If music is subjective how can one have shit taste in music

If music is subjective how can one have shit taste in music

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_theory#Fundamentals_of_music
bgaudioclub.org/uploads/docs/Yamaha_Sound_Reinforcement_Handbook_2nd_Edition_Gary_Davis_Ralph_Jones.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

because music is not subjective, some people just have shit taste/lack of experience which they project into this whole debate

/thread

Taste is based on exposure. If someone doesn't know how to find good music that's obscure, but they know good music that's popular, that's more tasteful than someone who is aware of high quality work but chooses ignorance instead

>Subjective
Objective and subjective are ways of engaging with something. Nothing other than a person's engagement with an object can be either. "Music is subjective" literally doesn't make any sense as a statement.

'shit taste' is an insult with no substance that people parrot to deflect from their dubious opinions and make themselves feel better

Jesus this is autistic. Fine - 'Human interest in music is subjective'

just how music is subjective, we're also entitled to opinions. you can say someone has shit taste in music, they can say the same to you. world keeps spinning, doesnt somehow make music not subjective though like some of these idiots are claiming just to prove you wrong

because one can subjectively believe that someone's taste is shit

True shit

music is objective, the quality of any given music can be measured quantitatively

oh so that's why math rock is the best genre

yep
pretty true, taste is developed by what you take away from listening to a piece of music

stfu

>Responding to a question is autistic
Kill yourself, sweet cheeks. Getting offended by an explanation is pathetic.
Anyway, taste - as in preference - is learned. Depending on the environment one grows up in, the way in which they are conditioned and aspects of their biology a person's taste develops. It is generally emblematic of what they accepted as 'cool' when they were infants and it is why popular culture cycles (because people bring back what was cool when they were children as adults).
A person can develop taste that favours things that fall on the lesser end of the scale regarding aspects of cultural objects that are culturally and societally preferred.
Your question is stupid, really. Answering it is a chore.

List your criteria or shut the fuck up.

How is it not subjective? How do you measure it? Where do you find it's universal truth? Is your decision on the quality of a piece of music not measured using feelings, interpretations, your views, personal preferences, and your individual perception?

It's not a science, it's fucking subjective whether you like it or not.
If I tell you your favorite album is trash, you'd say im wrong, but why? Believing REALLY hard in an opinion does not make it a fact, and an opinion being extremely popular and widespread does not make it a fact either.

It is absolutely 100% subjective. However this is suspended for musical discussion and criticism

The only criteria is riffs

>doesnt somehow make music not subjective though like some of these idiots are claiming just to prove you wrong
The definition of subjective makes music not subjective. It means looking at something and analysing yourself while objective means you analyse the thing you're looking at. Music can't be subjective because it doesn't make any sense at all - how can music actively view and analyse other work as though it was a conscious organism?
Try not to type literal bullshit, thanks.

its just a matter of how informed one's opinion is. of course taste is no more or less valid than any other observers, but I could see having limited regard for someone's taste if they don't experience a wide range of musics

>music is subjective
[CITATION NEEDED]

>BPM
>How many drops?
>How dope are the drops?
>Are acoustic instruments used?

>Anyway, taste - as in preference - is learned. Depending on the environment one grows up in, the way in which they are conditioned and aspects of their biology a person's taste develops. It is generally emblematic of what they accepted as 'cool' when they were infants

Okay you're autistic, he was right. You act as if people can't be exposed to new things, like everyone keeps the same taste they had since singing along to cartoon and kid themes. Because Death Metal and shoegaze fans were listening to the same thing since they were kids? Have a seat.

In reality, you could be exposed to something that completely add a new level to you taste, all you really need is your ears to find music you like, it's not rocket science to tell what good to you. If you're basing what music you think sounds based on what others think, you're a dumb fuck autist.

Subjectivity doesn't exist brainlet, only limited human understanding. Nothing is relative in the cosmos, humans are just unable to fully gasp concepts beyond their myopic understanding. What exists remains an actuality no matter how far our conception of it extends (if at all). Anthropocentrism is pure retardation.

Ya'll some children. Being informed means nothing. Art isn't practical. We all have taste buds, same goes with what we enjoy the sound of.

um it totally makes sense, there are chords, techniques used to play and create the sounds on whatever it is. the act of making music is subjective in itself, anyone who makes music is being subjective, there wouldn't be any songs ever written if music wasnt subjective. no one would connect with anyone songs if it wasn't subjective, if you're trying to say sound vibrations aren't subjective, that's more correct, a A note being played is a A note no matter what anyone says.

they are autists, not artists.

I'll rephrase it so you can easily comprehend: if music is an art medium that can only be analyzed by humans in a personal, introspective nature, then why do people unfairly call others' music taste terrible in an objective manner?

Yes, and we're both humans
You arguing that music quality is objective would only make sense if you're another being capable of measuring it. But you're not, so it's not.
You want me to extend my previos argument to please your autism? Fine,
Music quality is subjective for human beings!

>You act as if people can't be exposed to new things
Never said that at all. You can recondition yourself, your surroundings are constantly changing and the circumstances that result in taste are constantly in flux. Nice implications you pulled out of your ass there.

You're changing the conditions of the question just so you can argue. Any person can go from good to bad or bad to good so far as the objective qualities of what they prefer. The cultures, scales and criteria for objectivity are also circumstantial. You can only approach the question in general terms because it's not a specific question.
It's also a stupid question and calling someone autistic for being able to articulate how humans engage with culture is ironic as fuck.

>why do people unfairly call others' music taste terrible in an objective manner?
You don't understand the words you use.

Casual listeners are fine, they don't care about taste so there's no point in obsessing over theirs. The people that are annoying as fuck are those who think they're above casual listeners and trash tastes when all their "exploration" is their daddy's record collection. If you CARE about music but limit your selection purposefully and can't bother to defend what you do like, you probably have shit taste.

his criteria is irrelevant, faggot

this thread is people arguing against the literal FACT that musical taste is purely subjective... what the fuck

>You don't understand the words you use.
In an objective manner refers to pompous connoisseurs who act as if their opinions are the ultimate truth, when in actuality, they aren't.

*le strawman

go fuck yourself subjetivist shit

people only say music is objective to feel better than strangers on a taiwanese human trafficking forum
but i believe music is "objective" to an extent, but why it is that way is all math and scales

>You arguing that music quality is objective would only make sense if you're another being capable of measuring it. But you're not, so it's not.
And yes you didn't get my point. Fucking retarded faggot, don't waste others time with making shitty threads if you can't argue your position and can't comprehend what the others say. Bye bye.

>It's also a stupid question and calling someone autistic for being able to articulate how humans engage with culture is ironic as fuck.
Right...and telling someone to kill themselves because they don't agree with your incorrect opinion is autistic. You can try and act like you're not implying things now but it's too late. You already said the dumb shit you've said, have a seat.

You literally didn't make any sense at all here and if you could read at all wouldn't have responded with this literal bullshit.

>art medium
Art is made through literally every medium, don't use 'art' as a pedestal.
I already answered you anyway. There are cultural and societal standards of quality. If something does not meet those standards it is 'bad'. In different situations there will be different standards. Example: Sup Forums as a community will call something good and something bad while another community would have complete opposite standards. You need a context to apply a proper explanation, but you keep repeating your vague question and swapping random words around as if it changes the answer.

Uh oh, someones 12 and edgy.

>you can't tell me off for aggressively shitposting at you! That hurts my feelings
Nice strawman, idiot. Either make a valid argument or fuck off. I'm not offering any opinions either, I'm using a hundreds of years old philosophical theory properly and explaining it instead of using it as buzzword to avoid actual discussion.

>In an objective manner refers to pompous connoisseurs who act as if their opinions are the ultimate truth, when in actuality, they aren't.
yah, next phase. are they actually being objective then?

Not who you're replying to, but just because there are cultural and societal standards of quality doesn't make it objective. That is still subjectivity.

Calling it art is accurate. Music isn't practical.

i did get your point though
and it is true, but also pedantic and unnecessary for what OP was asking for
hence:
>Music quality is subjective for human beings!

You're spewing dumb shit and shit posting. I already handled your dumb ass opinion, you're dismissed. You can act like it's an implication but it's what you're claiming in the quote I quoted you in. I called you on you your bullshit and now your salty, you also never asked a question in any of your posts smart guy. Stop the bad trolling please.

if that the case you could be able to put harsh noise in a disco and get away saying "hey dude, music is subjective"

>How do you measure it?
Length, complexity, production, theory, the list goes on and guess what, everything is measurable. If you can't see that because you're an ignorant it's your problem.

Music is not 100% subjective or objective, as art itself, it is relative.

If it wasn't the case. Why try to be good at it to begin?

Objective refers to how you view something, as does subjective. Objective = see object, analyse object. Subjective = see object, remember anecdote, associate it with something specific to self, ignore analysis and make it about self.
When you critique something it has to be objective and your pints are listed with regards to the criteria you are looking at it in respect to.
Every community has certain group preferences - aspects of a work that is generally attractive to the group. A work that excellent in that area will be considered good, etc.

>Calling it art is accurate
Name a contemporary artist working today.

>You literally didn't make any sense at all here and if you could read at all wouldn't have responded with this literal bullshit.
lol, the problems not in my reading comprehension, it's trying to make sense in your bullshit logic. You are literally trying to define music as a person, in the act of being subjective when music is the act of subjectivity.

the worst are those motherfuckers who run away discussion saying

>Bleh, you are a pleb/snob/casual/neckbeard/etc.

I mean, they're all the same. Close minded cunts who can't win an argument without ad hominems and thinks that their are right just because they listen/say/are what they are.

Are you literally retarded? I explained your question and pointed out that you are a little girl calling me autistic for explaining that you are wrong because you are offended by the fact that your assumptions were bullshit. Your response was be a hypocrite again and not make any sense again.
Here's another (you), probably the most significant thing you'll achieve this year.

>"quickly, If i don't say something i'm gonna loose"

Yeah, you literally don't understand any of the words you are using so you think you're making some 'deep' argument but you're babbling incoherently.

>you answered the OP but i don't like it despite being true because it's "pedantic"
If a proper explanation is pentatic and we're gonna be as pragmatical as we can on the issue(which i don't think is a bad position itself but it) then this thread is completely useless and should never be made in the first place. But i guess shitposting and shouting "muh subjective" while calling others autists/elitists/fedoras was the point of this thread in the first place.

>if that the case you could be able to put harsh noise in a disco and get away saying "hey dude, music is subjective"
no, because the person that hired you asked you to play specific types of music and the people attending went there to hear a specific type of music. That has nothing to do with subjectivity vs objectivity. If you go to a noise concert, you want to hear noise and not pop, if you go to a club you want to hear pop and not noise.
>Length
Yes, that's a unit of measurement that applies to the format music exists in. It is not, however a measurement that gives you the quality of a specific piece of music.
>complexity, production, theory
Absolutely not ways of measuring
>the list goes on
hmm
>everything is measurable
abstract thoughts cannot be measured (inb4 brain activity)
Music itself can be measured, in various forms, but music's quality cannot

You didn't explain anything and thinking you're right in this context is another autist trait you seem to have. In actuality all did was agree with my original response. Take a seat, please.

>Stop the bad trolling please.

t. average butthurt

You're only proving the point that art isn't objective. Yes, you observe: this piece uses pastels, the canvas is large, it's maximal, etc.. But how you feel about the art (the point of this entire discussion) is entirely subjective. Again, just because a certain group FEELS a certain way all at once about something doesn't make it objective. It just means they share an opinion. When speaking objectively on art, this means to know the reality of the piece, what went into it, the materials used. Or in music, the instrumentation and production for example. But how you feel about this arrangement, no matter how many feel it at once, is still subjective.

You're a dumbass just throwing insults because you were wrong, if I'm so incoherent, stop replying. You would think that's something a person with brain cells would do. If you have the ability to explain your point better go for it, if not you're wasting time aren't you?

>t. average butthurt

basic autist

Look, your reply was irrelevant because you decided to flex you intellect and knowledge by writing about the nature of subjectivity and man's ability for objectivity when OP was essentially asking "Are we capable of objectively determining if certain music is good or bad?" And the answer is no, we're not.

But we're just going in circles now and neither one of us is going to give

Read kant's critique of judgment you fucking brainlets

>people actually thinking stimuli is objective
got a whole load of brainlets itt

this thread is so fucking stupid. the retards arguing above me should ass fuck each other.

>OP asks about how people can have bad taste due to his misunderstanding of the object theory
>Explain object theory multiple times to several brainlets
>Explain how humans develop preference and how different situations have different criteria for objective quality
>Point out that the question is vague and general and impossible to answer dueto how impossibly broad it is
>Cover the question as wholly as possible
>"Haha (strawman argument because someone called you a retard) you autist! I Think wrong because I say yes U R !!"
Literally summarised our conversation there. Please ask your doctor about getting a lobotomy.

He/she's actually right though lol. You seem more butthurt in my subjective point of view.

/thread

>kant

You must be autistic to be so offended by multiple people calling you it. In our conversation all you did was confirm what I said dude baka. Idk what you're trying to prove but I'm done, I have better things to do. But next time try not to be so butthurt about someone calling you autistic when you're telling people to kill themselves, not a good look.

>it's that guy that cites a thousand philosophers and texts but never provides any personal ideas
and Kant fucking sucks my dude

Music quality and taste is subjective you fucking morons, not music itself. That doesn't even make sense. The statement "you have shit taste" is a proposition, not an objective truth.

True. But still the physical qualities of music are objective.

Viewing art is the act of understanding it. When you make art - actual art - the goal is to present your concept to your audience. When you are the audience your goal is to understand the work. You can't understand the work without objectivity. The words objective and subjective were invented to explain how some people aren't capable of analysing something like art and the practice of art dates back to the same time as this theory.

Why are you arguing about subjects you're completely ignorant of? I have at least 3 of you replying to me and none of you have any understanding of the thread topic at all. Why are you taking a stubborn aggressive stance when you clearly have no understanding of the subject? That's fucking weird.

I just explained that you're an idiot and a hypocrite and all you did was prove me right. I also answered your questions and that offended you because you are mentally inept.
Enjoy your sleep, hopefully it never ends.

>the words objective and subjective were invented to explain how some people aren't capable of analyzing something like art

OKAY, who told you this? Source?

Music that is objective from one perspective is subjective to another, and everybody's own formations of their own "objective" perspective on music comes from their own predispositions and how they are activated, which are from environmental factors, which include the impression left on the individual by the tastes of other individuals and the (original) individual's total overall construct of what "everyone else's" tastes accumulate to be.

For the quantification of any idea or situation in the universe, it always needs to be remembered that everything is relative to whatever specific scale that said thing is happening on. This applies to music as well. It needs to be remembered that the constructs we have of how things work or should be need to be kept designated as being either on a smaller individual-to-individual level or as an individual-to-multiperson/societal level.

You think you have to "understand" something to enjoy it? That's ignorant.

Making music is a subjective act, you are using music subjectively. Music is sound vibrations at certain intervals, the art of music is subjectivity and manipulating sound.

What's wrong with being weird?

No I corrected your autistic post, then you shaped up in the next one agreeing with me. I hope you learn to live with your disability, must be tough.

What a autistic response to that.

But the music we make is created out into the world, and that is what we interpret as the constructs we know them as, which is an external force.

>no, because the person that hired you asked you to play specific types of music and the people attending went there to hear a specific type of music. That has nothing to do with subjectivity vs objectivity. If you go to a noise concert, you want to hear noise and not pop, if you go to a club you want to hear pop and not noise

But. Why that person request that music in specific? I mean, if music is 100% subjective, like an opinion, then it's no reason to play hardcore punk in a funeral. The reason is it doesn't make the same effect, and why's that? because the theory behind that music does not have anything to do with the original one. It's a practical problem.

>Yes, that's a unit of measurement that applies to the format music exists in. It is not, however a measurement that gives you the quality of a specific piece of music.

So you can make a 10 min grindcore song and get away with it. Or a 1 minute Opera. It'll be fine because music is "100% subjective" Well, if music is totally subjective, what about the length? It's not a part of it? You're premize was discarded by you.

>complexity, production, theory Absolutely not ways of measuring
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_theory#Fundamentals_of_music
bgaudioclub.org/uploads/docs/Yamaha_Sound_Reinforcement_Handbook_2nd_Edition_Gary_Davis_Ralph_Jones.pdf
"hurr it's imposidurr"

>everything is measurable
I made a mistake there, I assume that. Let me rephrase it. A fundamental part of music is measurable, that makes it relative.

quality post, it really makes you think

People who think music is objective simply have weak and unsure tastes, and can easily be swayed to another persons opinion for fear of seeming dumb.

>ctrl+F 'auti'
>18 results
jesus

19 now friend

lmaoing @ all of you

*listens to Kesha*

>He/she's

The sound is already there and has been, you're just manipulating the sound subjectively. When we recreate the sound for others, they are then subjective towards the sound.

Look it up yourself, if you don't know what object theory is you shouldn't be talking about it.

I never said that.

(you)

Learn to read and fuck off.

(you)

...

>you're just manipulating the sound subjectively
How can a physical action be subjective?

Why don't you back up what you said instead of making me look for something that doesn't apply to what we're talking about, friend?

>this is your brain on rationalism

Because you can have your own subjective opinion on music and therefore also on other people's music tastes. "Shit taste" is all relative and you probably shouldn't take it as anything more than a knee-jerk reaction way to say >stop liking what I don't like

His autism is increasing each post.

PLEASE LET THIS THREAD END HERE.

yes, makes sense
What about our preferences we have for music (in the long-term, not the short-term), is this construct of our constant continuing beliefs/preferences something which we operate under that has an element of objectively, adhering to something in some kind of constant pattern (or varied patterns, each equally objectively patterned in their own way, for multiple people on a multi-person scale)?

We're discussing object theory and the development of preference which OP questions the correlation of. It is what we're talking about and inserting yourself into the discussion without knowledge of either is retarded.
You have an internet connection so maybe try educating yourself instead of making baseless assumptions about terms you don't understand. The sheer number of posts in this thread that amount to "no you're wrong because I decided these words all mean different things for no reason and I refuse to acknowledge what they actually mean" is embarrassing. Some facebook-tier discourse going on in this thread.

You believe that what you just said is an objective truth, but aren't all beliefs subjective?