Music is subjective

**Goofle** · 06-30-2013, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

So the greater the technicality the better the artist in your eyes.

I clearly haven't been saying that. I just said some music can be of a higher level than others, but your enjoyment is subjective and relates to how you interpret what you hear.

djchameleon · 06-30-2013, 09:17 AM

Okay, I said that when you compared Aesop Rock to Kanye. I thought you were making the claim that he's better because he's a better lyricist which he is. So I made the leap to technical skills.

~~butthead aka 216~~ · 06-30-2013, 09:17 AM

I think the only way to establish who is objectively better would be to compare two artists of the same genre and compare which song is harder technically. Which guitar riff is harder, which rhyme scheme is harder, etc. Aesop Rock and Eminem clearly have more technical skill than Soulja Boy. But sometimes it's too close to call so I dont think you could form a list of the best objectively or anything. Sometimes its obvious but sometimes it isnt

**Goofle** · 06-30-2013, 09:20 AM

I prefer listening to Aesop for a variety of different reasons, but I don't think subjectivity comes into it when discussing who is the better MC - he is just better.

I am not saying there is no subjectivity in music, just to be clear.

Ninetales · 06-30-2013, 11:56 AM

Even if you could make a case for certain criteria of music to be objectively looked at (ie technical ability) the extent to which one values these criteria when deciding what they like/dislike is completely subjective.

Personally I think technical skill does not necessarily mean good music. Yngwie Malmsteen might be a really good guitarist but i dont think his music is great. Thats my subjective opinion. If you think he is great because of his ability, then thats also subjective.

There is no such thing as objectively "better" music. There is no overall goal in music (unlike sports) so its impossible to be able to prove one artist is better than another

mirosurabu · 07-31-2013, 08:54 PM

For the starters, everything is subjective, including the so-called scientific facts. Just because something is subjective does not mean you can't rank it. The problem is that with music (and art in general) it's a lot harder to determine what is better and what is worse.

Now, when someone declares that a band is rubbish, its fans will be offended. This is normal: whenever someone denigrates something we love so dearly we feel the need to retaliate. The problem does not lie with the offense itself but with the way we react to that offense. For most people, this reaction consists of a theoretical revenge popularly known as "different folks for different strokes". The idea is that "it's impossible to rank music so you should keep your mouth shut". The whole point of this "theory" is to confuse people into thinking that it's impossible for them to rank music and feel superior about their tastes. Finally, they want to feel superior themselves. Faced with a man who claims to hold a higher ground than them, they want to bring him down and ridicule him. By convincing themselves that their theory is correct (and not just a way to block the offenders) they get to think they are the smart ones but, in reality, they end up being even dumber than they were in the beginning.

It takes just a little bit of honesty, really. Consider that our tastes evolve as we grow up. We laugh at our past selves for having worse taste than we have today. We look at ourselves from the past as if we were a different person and we point with our finger and say "man, what a terrible taste you have!" It is from this personal sense of progress, from seeing ourselves as a different person at each point in time, as sometimes worse and sometimes better, that we proceed to generalize our views. Our generalizations may be wrong, that is true, but that's a different matter.

We, for example, know that a person with more musical experience (i.e. someone who has listened to a ****load of music) is very likely to have a far superior taste than someone who has very little musical experience (e.g. a kid.) But we also know that a man with a massive musical experience may still have a terrible taste in music. This is because there are many other hidden factors that determine one's musical preference beside the breadth of experience itself. Our job is to psychoanalyze these people and discover these hidden factors.

Arya Stark · 07-31-2013, 09:46 PM

excuse me

http://www.musicbanter.com/general-m...jectivity.html

mirosurabu · 07-31-2013, 10:20 PM

Thank you for the link.

duga · 07-31-2013, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mirosurabu

For the starters, everything is subjective, including the so-called scientific facts.

I didn't make it past this sentence.

This is just...wrong.

**Janszoon** · 07-31-2013, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mirosurabu

It takes just a little bit of honesty, really. Consider that our tastes evolve as we grow up. We laugh at our past selves for having worse taste than we have today. We look at ourselves from the past as if we were a different person and we point with our finger and say "man, what a terrible taste you have!" It is from this personal sense of progress, from seeing ourselves as a different person at each point in time, as sometimes worse and sometimes better, that we proceed to generalize our views. Our generalizations may be wrong, that is true, but that's a different matter.

We do? My taste in music is certainly always evolving but that doesn't mean I now dislike the things I used to like.

06-30-2013, 09:17 AM	#33 (permalink)
~~butthead aka 216~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: freely swimmin thru the waters of glory much like a majestic bald eagle soars thru the skies Posts: 1,463	I think the only way to establish who is objectively better would be to compare two artists of the same genre and compare which song is harder technically. Which guitar riff is harder, which rhyme scheme is harder, etc. Aesop Rock and Eminem clearly have more technical skill than Soulja Boy. But sometimes it's too close to call so I dont think you could form a list of the best objectively or anything. Sometimes its obvious but sometimes it isnt

06-30-2013, 11:56 AM	#35 (permalink)
Ninetales Music Addict Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: livin wild Posts: 2,179	Even if you could make a case for certain criteria of music to be objectively looked at (ie technical ability) the extent to which one values these criteria when deciding what they like/dislike is completely subjective. Personally I think technical skill does not necessarily mean good music. Yngwie Malmsteen might be a really good guitarist but i dont think his music is great. Thats my subjective opinion. If you think he is great because of his ability, then thats also subjective. There is no such thing as objectively "better" music. There is no overall goal in music (unlike sports) so its impossible to be able to prove one artist is better than another

07-31-2013, 08:54 PM	#36 (permalink)
mirosurabu Groupie Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Serbia Posts: 27	For the starters, everything is subjective, including the so-called scientific facts. Just because something is subjective does not mean you can't rank it. The problem is that with music (and art in general) it's a lot harder to determine what is better and what is worse. Now, when someone declares that a band is rubbish, its fans will be offended. This is normal: whenever someone denigrates something we love so dearly we feel the need to retaliate. The problem does not lie with the offense itself but with the way we react to that offense. For most people, this reaction consists of a theoretical revenge popularly known as "different folks for different strokes". The idea is that "it's impossible to rank music so you should keep your mouth shut". The whole point of this "theory" is to confuse people into thinking that it's impossible for them to rank music and feel superior about their tastes. Finally, they want to feel superior themselves. Faced with a man who claims to hold a higher ground than them, they want to bring him down and ridicule him. By convincing themselves that their theory is correct (and not just a way to block the offenders) they get to think they are the smart ones but, in reality, they end up being even dumber than they were in the beginning. It takes just a little bit of honesty, really. Consider that our tastes evolve as we grow up. We laugh at our past selves for having worse taste than we have today. We look at ourselves from the past as if we were a different person and we point with our finger and say "man, what a terrible taste you have!" It is from this personal sense of progress, from seeing ourselves as a different person at each point in time, as sometimes worse and sometimes better, that we proceed to generalize our views. Our generalizations may be wrong, that is true, but that's a different matter. We, for example, know that a person with more musical experience (i.e. someone who has listened to a ****load of music) is very likely to have a far superior taste than someone who has very little musical experience (e.g. a kid.) But we also know that a man with a massive musical experience may still have a terrible taste in music. This is because there are many other hidden factors that determine one's musical preference beside the breadth of experience itself. Our job is to psychoanalyze these people and discover these hidden factors.

07-31-2013, 10:20 PM	#38 (permalink)
mirosurabu Groupie Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Serbia Posts: 27	Thank you for the link.