Objective Quality?

[khfreek]

I've been thinking about this; there are bands out there that garner more fans and are universally liked, and bands that are hated by all. If music was truly subjective, then wouldn't all bands have an equal proportion of fans to non-fans? Which lead me to thinking that there is some objectivity in music. For example, since so many people like Radiohead, it could be objectively said that they are a good band, and since so many people hate Nickelback they are objectively a bad one. Thoughts?

[jackhammer]

Nickleback have had huge success so according to many they are far from a poor band and many many people haven't heard a full Radiohead album so any music is neither good or bad- just opinions.

When you really begin to delve into music and the mainstream bands then it's easy to not like a band because you feel that other bands do what they do but better. It's called elitism and I would say that 75% of music forum members are guilty of this whether intentional or not. You also begin to judge bands (maybe unfairly) on these criteria and sometimes deny yourself a band that you would otherwise enjoy. Some of the threads and posts on MB that I really enjoy are those that proclaim a liking for a band that are unpopular amongst more hardcore bands or that are unfashionable.

I always try to gauge a band on their merits regardless of fashion or popularity and just listen to them. I do feel that older members adhere to this a lot more and profess their liking for bands than younger members. This is understandable as I was the same when I was in my teens, early 20's; only liking certain bands because it seemed the right thing to do and you didn't want to feel ostracized from the crowd. However I couldn't really give two shit's these days whether I'm seen as cool or not.

Just because a band may adhere to genre cliche doesn't neccessarily mean that they suck. If they do it well enough and are sincere then I will listen. My Magnum post a case in point.

[lucifer_sam]

Originally Posted by khfreek

I've been thinking about this; there are bands out there that garner more fans and are universally liked, and bands that are hated by all. If music was truly subjective, then wouldn't all bands have an equal proportion of fans to non-fans? Which lead me to thinking that there is some objectivity in music. For example, since so many people like Radiohead, it could be objectively said that they are a good band, and since so many people hate Nickelback they are objectively a bad one. Thoughts?

just because there are two options doesn't make them proportionally equal.

and no, the mere fact that some bands appeal to a lot of people isn't indicative of any arbitrary objective value. popular opinion does not equate fact.

[khfreek]

Originally Posted by jackhammer

Nickleback have had huge success so according to many they are far from a poor band and many many people haven't heard a full Radiohead album so any music is neither good or bad- just opinions

My post had in mind a group of musically informed people, not those who listen to what's presented to them on the radio.

Originally Posted by lucifer_sam

the mere fact that some bands appeal to a lot of people isn't indicative of any arbitrary objective value. popular opinion does not equate fact.

I know solid facts can't be formed; but maybe based on polls bands could at least be ranked against other bands? Though I suppose in real life these polls would be biased by the things Lee talked about: people liking bands for fashion of popularity.

[Fruitonica]

Originally Posted by khfreek

My post had in mind a group of musically informed people, not those who listen to what's presented to them on the radio.

Seriously? Insulating yourself from other peoples opinions isn't going to make yours any more objective.

Of course music and art can't be measured objectively.

[Urban Hat€monger ?]

I don't think that there's any such thing as objective quality. It's more about luck, being in the right place at the right time and appealing to the right type of audience.

A band like Radiohead has a always had it's appeal in places like collages & universities, ie people who go on to work in the media. That would probably account for most of their fanbase, and they consistently write music to appeal to that crowd hence their acceptence as being 'a good band'.

Whereas a band like Nickelback would probably appeal more to your average blue collar worker who isn't really interested in art or culture as a rule and just wants something to rock out a bit to.

Does that make one better than the other? well that depends on what you want. But as the people who write this stuff want artistic merit, experimentation & something to help them to inspire their own written stuff (To keep them in a job) then Radiohead will always get the nod.

[Astronomer]

Originally Posted by Fruitonica

Seriously? Insulating yourself from other peoples opinions isn't going to make yours any more objective.

Of course music and art can't be measured objectively.

Yeah I agree that art and music will almost always be subjective. Popular opinion isn't objective.

[mr dave]

in order for there to be objective quality about music there has to be an accepted definition of what music is.

[asshat]

Originally Posted by khfreek

If music was truly subjective, then wouldn't all bands have an equal proportion of fans to non-fans?

I think the fact that bands have disproportionate sales and fans only proves that taste is a subjective thing. You don't really have a gage of quality like you'd have with a household appliance.

[khfreek]

welp, that idea's been shot to hell