Music is subjective

>music is subjective

Well it is. Music is a form of art and art is subjective, what us hard to understand from this?

>art is subjective

me music better than you music

You could put a blank frame on a wall and call it art (ive seen some weird shit in museums) so please tell me how art is objectuve

modern art is objectively a fucking joke

If there are guitars in a piece of music and someone says there are guitars, they are being objective.

>Music is subjective

Showing a gross Wojack doesn't make the statement wrong.

yeah but that art is objectively bad, overly intellectual

real artists look at that and go.. okay very cute.. but show me something real

This.

>real

What a nice way to explain how objective something is by using subjectuve pronouns

The quality of music is not subjective. The level of enjoyment you have for a piece of music is subjective.

>overly intellectual
this moosik too smahrt

>real
>subjective pronoun

If I hold a banana in front of you and I ask you if that banana is real and you say "yes, but only subjectively" I'm going to punch you in your stupid face

Im about to end this fucking argument once and for all
Music enjoyment is subjective because art is subjective
Music can be objectively important and described
Velvet underground and nico was objectively incredibly influential for experimental rock but i could not enjoy it for the life of me
/thread

im with you OP.

music is subjective

Saying a banana is real and saying that an artist is real are two completely different things.

And also, you cant prove to me that anything is real if we all percieve reality differently.

how do we know if our eyes our mirrors but real

not the same thing lol. you just took an actual argument and turned it into a joke. theres probably a name for that

parody

im dumb ignore my previous response

This, music can be objectively analyzed and critiqued, but enjoyment is entirely subjective.

Fucking this.

Well duh. The point of contention is determining whether said elements (in this case guitars) are good or bad. That is all up to the listener. No one is telling you that music cannot be objectively measured.

>uses "objective card" to prove subjectivity
babbys first argument

You might be the most brain dead retard here. Your enjoyment of music is based on your tastes. The fact that you have an opinion makes it subjective. Whether or not a song/album is good or bad is an opinion. You may not agree with that opinion but that doesn't make it wrong. Jesus fucking Christ, do you even know the definition of subjective. You absolute fucking imbecile piece of waste, save the rest of us some oxygen and jump off a fucking skyscraper, dumbass.

explain

>art is subjective
lmao

>Velvet underground and nico was objectively [subjective argument]
stop being stupid

Reminder that not understanding the concept of subjectivity vs objectivity is a sign of low intelligence.

Music is the one of the most subjective fucking art forms there are. Especially with how varied it is.

subjectivity is objective

>argvments
black metal confirmed soy

Some of it gotta be objectively enjoyable, or else the general normie public will not give it a chance.

uhh are you saying the velvet underground weren't influential?

No hes saying that that is a subjective opinion

nothing in the universe has objective value

still I agree that "some taste is bad taste" for sure

>nothing in the universe has objective value
oh yeah mmhmm
like upload a track of you playing off tempo. Lets see how they react.

I'm not the guy you replied to but if artists literally point to VU being their influence it's factual. They are objectively hugely influential. Period.

>but if artists literally point to VU being their influence it's factual.
But to make an overarching claim they are *extremely influential* that ignores other artists like The Monks, would be subjective.

You could put a blank frame on a wall and call it a planet (ive seen some weird shit in museums) so please tell me how astronomy is objectuve

Your a retard. kill yourself please.

Astronomy has scientific evidence. not the same thing.
>no u

objectivity in music is nonexistent but we all know it so we just call music bad that we think is bad. in reality, even bad music is objectively still art on the same grounds that great music is art.

>objectivity in music is nonexistent
>even bad music is objectively still art
Make up your mind

What is a bad album to you?

weak bait honestly, sorry friend

the point of the argument is that if a critic likes really weird albums then he's a shit critic

he's not an interesting cool new unique funky-tasted critic - he just has no idea what he's talking about

not even bait

Are you a fuckin tard or what?

>brainlet

Music is objective up to to a metric that you are using to measure 'the goodness'. The choice of metric is arbitrary.
/thread

BECAUSE, AS I, GOD, DECLARE, THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE EXTREMELY INFLUENTIAL ARTIST IN A GENRE

>Fucking Idiot
You ain't kiddin

>"""objective"""

Music is objective.

Your feellings towards a piece, the symbols you deduct from the music, the thing that makes think, your taste (if you find it good or bad) and your opiniĆ³ns are subjective

Music is objective, you can FUCKING measure it, you can objectivly say what happened, when happened and how is constructed. The result is a hole that is purely a symbol. And as a symbol, it has a conscius part (te objective part) and an unconcious part that you cant acces. Is that blank, the blank that the unconcious part leaves Where you fill it with your opiniĆ³ns, but it was always you there

>nu-males
>Bernie, not Hillary

...

Yea this one's bad. People shouldn't post if they don't actually know what they're talking about

Enjoyment of art is subjective, execution is not.

Has Sup Forums always been this underage?

Who's wrong ITT though? Many anons have been correct

All the kids ITT who have obviously never even taken an entry to philosophy class but think their dumb opinions matter

Like who?

You want me to quote the entire thread? I don't think anyone ITT even understands the definitions of the words "objective" or "subjective".

>You want me to quote the entire thread?
Yep
>I don't think anyone ITT even understands the definitions of the words "objective" or "subjective".
Nah, I don't think you understand. That's why you won't show us who is wrong or right

No one ITT is right

Wrong.

Thanks for playing though

Who do you think is correct ITT?

Tell us why they are all wrong

You won't be able to, I predict

lol I'm not going through the entire thread explaining why literally everyone is wrong to some dumb kids who don't even understand basic concepts of philosophy.

I was wrong to say everyone is incorrect, though. These two posts have no incorrect statements.

>Everyone is wrong, except me!!
>I can't explain why though
Huh what a coincidence

Yeah, pretty much. Very perceptive, user.

Where are you on the spectrum?

Yellow :)

How are you treating your autism?

>shitposting is subjective

music is more objective than other forms of art since it can be objectively unpleasant. You can have objectively bad music like viper's whole discography. But despite how bad a painting looks its not going to be as unpleasant to look at since you can look away.