Music is objective

Sounds crazy!
I know. But think about it.
Nobody would say Justin Bieber is better than Miles Davis or Tom Waits?
You have to defend against two of the greatest musical artist of all time.

What's Sup Forums take on this?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/bXi-sydxtVQ
uproxx.com/music/80s-music-is-the-worst/
hyperallergic.com/214306/can-an-algorithm-determine-art-historys-most-creative-paintings/
technologyreview.com/s/538281/machine-vision-algorithm-chooses-the-most-creative-paintings-in-history/
arxiv.org/abs/1506.00711
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

A teenage girl would say that

>Nobody would say Justin Bieber is better than Miles Davis

Now explain why.

People (even die hard JB fans) know in the back of their heads that Miles or Waits have produced more relevant and deep works.

objectively shit more like it

There might be some objectively bad music out there, but most music is subjective

That's not how to judge music.

>relevant and deep works.

What does that even mean?

What's your measure of relevancy? Justin Bieber is more relevant on Youtube.

...

I agree with you OP. There are instances where subjectivity is endangering to existence. For example, I cannot take someone who believes that Kyary Pamyu Pamyu is one of the greatest artists of all times any seriously, she's a walking meme. I do like pop, I do like Justin Bieber, but Kyary Pamyu Pamyu? Please no, you might as well have a facebook account linked on tumblr.

>Through careful analysis of these elements, an objective assessment of the music can be made
What are the methods of this careful analysis though?

Twinkle Twinkle Little Star

Objectively the best song, ever.

Simple, catchy, no complexity yet known by people everywhere, soothed tens of thousands of babies to sleep the world over for decades, every cunt with a recorder learns how to play it, world famous and popular.

Prove me wrong.

the only thing objective about music is artistic intelligence

your favorite bands/artists cannot be objectively best just because you like them
miles davis and tom waits are objectively better than bieber, but they're not the best overall
it's impossible to decide who is objectively the best because there's so much music out there

>miles davis and tom waits are objectively better than bieber

Explain why

in the sense of artistic intelligence, they're objectively better

Um? It's obviously the alphabet song. Same rhythm, structure, tone, sequence of notes. Basically the only difference between Twinkle Twinkle Little Star and the ABCs are the lyrics.
Twinkle Twinkle Little Star is a shitty song about a star that looks like a diamond. The Alphabet Song is not only objectively more popular and well-known globally, but continues to be the most vital and important song of our time. Kids literally use it to learn. Even some grown-ass men use it to sort things alphabetically.

Basically, The Alphabet Song has every positive Twinkle Twinkle Little Star has, plus some, which makes it an objectively better song.

>artistic intelligence
What do you mean by this?

TL:dr

music: complexity, experimentation
lyrics: terminology, obscurity

are all those things not relative/arbitrary/subjective?

i don't think so at least
i'd say something like "sounds better" is subjective

but things like experimentation and obscurity are only relative to ones own knowledge and exposure.

Nobody would say Justin Bieber is better than Miles Davis or Tom Waits because standards and ideas of taste have existed since the ancient greeks.

But taste isn't objective. Neither is music.

Nothing is more relevant than Bieber bruh

yeah OP's statement is about as valid as the categorical imperative

i guess i forgot about the type of people that say behold the arctopus is just random shit, when it's actually all organised and notated
youtu.be/bXi-sydxtVQ

top fucking kek
I'm not saying that music is subjective but these elements are utter bullshit.

why though?

>complexity, experimentation
I can make a piece of music arbitrarily complex using a computer algorithm. I can increase the complexity of a piece of music to the nth degree. Do you think it's going to sound "good"?

>i like it
>i don't like it

>Two different options presented
>Objective

>Justin Bieber is better than Miles Davis

I 100 % honestly stand by that.

At least on the artistic integrity level, where the Bieber man actually honestly hopes for his music to be as good as possible (even if he fails), while that Davis man just wants to tout his lazy random shit.

I'm not saying that effort counts, it normally doesn't at all, but where results are both awful either way, Bieber at least gets points for trying.

>Nobody would say Justin Bieber is better than Miles Davis or Tom Waits?

What world do you live in? Probably at least 80% of normies would say this.

Besides, it doesn't matter. This would be an appeal to popularity fallacy. Every single person in the world could hold the same subjective opinion and it would still be subjective.

If you want to argue that music quality is objective then you need to make a philosophical argument. If anyone can offer a cogent argument for objectivity, lets hear it. If not this argument is over and everyone on Sup Forums needs to stfu

Taste in music is subjective, but the quality of music is objective.

For example, let's compare Justin Bieber to Miles Davis. Yes, I know Justin Bieber is an easy target, but I need to keep it as broad as possible so even the biggest of plebs can understand. Now, Justin Bieber is a corporately manufactured artist used to sell image to teenage girls. His music lacks substance and aesthetic, and he is based more on selling image than anything. The only time you hear people talk about Justin Bieber is when they are talking about his haircut or girlfriend. Never his new single or album and the direction he is taking as an artist. Miles Davis, on the other hand, actually put effort into making music, thus giving it substance and aesthetic. Few people talk about Miles Davis' image, and discussion of him is always about what album you like best, if you prefer his "cool" work or his "electric" period work, which lineup of his band you like best, etc.

Now, let's further expand on this by talking about fans, and compare a 13 year old girl with virtually no knowledge of music to an adult man with an actual knowledge in and interest in music. Obviously, the 13 year old girl isn't going to like Miles Davis very much so she will like Justin Bieber better, whereas the adult man will (most likely) prefer Miles Davis. And given the situation, the adult man has a greater basis for judging the quality of music, even though Bieber's music does more for the 13 year old girl than Miles does. Simply: The man has good taste but the girl has bad taste, objectively. Even though the taste in music is subjective, that taste is objectively good taste or bad taste. Taste and perception doesn't change objective quality.

tl;dr saying "music is subjective" or using the word "opinion" as a sole argument to justify shitty taste in any given scenario is just another way of saying "i'm a fucking pleb and I have shit taste".

Isn't this pasta?

>13 year old girl
>adult man
>girl
>man
lmao holy shit dude. Please tell me you wouldn't write this anywhere outside of Sup Forums.

Friendly reminder that originality is the only way to consistently rank music on an objective scale.
Originality, not only for originality's sake, but for any other sake's sake.

Originality doesn't make something objectively better, it makes it original.

It's exactly what makes it objectively better. If it's not original, it's redundant, and therefore of less value.

I don't agree with objective ranking of music but this is probably the most valid method.

Friendly reminder that Avant-Math is a retard who doesn't understand the meaning of the word objective.

>If it's not original, it's redundant, and therefore of less value.

Not the poster you replied to, but seeing this in terms of data redundancy is quite illuminative. Not that I wouldn't agree you even before, but thanks.

Agree. I mean, every way we decide to judge good music is arbitrary, but this one definitely works best if we had to choose something.

:P

You are welcome!

Literally everything you mentioned requires subjective analysis.

Here's an example of something objective in music: track length.

>Nobody would say Justin Bieber is better than Miles Davis or Tom Waits
I bet at least one fourth of teenage girls would say that. Or half of Justin Bieber's fandom.

Not really.

>track length

And how is this any different from measuring originality?

Measuring length involves applying a certain procedure of measurement, expressly intervallic counting, arriving at an objective number.

Measuring originality involves applying a certain procedure of measurement as well, such as digitizing songs from the past, representing shapes of tone progressions numerically and determining deviance or somesuch, arriving at an objective number as well.

What's the difference?

Bieber = Davis < Waits < good musicians

Brilliant rebuttal.

Okay fine, Mr. Pedant, track length is now a subjective quality of music. That doesn't make "originality" an objective measurement.

There is objectively bad music,a friend who knows about music explained it to me and how it works

BUUUUUUUUT what YOU think is good music is really subjective

I like Bladee for example,i know his music is objectively meh but to me it sounds like god-sent music

Idk why people are being so butthurt,not everyone likes all "good music"

>track length is now a subjective quality of music. That doesn't make "originality" an objective measurement.

Wrong, Mr Retard. What that made both track length and originality is being *objective* measurements. You apply a manner of measurement, you get a number in return. Action, reading of output. Literally what's subjective about that?

Could you show me some of these objective originality measurements? I'd like to read more about them.

Also forgot to say this

JBs music is way better than your average "obscure band" hipster shit,mainly because the people who actually make his music are talented and make a lot of money

Also listening and liking his music doesn't make you a "belieber"

I'm not saying that someone who listens to JB has good taste but his music is well composed

>There is objectively bad music,a friend who knows about music explained it to me and how it works
lol

I happen to have seen one, actually.

uproxx.com/music/80s-music-is-the-worst/

This one might have measured achronic complexity strictly speaking rather than chronic originality with respect to the sum of prior music, but it's close enough.

And, >inb4 you say that the method of measurement is 'arbitrary' -- well, obviously. Just like measuring length of something is 'arbitrary' because it is it that you're measuring and not its width or depth. You can't choose to measure one thing and at the same time complain that you're not measuring something else. At this instance, you're measuring originality.

>deviance
You can deviate from A by doing B if A is the norm and deviate from B by doing A if B is the norm; it doesn't make it original, it makes it different.

>deep
>objective

>it doesn't make it original, it makes it different

This is literally what 'original' means. Different from all that had been made so far.

I know it's impossible to say which music is objectively better for sure, especially when the compared pieces are from the same genre and have similar elements. But it's hard to put Bach music and that The Gerogerigegege album with the sounds of shitting on the same level. Such absurd examples make me think there is some truth in the statement that one music might be universally better than other.

It has already been done, to measure art according to its originality. See below.

hyperallergic.com/214306/can-an-algorithm-determine-art-historys-most-creative-paintings/
technologyreview.com/s/538281/machine-vision-algorithm-chooses-the-most-creative-paintings-in-history/
arxiv.org/abs/1506.00711

I think ur an dumb frogposter.

>technologyreview.com/s/538281/machine-vision-algorithm-chooses-the-most-creative-paintings-in-history/

>creativity must be influential

No.


That minor hiccup aside, nice articles.

>uproxx.com

okay

>And, >inb4 you say that the method of measurement is 'arbitrary' -- well, obviously.
Well thanks for that at least

>Just like measuring length of something is 'arbitrary' because it is it that you're measuring and not its width or depth
Yes, if we're being pedantic enough, we can argue that everything is subjective. This doesn't lend to "originality" being an objective measurement.

Originality, in this context, is definitely being used as a value measurement. Just look at the original post about "ranking" music and adding the qualifier "not only for originality's sake."

If you want to measure how "different" music is, sure. It says absolutely nothing about the value of that music though.

I would definitely put Gerogerigegege and Bach on a similar level, genuinely speaking. Maybe Bach a bit over Gerogerigegege, but Gerogerigegege were pretty great. 0 Songs EP and Art is Over, together with Night or their usual stuff is all great.

I also disagree with that, but the point remains. They measured originality using an objective analysis.

I was speaking strictly about this album or EP that was only the sounds of shitting. I know they also did some controversial but acclaimed music.

>If you want to measure how "different" music is, sure. It says absolutely nothing about the value of that music though.

Except, as Avant pointed out, novely is a fairly instrinsic value. Evolution has been rewarding intelligence, in the sense of curiosity towards the new, forever. It is not beneficial to spend your time gazing onto one tree, then another, almost identical, then another -- what's valuable is clearly pursuit of, interest in, new, unknown things, so to gain an edge.

we must be fucked then cause nothing truly original has been released these past 6 years

What in the fuck are you talking about?

Are we really now comparing your misinformed view of evolution to "originality" of music?

You're too retarded to debate with. Good bye.

That shitting album is also good though, not at Bach level though.


Wrong. From the top of my head:
Cosmogramma, Seven Idiots, New Slaves, Lipgloss Twins, Gloss Drop

I don't know man, have you run those bands through an algorithm?

All of this rambling and no one has brought up anything about chord progressions, song structure, key changes, instrumentation or really much of anything else technically objectively measurable in music. For me the "best" songs are those which incorporate the most varied song structures, most and most complex (extended, diminished, and otherwise) chords, most extensive and varied instrumentation, most varied rhythms, and basically most of any of the objective measurements of music while still not random or excessively imbalanced and managing to sound subjectively good to me. Examples would be "The Odessey" by Symphony X, and recently the title track from Epica's "The Holographic Principle." These songs are objectively complex, featuring many different combinations of instruments (and vocals for the latter work) throughout, many chords and chord voicings, lyrical themes not commonly found in the mainstream, word-painting, at least in the former (yes this is objective and a well known phenomenon), and generally wide variations in tone and volume, while still sounding very good to me personally. It would be perfectly possible to create a musical work that has all of these same attributes that sounded horrible to me personally, or one that contained very few and still sounded good (I like Amon Amarth and they're basic melodic death metal with straightforward instrumentation and song structures and relatively simple chord progressions.) However, I think the "best" music is that which is most complex objectively whilst still sounding good subjectively.

>Are we really now comparing your misinformed view of evolution to "originality" of music?

No, not 'comparing'. Simply pointing out a practical, evolutionary analogy to the fact that repetition is the opposite of value almost by definition. In communication, compression, repetition is always minimized, and only tolerated insofar as it secures integrity (think checksums). Similarly in music. There is no reason at all that we should listen to what we've heard before. We only listen to our favourite songs because our underlying evolutionary attractor, the instinct drawing us to original things, is being partially overruled by other instincts (but that's a digression).

I wouldn't mind if you bore the off-topic and explained how my understanding of evolution is wrong, too.

No, but it's possible.
It's not like we can't tell without using a computer algorithm anyways.

Except they have, both explicitly and implicitly.
Also, the elements you mention by themselves are way overrated.
I used to have a similar idea of good music as yours, but now I don't support the "more information, more diversity" idea and go for originality instead.

>now I don't support the "more information, more diversity" idea and go for originality

Mind explaining your distinction between information versus diversity in terms of yielding originality? How do you tell those two apart? Examples?

can you post your RYM profile? I'm interested what are your favorite albums.

>between information versus diversity in terms of yielding originality

Oops, mixed up the terms. Meant 'information versus originality in terms of yielding diversity', if I understand your point right. Typo.

Hi guys is this the shitposting thread?

>Nobody would say Justin Bieber is better than Miles Davis or Tom Waits?
Teenage girls probably would.

noff
Send me a message so I know who you are!

Because something can be original without being diverse. Maybe I read your post wrong though, I got confused.

Not anymore, you got in too late.

>They measured originality using an objective analysis.
You mean the programmers of the algorithm used their subjective analysis and built it into the program

>I have a different idea which factors the objective algorithm should consider
>therefore it's not objective

>the programmers of the algorithm had an objective opinion
>yet mine and yours is not
Yeah because STEM students are really known for their artistic analyzing capabilities

The factors are arbitrary, not subjective, yet those arbitrary factors can be objectively measured.

But those factors were arbitrarily chosen in a subjective framework. Thus you are objectively measuring subjective criteria in the end, and it's uselessly still subjective.

1. The goal is to measure originality
2. You choose the parameters that make something original (not really subjective, as every parameter works)
3. Those parameters can be objectively measured
4. Therefore, originality can be measured objectively
5. If we agree that originality is what makes music good, then we conclude that good music is objective

>I want the term 'originality' to mean the skin tone of the bassist rather than the amount of innovation of a piece
>you can't prove that my arbitrary definition is wrong
>therefore, measurements of originality are subjective

Keep going, it's quite entertaining.

>It's not like we can't tell without using a computer algorithm anyways.
I wonder what the point of using an algorithm is if we can tell which artists are the most original.

I'm assuming that you're positive that everything you listen to will be a the top of this numeric ranking.

God you're such a retard.

What do you listen to

What's your AOTY

>2. You choose the parameters that make something original
Which is thus subjective since we all have our own criteria for what is or is not original
(not really subjective, as every parameter works)
1. If every parameter works, it should be built into the algorithm,
2. Results are either everything or nothing is objectively original, which is unrealistic/unhelpful
3. Every parameter isn't build into the algorithm anyways, thus you are contradicting yourself if you want to continue to perpetuate the correctness of the algorithm
>5. If we agree that originality is what makes music good
We do not. You'll have to choose something else.
>skin tone
Quote me where I said that.

We can put derivative hacks such as jazz performers in their place.

>2. You choose the parameters that make something original (not really subjective, as every parameter works)
>It's not subjective because I said so

Welp, we're at step two and your reasoning fell apart. Try again.

>5. If we agree that originality is what makes music good, then we conclude that good music is objective
But we don't all agree. Your entire argument, once again, will fall flat on its face when we consider that the idea that "originality," especially based on parameters chosen by someone else, is the defining characteristic of "good music." This is an entirely subjective view point, in fact, the idea of music as good or bad in itself is entirely subject. No matter how much you try to rephrase this, you're dealing with a subjective view of music.

I wonder if you've convinced yourself of this "objective measurement" nonsense because you believe your music would rate very well with this bullshit. It's no wonder you're spreading this nonsense, it lets you jerk off to how amazing your taste is "objectively."

Die hard JB fans have never heard of Miles Davisor Tom Waits

I don't listen to albums from after 2010. The risk of running at something overhyped and wasting my time at it is too high. Good ratings for albums that had some years to cool down are more reliable.

why don't you just...not rely on ratings?

(I listen to my music in leaps -- I prefer to listen to a handful of records I find profoundly innovative, each of which I found once a couple of week, rather than an average record each day.)

Not this shit again. I clearly don't rely on ratings for *judgement*, but on finding stuff to first check out. No one's listening time is unlimited.

>I can make a piece of music arbitrarily complex using a computer algorithm
lol yeah right. let's see this software in action you bullshitter.

Haha

Because it's still useful.

Also, your second sentence is wrong, and therefore so is your third.

Not him, but hyped albums have waaaay to inflated ratings.

I never said originality is what makes music objectively better for it's own sake.

Not him, but those do exist.