Hey guys I had a serious philosophical conversation with a friend about the quality of music and I came here seeking...

Hey guys I had a serious philosophical conversation with a friend about the quality of music and I came here seeking some sort of answer. Why do we consider some kinds of music better than others? Why is Beethoven better than Justin Bieber? The answer seems obvius but isn't easily answered.

form
same reason we prefer a Rembrandt painting to a toddler's doodle

Read Hegel. Beethoven has the universal

can you elaborate on this? (not memeing, I'm genuinely curious)

This is what i told him but even though it's obvious that a painting by Michael Angelo is btter than a child's even tho they use the same emotion I couldn't bring myself to answer why the first painting was better.

the use of form to evoke something specific yet ineffable

A balance of thought provoking and pleasantry, which are different in people.

Teen girls think Twenty One Pilots is poetic and good sounding, so they think that it's amazing. Anthony Fantano likes the money store because he likes finding out all the sounds and lyrics while getting them stuck in his head.

so there isn't a universal quality for what music is "good"?

Of course not. How good music, or any art, is is entirely dependent on the listener. This isn't science

Hmm... So there really isn't a way to objectively prove that any artist is better than some one else (betthoven and jy=ustin bieber for example)? If so what is the point of music critics?

no, art is not objective. Music critics exist because most people grow listening to what people around them listen to, so they naturally enjoy similar music, forming tendencies and cliches in music which can be identified.

Probably promotional. People like to listen to other people give their opinion, so artists and record labels are happy to pay critics to tell people about their music.

If they're good at being a critic they can make you think and/or appreciate a work in ways you hadn't thought about before. Just because it's subjective doesn't mean it's not interesting.

allright say theres two hamburgers theyre exactly the same except one his has one slab of meat and one has ten

yeah theyre the same but one persons starving and the other can feed his family

Music critics don't try to "objectively prove" anything, and of course, there is no way to do that with any art form. Critics are just people with certain tastes, and they try to make well-reasoned arguments with which anyone is allowed to disagree, provided their disagreements are also well-reasoned.

So you're saying the longer a piece of music is, the better?

how the fuck did you misinterperate what he said so badly?

What was it supposed to mean then?

let me just with saying that music is subjective as in it doesn't have a clear mathemtical answer like 1+1=2.

But I think it's mostly the intention and how well can the artist embody it.

It's very clear when you hear both of them that Justin Bieber's music is superfacial and is made mostly with the intention of selling as much as it can. When you really listen to his music deeply you'll see how repetitive it is and how it has nothing to say and how it provokes nothing on you. It has no depth (lyrically or compostionally), it superfacial. It's NOT made to be listened to deeply. It's made to be a background noise or at the very best something people can dance to.

If you listen to classical music like Beethoven as background noise, nothing about it will catch on you, it would sound boring and repetitive and like every other classical music from his time but if you take a deep listen you hear those layers of beautiful melodies and harmonies and how unique it is. People like Beethoven just had that urge to make great art but other than having that urge they studied and practiced on it many years so they can really embody their emotions and musical vision. It's artistic people who just have that urge to make GREAT art. Even though Beethoven did got paid for some of his pieces you can still hear a lot of truth and honesty about them. And that's a thing I can't say for bieber.

the difference in form, not length

I agree with the intention part.

but going to your question OP, think of something else besides music, like humor. you probably have a unique sense of humor, as does everyone, but there are "famous" comics or comedians, or shows that are almost "universally" considered funny.

there is a wide variety, but the point is, you don't really choose "what" makes you laugh, in the sense you don't choose what you like to hear.

we have friends who can "make" us laugh, think of a talented person or artist, as the same type of person, but who can make A LOT of people laugh, and then widen the emotion, they can make a lot of people cry, a lot of people think, a lot of people inspired, a lot of people amazed, etc etc etc. it all relates to the ability to "connect" in some way that you are projecting something (art) that people are receptive too. it varies but its also shared

He wasn't taking about the form of the hamburger, he was talking about the substance of it.

Form would have been if he were referring to the freshness of the meat or the type of meat or the color or something

Like what everyone else is saying in this thread, music is obviously subjective. Anyone who uses the word objective unironically when describing it needs to drink bleach. Yes, there is music that is pretty bad to 99% of listeners, but for the most part music is in the ears of the beholder.

Your comparison is at fault here because while Beethoven may be smarter, and probably was more knowledgeable at music theory and composing, he may not have had the same singing capabilities Bieber has. Beethoven may have sounded like dog shit while singing. Not only that, there are people (like myself) who enjoy Bieber more than Beethoven. Pretentious pricks like to try to make others feel bad for liking easily digestible music, but that just makes them look more retarded than the person they're trying to argue against.

tl;dr music is subjective, like your question

I hmget and agree with the point you're making but why literally why do you like Justin Bieber more than Beethoven?

its all just different pitches of frequency picked up by your ears there is no true difference between singing and notes played on a piano. a c note is still a c note irregardless of what it comes from

This.

The way i see some music being better than others is in the harmony between the different components of the music. A poppy beyonce song is manufactured to be pretty much perfect in a sense but it doesnt have that many contributing factors to bring it to a higher level of harmony.

For example, something like ITCOTKC has sonic harmony, but theres also harmony in the ideas being conveyed, the composition, the mood, the instrumentation, the lyrics, the emotions, the overall aesthetic, etc. The difference is that it digs deeper and introduces a lot more factors. just compare the musical structure of that album with a typical pop song. There is also music that introduces these more complex aspects that fails to bring it all into harmony. This doesnt mean that really technical music is inherently better tho, it may still lack harmony between the ideas and moods and emotions being conveyed, or lack any of those aspects completely.

Pop is like a quick fix kinda thing when music that is "better" is like a full course meal kinda thing, even though each can be about the same idea or whatever. You still cant say that simplistic poppy music is

Even dissonant music can have harmony on many levels, ie the idea behind dissonant music is typically aggression or something like that so the lyrics and the ideas and the sonic qualities all harmonize in a way to effectively express a work of art as a whole.

I agree with this guy in that a really good sad song makes you vibe with that emotion really well, but music like A Love Supreme just seems so much better because it's like all emotions at once with the intensity dial turned to the max. The weird chords and rhythms and stuff just blend all those feelings into one sublime kind of thing

His music was"better" because it's something he dedicated his entire life to getting objectively better at.

>Implying that timbre doesn't exist
Also
>Irregardless

comparing beethoven to bieber is a joke.
both have their things, while most people here prefer Bettie, many people will find him just plain boring

because it survived more years to remain popular

that's all