THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

  • 09 Jul 2025, 02:15 *
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Objectivity in Music  (Read 25501 times)

lastclearchance

  • Furry furrier
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 156
Objectivity in Music
« on: 03 Jul 2005, 12:58 »

To what extent do you believe that a song can objectively be considered "good"?  Do you think it's 100% up to interpretation, and anyone can be justified in loving anything?  Do you believe that all songs can be definitively and objectively ranked qualitatively?  (I'm assuming most people fall somewhere in the middle; I'm just curious what your thoughts are.)

Personally, I tend to compromise by rating music objectively and subjectively.  (Example:  Nine Inch Nails' "The Fragile" gets a subjective 9 and an objective 7 out of 10.)

I suppose it's just that I've been reading Chuck Klosterman a lot lately, and he likes to spit on the Christgau-ites.    *shrugs*
Logged
zekterellium: was kant the guy, that if you thought you were doing the right thing, even if you were feeding sailors to werewolves, then it was the right thing?
Moiche: Err. . . .no I think that's Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Oerdin

  • Bizarre cantaloupe phobia
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #1 on: 03 Jul 2005, 13:19 »

I've always thought music was relative to the listener.  Everyone has different ideas of what is good and what isn't.
Logged

ASturge

  • Guest
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #2 on: 03 Jul 2005, 13:24 »

Some music can definatly be considered 'bad'

Cheeky Girls anyone?
Logged

trolley

  • Guest
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #3 on: 03 Jul 2005, 14:24 »

I think it's definately objective. I think Pink Floyd are are consistantly dull and unremarkable, and yet dads the world over were dribbling with anticiapation at them playing yesterday. It all comes down to your environment and what you're adapted to liking.
Logged

ASturge

  • Guest
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #4 on: 03 Jul 2005, 14:27 »

God

I second your Pink Floyd comment.
Logged

Merkava

  • Guest
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #5 on: 03 Jul 2005, 14:40 »

Quote from: trolley
I think it's definately objective. I think Pink Floyd are are consistantly dull and unremarkable, and yet dads the world over were dribbling with anticiapation at them playing yesterday. It all comes down to your environment and what you're adapted to liking.


<3
Logged

Gryff

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,109
  • Summary sense... tingling!
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #6 on: 03 Jul 2005, 14:43 »

This is a philosophical idea which basically boils down to "what is art?", which is an impossible question to answer definitively.

Having said that, it's interesting to look at some different perspectives on the subject. It can be argued that there are standards of taste that are common to everyone but are more developed in some people, through combinations of natural ability and training (in this case listening to a lot of music). Consider that the aforementioned Cheeky Girls are widely regarded as bad, while The Beatles are widely regarded as good. Are these standards of taste or merely widespread opinion?

The opposing viewpoint might say that absolutely everything is subjective, and that there is equal validity in stating that The Cheeky Girls are the best band in history as there is in saying that of the Beatles.

Initially you might think "well, there's no way that The Cheeky Girls could be considered better than the Beatles, so there must be at least some standards of taste" but surely you can just as easily argue that "beauty is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder".

As with most philosophical debate there is no right answer.

ASturge

  • Guest
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #7 on: 03 Jul 2005, 14:46 »

That's correct on many levels....

But come one. The Cheeky Girls?

Jesus. Have a little dignity.
Logged

Gryff

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,109
  • Summary sense... tingling!
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #8 on: 03 Jul 2005, 14:57 »

That's the thing, isn't it?

I'm sure that everyone on this board believes that The Cheeky Girls could not be considered good in any way, shape or form. However, does that mean that there is no validity at all to someone's personal preference to the Cheeky Girls?

Maybe it does. So would it therefore be feasibly possible to figure out the essential properties of good music?

Maybe it doesn't. Who's to say that our appreciation (or lack thereof) of The Cheeky Girls is a universal truth and is unaffected by cultural, societal and personal factors?

ASturge

  • Guest
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #9 on: 03 Jul 2005, 15:01 »

Damnit!

We're talking about the Cheeky Girls here!

Not a band which many people have differing opinions on.
I can except other peoples opinions on Pink FLoyd. Some like em, some dont.

But the cheeky girls!?

bah, humbug!
Logged

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,456
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #10 on: 03 Jul 2005, 15:41 »

It's totally subjective.

Take for example, Ulvers 'Nattens Madrigal' album. I could find plenty of people who judge it one of the best albums ever made. I would be inclined to agree. Yet most people couldn't stand to even sit through it.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

Gryff

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,109
  • Summary sense... tingling!
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #11 on: 03 Jul 2005, 15:51 »

You mean subjective, right Khar?

Subjective = proceeding from an idividual's perceptions

Objective = proceeding uncoloured by feelings or opinions

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,456
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #12 on: 03 Jul 2005, 16:02 »

I know exactly what I mean, boy.







It's been a long day.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

Gryff

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,109
  • Summary sense... tingling!
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #13 on: 03 Jul 2005, 16:08 »

ok... no need to be condescending.

just thought that might confuse some people.

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,456
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #14 on: 03 Jul 2005, 16:40 »

Well, you patronised me a bit. I'm sorry, I had to bite back.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

pistachio

  • Guest
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #15 on: 03 Jul 2005, 16:59 »

Everythings Relative. Including music. The simple fact of the matter is, while maybe it seems like there are artists out there that no one likes, there are still a lot of artists that some people like and some people dont like. Just because there is a band that no one likes doesnt mean that all music is objective.

No one can really say that anything anyone else likes is unjustified. Sometimes there isnt a way to explain why someone likes any certain genre of music, but just becasue they can't explain to anyone else why that genre is "the best" (to them) doesn't mean that they aren't justified in liking it. If it pleases them, then it pleases them. Simple.
Logged

Tago Mago

  • Larger than most fish
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #16 on: 03 Jul 2005, 17:36 »

I think musical quality has to be objective, otherwise it's immune to serious criticism. Also, if art can be judged at least partly on the artist's intention, then I don't buy the notion that a serious, passionate effort done out of love for the art form is as equally legitimate as a commercial throwaway.
Logged

Hector Gilbert

  • Guest
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #17 on: 03 Jul 2005, 19:53 »

Quote from: Tago Mago
I think musical quality has to be objective, otherwise it's immune to serious criticism.


One thing that I often see people say is that if musical quality is subjective, then there is no point whatsoever in arguing about it.  Nothing could be further from the truth - sure the opinion that one may form may be based on biases and expectations on behalf of the listener, but enlightening persuasive pieces can still be written on just why one likes or doesn't like the music.  Just because music can be criticised does not mean that it is objectively good or bad, it just means that it is open to subjective scrutiny.

I always found the idea of determining what is "good" or "bad" music - and, in particular, "good" and "bad" taste in music - to be very frightening and largely repressive.  It implies that only a certain set of expectations should be used in evaluating music, which is a close-minded ideology in itself and dismissive of discrepancies in personality and attitude which may lead such expectations to differ.

I'd also argue that "intention" is completely superfluous on a studio recording, but that's another issue.
Logged

My Aim Is True

  • Bizarre cantaloupe phobia
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 201
    • http://www.ospreyradio.com
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #18 on: 04 Jul 2005, 03:30 »

I think that there are some certain things which can be objectively stated to be "bad," but at the same time some people can appreciate them. One of ym roommates readily admits that he takes pleasure in listening to some recordings which cannot possibly be labelled good, but he gets something out of it.

Saying something is objectively "good" is quite a bit trickier. You can label certain aspects of the music as objectively good, depending upon a pre-defined set of ctireria (catchiness, technical proficiency, recording quality, etc), but there will never be anything all people will like, which if something was objectively good, then everyone would have to recognize it.
Logged
Broken hearts are for assholes. Are you an asshole?

Gryff

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,109
  • Summary sense... tingling!
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #19 on: 04 Jul 2005, 14:47 »

Everyone liking something is not the same as it being good. It could be that the people who don't appreciate it are wrong (an idea tha will no doubt appeal to many a hipster)!

As an example: an art historian would obviously know more about expressionist painting than a regular joe, and would be able to appreciate finer details, and thus differences in quality between works. You would be inclined to trust the art historian's opinion because he/she knows more about the subject and can recognise the qualities that make one painting good and another bad.

If your roommate likes bad music, could it not be that his opinion is invalid because he has bad taste?

ASturge

  • Guest
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #20 on: 04 Jul 2005, 14:48 »

YES

YOU SIR, ARE A GOD
Logged

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,456
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #21 on: 04 Jul 2005, 15:20 »

Or maybe the art historian would like to think he knows best, but is really just going by needling technical detail and recieved knowledge, with no estimation of the emotional impact of a work, which is of course, entirely subjective.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

Gryff

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,109
  • Summary sense... tingling!
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #22 on: 04 Jul 2005, 15:52 »

Emotional impact is also something completely separate from whether something is good or not. You certainly cannot argue with how a work of art (painting, song, whatever) makes someone feel, but the work could still have intrinsic qualities that are good or bad.

I think everyone here is fairly aware of the music that you listen to, Khar. Would you not agree that to appreciate metal you have to have some experience with it? The more metal you have listened to the less it sounds like "noise" and the more you can differentiate between styles and appreciate certain aspects. You would be able to hear differences in quality (technical skill for eg.) that others may not be able to.

If somebody said "all metal sounds the same and is shit", would that be a valid viewpoint when you know that that person has not listened to a lot of metal?

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,456
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #23 on: 04 Jul 2005, 18:03 »

True, but that's just one genre. You can't compare metal and, say, hip hop. There are no set technical things that make music good, and different things really are good to different people. More experience lets you appreciate metal, but what is good metal? Ask one metalhead with a stack of rare vinyl, and it's classic Sabbat, ask another and it's the latest Borknagar CD, once again it's all objective: what makes great metal to one man is effete wankery to another.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

Gryff

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,109
  • Summary sense... tingling!
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #24 on: 04 Jul 2005, 18:46 »

Can't metal and hip-hop both be good? Can't both Sabbath and Borknagar be good? You don't have to compare them.

If one thing is good it doesn't automatically mean that everything else is not good. That's flawed logic.

Quote from: KharBevNor
what makes great metal to one man is effete wankery to another


I'm not saying that intrinsic goodness (if it exists) should change how we respond to music personally, but I'm saying it might be possible that one of those men is wrong about what makes "good" metal.

Quote from: KharBevNor
what is good metal?


...is the question that probably nobody can answer for sure (although some might like to).

The fact that we as humans find it difficult to observe things objectively means that actually finding truths is bloody difficult work. :)

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,456
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #25 on: 04 Jul 2005, 19:12 »

Hip hop and metal can't both be good on the same terms. You need to judge each one subjectively, which is what I'm getting at.

And I said Sabbat not Sabbath. I'm way more metal than to think of such an obvious band! :p And neither of them is wrong. How can they be? There can never be a 'best metal band ever' just as there can never be a 'best british band ever'. The very criteria you judge by are subjective. There is absolutely no such thing as good taste, because 'good taste' is entirely subjective! I loathe Radiohead, Death Cab for Cutie bore me fucking rigid and I'd like to stab all the members of Deerhoof with their own femurs. To one man, I have bad taste in music. Yet, I turn to another man and go, 'hey, I'm pretty big on Burzum, Darkthrone, Ulver and Aborym' and to that man I have good taste.

Music is an art, not a science. Emotional impact may be the main or even sole reason something is good or bad, in someone's eyes. It's entirely unquantifiable.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

Gryff

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,109
  • Summary sense... tingling!
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #26 on: 04 Jul 2005, 20:32 »

Oops, Sabbat/Sabbath - I guess I'm really not metal enough to be using that sort of stuff in examples... heh.

You make a good point about emotional impact in that people are free to interpret things from their own point of view, and thus one song may not be the same thing to two different people.

However, music is made up of technical parts which are not really open to interpretation. You can analyse a guitar player's technique or a singer's vocal range or the verse-chorus-bridge makeup of a song. I know this is kinda de-romanticising music looking at the technical rather than the emotional, and I'm not saying that I could do it myself (or that I would want to), but hypothetically, could someone remove all emotional response (ie. subjectivity) from music and find out what technically makes up a good song?

There is no way we can look at something completely objectively, but could it be hypothetically possible?

I'm also interested in the idea that there is no such thing as good taste. Does that mean that you would completely accept someone saying that American Idol is the pinnacle of humanity's musical evolvement? You might tolerate them (if you had a very strong will), but would you really be thinking that they were crazy/immature/just-fucking-wrong?

I'd just like to point out that at this point I'm pretty much playing the devil's advocate. This is not neccessarily my viewpoint, but I am pretty interested in this discussion. ;)

Inlander

  • coprophage
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7,152
  • Hug your local saintly donkey.
    • Instant Life Substitute
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #27 on: 04 Jul 2005, 20:48 »

I find it's possible to listen to some music objectively - originality of the melody and chord progression, skill of the musicians, that sort of thing.  However I find that those albums that I can only appreciate on such grounds are the albums that I listen to maybe once a year, precisely because they don't involve me emotionally.
Logged

Kanno

  • Guest
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #28 on: 04 Jul 2005, 21:14 »

Quote from: Gryff
I know this is kinda de-romanticising music looking at the technical rather than the emotional, and I'm not saying that I could do it myself (or that I would want to), but hypothetically, could someone remove all emotional response (ie. subjectivity) from music and find out what technically makes up a good song?


No. Impossible!  Emotion is all that music is!  

One of the only judges on having a good guitar riff that I have, is that if it evokes emotion, or more importantly, sets a mood.

All art is completely subjective.  That's the point.
Logged

nickyandthefuture

  • Curry sauce
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 253
    • http://www.bigorangecrayon.com
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #29 on: 05 Jul 2005, 05:08 »

You can only act objectively in determining whether or not music is good once "good" is defined.  Good is a concept inherently intertwined with subjectivity.  Therefore, music cannot be categorized objectively.
Logged
Blue or plain?
Sometimes orange.

zekterellium

  • Guest
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #30 on: 05 Jul 2005, 05:40 »

i'll be honest, i cannot understand how somebody could notlike deftones. they are my favourite band by a pretty long way, so that's obviously gonna sway my opinions and all, but at the same time i can see that sometimes they're aggresive and sometimes they're beautiful and mostly they're experimental, and they write slow songs and fast songs and the occasional epic. deftones have all these different aspects that different people who maybe only like one certain thing about music, like shouting or singing or rapping or riffing can latch on to, so in my opnion anyone who doesn't like deftones is in the wrong. at the same time, i cannot see why anyone would like papa roach, who are basically just deftones with a shitty lead singer and all the wrong ideas. it's complicated, but i think anyone who is maybe more familiar with music, or lsitens to it more, will be able to say that deftones are a better band, or at the very least a little more interesting.
Logged

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,456
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #31 on: 05 Jul 2005, 06:16 »

Quote from: Gryff
However, music is made up of technical parts which are not really open to interpretation. You can analyse a guitar player's technique or a singer's vocal range or the verse-chorus-bridge makeup of a song.


Ah, but what's good technique? Finger-picking, speedy tap solos, eery black metal tremolos, what? And why should the technique or skill of a guitar player contribute to whether a song is good or not? There are plenty of great songs with mediocre guitar players, and plenty of crap songs with amazing guitar. But of course, that's just my subjective opinion. To someone else, maybe a song isn't good at all unless it exhibits  great technique and virtuosity, and maybe to someone else musical show-offery detracts from the realness and emotional impact of music. Some people can't stand guitar solos, others cringe at overdrive. Vocals are in some way an even more dicey affair. A lot of people would agree that, say, Pavarotti was a good singer...but what about the people who hate Opera, or find his voice annoying, or just don't like clean singing at all? Song structure can be analysed, but how is song structure any more an indication of the worth of a song than the rhyming scheme of a poem tells us how good the poem is? Just because I write a sonnet doesn't mean that it's Shakespeare's Sonnet 130.

I would agree that American Idol are crap...but how do you define good taste. I don't know what you would say your favourite band was, but I suspect you could find more fans of American Idol than your favourite band. Thus, in popular opinion, American Idol are better than them. But can you judge taste like that?

All, sir, subjective. Just because we think we listen to better music than someone else does not make our taste better in any but the eyes of ourselves and those who share our opinions.


I'm kinda Devils Advocating too, I agree there's probably some things that most sane humans can agree are crap, but still...
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

My Aim Is True

  • Bizarre cantaloupe phobia
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 201
    • http://www.ospreyradio.com
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #32 on: 05 Jul 2005, 07:03 »

Quote from: Gryff
Everyone liking something is not the same as it being good. It could be that the people who don't appreciate it are wrong (an idea tha will no doubt appeal to many a hipster)!



I phrased it badly. I did not mean that if something were objectively good that everyone would have ot like it, but that everyone have to agree that it was good, whether or not they like it. That's the thing about objectivity- you can't argue with an objective value. Mathematics is objective. Whether or not something fits a pre-defined parameter is objective, and that is about as close as you can come to objectively judging music.

Also, with all this talk about objectivity, I hope no one is confusing objectivity with Objectivism. ...shudder...
Logged
Broken hearts are for assholes. Are you an asshole?

Oerdin

  • Bizarre cantaloupe phobia
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #33 on: 05 Jul 2005, 10:26 »

Quote from: trolley
I think it's definately objective. I think Pink Floyd are are consistantly dull and unremarkable, and yet dads the world over were dribbling with anticiapation at them playing yesterday. It all comes down to your environment and what you're adapted to liking.


I think you mean subjective.  Objective means something can be proven without any emotional involvement or subjectivity due to point of view.  Manufactures love objective analysis since you can prove something is true or not (usually by attaching a number to it; I.E. number od defects per 1000 units, since of body panal gaps, or something else which can be physically measured) where as subjective analysis involves emotions and how people feel about something.

A subjective review would say I like this car because it is red and goes fast while an objective review would say car A is better then car B because it has been mathmatically proven that it has fewer mechanical problems.

Edit: Never mind someone else already got around to this point.
Logged

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,456
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #34 on: 05 Jul 2005, 10:47 »

Tremolo is when you bend the string back and forth a lot, makes it sound a bit like a bowed instrument. You can do it with a whammy bar, or with your right hand on the thingumy that holds the strings at the bottom, or with your left hand when you hold the string.

At least, that's my understanding of it. It wouldn't be beyond me to mix up terms though. I'm not a particularly apt musician at the best of times.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,456
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #35 on: 05 Jul 2005, 11:26 »

As I said, I have no idea what you're talking about, all I know is that you tremolo pick when playing black metal, and doing what I did above makes the right sound when I'm playing the BM songs that seem to do it.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

heretic

  • Guest
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #36 on: 05 Jul 2005, 11:41 »

i thought tremelo was a stomp box effect, but i'm betting it can be either.
vibrato has to do with vocals, the warbly effect many singers have when sustaining a note is called vibrato. many people do it intentionally, and quite a few of these just sound stupid
Logged

My Aim Is True

  • Bizarre cantaloupe phobia
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 201
    • http://www.ospreyradio.com
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #37 on: 05 Jul 2005, 11:43 »

you can simulate vibrato simply by shaking your fist vigourously, a la Coal Miner's Daughter
Logged
Broken hearts are for assholes. Are you an asshole?

Addius

  • Guest
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #38 on: 05 Jul 2005, 12:37 »

I agree with the above said that there is no true objectivity.

When I try to judge if something is good or not I basicly have to different ways of doing it.. Firstly I judge wether or not it's good music compared to what I believe is good music (good sense of musicality, feeling, timing and all that stuff) but failing judging it by good music only based upon that I also compare their music to what they are trying to create. Amazingly enough most people fail my later test much easier, but it makes it much more interesting listening to stuff that normally would make you awkward listening to.
Logged

grrraham

  • Guest
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #39 on: 08 Jul 2005, 22:30 »

I can't listen to foreign music.
Sitar Indian stuff? Unbearable.
Native rhythmic drum beats chanting stuff? Just noise to me.
Didgeridoos? More like DidgeriSUCKS, am I right?

Clearly someone digs this stuff.
Like George Harrison!
Aahahahaha
Logged

sp2

  • Guest
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #40 on: 09 Jul 2005, 00:59 »

Quote from: zekterellium
i'll be honest, i cannot understand how somebody could notlike deftones. they are my favourite band by a pretty long way,


Well, admitting you have a problem is the first step in your recovery.*

*It's a joke, guys.**

**But seriously.  Deftones are sorta sucktastic.
Logged

sp2

  • Guest
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #41 on: 09 Jul 2005, 01:25 »

But back on subject:

While the absolute quality of a band is difficult to judge objectively, it is possible to judge a band's strengths and weaknesses relatively objectively.  

For example, if I were to claim that The Black Keys are particularly strong at writing complex and innovative songs with superior advanced musicianship, I'd clearly be full of shit.  Their stuff is damned catchy, and I enjoy it immensely, but superior musicians they ain't.  They can write a hell of a hook, and they have a lot of energy, which are their strengths.  But sheer musicianship, no, they're not strong musicians.

Some music really has nothing going for it.  It may be perfectly decent in execution, but is uninspired.  While it may inspire emotion in some segment of the audience, there's not a lot of inspiration behind the actual music.  This kind of uninspired musicianship (which is what a lot of mainstream music really is nowadays) results in poor music.  

Some music has some things going for it and lacks other things.  This is most bands....there is some bad and some good, and if you like it, you'll focus on the good parts, and if you don't, you'll focus on the bad stuff.  

A small quantity of music is just fucking brilliant and pretty much lacks anything bad at all.  This is normally restricted to individual songs and occasionally extended to albums.  People who dislike this stuff mainly give reasons like "I don't like that style" or else just lack any semblance of taste.  A good example would be Source Tags and Codes, by Trail of Dead...there is no legitimate reason to dislike this album with the exception of taste.  You could also argue that Funeral, by Arcade Fire, fits the same bill.

These are not arbitrary or subjective.  They are very real differentiations one can make from a relatively unbiased perspective.  Where, to use a previously mentioned example, would anyone place American Idol stuff?  I think it pretty obviously falls into category 1.  It's uninspired, it's not really even art.  It's performance.  Category 2 and 3 (and quality within category 2) are determined to a large extent based not on what the band is trying to do with their music, but rather on how well they execute a particular objective.  There are plenty of songs that attempt to convey a particular idea or make a particular sound that either seem forced or bungled.  To deny this fact would be naive.  It doesn't matter if you like what is being attempted, it matters how well that attempt succeeds, and as far as that goes, it can be considered from a much more objective perspective.
Logged

McTaggart

  • William Gibson's Babydaddy
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,416
  • Positive feedback.
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #42 on: 09 Jul 2005, 01:43 »

Quote from: grrraham
Didgeridoos? More like DidgeriSUCKS, am I right?

No. You just haven't heard the right stuff yet. Get the track 'Sun Shining After The Storm'.

Back on topic, the way I see it, there are two ways of rating music: Techinical and emotional. Objective and subjective. To me, the subjective is more important. Other people might feel differently. I'm also aware that different people will have different emotional responses to different music. The way I see it, the great thing about art is the wonderful ambiguity of the whole idea.
Logged
One day ends and another begins and we're never none the wiser.

Se7en

  • Guest
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #43 on: 09 Jul 2005, 08:04 »

Yes, obviously you CAN rate music on technical proficiency etc, but since we are humans, the subjective view is the important thing when it comes to deciding if a peice of music is good or bad.

Now, the thing i think people are missing here, is that subjective opinions differ in their sophistication. They range from the "durr.. me like rythem" of commercial house fans, to the much more naunced emotional reactions that some songs provoke in perticular individuals. Sometimes songs speak to people on a deeper level, because they in some way reflect part of their own lives, making them identify with the art in a personal way.

Does a deeper connection like that make it a "better" opinion? Yeah, i think so. It certainly makes a song feel more important to a person than one they like just because its catchy. Art apreciation is of course a personal thing, and unless we were all clones leading identical lives, we would never all identify with the same music.

So i think theres an objective basis for saying that a piece of music that has a very deep, lasting meaning for a very small number of people, is "better" than a peice of music that everyone dances to for a week and then forgets.

I mean.. its not like theres a shortage of music is there? Theres room for everyone to have a favourite song that nobody else understands why they like it.
Logged

sp2

  • Guest
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #44 on: 09 Jul 2005, 08:20 »

But you can be more or less proficient at conveying a particular emotion to the listener.  That's the thing.  I could go and say "okay, I want to write a song about being angry with the US government" and I could find a million punk songs that all pretty much fall into that category.  Now, I could compare, say, Green Day's "American Idiot" with so many various songs by, say, Dead Kennedys.  Which communicates the emotions and ideas with more force,  more skill, more knowledge, and more authenticity?  If you didn't say Jello Biafra, you need to get your brain checked.  The same goes for sad songs, love songs, angst songs, whatever.  There are bands, songs, and albums that commmunicate their intended feelings with skill and authenticity, and there are others which seem forced or it's obviously a hackjob.
Logged

Se7en

  • Guest
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #45 on: 09 Jul 2005, 08:50 »

Alright, you have a point, but its still measuring subjective views with an objective, statistical analysis. It allows you to seperate the good from the really bad, but can you use the same method to pick out distinctions between bands that are both pretty good?

If 51% of indie kids agree with a pitchfork review, does that mean its right?
Logged

lastclearchance

  • Furry furrier
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 156
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #46 on: 09 Jul 2005, 09:00 »

Quote from: sp2
Now, I could compare, say, Green Day's "American Idiot" with so many various songs by, say, Dead Kennedys.  Which communicates the emotions and ideas with more force,  more skill, more knowledge, and more authenticity?  


We can discuss whether or not Green Day is skillful (actually let's not because I think we agree), but to accuse "American Idiot" of being inauthentic is kinda not fair.  They may be misguided in their authenticity, but I don't think they're actually inauthentic.  

I am also entertained by the different examples people are using.  A lot of arguments are starting with the implied basis of "well everyone agrees that this is bad...."  Anybody want to carry a torch for commercial house in this argument?  Or American Idol?  Or Cheeky Girls?  ("Not it!")
Logged
zekterellium: was kant the guy, that if you thought you were doing the right thing, even if you were feeding sailors to werewolves, then it was the right thing?
Moiche: Err. . . .no I think that's Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,456
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #47 on: 09 Jul 2005, 11:06 »

Quote from: sp2
People who dislike this stuff mainly give reasons like "I don't like that style" or else just lack any semblance of taste.  A good example would be Source Tags and Codes, by Trail of Dead...there is no legitimate reason to dislike this album with the exception of taste.  You could also argue that Funeral, by Arcade Fire, fits the same bill.


No, really, you can't say that because that assumes that music designed for one taste must be superior to music designed for another.

I mean, Trail of the Dead in particular, tricked the crap out of me by having a really cool name, and then just being boring. Not bad, but not really that good either. Why should style not be a legitimate reason to dislike an album? You're starting to bring personal opinions and popularity into it. Subjectivity once again.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

Se7en

  • Guest
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #48 on: 09 Jul 2005, 11:40 »

To get any real data on this, we need to find a spotty young greenday fan, strap him to a chair, and subject him to some "better" punk rock.

After doing the same with different people and genres, we will see if thier tastes change at all. After all, these people could simply be so used to MTVs vanilla icecream that they never really knew other flavours existed.

Anyone have any spare siblings they dont mind donating to the cause of experimental indie-rock physics?
Logged

sp2

  • Guest
Objectivity in Music
« Reply #49 on: 09 Jul 2005, 13:16 »

Wrong, Khar.  My point is that taste is really the only reason to dislike such stuff.  Which is perfectly legitimate.  I can say "yeah, I can't stand death metal.  It's not that it's bad, but it's not my style."  You can say "Trail of Dead are really not my style, I find them boring" but for the style that they play, they're absolutely amazing.  I could just have easily cited a metal band for the same purposes, except I am not an expert in metal.  There are, however, certainly metal bands which are absolutely perfect within their genre and completely uncritiquable outside of "yeah, that's just not my taste" (which is, incidentally, the exact reason I don't like them).
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up