Music is entirely subjective

>music is entirely subjective

frogposters are entirely worthless

It's a great pleb filter. As soon as someone uses the word subjective I know they have no taste

how is it not
whats your fave album and when did yu start listening to music

>the music i like is objectively the best music ever

>choosing a singular favourite album
Impossible.
>when did yu start listening to music
13 years ago

Are you 13 years old ?

No. Are you?

People who think their taste is "objective" are teenagers who haven't learned how to form their own opinions and parrot the Pitchfork review when discussing an album.

I don't think my taste is objectively good or bad, I also would never say music is subjective so my taste is immune to criticisms. Scapegoating subjectivism is the worst opinion you can have because its meaningless. Would you rather take advice from a person who has seen 100,000 paintings or a person who has seen 1,000? One persons subjective opinion can carry more weight due to their experience in the field

It's okay to be a frogposter

Music isn't subjective but music taste and enjoyment of music is

>One persons subjective opinion can carry more weight due to their experience in the field
thats your subjective opinion

there are a lot of artists and styles that have been largely ignored by established critics (i.e. people who listened to 100,000 albums) but loved by less experienced listeners (1,000 albums), which eventually were reevalluated as being really “objectively” good.

opinions change too much for it to be objective

>how is it not

maybe i can help. sgt. peppers is objectively a better album than with the beatles, its just a fact no matter how much someone subjectively prefers with the beatles

I apologetically believe this and you bugs are beneath me.

just because music is subjective doesn't make anyone immune to criticisms

still better than anime posters

I'm a 47 year old man, I have kids, a dog, and a mortgage. I bust my ass every day and pay my bills on time, and God damnit do I love Rae Sremmurd.

Please be b8

If it's some basic rym user that has listened to those 100,000 without paying attention and only logged them just to say that he did, then no, I'd rather listen to the person who has observently listened to 1,000 albums.

...

It's true when defending a genre. No when defending an artist that fails at making what h intends to do.

The only objectivity to music and art in general is the actually qualities/aspects of the works themselves. When it comes to preference it's all subjective. Whether a critic has listened to 1000 or 10000 albums doesn't matter, what matters the most is how close their taste is to yours or how much you personally also like the stuff they do. That's it. Beyond that it's all pretentious bullshit.

Based Sup Forumsedditor baby boomer

Music is objective according to a metric that you are using. The choice of metric is arbitrary.

...

>hurr look at me i dont like [insert super popular thing on Sup Forums here] im so much better than everyone else!

this, arguments over taste are some of the stupidest things that happen in this shithole

Here I'll appeal to your Reddit brain

Objecively, can you tell me that Lord of the Rings is worse than say Batman v Superman. Not aspects, as a whole package.

Are you mentally challenged? You literally proved yourself wrong with that second part of your post.

Embarrassing post.

> You literally proved yourself wrong with that second part of your post.

how so?

>he uses LoTR as an example of an "objectively good" movie
Can you get ANYMORE reddit than this?

Only time when comparing things you get an objective answer is like "this 20kg stone weighs more than this 10kg stone"

>doesn't read
>trying to bait me

F
E
D
O
R
A

A
L
E
R
T

>doesn't read
>still replies to me
Sad!

>Probably doesn't know how to analyze music
>still replies to my reply replying to him

This but uniroically

loveless is objectively the best shoegaze record. prove me wrong.

What If that one person's 100,000 artistic works he's viewed are pictures on deviantart, but another guy has seen only 1,000 anatomy paintings. Who has the better idea of what art really is? Who is inherently right when judging a piece? If they were to both voice their thoughts on the artwork of an architect, who would objectively you listen to and why?

>You listen to [artist]? Lol, barely anyone listens to him so he's obviously shit, he's not even popular, listen to someone who is actually good and has a following.
>You listen to [artist]? Like, everyone listens to them, just because they have a following doesn't meen they're good, you have such simple tastes.

nobody believes this, but there are no objective qualities in relation to quality in music

based pepe