How can music be subjective if a large majority of music critics praise the works of The Velvet underground and Bach...

How can music be subjective if a large majority of music critics praise the works of The Velvet underground and Bach and hate Brokencyde and Blood On The Dance Floor?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_an_Author?
twitter.com/AnonBabble

How?

Because there are a lot of people that prefer Brokencyde and Blood On The Dance Floor. It should be obvious that critics don't represent the average person, and even more obvious that different people have different tastes. What more criteria do you need for subjectivity?

>music critics
Bait harder please

How is this b8 when it's a question being asked.

Stop spending your time on Sup Forums all the time.

Even the average person thinks TVU and Bacb are better than Blood or broken.

What's your point.

Music isn't 'subjective' and using the word like that is announcing that you don't know what it means.
Subjectivity is observing something with respect to yourself, objectivity is with respect to what is being observed.

You can't criticise or review something subjectively; that is a unique introspective take on something that will never affect anyone else and is ignorant towards what is being viewed.

Nothing is inherently either because they are ways of looking and entirely removed from the product in the sense you're implying.

The 'everything is subjective' philosophy is regarding the process in making something that is evaluated objectively - like is very clear in the work of Kafka - and has nothing to do with snowflakes wanting to call their faces 'the best' without a proper argument.

Well, the point is if some people prefer one over the other that means they like them more and it sure seems like musical quality/taste/enjoyment/take your pick isn't objective based on that.

Questions end with a question mark and not a period you faggot.

Wow, what a useless post. Took me like 5 minutes to parse through this and all it amounted to was a definition of subjective vs objective and a weird conflicted argument in favor of its subjectivity (by the OP's acceptable definition)

>majority
>average

While subjectivity in music in inherent to the medium, I think some works carry more emotional value than others.

For example, I think heroin by TVU is much more impactful than most EDM because of the core message and execution.

I also think that some work is innovative. The work Beef heart did on TMR is unquestionably unique when compared to the verse/chorus nature of many pop songs. With that said, I don't think a format is inherently bad. I believe what you do with it counts.

It isn't. "taste is subjective all music is creatively and culturally equal" is just a copout used by retards too who are too lazy or completely incapable of critical thought, yet too proud to admit they have shit taste and are uneducated.

Kyd

or in other words, people can like crap.
(which is the opposite of what you were conveying)

Enjoyment is subjective. Of course people have different tastes. We're talking about actual analysis of the music. It isn't a strict guideline, but it's definitely true that you can point to one piece of music and say, "This is much more complex and innovative than this other piece of music."

>b-but more complex doesn't mean better!

That's right, but the job of a good critic (mostly unfulfilled because music criticism is in a terrible state these days) is to explain how these musical complexities arise to emotional complexities and to form a well written and informative argument to help listeners appreciate the music better. This is a very noble goal and something hindered by babbies who just say, "but m-muh subjectivity."

>It takes me 5 minutes to read a couple of paragraphs and afterwards I conclude the opposite of what is written
God help you, user

You can't criticise something subjectively. It doesn't work like that. You can only review something objectively because otherwise you're reviewing yourself with regards to what you claim to be reviewing. As far as the 'but what scale do you use?' nonsense, objectivity is with respect to the object and so you take it with the criteria it labels itself with and analyse it in respect to what it intends to achieve. It's common sense. Google your buzzwords before you use them in future.

Different people value different particular things from music.
e.g. most people enjoy The Beatles, but if you asked a bunch of people what their favorite Beatles song is, they would most likely all have different ones.

all opinions are subjective

this thread is strange

>all opinions are subjective
Nope. Here's one that is easily observable truth: you're a fucking idiot

Critics can't bring opinions into their work. If you approach something with a bias then you have no integrity.
Opinions have no place in criticism as all.

if that were verifiable it would be a fact, not an opinion

It's subjective but universal

learn2kant

>If you approach something with a bias then you have no integrity.

in your subjective opinion

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

How does the existence of criticism or critics that propose objective criteria to judge something by make musical quality any less subjective? That's simply their own prerogative. Nothing's special about critics, you drones. Serious question

>I don't know how to discuss the topic of the thread I entered
>better shitpost like a retard
Good job

see

thanks for your opinion

Music taste is subjective but music quality isn't.

Some prefer the taste of shit more than others.

How do you define quality?

Kant was wrong about everything.

>serious question
>no question mark
>a question that was already answered in this thread
You're supposed to read the thread before you post, mate.

Objectivity is looking at something with respect to itself. When you criticise something you do so by looking at it, taking it for what it is and evaluating whether or not it accomplishes its intended goal.
If you can't wrap your head around something this basic then you should avoid discussing it at all.

You're wrong about at least 1 thing (the thing you just said)

not him but he definitely used a question mark

maybe read posts before you reply to them

Quality and therefore value i based entirely on how well a certain thing meets the expectations and requirements of a user. How good something is, or in other words its quality, depends entirely on how well the thing meets the criteria that a majority of people to whom the thing is important have proposed. Saying "b-but music can't be evaluated objectively because the criteria is made up by people" is the most asinine shit your fucking infantile head could possibly shit out. You're pretty much arguing against the entire concept of "quality", you bloody idiot.

>there was a question mark
But ok, I do understand the concept of objectively criticizing something, now. However, it seems totally futile. You can only impose your own assumption of an artists goal on a piece of art generally, and so you are criticizing it subjectively even if you intend to be objective. Plus, the essence of music is subjective- we enjoy it because of what it means to us not any "accomplishment of its intended goal" so isn't it pointless to criticize that way for that reason too?

That's literally the point dumbass, if different things have different levels of quality to different people, it's moot to say quality is objective

>However, it seems totally futile
It seems so because you're an idiot and don't give a shit about music. Critique is not tailored for people like you.

>It seems so because you're an idiot and don't give a shit about music
This isn't even an argument. I'll keep making music and learning theory; enjoy your rym or whatever

>This isn't even an argument
It is and your music is garbage.

just popping in to say i find it amusing how many objectivists use emotional arguments and petty childish insults to make their points

please call me a retard

It is until fantano approves it for your ass apparently

people have different music tastes and like different music
but music tastes can be objectively better or worse

see

What if I was highlighting his incompetence by including an example of it in my own post? What then? I bet you feel like a real fool now, right? Obviously it was a calculated error ;)

>art
We're talking about music, there's very little in common between the two fields outside of the occasional endeavour.
Maybe you should try and make something, presenting it to an informed audience and then restating that. I work as an art-maker and criticism is central to our work. We expect the audience to come in with an objective eye and see things for what they are meant to be and it's a very conversational arena.

>You can only impose your own assumption of an artists goal
Well, that's why there are critics; a critic is supposed to be objective and if something comes across them that they can't read then they shouldn't review it. The likes of Fantano and Scaruffi aren't critics, they're people posting their preferences online and arbitrarily grading them. If it weren't for the grading they'd be alright.

>the essence of music is subjective- we enjoy it
criticism is entirely important when you work in the field. It's important to understand what's going on and what has been done and how well it was undertaken.
I, personally, approach things in two minds; I look at it for what it is primarily, but I am free to enjoy absolute shit as well. The two are not exclusive. Plus, criteria changes from work to work and under an external criteria something shit can be great - like a Tiesto track as entrance music for a junkie wrestler. It's a big auld world, but it's not complicated at all.

>A large majority of music critics praising one thing over another means it is actually better

Prove it.

TVU and Bach?

Well I agree that there's a universality to works of music and art (still not sure the distinction is so important), so I can understand how it could be useful to get others' opinions, and see how they would be worthwhile and informative. But I still don't think anything can invalidate someone's preference of artist A to B regardless the artists. To that person, A is higher quality than B. What does that make me? Ignoring shades of gray and using Sup Forums definitions, I would say that means music is subjective.

>a critic is supposed to be objective

Prove it.

do you even en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author ?

fuck off, tripfag

>I still don't think anything can invalidate someone's preference of artist A to B regardless the artists
Well preference is unrelated to criticism. Preference is not measurable, nor is it universal. My dog likes licking his dick, does that mean that licking his dick is equal in quality to Duchamp's Fountain?
Furthermore, it is pretty rare that two works would fall under the same overall criteria. You're not going to look at Jason Derulo the same way you look at Death Grips unless you're a hack. Only your view can be subjective, nothing can be subjective as regards itself.

>music and art (still not sure the distinction is so important)
Music in its typical, contemporary understanding largely refers to the approach centred around writing and recording music in an album format that is by and large profit-orientated and performing with emphasis on entertainment more so than any conceptual priority. Art-making is creating a work with the intention of communicating an idea in such a way that it would be impossible to convey otherwise. There's a significant difference. Generally, as a rule, don't use the word 'art' unless you can name someone who makes it.

Yes I do and it supports what I wrote, mate.
Death of the Author is about how the person making it shouldn't be analysed as part of a work. That the work should be seen for itself.

The discussion is being derailed primarily because there are two operative definitions of objectivity at play: (1) that from something being objective you can infer that there are rational, determinant properties which allow one to form a judgment about its quality; and (2) that something is objective insofar as it makes reference to something outside the self.

I think everyone obviously has to accept the objectivity of music in relation to (2). The quality of music isn't determined in sole relation to some unique, subjective traits of the observer. A variety of factors outside the self determine the extent to which I like a certain composition or not. For example, did I just hear this song in an obnoxious commercial that inclines me to hate it in association with its context? For a more general study of how objective, cultural pressures determine one's framework for the judgment of taste, I would recommend reading Pierre Bourdieu's ''Distinction,'' which analyzes differences in taste relative to economic class. Specifically, he talks about a work's perceived quality being sustained by the cultural capital it is granted, and how cultural capital is formed different historical discourses that emphasize the value of certain traits over others for the sake of distinction; this section would benefit the thread because it allows for a way to concede that the quality of a work is objective and partially determinant, without using the justification of some elusive, unsupported metaphysical standard.

I think the question of (1) is still open. One could hypothetically complete a sociology of taste and determine the manifold cultural forces on any local position. It would be possible to gather the common traits among all within this matrix, thus giving you a claim on universality. I don't see this ever happening, though.

There are definately objective critisisms you can make about the process of making music or the story behind the record. That best of radiohead CD/yankee hotel foxtrot are good examples from both sides of the spectrum.

>While subjectivity in music in inherent to the medium, I think some works carry more emotional value than others.

This statement contradicts itself.

>Specifically, he talks about a work's perceived quality being sustained by the cultural capital it is granted, and how cultural capital is formed different historical discourses that emphasize the value of certain traits over others for the sake of distinction
This is the only part of your post I saw as relevant to the thread at all, but it's a good point. However, these (post-internet) days it's not so big a factor on music outside of festival line-ups and the charts, though p4k is very clearly an example of that principle in practice. It very definitely still affects film, especially American film.

>Generally, as a rule, don't use the word 'art' unless you can name someone who makes it.
Oh hey, it's this guy again. Did you ever get around to looking up what "art music" means ?

This entire discussion is going over my head

I don't know who you are but I'm filtering you for being a shitposting tripfag.

it's just one guy obsessed with critical theory talking in circles

he doesn't seem to really know what he's talking about

>Death of the Author is about how the person making it shouldn't be analysed as part of a work.

more specifically: that the work should not be evaluated in terms of whether it satisfies the aims and objectives of the author
because the aims and objectives of an author are usually unknown, instead they are assumed or projected by the critic (and in all likelihood even unknown to the author themselves)

Just like you did last time, right ? See you around bud, good luck with not getting laughed out of these threads in the future.

Because I don't like The Velvet Underground or Bach.

Yeah, but that's the part that I chose to ignore since it's a painfully dated, romantic idea. The likes of Foucault have argued against that as well. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_an_Author?

Contemporary work is very heavily centered around the author/maker anyway. It is impossible to read Kafka's 'The Castle' without reading it as being about the man himself and literary history following the publishing of his work has been massively affected by it.

When I make something I put myself in the work so it really is impossible to to look at my work without looking at me for the most part. It's the same for most stuff you see nowadays too. People show themselves and say what they have to a lot now. It's what's in vogue.

In the case of a given context, he's right in that there are works where we can never understand them in the way I have outlined. The way things are usually made today, though, it is hard not to understand them.
Like, how could you possibly review a Drake album without talking about him? All he does is talk about himself anyway (and typically his self-descriptions are complete fictional so you have to criticise the work with respect to the author).

This is what happens when you center your entire worldview around the most fashionable contemporary school of philosophy instead of using language in a way that makes sense to everyone. He's a prescriptivist, pay him no mind.

>Like, how could you possibly review a Drake album without talking about him? All he does is talk about himself anyway

right, but you're talking about lyrics there, not music

and obviously music is a bit of a different beast to art (which frequently arrives with a description of the artist's intentions - either to make crit easier or to guarantee funding)

lyrics are part of the product. Every aspect of something is part of it and must be included in its reading.

>which frequently arrives with a description of the artist's intentions - either to make crit easier or to guarantee funding
Yeah, those things are sort of counter-intuitive, but they do highlight the focus on wanting the audience to know what it is supposed to be. They're fun to write as well.

Your definition of art has been outdated for centuries.

where did i define art?

>lyrics are part of the product. Every aspect of something is part of it and must be included in its reading.
aye fair enough
but what do you do with instrumental music?

what school of philosophy? the vocal person in this thread is just making vague, inconsistent epistemological claims, and theyre not linked to any particular movement of thought

To everyone who isn't literally autistic / a linguistic prescriptivist (i.e. posturing philosophical cavemen), "art" is a fluid term which encompasses things such as music, sound art, visual art, sculpture, etc.

because the majority of people alive right now are only a minority of all people who will ever have lived

sure it's a fluid term, but i already know the guy i'm talking to means by art, and i;m using it in the same way

but yes, of course music can be (and is) art, but if you put music in a gallery it becomes a different kind of art to the music you hear on the radio (in the same way video art is largely defined by whether or not it's in a gallery)

The last time I saw him arguing he got backed into a corner and started spouting off about critical theory. If he's not even competent from that angle (I'm no expert so I won't judge) then that's hilarious.

>but what do you do with instrumental music?
you review it with respect to itself?
Think of it in the same way as I would; how do you compare a work that's a woman combing her hair to a sculpture of Jeff Koons fucking his pornstar ex-wife? It's the same sort of disparity within the medium, you've gotta take them individually.

Music's in a weird place for criticism right now, though, since it's become a blanket term over a mess of unrelated approaches, so I suppose it's not surprising that music criticism is in a weird state.

>but what do you do with instrumental music?
you interpret it a bit more free of the burden of having to interpret the contexts which it is addressing.

to understand lyrics, you must under people. instrumental music does not require a BA in psychology to understand

music crit is basically fucked and has been ever since we started scoring albums

it makes sense to score a kettle or a toaster, but not art

Probability.

I should have responded to him, then. Thanks for clearing that up.

>if you put music in a gallery it becomes a different kind of art to the music you hear on the radio
Only in the sense that the context is informing the listener on how to evaluate the content, but at this point we're just throwing truisms around to prove that we know what we're all talking about.

yeah same page desu

Well, there's nothing wrong with scoring music if there's a given criteria that makes sense and is available alongside the review. The Fantano style "light 6" bullshit that is just randomly slapped on is stupid though.
Generally speaking, though, yeah there's no point having a score.

people have been attacking you bc ''with respect to itself'' is nebulous to the point of meaninglessness; sure, its clear the critic can conduct a formalist analysis or otherwise objective critique of the work, but the main question in this thread is normative, i.e., why would some of those objective properties be favorable over others? and you havent provided support for an argument that will prove such evaluations are possible on abstract, universal grounds.

Well, if you go look back at the birth of the term you'll find that it was used specifically to label works born out of the dying practice of commission-based craftsmen who had begun to use their work to communicate large ideas.

It was later appropriated by the middle-class to sell decor so they could imitate the educated upper class who engaged in collecting artworks as a symbol of status and that's where your understanding of the term begins and ends. Reactionary responses to that bullshit spawned Dada and post-modernism - where we currently are - is fundamentally based in a rejection of nonsense like that. But anyone not autistic already knows that.

Any alleged lack of an answer is probably owed to my either expecting it to be obvious or eluding to it earlier. Or smoke inhalation - my chimney broke and it's pretty bad in here.

>why would some of those objective properties be favorable over others?
favourable in what sense? From experience, a work is looked at for what it is and critiqued with regard to this. Generally this is a discussion, though, allowing people to fill in each others' gaps. Something is typically 'good' if the viewer can see what it is meant to be. If you're talking about preference, some people enjoy evaluating things I guess? Often an ability to make something good coincides with an ability to make something enjoyable - when you have something to say then you want people to listen and if you want to hear something you tend to like having it told to you. That sort of principle. There's a much longer answer to that question, and I'm not writing a thesis on Sup Forums. Unless your question is something else or you were baiting since I couldn't objectively analyse your post.

>if you go look back at the birth of the term you'll find that it was used specifically to label works born out of the dying practice of commission-based craftsmen who had begun to use their work to communicate large ideas.

Mhmm. I know what the term *used* to mean, sweetheart. That's why I keep laughing at you for being a prescriptivist.

Not really, because I said "I think". I'm explaining my subjectivity.

Why are you trying to argue about nothing and derailing the thread, lad?
Art has existed in that definition all along, that's what it is. It's a field of study, it's a job. There already words available for you to use like craft and skill that actual make sense in terms of what you want to say. It's entirely destructive to proliferate a misuse of a word and is massively disrespectful. I'm going to start calling test-tubes 'sciences' and html a 'programming language', watch as people from those avenues pop up to tell me to stop being a retard in the same way that you are demonstrating massive and blatant retardation.

If you believe that subjectivity (in the commonly understood sense, not the esoteric sense used to posture by certain semi-intellectuals ITT) is inherent to the medium, then you must also believe that a piece can carry exactly zero emotional weight on its own and that any emotion is merely that which is ascribed to it by the subjective interpreter.

If you wanted a logically consistent stance, you could say "While subjectivity in music in inherent to the medium, I have a more emotional response to certain music which I use as my basis for judging it."

>Art has existed in that definition all along
As well as other definitions which are far less arbitrary and rooted in mutual understanding.

> It's entirely destructive to proliferate a misuse of a word and is massively disrespectful.
Every linguistics major / professor worth their salt would laugh you out of the room for spouting this.

Prescriptivism only has a function on a case-by-case basis in which you clearly define the terms being used for that conversation alone (you haven't done this as demonstrated by ) and then possibly future conversations of a similar vein with people who mutually understand you. Otherwise your entire argument boils down to Language exists as it is used. Not just by your favorite club of people. Don't argue out of your depth.

>thing being discussed in a context and a word that is itself a context for work is wrong because I have 10 buzzwords and serious autism.
Good for you, mate

>the word, which refers to what it always has, can be used by me to refer to the exact opposite of that when there are actual words for the use I've employed the wrong use
Erm...

>Language exists as it is used. Not just by your favorite club of people. Don't argue out of your depth.
Language exists for communication and is pointless when a word is misused and it's meaning is blurred. If the word art is used to describe every medium then art means medium and not art. If every medium that can birth a work of art is called 'an art' then art means 'thing' and now there is no more art at all. Now going for a walk is 'doing an art', given your logic.
Language functions only when the people speaking it can understand it. If you use the wrong word and someone corrects you, getting defensive and shouting syllables isn't exactly sensible. If you call every craft 'art' then art doesn't exist anymore and you remove from spoken language an entire element of culture (and indeed the very basis of culture). Obviously. Don't argue out of your depth.

i like music

filtered

>Is music subjective or objective?
>It's both and neither!

Jesus this is some advanced fence sitting.

I don't know how you read that post and then wrote this one but I assume it's the product of the American education system.

Yeah, I think we're done here. If you can't read that simple post without continuing to spout off about how language *should* be used, you're hopeless until you start studying the subject matter past your current skin-deep infatuation with posing as an authority figure.

To keep this constructive, you should really try taking a linguistics course. You'll stop saying patently silly things like "pointless when a word is misused and it's meaning is blurred" once you learn how language actually functions in culture. That's the great thing about descriptivism: it describes how things *actually* work instead of your ultimately arbitrary prescriptivist tantrums about how things *should* work. The thinking world left you behind centuries ago.

The rest of your post is non sequiturs and temper tantrums intentionally (I hope) misconstruing the point. Good luck with your cognitive dissonance hitting you like a freight train the moment you step outside of your bubble.

>If the word art is used to describe every medium then art means medium and not art.
See me after class.

nice ironic shitposts, guys

God help the Europoors who think "You can't criticise or review something subjectively" isn't fraught with contradiction. All forms of criticism are subjective interpretations of an artifact you dunce.

Yeah I was tempted to take the bait but right now I really can't tell if he's acting dopey on purpose or what. He keeps getting upset when you point out the flaws in his reasoning and calling it shitposting so I'm afraid that he might actually be sincere. Or he's just a decent mid-level troll trying to play devil's advocate to play around with the Fresh New Ideas that he just read in his latest literature adventures.

I really don't know. I'm going to go feed my cat.

>implications and projections
I don't know what romanticist community college tutor taught you but he should be disappointed.

I never said 'should', I said 'is'. A word was used, I corrected it's use in pursuit of protecting the fidelity of the universal understanding of a word that acts as my job title. Sort of important to me. Enjoy second year of your humanities degree, I'm sure you'll be as big an expert on feminism afterwards as you are now regarding language.