Fun Stuff > BAND

Objectivity in Music

<< < (4/18) > >>

pistachio:
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.

Tago Mago:
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.

Hector Gilbert:

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


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.

My Aim Is True:
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.

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)!

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?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page