that are average players at best.
One thing that is difficult to quantify is charisma - some players evidently have it and just attract your attention more than others despite their lack of ability.
I recall browsing an old issue of Bass Player and there was an article about precisely this. I think it was by Justin Meldal-Johnson or Juan Alderete or one of those music-school-trained, studio-pro wizzes, writing about going to see a popular band, and loving it. His basic point was that there are some musicians - I remember him citing Tina Weymouth and Peter Hook, among others - who don't have the music-school technical chops, but do have an instinctive feel for the groove of a song and play great bass lines - not technical or complicated, but just... good. Subjectively so, of course.
I think intersubjectivity is a good term to introduce here. Statistically, you could survey a hundred or a million people on what music they think is "good" or "bad," and you could then analyze the high and low scorers of the survey and identify objective characteristics that the winners have and the losers don't. That doesn't mean you've identified the objective characteristics of good music, it just means you've identified the features that trigger positive popular, subjective reactions.
Objectivity in art is arbitrary. There are no rules for success that work every time, and that is the essence of objectivity. Even seeking an objective standard in art is a fool's errand.
Subjectivity, on the other hand, is ALL about perception, which not only differs from person to person, but from one moment to the next.
Subjectivity, on the other hand, is ALL about perception, which not only differs from person to person, but from one moment to the next.
Hey, this is just one of those little tea-pot tempests that folks like to heat up now and then- no need to get all put out about it.
Clearly (at least, from reading through this thread), the "objective" and "subjective" ain't the same for everyone! Or as the "Pope" puts in that Monty Python sketch, "I want twelve apostles, one Christ, and NO kangaroos!!!" He didn't know from "Art," but he knew what he liked.
Which I mention because, the more one hears, the more one is likely to expand one's "objective" idea of good music. The "objective" criteria cited by some posters are only objective criteria within a certain subset of Western musical theory and practice. Even seemingly cut-&-dried concepts like "being in tune" vary wildly in various traditions. Dave Van Ronk relates how he courteously "tuned" the low E string on the Rev. Gary Davis' guitar while the Rev took a break- the out-of-tune-ness of said string had been bugging Dave. Gary picks up his guitar, plunks a few notes, frowns, and immediately "tunes" that string back to where he'd left it! Who's right? You really can't "decide" something like that with a tuner.
To risk paraphrasing George Clinton- Free your ears, and your music will follow!
Clearly (at least, from reading through this thread), the "objective" and "subjective" ain't the same for everyone! Or as the "Pope" puts in that Monty Python sketch, "I want twelve apostles, one Christ, and NO kangaroos!!!" He didn't know from "Art," but he knew what he liked.
Which I mention because, the more one hears, the more one is likely to expand one's "objective" idea of good music. The "objective" criteria cited by some posters are only objective criteria within a certain subset of Western musical theory and practice. Even seemingly cut-&-dried concepts like "being in tune" vary wildly in various traditions. Dave Van Ronk relates how he courteously "tuned" the low E string on the Rev. Gary Davis' guitar while the Rev took a break- the out-of-tune-ness of said string had been bugging Dave. Gary picks up his guitar, plunks a few notes, frowns, and immediately "tunes" that string back to where he'd left it! Who's right? You really can't "decide" something like that with a tuner.
To risk paraphrasing George Clinton- Free your ears, and your music will follow!
No; if it's not the same for everyone, it's not objective. That's what I was trying to say. The definition of the word itself means that it is not up to anyone's perspective.
Whose tuning, in your example, was "right" is not an objective fact. All kinds of different tuning systems are possible, even within the western tradition, let alone when you consider non-Western. It is an objective fact that your A string is tuned to 440 hz, or not tuned to that frequency. That doesn't depend on anyone's perspective, judgment, or perception. Whether it SHOULD be tuned to that frequency is a subjective judgment. Whether a person's instrument is tuned to just intonation, or equal temperament, or some other system of establishing the pitches on a scale, is an objective fact. Which system is better is a subjective judgment.
I think part of the confusion in a lot of this thread is the assumption that objectivity itself is somehow "better" or "truer" than subjectivity. People think that for their beliefs to count as "real" or "true," they have to also be "objective." But for something to be objectively true does not make it "more" true than something which is subjectively perceived to be true; it only means that recognizing its truth is not contingent on anyone's perception or judgment. I am also, however, a firm believer that there are some truths which are only known by subjective means. I have no trouble at all saying that the Beatles were better artists than Katy Perry. I don't just mean I happen to like them better, I think it's actually true. I believe it is a very real and true fact. But I don't pretend that there is any objective way to know it or prove it; I perceive the truth of it subjectively.
No one has ever played it like they did, true. However, I far prefer the Ramones version.
You show me your best attempt at objective aesthetics and I will show you your cultural bias
Your analogy isn't fair. There's no better composer than Handel. The Brandenburg Concerti sound mechanical compared to his op 3 or 6 concerti grossi. Handel is just as good as Scarlatti. Or Bach, for that matter.
You're right that the cream objectively rises to the top over hundreds of years but among those greats we still have our subjective opinions.
Which is better:
Ford F150
Ferarri F150
Before you answer, I'll be using it to haul hay for my horses.
Ford F150
Ferarri F150
Before you answer, I'll be using it to haul hay for my horses.
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
Big truth there. Most music is produced to make someone some money. And lets be honest: How many of us would buy an album because of a hit song on it only to find ourself liking some other song better than the hit.
Music is like women: Some makes for a good girlfriend and some makes for a good wife. There is so much ephemeral crap being produced that it sorta poisons the whole well.
