When is music objective?

When is music objective?

If a fruit is telling you what to listen to you probably aren't objective

Music is always objective, only plebs will use the term subjective because they can't defend their cause.

Nothing is objective.

Nothing is ever objective. You cannot make a statement that would be true 100% of the time, for everyone, in all frames of reference. Because reality is defined by perception, it has an inherently subjective nature.

Plato and Berkeley were talking about this hundreds of years ago, it's common knowledge. Anyone who pretends that objectivity exists is being willfully ignorant.

I think it's hard to say when music is "good" because that truly is subjective. It has a lot of context with societal standards, personal experiences, lyrical understanding, etc.

But I think with truly bad music, there can be some pretty objective measures. First of all, a literal negative biological response. Is the music so fucking dissonant that you mentally can't process it without wanting to kill yourself? It's objective in a way that the body's reaction to food is objective. Will your body actually physically reject eating this food? It's probably bad (and bad for you). Most everyone has a negative reaction to actually eating feces. Most everyone will have a negative reaction to random musical clatter.

The only other 'objective' measure I hold musicians to is artist intent and success of execution. Are they trying to say a word and hit a note but they can't because they're mumbling or their voice is not trained?

i objectively know you are a male who wrote this.

I spoke to my philosophy prof and he argued that art can have objective fault in the realm of cliché.

Otherwise its worth is up to taste and preference.

Of course reality is defined by perception

2 + 2 = 5 because that is my perception and if you disagree with me, you don't see the subjectivity of my nature.

perception and reality have nothing to do with theoretical systems, kys

not according to my reality

...

Philosophy dude lmao

I beg to differ. If I can make objective claims on why your subjective opinion exists then it is not personal opinions. This is the function of psychology. It says if daddy leaves, then there is a higher chance that she will be dysfunctional. This is a chance only because all of the information isn't available and the person is a package of influences.

I'm a determinist so along my axioms there is no subjective choice. If there were two people who were completely identical in identical simulations of reality, the result of all there choices would be the same because the choice is not up to them.

How do you defend the fact that subjective choices aren't even up to the agent who considers them?

*She being daddy's little girl of course

>determinist
>in 2017 where we acknowledge quantum mechanics

>I beg to differ

>Big words

unironically this

Just because at a beyond microscopic level there are "random" fluctuations doesn't change the fact that tommy smokes weed and goes to festivals so his favorite band is more likely going to be tame impala.

Do your headphones pick up quantum frequencies?

If you're a determinist then you realize every fluctuation has a bigger and ultimately reality defining implication

>(>I beg to differ)

There's a difference between good in a subjective way and something being good for being objectively well made. My personal opinion is that liking something doesn't mean it has to be good or is automatically amazing. I like Linkin Park but they're shit. I don't really like Bob Dylan but he's a good artist. Art or any kind takes a level of skill so that is objective. How well someone plays a instrument or sings a song etc.

Sure in specific circumstances, but it doesn't mean the smallest fluctuations can have visible effects in every situation.

Either way if your personal opinion is based on quantum wackyness then how is it your opinion? You definitely do not have control over your choice if it's base is perfectly random.

A good musician can usually recreate a song in their genre with some accuracy, they are objectively good and have a mastery over some musical tool

Why is something good in an objective way? Because it makes you feel good? What if I gave you specific drugs to increase your pleasure from music and had you listen to stuff you didn't like and then had you eat shit on acid while listening to your favorite band for a week straight. It is still a subjective opinion but the basis of your tastes have been defined by controlled objective influences. So does the objective base supercede the personal opinion? If personal opinion is a choice but the choice is not yours, is it still a choice? No it is not. Opinion isn't real.

I meant why is something good in a subjective way.

Determinism is trash because it only works in retrospect.
Imagine an alcoholic father with twin sons. Twin A becomes an alcoholic himself. Twin B becomes an anti alcohol activist. In both cases you could argue that they became what they are because their father was an alcoholic. Determinism sucks ass. It's based on the foundation that Event A will inevitably lead to Event B while a ton of different events could take place instead. You debunked determinism yourself by saying "there is a higher probability". If it's not 100% certain then it's not determined.

best post i've read on Sup Forums.

you clearly don't understand determinism

If there is a probability, that is just defining the an event in a local space. It means 50% of all coins will be heads or tails. Not that we are guessing that some coins will probably be heads.

Also in both cases, you can't argue shit. Because there are an infinite amount of variables that led to that outcome. Determinism is mainly just an antithesis to free will and nothing more.

Although it's very likely that you're just fucking with me, it's worth mentioning that even something like biological sex isn't as black-and-white as you might think. What is it that makes a person male? Having a penis? Having a Y chromosome in their genome? Possessing the SRY gene? Right away, we have three separate definitions and no clear, agreed upon line between male and female. Remember, you can have a penis with no Y chromosome, or you can have a Y chromosome and develop into a female

Mathematical truths are based on axioms that must be accepted as true before any other truths can be derived from them. If I tell you that I don't believe any of the four fundamental mathematical axioms, than in my perspective, I cannot verify 2 + 2 = 5 as being true or false

Alright, we need people to stop thinking that objective means with respect to reality. Objective just means without any weight given to personal opinion.

Anything can be defined objectively if you define the measuring systems. And I truly believe everything can be defined.

nigga are you male or not?

Imagine being this fucking stupid.

fantano is a meme thats outlived its usefulness

When you talk about the mathematical implications of hertz, intervals and chord structures/progressions.

but in that case determinism doesn't mean anything so why believe in it?

This thread turned shit,delete this OP

This is a wonderful point. I will add that I am also a determinist (I'm the guy you responded to), but you see, the fact that you have no control over the reality you experience doesn't quite make it more objective. Remember that "subjective" basically means that you're reality belongs to you- all physical qualities (length, width, color, even mass and position) are not inherent in the object, but rather, are created through the act of observation. Does this mean that two people could experience the exact same reality? In theory, yes. But in order for something to be objectively true, it needs to be true for everyone, all of the time.

If anything, after the Greeks everyone fucked it up by assuming it as "common knowledge."

maybe if we had a phi board there would be less plebby phi threads everywhere else
maybe not

Do you feel as though you know some objective truths? Do you feel as though knowledge requires justification? Are you aware of the infinite regress problem attached to the justification of knowledge?

I'm pretty fucking stupid, but so are you. Neither of us know anything on an objective level, nor will we ever know anything

Yeah but you can hardly define physical measuring systems ( no two rulers have the exact same size of an inch) so what makes you think we can define measuring systems for artistic quality?

Don't bring that gender studies bullshit here pls.

Okay that is fair. So no band is objectively good by that logic if at least one person says it sucks. Consider this though. The best carpenter has built a house of incredible quality but some angry neighbor says it is trash.

Things are not called objectively good because everyone's opinion is that it is so. They are good by how they perform their function or along set parameters.

I believe music is not different from a house in this way. I could tak someone who listens to some generic pop band and teach them how to understand music and once they have the skills their tastes will change to suit their understanding. I have done it before.

>and teach them how to understand music

We can define it up to a working point. Rulers have that limitation because they are physical yet there is still a form a a ruler that everyone understands enough to measure distance.

I believe I know the functions of music but they are numerous. Music would be good as long as performed its functions well. However it may be difficult to even tell that in certain cases.

For example one of musics functions people always bring up is that it elicits feeling. Now you would have to define what feeling it brings up and why. Like maybe someone's dog died so a song about dogs that is happy might make them cry. So is the song bad because it failed being happy? It would be tough to get through stuff like this but I bet it's possible.

I see what you mean. But you're assuming music has one definite purpose. Here we are, shitposting on a epistemological philosophy image board, and who are we to say what the purpose of music is? I'd like to say that the purpose of music is to open a conduit for emotional communication with the artist. If true, this makes The Lonesome Crowded West a good album and Drones my Muse a bad one. Someone else might say that the purpose of music is to stimulate the economy by selling as much as possible, which would make Drones a much better album than LCW. Music criticism really is all about saying "Here's what I think it means to make good art, and here's why this piece is successful or not in fulfilling it's purpose"

I'm saying teach them theory so they can actually see what is happening. If I said there was a funny shaped cell in a bunch of Africans' blood, you would just have to believe me. If I gave you a microscope you could see for yourself.

It really isn't much different in music. The fact that so many people are musically illiterate is the reason music is seen as this almost spiritual entity. It is not. It is as real and analytically potent as a gram of salt.

I see where you're getting at. Although I don't agree, I will say that, if you were to make an objective scale for music, that's probably how you would do it. Optimization functions for emotional responses.

you would teach them your objectivity
seems legit

>cause

I agree music has too many purposes to quantify. If as you are saying ( I don't want to misinterpret you because you are really good to discuss this with. I'd hate to strawman you) the choice of what function of music you regard with the highest value is subjective then where does someone's musical value come from? A producer is more likely to put value on marketability whereas an artist I'd hope would rather express something. These are both the functions of the person. A producer makes money and an artist makes art. So the valued function has to be a tool for its quality interpreter. Is that subjective? I mean, is the function of ourselves up to us? If not then we would fall into using music as whatever tool our position would require us to. In that case your choice is not a choice. If subjective opinion is choice then it follows you have no subjective opinion.

this thread boils down to retarded semantics

my objectivity is better by my objective objective.

Everything is retarded semantics

everything apart from nothing

Define nothing.

0

But if it's on your keyboard it must be something. No thing is still an idea. Are ideas things? If it is a thing it is definitely not "no thing".

>Are ideas things?
no idea

You learn how much perception plays a role on paradigms in Philosophy of Science. I am a constructive empiricist though it is completely reasonable to believe there are objective truths out there that are perception-laden, not perception determined. I am not sure you drew this distinction.

If I perceive there is no wall in front of me that doesn't make the wall go away. If I have a preconceived notion about what I am observing under a microscope I might see it though.

Are my trips still trips if 0 is nothing?

Look up Munchausens trilemma.

You are, objectively, a male.
You are, subjectively, a faggot cuck.

?

There's nothing written in the book
Reality is made by you

...

When it's music

If music is objective, then what's the best album ever?

Never.
To be "objective" is to compare it to works and achievements already made, and wanting it to be like something else.

Hardly anything is truly objective.


life is complicated and we happen to be tenants who want to control, determinate and exaplain the many aspects of life.

>"the best"
What is that?

There's people on this board right now that believe this. You can't make this shit up.

You'd have to specify and era and a genre.

You're objectively pussies

TMR

You know everything

*glass breaks*

When it's objectively shit

Bump, I would like an honest discussion.

Nothing literally is objectively nothing.

Its structure and form are objective.
Its quality is subjective.

As far as objectivity goes, i guess you could say the technical side, so weather an artist has ability

Meaning vocal range, technicality of playing an instrument, music theory and study practice .....

However there are plenty of musicians that are say "bad" technically but are good musically .?

Bob dylan is prob a good example

>weather

Whether damn auto correct

No I don't, that's fucking stupid.

says a pleb

The only objective characteristics of music itself are what can be transcribed into midi, pitch and tone duration. As for a person's response to music, emotions as nuerochemical phenomena are objective, as are memories and experiences. The final judgment on the quality of a piece of music is also objective, in the sense that a bunch of physical phenomena built up to real idea about the quality of the music. Kind of like weather patterns adding up to create a thunderstorm.

thats retarded

when it's ajar?

It's absolutely true.

Read up on the "google eraser experiment."

I think there is music that is objectively better than others but music is so personal that you can like some shit music more than good music for a reason totally unique to yourself.

Peace and Love to you all. A salam a laiku

it is objective, but the quality isn't. However. There are many objective aspects that are directly related to quality.