He thinks music is objective

>he thinks music is objective

You know there is no way to objectively rank music right? Justin Bieber is objectively as good as Mozart is objectively as good as Lil Shark. Art can't be graded on any objective scale, either you like it or you don't

Our inability to intelligently construct a scale to which all may be measured is not proof of a reality incapable of having such a scale exist in it's vectors.

Thanks for stating the obvious, Sherlock.

>this is what millennials believe

Postmodernism was a mistake

he's right though

Not fucking really. You can scale skills and technicality. No Bieber track is more technical or more demanding than any of Mozart's work.

Art is inherently about emotions and feelings, it can't be ranked using some kind of math or it defeats the purpose

>muh guitars

fuck off grandpa

You'd be surprised

>didn't mention guitar at all

What did he mean by this?

Cool story chode.
>Music can't be objectively ranked
>Ranks music as objectively the same
Objectivity is a useful tool. Grow up and get over yourself faggot.

so you're saying the best music is binary cant???? you fucking mongoloid

art is expression of emotion dumbo, you can't measure how relatable something is without the /subjective/ people that relate to it

Lol nobody can argue against this point, so they ignore it in hopes it will go away... it wont. Tecnical musicianship is very real, but it doesnt make a musician prolific. Just look at satriani, hes has great technical ability, but his music sucks cock!

why do you care what a load of virgins on Sup Forums think anyway? you have to learn on your own terms. if anything Sup Forums is like a classroom for angsty and sheltered teens and young adults to learn a life lesson before they make it out into the real world and realise what an idiot they were

>Music can't be objectively ranked
>Ranks music as objectively the same
Right? Seriously, it shows how stupid these people are. Haven't thought things through at all.

>art is expression of emotion dumbo
Say that to John Cage you hack of a music fan.

The only way you could rank it is by finding the average about one particular chemicals I. The brain and that kind of shit, I.e. An impossible measurement.

Thats not what hes saying. He's saying there are aspects of music that can be measured on a scale. Meaning music isnt 100% subjective, but that doesnt mean its all objective either, retard!

So are you saying corporate products like Bieber and Beyonce are on the same level as Mozart and Wagner? Those tracks are composed by multiple people and it's designed to be catchy and addicting. It doesn't really have much other purpose put in to them.

Jazz is a genre that's as emotional as it gets, but even then it manages to be fucking complexed. It's because the artist needs to be skilled to convey the emotion he's trying to channel. You wouldn't say Lil' Wayne is better than Jaco Pastorius, would you?

He's saying music can be measured with technicality, but most math rock sounds like elevator music and is worse than a lot of minimalist music. So that measure doesn't work.

You ever heard of the jazz subgenre easy listening? Yeah, that's the exact same as Justin bieber: designed to make money. Just because Frank Sinatra was backed by horns doesn't mean he has any more integrity. Yet he's seen as a legend. Music is subjective, one day Bieber might be seen as a legend too.

yes, really

Art can be ranked and it is!

If art was just about emotion, music theory wouldnt be a thing! Timing, scales and pitch would all be thrown out the window. Music in itself is mathematically derived and and technical abilities are a foundation, inwhich a musician can express emotions more fluently and in an articulate manner.

skill is a large part of making/playing music.

Or do you like hearing unskilled musicians butcher other artists songs. You probably dont! This is because there is a scale that you use to judge these musicians.

This doesnt mean that music is objective, its both objective and subjective.

You can objectively rank musicianship.
It's a skill and skill can be measured easily by others who have the same skill

Then music would just be a giant competition to create more complex and mathematical sounds

that appeals only to autists and robots

Thats not it either. You are a moron.
Math rock needs more skill to create/play

Minimalism also takes skill to create. Simple doesnt mean easy,! You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

At one time elevator music was a chart toppping genre, things change. That is a part of the subjective nature of music and trends(calling math rock elevator music is the worst analogy ive ever heard)!

On the flipside minimalists may not be able to play "elevator music". It all comes down to an objective skill level. Dont misconstrue this! Some minimalist artists are highly trained musicians and choose to create minimalism, because thats what they want to do!

>he believes in objectivity
L M A O

Why go to such an extreme? Technical ability is a foundation for musicians to portray their emotions. You think humans are robots? We all dont want the same things. You wonder why jimi hendrix or Mozart are still talked about? Its because their technical abilities synergized with their creativity to make peices of music that stand the test of time! Their works inspired many to become musicians and caused billion to be in awe of their musicianship! Without the skill, they wouldnt have made such great emotionally moving peices of music. You cant make great music without some kind of skill in that area! Its not gonna happen!

Potter on Molly

He means his viewpoint on the subject is the only way to veiw the subject. He thinks somebody who has never tried to make music can simply fart out masterpiece. He fails to realize the trial and error, perseverance and growth of musicians does factor into how good their music. He will only make ad hominem attacks and extreme geralizations to prove his worthless points. He is a sjw at heart, but may not describe himself as such!

>You cant make great music without some kind of skill in that area! Its not gonna happen!

But that's not true. Some of the best songs ever written are extremely simple, only a few chords repeating, something anyone with only a basic understanding of their instrument could replicate.

Complex does not equal better music, more competent production does not equal better music

If you like something you like something

If you can't talk about anything without some relating it so SJWs you are a scared and sick person

>things are either objective or subjective
didn´t you niggers learn about dialectical materialism in highschool

Just because its simple doesnt mean its easy, also they have enough skill to play chords. Thats objectivity, if they couldnt play the chords they couldnt play the music. Why do you always misconstrue things? Its both objective and subjective.
There will always be objectivity in something that requires skill. Jesus fucking christ whats wrong with you!

Ad hominem.Thanks for proving my point!

>Art is inherently about emotions and feelings, it can't be ranked using some kind of math or it defeats the purpose

That's a nice idea that a lot of people like to pretend is true, but obviously it isn't. I agree that art isn't entirely objective and that everyone places different value in different things, but there are plenty of measurable criteria that make something much more likely to stimulate emotion or thought. You're either ignorant or delusional if you can't see that.

Thank you! Ive been arguing this point, but tactfully. Its nice to see somebody just brashly state the obvious!

This entire thread is one guy talking to himself.

Well the fact is a lot of people believe music is ENTIRELY objective and stand by it. I do agree with the fact specific aspects can be compared and can be called different objectively.

For example if you compare two songs on the basis of complex time signatures AND if you value that concept that you can say one concept is objectively better in that regard.

But the BIG question regarding whether there is any agreed objective standard or metric for comparing all music is non-existent. So comparing all music AS A WHOLE is subjective.

Uhh, ok. Are you really that stupid??? Perhaps a schizo whos projecting?

>You know there is no way to objectively rank music right?
Except there is. I am the most patrician human to ever live, and the scores I give music are both objective and universal. My rank is the cosmic rank. All music is measured by my standard.

>comparing all music AS A WHOLE is subjective

Yeah, I can agree with that, although again, I don't think its entirely subjective either. Basically, there are way too many factors to really pin anything down objectively. All we can really do is see what sticks over time, but even that isn't really foolproof.

Paul Joseph Watson detected

I bet you think punk rock was a mistake too. I love old prog rock as much as anyone, but that shit was getting ridiculous and needed to be destroyed, just like everything else eventually does.

Well the thing is you can't be partially objective.

The definition of objective is "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

Music is TOTALLY influenced by feelings. And even disregarding all failures in even setting a metric in judging art this emotional aspect of all art just stop the "objective argument" holding any basis.

>Well the thing is you can't be partially objective.

I guess that's true if you want to get into semantics, but it seemed like OP's original point was that you can't accurately rank music by quality at all, which I disagree with.

Yeah, obviously you can't be purely objective when doing that, but you can be generally accurate.

>you can't be purely objective when doing that
>but you can be generally accurate.

Alright so what is your metrics for judging and then how can you be so sure it's "generally accurate". As well how do you rate this process you assign in being "generally accurate", based on mu's opinion? This is not semantics, this is understanding the nature of art.

Comparing apples and oranges. Both fruit, vary in taste and texture, supply different vitamins and grow in different regions/seasons. Similarly, they are round and can be picked from the tree they grow on. Which is objectively better?

Niether. Right? Except when compared to other apples and oranges. A rotten/malnourished fruit is objectively worse than ripe fruit.

A rotten/malnourished apple is not as good as a ripe orange!

A fruit wont grow unless conditions suitable to that plant is satisfactory, whether it be a bonzai or an orchard.

Music is like fruit and whether simple or complex it wont be good unless conditions are satisfactory. In this scenario, skill is the condition. Technical skill isnt just how fast you play or how complex a peice is. Its phrasing, tension building and experimentation also. Minimalistic music is much more about the latter than the former. Objectively ones skill in phrasing and tension building needs to be satisfactory in order for minimalism to work (and not feel unnecessarily reduntant or overplayed)!

Experimentation is also a handy tool for minimalism. It gives freeform expression, even if simple. It is also a skill that can be grown upon through practice! A tree with no water or nutrients will not produce fruit. A musician with no skill (isnt really a musician, but i guess you can call yourself whatever the fuck you want) wont produce good music!

So this "music is a fruit" metric you've set. How do we know as a population agree to this objective standard you are proposing?

Do you believe a vote will decide if this is subjective or rather your subjective beliefs regarding music?

As well as using this amazing fruit analogy you've set forth can you compare genre's like jazz and classical and tell me how one is objectively better?

There is objectivity in musicianship, but its says nothing about how creative a musician is. You dont have to be mozart to make good music, but you still need rudimentary skill in order to convey your message through lyrics, voice, instrument, etc... you dont just decide to make music one day and have a great album written the next! That is the objectivity in music! Building upon a skillset so you can portray emotions through sound. A bells toll is music, and even that took a while to get just right. A bell didnt just appear one day. It took engineering to make it what it is. Trial and error!

At this point you are just stating the same point over and over and over and over.

I'm calling it day, guess this debate will continue on mu for the rest of time

Its not about which is better. Its about the musicians ability to create with their skill set! If those musicians didnt experiment or go through trial and error to objectively become better, neither genres would exist! Music is not wholey subjective or objective! Its a mixture of both( a songs appeal is subjective, but the musicians skill set and what they strive for and work towards in creating a song can be measured objectively!)!

Well you cant prove it wrong. And just saying "music is subjective" or "music is objective", isnt proving anything! Its the truth that both subjectivity and objectivity play important roles in the creation of music!

Classical is objectively better than jazz.

Art is objective because human intelligence is objective and art is merely an expression of human intelligence. Intelligent people create good art, stupid people create bad art. It's no coincidence that the greatest composers were geniuses and prodigies. Anyone with a functioning brain can determine that the music of Mozart has more artistic value than that of Justin Bieber.

Saying this will only get you the title of elitist here. The people who want art to be subjective forget that once it is instilled as the only criteria for making art, anything can be the greatest peice of art ever made. Hitler raping a jew while also being raped by a jew, with autistic circus clowns pissing and shitting everywhere in a slaughter house owned by muslims and funded by christians pedphiles bathing in the blood of down syndrome infants; while will the real slim shady please stand up loops through loud speakers made in china! This would could be considered the most prolific and best peice of art ever made!! While it clearly wouldnt be, although it would be quite an interesting porn production!

If one person believed that is the greatest piece of art ever, there really isn't any way to disprove them, so your point doesn't work

I avoided pop from like 2001 to 2011 but now I don't mind most of it. Pop is way better these days. Idk it's just different and it doesn't seem stale. It's more cringey than ever but once you go numb to that it's not bad. Seems like a lotta people have animosity toward good looking people.

He has a couple good songs.

Just gotta say I love your exclamation points

They're really underused these days!

>One persons opinion makes objective things subjective!

Objectively one opinion wouldnt matter!

Mozart used a classical orchestra, and Justin Beiber used Skrillex.

That is my objective analysis on the two. It is up to you to determine whether you subjectively think it's good or bad.

upboated :^)

Haha, great way to put it!

>justin beiber is better because i like shit that was manufactured with the intent of making money off of preteen girls, fags, and massive retards!

I'm sure somebody it the world might like it for that reason. I personally, subjectively despise anything that contains Justin Beiber.

OBJECTIVELY HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD MATTER? THE MOST PEOPLE WHICH WOULD MAKE POPULAR MUSIC THE BEST OR ARE YOU SAYING ONLY MUSIC YOU LIKE AND PEOPLE THAT YOU AGREE WITH THAT AGREE WITH YOU MAKING MUSIC THE BEST?

If, its false, its false!

Popularity doesnt mean its true!

Unless it was created in such a way that the technical skills outmatched everybody who has, is, or will exist, while also pulled the heartstrings of everybody who witnesses it. Plus being attested as the greatest, by the greatest and most prolific artists ever. Then, and only then, could it be considered the greatest peice of art of all time. One opinion wouldnt be able to make the objectivity of its greatness be subjective.

How many dicks would a fat slut cuck if a fat slut could cuck dicks?

That is the question

a house could be built like crap with structural flaws and somebody could like it. Does that make that house objectively good. No, it makes that somebody Objectively a fucking idiot.

Sure the production value is high for justin beiber but, his music is objectively shit, thats just true. Catchy tunes are not objectively good music either. Kids tv music is mostly objectively shit, advertiment jingles are mostly objectively shit, tv show theme music is mostly objectively shit, pop music is mostly objectively shit, most music created is objectively shit! It Doesnt matter if you like it! The dunning kruger effect is in high gear apparantly!!

>>he believes in objectivity

Yes. There are natural laws in this world that govern the physical and sensory development of man since first inception -- the solar cycles, the procession of the equinoxes, the shifting polarities of the poles etc.

There is an objective mean to life and we fall out of objective accord with Truth when we seek to subvert it with sophistry and modern notions of subjectivity. The whole modern age has been one giant project in fundamental misunderstanding.

does me taking a shit on a guitar and recording it then taking the sample and stretching it on sony vegas make my "music" as good as lil uzi vert?