Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Rock & Metal
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-01-2013, 01:34 PM   #51 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Serbia
Posts: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arya Stark View Post
EXCUSE ME MODS I ALREADY MADE A THREAD ABOUT MUSIC AND SUBJECTIVITY.
I've read your thread and concluded that it's not the same topic.

Last edited by mirosurabu; 08-01-2013 at 01:40 PM.
mirosurabu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2013, 01:56 PM   #52 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Serbia
Posts: 27
Default

Quote:
What's a scientific illusion? You're saying that if a scientist does an experiment that the results of that are not only subjective, but now also an illusion? Science. Is. Fact. There is no other way to explain that. If two elements combine to make a compound, that's fact. It's in no way subjective. The periodic table is the result of decades of painstaking research and is based on facts. Gravity is not subjective. Electricity is not subjective. There is nothing LESS subjective than cold, hard science.
You have to understand that subject and object are not independent entities -- they are intertwined. In other words, without object there is no subject and without subject there is no object.

"The way up and down is one and the same."
-- Heraclitus

So yeah, gravity IS subjective for without a subject there is nothing to observe it. Same for electricity and everything else.

Quote:
Oh, and to resort to insults and namecalling just shows you realise you're losing the argument. Way to win friends and supporters for what appears to be your first post pal!
You'd like to think so! But, in reality, the reason I lashed out at him is because he was rude. I do not communicate with rude people. You're an exception though because you are semi-rude and I'm in a very good mood right now.

Last edited by mirosurabu; 08-01-2013 at 02:04 PM.
mirosurabu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2013, 02:14 PM   #53 (permalink)
"Hermione-Lite"
 
Arya Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New York.
Posts: 3,024
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mirosurabu View Post
I've read your thread and concluded that it's not the same topic.
You're irrelevant.

Also, maybe the name of the thread should be changed then.

It's really saying "Why do we make fun of the music tastes of others."
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sansa Stark View Post
I'm down with Jesus, in that case.


MB Journal.
Azucar y Especia. My blog.
Arya Stark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2013, 06:15 PM   #54 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zman419 View Post
Obviously it is, I agree with it and most of you probably do to.
If music is subjective however, how come we always seem to go out of our way to attack certain fanbases and tell them the music they like sucks.
Classic examples are
Black Veil Brides
Blood On The Dance Floor
Nickleback

I'm not saying I like these bands and I will admit many of the bands who get attacked usually have poor musicianship. However they do have fans and we treat those fans like they are wrong.
Attack Attack! Call It Quits | News @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com
read the comments in this article and you'll know exactly what I mean. Granted most of you probably hate Attack! Attack!, that doesn't mean everyone does and their opinion is just as valid as yours. These people however have a complete disregard for other peoples opinions and the few people who said "ya know, I kinda liked them it sucks to see them break up" everyone attaccked them and said "get a better taste in music"
why do we do this?



Music is subjective but depending on the discussion it can also be objective. For instance, claiming some of the bands you mentioned are on the same level as Rolling Stones or Pink Floyd is objective (in my opinion) because there are legitimate reasons and facts that show otherwise. I dont think fanbases should attack other fanbases. Having debates and discussions are fun on message boards but people dont know how to disagree without being disrespectful and calling someone a "hater" which I find so immature because everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Soulflower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2013, 06:36 PM   #55 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Serbia
Posts: 27
Default

Here's another interesting insight: when people talk about "subjectivity" and "objectivity" in relation to art they often talk about something different than what these words usually imply. Namely, in their vocabulary, the word "subjective" means "people are equal" and the word "objective" means "people are unequal". That's all there is to it! Obviously, when people say that music is "subjective" they don't mean that you can't rank it; rather, they want to say that you can only rank it for yourself. Whereas when people say that music is "objective" they mean that it can be ranked across everyone.

In reality, however, nothing is equal. Equality is merely a useful illusion (e.g. in mathematics and social relations.)

Similarly, the whole world is mental (i.e. subjective.) The so-called "objectivity" is merely a useful illusion.
mirosurabu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2013, 08:27 PM   #56 (permalink)
MB quadrant's JM Vincent
 
duga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,721
Default

Did you just discover philosophy and now you think you know everything about it or something? Because you are misinterpreting a lot of what they were saying. In fact, a lot of the guys you mentioned were big proponents of science.
__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...
duga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2013, 09:43 PM   #57 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Serbia
Posts: 27
Default

Quote:
Did you just discover philosophy and now you think you know everything about it or something?
And what about you, dude? Did you just grow up on the Internet without any manners whatsoever? Don't you know HOW RUDE it is to behave like this?

Quote:
Because you are misinterpreting a lot of what they were saying.
What is this "a lot" you're talking about? If you're not going to bother providing any explanations then why post at all?

Quote:
In fact, a lot of the guys you mentioned were big proponents of science.
In fact, I myself am a big proponent of science. What now!?
mirosurabu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2013, 09:56 PM   #58 (permalink)
quarantined
 
Neapolitan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Les Barricades Mystérieuses
Posts: 6,811
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by realtalk92 View Post
Music is subjective but depending on the discussion it can also be objective. For instance, claiming some of the bands you mentioned are on the same level as Rolling Stones or Pink Floyd is objective (in my opinion) because there are legitimate reasons and facts that show otherwise. I dont think fanbases should attack other fanbases. Having debates and discussions are fun on message boards but people dont know how to disagree without being disrespectful and calling someone a "hater" which I find so immature because everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
No it is subjective... believe me. Anyhow where's the proof? Please, could you provide some proof or copy and paste some article from a music critic who has made such a claim. And don't be a hatin' on me when I say this but imho Pink Floyd and The Rolling Stones are better and will always be better than the bands he mentioned.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhanteimi View Post
Actually, I like you a lot, Nea. That's why I treat you like ****. It's the MB way.

"it counts in our hearts" - ʕººʔ
“I have nothing to offer anybody, except my own confusion.” ― Jack Kerouac.
“If one listens to the wrong kind of music, he will become the wrong kind of person.” – Aristotle.
"If you tried to give Rock and Roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'." - John Lennon
"I look for ambiguity when I'm writing because life is ambiguous." — Keith Richards ☮ 💖 ♫ ∞ ἰχθύς
Neapolitan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2013, 11:43 PM   #59 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan View Post
No it is subjective... believe me. Anyhow where's the proof? Please, could you provide some proof or copy and paste some article from a music critic who has made such a claim. And don't be a hatin' on me when I say this but imho Pink Floyd and The Rolling Stones are better and will always be better than the bands he mentioned.
LOL. I AGREE!!!

There are objective and legitimate reasons for why the Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd are more legendary than the bands the OP mentioned.

That was my point I probably could have been more clearer lol.

I do think music is subjective as well but in a debate such as this for instance there are facts that show why those bands like Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd are more groundbreaking than bands like Nickleback etc.

Its okay for someone to like Nickleback but if someone is trying to argue that they are more iconic than the Rolling Stones for instance, someone could easily argue objective facts that show they are not. So depending on the discussion music can turn objective when necessary.

Music facts dont necessarily have to come from critics or magazines (which I think are the worse judges of music because they are driven by popularity and what sells most of the times anyway). I usually look at the impact and influence a artist or band as made on the current generation. Also if they made a significant impact on the progression of a certain genre or medium to determine how groundbreaking they are. A band like The Rolling Stones is the ideal rock band because most of the bands today model off of them. Its laughable to insist a band like Nickleback is more iconic when you can see some of the influence the Rolling Stones had on them and their generation. They dont have the same influence,credibility, impact, groundbreaking music and classics which is why they should not be mentioned in the same sentence with the Rolling Stones.

Last edited by Soulflower; 08-01-2013 at 11:56 PM.
Soulflower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 12:09 AM   #60 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Serbia
Posts: 27
Default

Let's take this random quote from the Internet..

Quote:
quality of music is subjective
because what makes a song a good song is how much you like it
if someone likes pop music, for example, than that music is a good music for him, while for me it sounds like crap

it's individual :P
..and then change it a little to see how ridiculous it is:

Quote:
the color of a thing is subjective
because what makes a color color is the biological structure of your eye
if a dichromat sees a thing to be green then that thing is green for him while for me, the trichromat, it's red

it's individual :P
Now, is this thing green or red? Who decides? A dichromat? Or a trichromat? I'll tell you who: the one who can perceive more nuances (i.e. the more complex observer, the trichromat.) Once again we can see how complexity rules the world.

There REALLY is no need to speak of "subjectivity" and "objectivity" when talking about art. Everything, literally everything, can be ranked, and everything, literally everything, is subjective (i.e. existing inside our minds) and necessarily, illusorily objective (i.e. existing outside of our minds.)

Last edited by mirosurabu; 08-02-2013 at 12:34 AM.
mirosurabu is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



© 2003-2020 Advameg, Inc.