The Official "Music Was So Much Better in the Glorious Days of Yore" Thread

[Marie Monday]

Originally Posted by The Batlord

There is a certain objectivity in effectiveness though. I don't think there are many people who don't dislike Slayer entirely or in part who would say they were worse than some third rate thrash band like, I don't know, Gamma Bomb or something.

Strictly speaking that's still not totally objective probably, it's due to a shared cultural background. But that's what I mean by an opinion which people agree on to such an extent that you can treat is as kind of objective in a hand-wavy way.

[Marie Monday]

Originally Posted by Frownland

It's not objectivity because there's no fact being violated if someone felt otherwise.

But that's being a bit strict. You can say factually that condoms are generally more effective birth control than pulling out, regardless of the group of people who use them, even though someone may have had a broken condom but no issues due to pulling out. It's a weird metaphor and the comparison to music is shaky, but you could wonder whether Slayer is statistically more likely to please any brain (assuming that's something you can measure objectively, for the sake of argument), regardless of cultural background. It doesn't sound likely or sensible to me, but still

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by Frownland

It's not objectivity because there's no fact being violated if someone felt otherwise.

Originally Posted by Marie Monday

Strictly speaking that's still not totally objective probably, it's due to a shared cultural background. But that's what I mean by an opinion which people agree on to such an extent that you can treat is as kind of objective in a hand-wavy way.

Yeah that's why I said in a certain sense. Certain notes and chords and arrangements tend to produce certain emotional responses that, while they are not universal or uniform, if deployed effectively by artists with good instincts can make them some kind of objectively more effective at what they're trying.to accomplish than less intuitive artists trying to accomplish the same thing.

That's a far cry from what homeboy is talking about but it's not nothing.

[Marie Monday]

I still think all that depends too much on a shared frame of reference to be called objective even in a hand-wavy sense tho

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by Marie Monday

I still think all that depends too much on a shared frame of reference to be called objective even in a hand-wavy sense tho

I mean it's not useful to say band X is objectively better than band Y due to effective note usage since anyone who doesn't care about those notes won't be convinced by "objective correctness" and anyone else will already agree that band X is better.

And yeah I'm sure shared culture is a big factor but that doesn't change effectiveness (a term I'm already starting to hate).

[Marie Monday]

Originally Posted by The Batlord

I mean it's not useful to say band X is objectively better than band Y due to effective note usage since anyone who doesn't care about those notes won't be convinced by "objective correctness" and anyone else will already agree that band X is better.

And yeah I'm sure shared culture is a big factor but that doesn't change effectiveness (a term I'm already starting to hate).

Lol same, how did I get into this discussion

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Marie Monday

But that's being a bit strict. You can say factually that condoms are generally more effective birth control than pulling out, regardless of the group of people who use them, even though someone may have had a broken condom but no issues due to pulling out. It's a weird metaphor and the comparison to music is shaky, but you could wonder whether Slayer is statistically more likely to please any brain (assuming that's something you can measure objectively, for the sake of argument), regardless of cultural background. It doesn't sound likely or sensible to me, but still

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Yeah that's why I said in a certain sense. Certain notes and chords and arrangements tend to produce certain emotional responses that, while they are not universal or uniform, if deployed effectively by artists with good instincts can make them some kind of objectively more effective at what they're trying.to accomplish than less intuitive artists trying to accomplish the same thing.

That's a far cry from what homeboy is talking about but it's not nothing.

I don't think it's useless to talk about aspects of what makes music enjoyable, it's just not really anything approaching objectivity.

[Anteater]

Seeing as there's no such thing as a universally liked band or artist in any genre, objectivity goes out the window pretty fast. There are exceptions: it is possible to break down why one album works really well as a metal album within the context of a metal discussion, but beyond that...seems futile.

[Marie Monday]

Sure, but then we would miss out on long-winded discussions and saying the words effective and objective until we get sick of it

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by Frownland

I don't think it's useless to talk about aspects of what makes music enjoyable, it's just not really anything approaching objectivity.

I don't know that I'm describing it well or even conceiving it well but I definitely think I'm gesturing at something with some objectivity to it. If a certain group of brain cells and neurons are arranged JUST SO, "Angel of Death" will make you *** in your pants no matter what. Or something.