Quote:
Originally Posted by Mucha na Dziko
I don't believe that. I think you can "measure" objectively the quality of any art really.
The parameters being innovation in songwriting or production techniques, the complexity (or if lack there of "idea" or "invention") of the music and so on.
Taste is subjective, quality is not. One might like listening to Rihanna more than to the Beatles, but no one can say that Rihanna "makes" better, richer, etc music.
I think it's important to be able to distinguish taste from quality, and I'm not sure why most people aren't capable of that.
|
Quality is subjective as well. When music evokes an emotion and the listener determines that they like it, that emotional determination is just as much an objective fact as the amount to which music aligns to the parameters you mention. They might feel that way because they're naive about music or whathaveyou, but there's no denying the existence of that response.
The parameters you lay out are definitely useful in saying why you like music so that maybe the person you're talking to can come closer to understanding your emotional response underpinning it, but they're rather useless as comparative parameters because artists are individuals who tend to have wildly different goals and visions of music. The Beatles achieved production innovation that Rihanna wasn't aiming to accomplish. Idk Rihanna's music but I imagine that she has different goals in terms of storytelling and atmosphere that The Beatles weren't trying to fulfill. Satisfying the parameters someone sets for music is only an objective measure of satisfying those parameters, not of musical quality.
Putting water in your fuel tank won't fuel your vehicle but petroleum will. Is petroleum objectively better than water?