Thinking music is objective

>thinking music is objective
can you get any more pleb

How is sound not objective?

>thinking music is subjective

How isnt it?

>conflating sound with music
oh boy this extractor fan is a total banger

I don't know what that means.

Answer the question

Relativism is a literal pleb mentality.

Not for art.

If you've ever said "this song if bad" and believe that music is subjective then you are a giant hypocrite.

Music is objective, as with any art form.

So where does the line get drawn between objectivism and relativism and who draws it?

A literal pleb would probably be into the idea that his wife's pottery is on the same level as the Caesar's palace.
been reading Ayn Rand's essays on aesthetics and she kinda treats music as this grey area because she views it as not well understood enough to be objectively evaluated, except for certain characteristics i.e complexity or loudness (not that either of those are necessarily positive). I'm wondering if she'd have the same view if she studied music.

not all sound is music you dumb slut

>music is objective up to a certain point
>music taste is subjective

/thread

>reading Rand
>call others pleb
I'm dying. Please tell me it's a bait.

You don't know what objective means, do you?
Objectivity refers to how something is viewed. You can view something one of two ways: objectively (as it is and with respect to what it is) or subjectively (with regards to yourself and in spite of the object). Looking at something subjectively is essentially not looking at it at all, but rather being aware of it and then thinking about yourself.

The whole notion of 'it's subjective' isn't what you knobs think it is - an argument to save face when someone tries to explain something to you because god forbid someone tell you something.

Subjectivity from a modernist point of you comes from the creative arena where the likes of Kafka would produce a work about something crafted in their own interpretation of the world (subjectivity), but to appreciate it you have to looks at it objectively. Works have since been made to play with the subjective nature of the viewer, but again one has to objectively take them in to truly appreciate the advantage taken by the work.

Quality is entirely based in objectivity and arguing against that is just saying "haha, I'm a complete retard".

why did you have to /thread the best one

>everything is subjective meme
>nicki minaj is just as good as mozart's requiem it's just a matter of OPINION you stupid goy

Existentialism triggers me, let's just not talk about it.

lol

>implying
Everything is rated through objective analysis, for sure, but it's all with regard to the thing being rated. Mozart and Nicki Minaj are wholly unrelated. Mozart is obviously the better composer, but Minaj is obviously better at making use of the structures of the music industry to make money.

Minaj isn't so much making music as she is producing vanity recordings for her worshippers. She has more in common with a pagan druid than with Mozart and you shouldn't be looking at her with regards to instrumentation and musical criticism in a classical sense because that's not what she's doing. She's shit anyway, though.

>Mozart is obviously the better composer, but Minaj is obviously better at making use of the structures of the music industry to make money.
So you could say Minaj is a better businesswoman and Mozart is a better musician, which means that music isn't totally subjective. She IS creating music, that's undeniable.

>A literal pleb would probably be into the idea that his wife's pottery is on the same level as the Caesar's palace
Why isn't it?
Intent of the artist
If music is subjective, it very well can be.

>Mozart is obviously the better composer
How so?

this conversation is objectively boring imo

>objectively
>imo
Pick one

Well, obviously music isn't 'subjective'.
The whole argument really is that it's hard to make comparisons and rate things without a proper criteria.

Minaj's output is musical, but her goal isn't to produce the best crafted music. Her goal is clearly to be famous and her medium is self-flattery and radio pop song structures and she's successful in it, but it's not worthy of praise. She's a weird example to work off of.

Take Julia Holter and Steve Vai as a better case for comparison. Steve Vai is pretty good at playing the guitar, but his output is vapid shite. Julia Holter is a pretty decent musician, she's capable, but massive instrumentation isn't the make-up of releases as she's entirely conceptual and her releases hit their marks perfectly (or the most recent two did, at least). As far as their albums go, from a flat music perspective Vai is probably better, but looking at the work as the means to communicating a concept Holter is so much better that it's not even a contest.
You've got to rate things with regards to themselves. That's what objectivity refers to. You can't look at every musical endeavour under one heading because everything has its own goal.

I'm just not going to answer that.

>I have no answer so I'm just not going to answer that.
OK
>Minaj's output is musical, but her goal isn't to produce the best crafted music.
How do you objectively measure of the music is well crafted or not?

Music taste is subjective, music ability and complexity is objective

And when you take subjective musical taste and measure it against objective elements such as ability and complexity, you can objectively assess musical taste to be shit/not shit.

>you can objectively assess musical taste to be shit/not shit.
You can't because taste is subjective, and so the objectivity is useless. One man's shit is another man's shine.

by the standards with which music has always been measured with respect to it's performance from a practical position.
You're clearly having trouble understanding my primary point if you're asking that, but I've to hurry off because I'm late for a fat loser's birthday.

>by the standards with which music has always been measured
Which is what?

Composition
Sound
Emotion

That's just a start.

>Composition
How is this measured?
>Sound
How is this measured?
>Emotion
Subjective.

No him but music quality is typically judged by technical skill, depth and originality of composition.

Led Zeppelin is OBJECTIVELY the peak of music, my genereation (that im ashamed to be apart of) only likes (c)rap and pop shittt!!!!

Please objectively define "depth" and "originality"

originality is doing something that is unique and not exactly done before. that can be measured objectively.

>originality is doing something that is unique and not exactly done before. that can be measured objectively.
Ah I see. So how do you measure that? Do you have a statistical framework to analyse if one composition is significantly different to another?

with your ears, dummy.

Oh right, your personal impression is an objective measure of composition similarity, I see. Since objective means it's totally unbiased, how are we going to check if your personal impressions are objective or not?

>Do you have a statistical framework
>applying sabermetrics to music quality

how very subjective of you

You can hear one band and you can hear that it sounds like previous bands in the past. That's not subjective, that's just factual. For instance, you can listen to the band Uncle Acid and the Deadbeats and know that they aren't too original because they sound a great deal like other bands from the 60's and 70's. On the other hand, if you hear a band that doesn't sound similar to any other previous bands, that is an original sound. Some people might not have enough frame of reference to make an objective claim on originality, but there does exist an objective truth regarding music originality. Did I make that clear enough for ya?

>You can hear one band and you can hear that it sounds like previous bands in the past. That's not subjective, that's just factual.
The personal impression of "similarity" you get objectively exists, but how can you check your impression is a 1 to 1 descriptor of the music?

You seem to underestimate that objective means 100% factual. Not "I think it's true" or "I've got real feelings about it", but that your statement is actually 100% true.

I know what objective means. That's why I'm saying that there is a 100% factual truth regarding originality. Sound itself is objective and you can hear two sounds and say that they sound similar. That concept applies to music. Now like you said, some people just simply get it wrong, but that doesn't mean originality isn't objective. I picked a very easy example because the comparison of Uncle Acid and rock bands in the 60s and 70s should be obvious. Originality is one of the only objective qualities of music.

It is impossible to consider something without regard to yourself
Humans can't have objective thoughts

>That's why I'm saying that there is a 100% factual truth regarding originality
How humans perceive originality is subjective though.

The guy you are arguing with literally doesn't understand what objective means

ITT: Fags who finished a course in philosophy thinking nothing can be "truly" objective. That, and people trying to reason with them.

Keep being stuck in your easy way out guys, I hope some of you will understand how deep up your own asses you are.

ITT: Fags who have no clue what they're talking about thinking art can be truly objective. That, and people trying to reason with them.
Keep being stuck in your easy way out guys, I hope some of you will understand how deep up your own asses you are.

music is objective, taste is subjective

you're not only plebeian, but also intelectually deficient if you find this difficult to understand

>music is objective
How so? What some people call music, others do not. Hence it's open for interpretation

>How so? What some people call music, others do not. Hence it's open for interpretation

Mere disagreement doesn't prove subjectivity.

Only in the sense that absolutely everything is, technically, open to interpretation.

>Mere disagreement doesn't prove subjectivity.
Why not?
Oh are you describing all art?

>Why not?
If myself and my friend disagree on whether water is H20, that doesn't mean there isn't an objective fact about whether water is H20.

I wasn't describing anything. Did you respond to the wrong comment?

H2O*

fugg

Incorrect. it could very well not be H2O if you are not directly observing it
>absolutely everything is, technically, open to interpretation.
Well, certainly art is.

>Well, certainly art is.
Yeah, your experience with it is subjective, and its message can be interpreted differently, but in the case of music its actual sonic content is objective.

>Incorrect. it could very well not be H2O if you are not directly observing it

Eh? You don't understand. If my friend thinks the chemical makeup of water is XYZ, and I think it's H2O (i.e. we disagree), that doesn't mean the chemical make up of water is subjective (because the chemical make up of water is objectively H2O). Some things are objective even if people disagree about them. Another example; if you and I disagree on the answer to 2+2, that doesn't mean there isn't an objective answer to 2+2.

So, just pointing to the disagreement about what is and isn't music doesn't show that there isn't anything objective about what is and isn't music. People often make a similar error when they point to moral disagreement and suggest that it follows that there aren't any objective rights and wrongs.

>but in the case of music its actual sonic content is objective.
The value of the content is subjective.
>(because the chemical make up of water is objectively H2O).
It won't directly be when not observed directly. Are you not familiar with quantum physics?

>The value of the content is subjective.
But that's exactly what I said.

Taste is what creates music. It doesn't exist objectively.

that doesn't counter anything I said. taste may influence the creation of music (ftfy) but what is created exists objectively. it can then also be interpreted and consumed subjectively.

>that doesn't counter anything I said
Of course it does. Music isn't created until someone's taste is applies. Otherwise, it's just meaningless sound.
>but what is created exists objectively
Or rather, it's created by the taste of the artist.

>Otherwise, it's just meaningless sound.
Which is where objectivity comes in

>Or rather, it's created by the taste of the artist.
Doesn't counter the fact that what is created by that artist then exists objectively and tangibly

You're going around in circles, user

Objectively, a musician has a style that is defined by what he hears and thinks is great. So it may be very broad, but all of that musician's music is within the context of that musician who has heard inspiring things.

Music created later on will be influenced by earlier music. The best innovators will refute the earlier ideas so as to broaden their styles (and in doing so increase the radius of their ideas' context), or at least the less flexible rules will be broken and forgotten.

So it seems that the newest and most abstract music is the best, objectively.

>it's a white nerd who has no intuitive joy of art shills his classical music due to it's objective compelexity.

requiem is a boring piece that has never moved me even slightly emotionally, devoid of any kind of impressive rhythm, relying on melody almost entirely. it's practically completely sterile.

fucking fight me you pretentious little shit.

not him, but I'm enjoying the irony of you calling out someone for being unable to enjoy art while boasting about not being able to enjoy art

"it's art cause i say it is"
if I take a shit and call it art, that doesn't make it art.

>Which is where objectivity comes in
Now you are contradicting yourself
>Doesn't counter the fact that what is created by that artist then exists objectively
It can't because it's influenced by taste.

>that doesn't make it art.
It is because you called it art. That was your intent

>art can't be intentional

That's the opposite of what I said. Are you greentexting properly?

even more irony, as you also referred to something as art without any justification

What? It doesn't matter what something is influenced by. The composition or recording exists objectively.

Yes it does.

Then naturally someone will take a shit off a building and have the more interesting shit unless you expressly explained to them how wonderful plumbing was. Or someone might take that extra step and, either way, have the more interesting shits.

The most innovative shit is the best shit, and art is shit.

Not him, I'm I'd think of depth in terms of production, and originality in terms of the underlying chordal structure. So for example: If I play a song with a 1-4-5 progression, with two guitars (both distorted and one moreso than the other), a piano and drums - it's safe to say this is going to sound like a typical blues song. Objectively, I'm not doing anything new with the production or with the chordal structure of the piece.

Now of course, judging these two metrics gets tougher as music becomes more and more syncretic, but there are people much more knowledgeable than most on this board who right up eloquent analysis of pieces, comparing and contrasting them meticulously. There's an entire philosophy of music for pete's sake. I refuse to believe, that something as depraved and put together by 40 people for it's exchange value (ala Nicki Minaj) is on the same level of musical genius as a Beethoven piece.

It doesn't exist objectively. It's especially clear here at the end of time that everything you have experienced you have responded to in some way, which created a trend that became a construct of personality.

Music is objective only by the boundaries broken, and in these cases it is objectively better than its predecessor.

wow, shit thread guys

You're a little pussy who's afraid to contribute. How can you possibly hope to become objectively better than others if you don't grant your whole opinion to their discretion?

Have fun in your safe-space mediocrity you little faggot.

will do my man

Typical argumentless fag.

Friendly tip - "duh it can't be measured objectively" is nothing more than admitting that striving to be as objective as possible is beyond you and you'd rather stay cozy under your "but it can't be done because reasons" blanket.