Quote:
Originally Posted by Fyrenza
its a paradox
it can and cant be objectively judged
subjectively
we can all agree that a concert pianist is playing better music than an 8 year old on a toy piano
but objectively
we all also agree that both are playing music
any judgements would have to be some of both
|
True, but I said in my original post that we're talking about pure "quality" here, not in terms of technical prowess or other such details.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Stengel
2. The difference is how much music one is exposed to. I essentially have the same tastes, however, the amount of music Ive been exposed to changed it. Im not saying its BETTER than anyone elses-to me it is because my exposure has led to me discovering music thats better IMO. The point Im trying to make is that the amount of music people are exposed to tends to broaden their tastes, thus having a more informed opinion, thus having a larger influence over other tastes/more compatibility, which is viewed as "good taste" (again, Im NOT being egotistical-Im simply raising the point that those exposed to more music tend to be compatible with more music listeners)
Might I also add that In no way do I consider my tastes broad, Im simply trying to play devils advocate.
|
I see what you're getting at (and I don't think you're being egotistical), and I think experience/broad taste can certainly help you in reccomending music to other people ("You like artist A and artist B? Then you'll
love artist C"), but that's not the same as objective judgment.
I think most people will agree that they refine their ideas of what is "good" as they hear more music, but I think that's just another way to support the idea that music can never be objectively judged in terms of its aesthetic quality.
