DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Music Discussion => Topic started by: Implode on December 21, 2010, 10:02:28 PM
-
I want to see what you guys all think.
To what extent can music be objectively good? If there is objectively good music, what are some qualities that makes it good?
-
Björk.
-
Dream Theater.
Devin Townsend.
-
Not even a band as revered as the Beatles can be labelled as "objectively good."
-
Yes and No.
Kind of.
-
All well versed answers, guys. :lol
I want to know more of the aspects of the music though, not just bands. Like, why is DT good? I think it has some to do with putting meaning and hard work into a song...of course...but there's more to it.
-
Dark Side of The Moon.
/thread
-
/thread
Not yet.
Dark Side of The Moon.
Why?
-
/thread
Not yet.
Dark Side of The Moon.
Why?
Well I'll admit, DSoTM is only my third favourite Floyd album, behind WYWH and Animals. But DSoTM is one of the only albums in the world where I personally wouldn't change a single note, and I honestly can't find anything wrong with it. Plus, I don't know anyone personally who dislikes it (though I'm sure most of you might).
-
I don't dislike it, but I certainly don't care for it much. Animals is the only Floyd album that I've listened to and absolutely loved.
-
All well versed answers, guys. :lol
I want to know more of the aspects of the music though, not just bands. Like, why is DT good? I think it has some to do with putting meaning and hard work into a song...of course...but there's more to it.
DT is good to lots of people because their songs have a sweeping, majestic, epic feel without feeling cheesy (even on songs like ITPOE), decent lyrics (excluding the last few albums), and excellent performers combined with plenty of well-constructed songs. That's why I like them, and why plenty of people like them, but it doesn't make those aspects of the music objectively good or bad.
-
Objectively good music does not exist.
-
I don't dislike it, but I certainly don't care for it much. Animals is the only Floyd album that I've listened to and absolutely loved.
I'm kinda on the same boat as this, though I like WYWH also. But don't trust my judgement, I'm the resident PF hater here.
-
I don't think music can be objectively good, but it can certainly be objectively bad.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHozn0YXAeE
-
No.
-J
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHozn0YXAeE
1. That song rocks.
2. The keyboardist, she's pretty cute.
-
Music can be objectively superior to another piece of music, for example, Beethoven's 9th Symphony is objectively better than a song I make by farting into a microphone for 10 minutes. However there is always personal preference and someone might really, really like my farting song. Should this mean objectively is obsolete? I don't think so. We don't have to be so incredibly strict on these definitions.
Can a piece of music be objectively good by itself? Loosely, yes. An album or work that has achieved (close to) unanimous praise I would consider objectively good, regardless of whether it 100% holds to the implication that everyone who hears it will like it. I don't think objectivity in music is something to get particularly worried about, it should neither allow people to feel superior to others nor should it mean that all music is created equal. Some works of art ARE just that good that the majority of people will find them appealing. That's about as objective as we can get.
-
Objectively good music does not exist.
This.
I don't think music can be objectively good, but it can certainly be objectively bad.
That makes no sense.
Music can have objective characteristics, and aspects of music can have objective quality (such as technical proficiency, for example), but none of that directly links to whether it is good or not. Whether something good or bad is entirely subjective.
-
Can a piece of music be objectively good by itself? Loosely, yes. An album or work that has achieved (close to) unanimous praise I would consider objectively good, regardless of whether it 100% holds to the implication that everyone who hears it will like it. I don't think objectivity in music is something to get particularly worried about, it should neither allow people to feel superior to others nor should it mean that all music is created equal. Some works of art ARE just that good that the majority of people will find them appealing. That's about as objective as we can get.
So the most popular stuff is the most objectively good? Because, frankly, that is the only possible way to objectively measure quality, and even that is VERY tenuous.
-
What's good or bad music is in the eye of the beholder.
-
I know some objectively good music like Hendrix, Coltrane, Zeppelin, Floyd. Not all music though. I think most "classic" music is.
-
Can a piece of music be objectively good by itself? Loosely, yes. An album or work that has achieved (close to) unanimous praise I would consider objectively good, regardless of whether it 100% holds to the implication that everyone who hears it will like it. I don't think objectivity in music is something to get particularly worried about, it should neither allow people to feel superior to others nor should it mean that all music is created equal. Some works of art ARE just that good that the majority of people will find them appealing. That's about as objective as we can get.
So the most popular stuff is the most objectively good? Because, frankly, that is the only possible way to objectively measure quality, and even that is VERY tenuous.
Is my fart song objectively worse than Beethoven's 9th? If yes, music isn't entirely subjective. If you answered no, I'll pm you the link :biggrin:
Sure that's an extreme example, but I don't understand why people get so relied up about objectively, like it somehow ruins music. No it doesn't, it just means that there are aspects about music which are GENERALLY preferred to other aspects. Does this mean everyone will prefer these aspects? No. If you want a semantic argument, you win. But if we are talking loosely about the concept. Yes it exists in music.
-
As much as I wish it could be, music is one of those things that is not objective at all. Period.
-
There are fantastic, critically acclaimed albums which millions of people adore and which have very few detractors (said detractors usually citing a personal taste criteria rather than any other 'objective' criteria). Is this album objectively good? Close enough I say. Not 100% (no piece or art ever will be) but I think the word can be satisfactorily used in that vein. I also think musical discussion would be very boring if everyone just accepted that music is entirely subjective (ie, everyones opinion is correct) :lol
-
Objectively good music does not exist.
Pretty much this.
I can hear music myself, and think "hey, this is pretty good even though i dont like it", but i don't feel like there's any artist or band, where the whole world could unite and say "this is good".
-
No, but individuals can attempt to make objective decisions as to whether something is good or not.
-
No.
-
There are fantastic, critically acclaimed albums which millions of people adore and which have very few detractors (said detractors usually citing a personal taste criteria rather than any other 'objective' criteria). Is this album objectively good? Close enough I say. Not 100% (no piece or art ever will be) but I think the word can be satisfactorily used in that vein. I also think musical discussion would be very boring if everyone just accepted that music is entirely subjective (ie, everyones opinion is correct) :lol
My problem with this is that I don't consider a general or even an overwhelming consensus to mean objective. Objective to me implies a conclusion that can be reached logically, and whether a given song is good or bad doesn't fall under that.
-
Unless you're briang, no.
-
I thought it was clear that music cannot be objectively valued? Otherwise, it is no longer a total artistic expression/experience, but a system to be followed.
-
Here's my take:
All music is objectively good. People just have bad subjective experiences with some of it.
-
As long as bands like Nickelback and Creed exist, I will never be able to believe that music can be objectively good.
I wouldn't believe it anyway as it's all a matter of personal interpretation, but still.
-
Music can be objectively more complex or more difficult to perform, but one piece of music cannot be objectively better than another.
-
It cannot because in order to measure quality, one must make criteria, which will be different for everyone.
Furthermore, whether or not people will admit it, how good one thinks a particular piece of of music is is influenced greatly by things like expectations, preconceptions and how much that person actually wants to like what they are hearing in the first place.
-
I don't think music can be objectively good, but it can certainly be objectively bad.
That makes no sense.
Music can have objective characteristics, and aspects of music can have objective quality (such as technical proficiency, for example), but none of that directly links to whether it is good or not. Whether something good or bad is entirely subjective.
Really? Give me 10 minutes and some recording equipment and I will make you some bad music.
-
Music is a fine art. It cannot have objectively good or bad qualities.
-
There is no objectively good music, just like there is no objectively good sports team, no singularly used language, no objectively good dish, etc. As soon as people start having the same tastes, the other options begin to disappear, and soon there won't be any alternatives, no choice. Then we eould be robots. ROBOTS. We'd brush our teeth with hinge-oil, our blood would be hinge-oil, our water would be hinge-oil, goddamn everything would be hinge-oil! And we wouldn't need cars, because each and every one of us would have rockets installed to our boots and we would fly around everywhere. And we would all listen to the same robot-music!
-
I don't think music can be objectively good, but it can certainly be objectively bad.
That makes no sense.
Music can have objective characteristics, and aspects of music can have objective quality (such as technical proficiency, for example), but none of that directly links to whether it is good or not. Whether something good or bad is entirely subjective.
Really? Give me 10 minutes and some recording equipment and I will make you some bad music.
It's pretty much guaranteed that someone will not think that whatever crappy music you come up with is bad.
-
Music is an art form. By nature, it's as malleable and unfathomable as the human soul. Even if you could have objectivity in music, why would anyone want that or strive for it?
-
I know some people will tell me 'but that's the only way to answer,' but I think it's really pointless to use specific examples here as, invariably, at least one person in the world will disagree.
So my answer is no. I can't fathom how some people can dislike some of the stuff I love, but then that's why it's subjective.
-
This is something I've always pondered, whether it be music, art, literature, film, or just real life.
I mean, yeah, musical tastes differ for everyone. Everyone has their own opinion. Everyone has reasons as to why they enjoy a particular group or song. And everyone should listen to what they want to listen to, regardless of whether or not it's deemed "good music."
But is it really so bad to argue over the quality of music and assert that one song is better than the other? Personally, I'll take a constructive, civilized debate about music over some humdrum celebration of stupidity by stating, "it's my opinion all m00zik is subjective my opinion is a sacred cow now respect it :hat :coolio :biggrin:" I roll my eyes whenever someone resorts to crawling into the shell of "I am entitled to my opinion." Yes, you're entitled to your opinion. You're also entitled to back it up with reasoning and evidence to support why you believe this or that. You're most certainly not entitled to use it as a security blanket to protect yourself from ever opening up your mind or letting your opinion be challenged.
There is a ton of criteria out there for music to be judged, but is that really so bad? Does that have to throw out the idea of music being objectively good? A conclusion may never be reached between two parties, but that doesn't mean a truth can't exist. I say there's no point in enjoying or believing anything if you don't have the brain power to sort out as to why.
Anyway, I might have veered off topic, but this is my pseudo-intellectual shot at answering the question :coolio
-
Music is a fine art. It cannot have objectively good or bad qualities.
Music is an art form. By nature, it's as malleable and unfathomable as the human soul. Even if you could have objectivity in music, why would anyone want that or strive for it?
Oops, I missed sirbrad's post.
Anyway, to the OP's point:
I do believe that the passage of time allows us to obtain more objectivity in how we judge music. We get a better perspective on the music when we are "removed" from the hip trends and emotional baggage of the times that the music was written.
For instance, during the late 70's when punk came into vogue, there was a huge backlash (both critically and commercially) against rock giants like Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin and Prog rock in general, all of which was viewed as "dinosaur rock" at the time and certainly could've been deemed by the music world at large as "objectively bad". A music fan/critic of today, however, won't be carrying that particular emotional baggage when he listens to an artist without the tinted glasses on, and this is how certain music, whether it be Beethoven or The Beatles, is able to stand up to the "test of time".
That said, the passage of time can create a different kind of musical "baggage", especially if an artist dies at the peak of their powers, like a Hendrix or Cobain.
-
I don't think music can be objectively good, but it can certainly be objectively bad.
That makes no sense.
Music can have objective characteristics, and aspects of music can have objective quality (such as technical proficiency, for example), but none of that directly links to whether it is good or not. Whether something good or bad is entirely subjective.
Really? Give me 10 minutes and some recording equipment and I will make you some bad music.
It's gonna be bad TO YOU, but someone somewhere might enjoy it. I mean, noise music is a genre, NOISE!
-
STFU noise is awesome.
-
STFU noise is awesome.
-
STFU noise is awesome.
See what I mean, Genowyn? :lol
-
STFU noise is awesome.
-
^ This.
-
There is some good noise out there.
Also, I can't remember the composer (I want to say his last name is Cage), but his music is also like the most random stuff ever (random noises). Pretty good stuff.
-
That would be John Cage.
-
Ya know, I was gonna say John Cage and I should have googled it anyway, but I am an American, and that requires work, so screw that. Thanks bro.
-
STFU noise is awesome.
See what I mean, Genowyn? :lol
I lol'd.
-
This is something I've always pondered, whether it be music, art, literature, film, or just real life.
I mean, yeah, musical tastes differ for everyone. Everyone has their own opinion. Everyone has reasons as to why they enjoy a particular group or song. And everyone should listen to what they want to listen to, regardless of whether or not it's deemed "good music."
But is it really so bad to argue over the quality of music and assert that one song is better than the other? Personally, I'll take a constructive, civilized debate about music over some humdrum celebration of stupidity by stating, "it's my opinion all m00zik is subjective my opinion is a sacred cow now respect it :hat :coolio :biggrin:" I roll my eyes whenever someone resorts to crawling into the shell of "I am entitled to my opinion." Yes, you're entitled to your opinion. You're also entitled to back it up with reasoning and evidence to support why you believe this or that. You're most certainly not entitled to use it as a security blanket to protect yourself from ever opening up your mind or letting your opinion be challenged.
There is a ton of criteria out there for music to be judged, but is that really so bad? Does that have to throw out the idea of music being objectively good? A conclusion may never be reached between two parties, but that doesn't mean a truth can't exist. I say there's no point in enjoying or believing anything if you don't have the brain power to sort out as to why.
Anyway, I might have veered off topic, but this is my pseudo-intellectual shot at answering the question :coolio
Finally, someone else in thread agrees with me :tup good post
-
Yes, you're entitled to your opinion. You're also entitled to back it up with reasoning and evidence to support why you believe this or that. You're most certainly not entitled to use it as a security blanket to protect yourself from ever opening up your mind or letting your opinion be challenged.
I'm sorry, but when it comes to music I don't buy this at all. If you're discussing politics or something, then yes you need to back up your opinion with reasoning and evidence, but you can't do that with music. Yes, in some cases you can say "X is a good song because I really like the vocal melodies and bassline" or whatever, but in the end every piece of evidence/reasoning you provide will still be a subjective statement.
-
I would pay good money to see someone give "evidence" why a song is good or bad.
-
I would pay good money to see someone give "evidence" why a song is good or bad.
Yeah exactly. As someone said earlier in the thread, every individual has different criteria for what makes music good, so there is no objective standard.
-
I agree with Sigz. Why is my opinion a security blanket? I don't need to know that I like a song because it has good lyrics or an awesome bass line or a groovy banjo, all I should know is that I am reacting well to the song for one reason or another, and anyone challenging it cannot do so simply by saying that they dislike the song's objective merits.
-
Music can't be objectively good or bad. That's a completely subjective experience.
Music can be objectively judged in three senses:
(1): Effectiveness. Does the music accomplish what it wants to in creating a listening experience and sales numbers? Does it convey the artist's intention?
(2): Quality of Craft. Is the mix well engineered? Are the transitions smooth? Does it work on multiple technical and emotional levels or is it just three chord rock that any garage band could produced that happened to become popular?
(3): Creativity. Is this something that hasn't been done before?
But neither of these allow you to completely judge good or bad. Something can be effective but, really, not good in any other way such as being composed well or having real emotion. Something can be well crafted but boring. Something can be creative but un-listenable because it's impossible to relate with musically.
The best definition of "good" I can think of is a melding of the three. An effective, well crafted, and creative song is probably good. This is why massively successful and well composed music is arguably the most objectively good music out there. How is Don't Stop Believing by Journey a bad song unless you personally don't like it? Tons of people like it, meaning it's effective, it's certainly well crafted, and I'd have to think to some degree it created and/or refined a sound in a new way.
But objective goodness is hard to argue for. Bohemian Rhapsody is off the charts in all three of the categories above. I don't see how you can argue against it being one of the greatest songs ever created. Maybe one of the best. But if you don't enjoy listening to it, why are you wrong based on any external criteria?
-
^Hmm. I agree w/dtmajesty
Sometimes (maybe all of the time), it doesn't matter why a piece of music is good to you. It is that the music is good to you. You enjoy its experience and mood, what it has to offer.
Picking music apart can be cool sometimes, and maybe analyzing why a band chose a certain direction with their sound/album/song can be great for discussion. But to try to objectify music down to a formula seems weird. Music is art, and it's probably just better to take in the experience instead of always looking st the science behind it.
I'm not saying that it is always bad to dig deeper into the music like we do here on DTF, but there is no way to objectify it, so to this thread, it's a moot point to even argue about whether music can valued in a way that everyone can agree upon.
Edit: Following a Reapsta post is like juggling and trying to impress a crowd of people who just saw flying elephants destroy UFO's with light sabers.
-
Edit: Following a Reapsta post is like juggling and trying to impress a crowd of people who just saw flying elephants destroy UFO's with light sabers.
Maybe. But that sentence is probably cooler than 98% of my posts, and has become my new sig.
-
:lol
But yeah, James expressed my thoughts perfectly.
-
Yeah. It's kind of like when your choosing a new guitar. Sure, you can bring two of them head to head based on the kind of wood they're made of or the way they were produced or any other scientific aspect, but what it really should down to is which one feels right to play and how you feel about the instrument.
-
Edit: Following a Reapsta post is like juggling and trying to impress a crowd of people who just saw flying elephants destroy UFO's with light sabers.
Maybe. But that sentence is probably cooler than 98% of my posts, and has become my new sig.
:lol nice
-
I see people debating about the quality of music ALL the time on this forum. I don't see why that's so bad. That's what a discussion forum is for... right? Discussing?
Someone says they dislike a certain song, and then someone else speaks up and challenges their opinion. There is no logical way I'm the only one who sees that happen. There has to be a certain degree to how much you believe in something to debate it. Obviously endlessly debating in circles isn't going to solve anything. But if you truly love a song, there has to be a reason as to why. And I never once said there's some criteria set in stone for how songs should be judged.
I don't see anything wrong with that, to be honest! I might be insane, though.
-
^Yeah, there is nothing wrong with discussing that stuff. But right now we are discussing whether the value of music can be universally good or bad. The fact that we can debate that about an art form pretty much proves that we cannot.
-
So if I got my guitar all out of tune, strummed some made up chords (and 'accidentally' muted some strings) and played drums using a pringles can, that wouldn't be objectively bad? :lol
I guess it's just too avant garde for me.
-
So if I got my guitar all out of tune, strummed some made up chords (and 'accidentally' muted some strings) and played drums using a pringles can, that wouldn't be objectively bad? :lol
I guess it's just too avant garde for me.
Well if someone wanted to listen to that, then the music is good to them. The whole idea here is that there is no objectivity where there is no constant of opinion.
-
So if I got my guitar all out of tune, strummed some made up chords (and 'accidentally' muted some strings) and played drums using a pringles can, that wouldn't be objectively bad? :lol
I guess it's just too avant garde for me.
Well this is a whole new argument because then the debate becomes: What counts as music in the first place?
-
^Yeah, there is nothing wrong with discussing that stuff. But right now we are discussing whether the value of music can be universally good or bad. The fact that we can debate that about an art form pretty much proves that we cannot.
And people debate things all the time, not just art. Even mundane topics get discussed and debated over.
I say that if you're going to debate over music, and have a firm opinion one way or the other, then you probably believe in it strongly enough to do so. You may not be able to convince the person or people you're debating with, but that doesn't mean some kind of universal reality about the song can't exist. Otherwise, I don't see the point in discussing anything if it always results in the conclusion of, "Meh, it's all just open to interpretation anyway. Who's to say you're right? I could very easily be right. It's all completely subjective."
-
Well this is a whole new argument because then the debate becomes: What counts as music in the first place?
I think this is generally the same thing... if someone finds something to be music to them, then I see no reason why it shouldn't count. If I heard a song in birds chirping, I think it should be music to me. It's really the same subjectivity.
-
Well this is a whole new argument because then the debate becomes: What counts as music in the first place?
I think this is generally the same thing... if someone finds something to be music to them, then I see no reason why it shouldn't count. If I heard a song in birds chirping, I think it should be music to me. It's really the same subjectivity.
If we're talking about music as a human endeavor and a creative process, then I believe there has to be some form of "intent" for something to qualify as music. Random sounds that happen to sound pretty or aesthetically pleasing to someone's ear shouldn't qualify.
-
Well this is a whole new argument because then the debate becomes: What counts as music in the first place?
I think this is generally the same thing... if someone finds something to be music to them, then I see no reason why it shouldn't count. If I heard a song in birds chirping, I think it should be music to me. It's really the same subjectivity.
If we're talking about music as a human endeavor and a creative process, then I believe there has to be some form of "intent" for something to qualify as music. Random sounds that happen to sound pretty or aesthetically pleasing to someone's ear shouldn't qualify.
Well, is music defined as a creative process or a human endeavor?
-
I am at the point where I feel that if a band writes a song, goes into a studio and records the song well (which I don't think is easy, by any means), and thousands of people hear it on the radio and like it enough to buy it or at least sing along with it every time they hear it, it's good music. I don't like most of the popular stuff today, in fact, you could say I hate most of it. But I have to admit that it's good music because of how many people like it. That's where I'm at these days.
-
Unless you're briang, no.
:rollin
-
I think music can be objectively not crappy, but can't expect everyone to enjoy/like any band, no matter what.
-
I don't think music can be objectively good, but it can certainly be objectively bad.
I agree with this man.
-
I don't think music can be objectively good, but it can certainly be objectively bad.
I agree with this man.
Care to explain why? I mean, that statement makes absolutely no sense.
There are fantastic, critically acclaimed albums which millions of people adore and which have very few detractors (said detractors usually citing a personal taste criteria rather than any other 'objective' criteria). Is this album objectively good? Close enough I say. Not 100% (no piece or art ever will be) but I think the word can be satisfactorily used in that vein. I also think musical discussion would be very boring if everyone just accepted that music is entirely subjective (ie, everyones opinion is correct) :lol
My problem with this is that I don't consider a general or even an overwhelming consensus to mean objective. Objective to me implies a conclusion that can be reached logically, and whether a given song is good or bad doesn't fall under that.
This
-
I don't think music can be objectively good, but it can certainly be objectively bad.
I agree with this man.
Care to explain why? I mean, that statement makes absolutely no sense.
I actually meant to quote this post:
Objectively good music does not exist.
-
Music can be objectively more complex or more difficult to perform, but one piece of music cannot be objectively better than another.
Yes, it can.
Maybe I'm comparing "pineapples to nuts" here, but Pachelbel's Canon in D is objectively (way) better than Despacito(that has over 5 billion views on YT).
Objective argument: Canon is on a much higher musical level than Despacito, it takes a way more personal talent, time and creative effort to be made.
-
I don't know what's funnier: the fact that an 8 year old thread gets dug up, or the fact that it's WildRanger doing it, trying to generate the exact same discussion that got a thread of his closed :lol
-
I don't know what's funnier: the fact that an 8 year old thread gets dug up, or the fact that it's WildRanger doing it, generating the exact same discussion that got a thread of his closed :lol
Objectively, the latter is funnier, without question!
-
I don't know what's funnier: the fact that an 8 year old thread gets dug up, or the fact that it's WildRanger doing it, trying to generate the exact same discussion that got a thread of his closed :lol
I found this thread and it was not closed as mine. Previous comments in this threads were really interesting and I just added my statement into discussion.
-
i don't know if you know internet etiquette at all but bumping an 8 year old thread is pretty bad etiquette regardless of the reason
-
Music can be objectively more complex or more difficult to perform, but one piece of music cannot be objectively better than another.
Yes, it can.
Maybe I'm comparing "pineapples to nuts" here, but Pachelbel's Canon in D is objectively (way) better than Despacito(that has over 5 billion views on YT).
Objective argument: Canon is on a much higher musical level than Despacito, it takes a way more personal talent, time and creative effort to be made.
Objectively speaking, Pachalbel's Canon in D sucks balls.
-
Music can be objectively more complex or more difficult to perform, but one piece of music cannot be objectively better than another.
Yes, it can.
Maybe I'm comparing "pineapples to nuts" here, but Pachelbel's Canon in D is objectively (way) better than Despacito(that has over 5 billion views on YT).
Objective argument: Canon is on a much higher musical level than Despacito, it takes a way more personal talent, time and creative effort to be made.
Objectively speaking, Pachalbel's Canon in D sucks balls.
Are you serious? You don't recognize any musical quality about Canon in D?
-
despacito is a jam & also a great meme
-
Music can be objectively more complex or more difficult to perform, but one piece of music cannot be objectively better than another.
Yes, it can.
Maybe I'm comparing "pineapples to nuts" here, but Pachelbel's Canon in D is objectively (way) better than Despacito(that has over 5 billion views on YT).
Objective argument: Canon is on a much higher musical level than Despacito, it takes a way more personal talent, time and creative effort to be made.
Objectively speaking, Pachalbel's Canon in D sucks balls.
Are you serious? You don't recognize any musical quality about Canon in D?
I didn't say that. I said it sucked balls.
Objectively.
-
I recognize that it took some musical ability to put together Bad Blood, but that doesn't mean that ability was put to good use.
-
Music can be objectively more complex or more difficult to perform, but one piece of music cannot be objectively better than another.
Yes, it can.
Maybe I'm comparing "pineapples to nuts" here, but Pachelbel's Canon in D is objectively (way) better than Despacito(that has over 5 billion views on YT).
Objective argument: Canon is on a much higher musical level than Despacito, it takes a way more personal talent, time and creative effort to be made.
Objectively speaking, Pachalbel's Canon in D sucks balls.
Are you serious? You don't recognize any musical quality about Canon in D?
I didn't say that. I said it sucked balls.
Objectively.
It's true. I've seen it.
-
We're gonna get to the bottom of what you're about eventually, Ranger! Not content with merely triggering people in your own threads, now you're digging up ridiculously old threads to do the same.
-
Music can be objectively more complex or more difficult to perform, but one piece of music cannot be objectively better than another.
Yes, it can.
Maybe I'm comparing "pineapples to nuts" here, but Pachelbel's Canon in D is objectively (way) better than Despacito(that has over 5 billion views on YT).
Objective argument: Canon is on a much higher musical level than Despacito, it takes a way more personal talent, time and creative effort to be made.
Objectively speaking, Pachalbel's Canon in D sucks balls.
Are you serious? You don't recognize any musical quality about Canon in D?
I didn't say that. I said it sucked balls.
Objectively.
It's true. I've seen it.
I bet we didn't see the same video though and no crossing swords.
-
:lol
-
Why did you resurrect this horrible thread?
-
Objective argument: Canon is on a much higher musical level than Despacito, it takes a way more personal talent, time and creative effort to be made.
So the more "personal talent, time and creative effort" goes into a piece of music, the more objectively good it is? Right. Got it.
The question was answered on the first page with a simple "no".
-
What would @ChuckSteak say on my post?
-
Objective argument: Canon is on a much higher musical level than Despacito, it takes a way more personal talent, time and creative effort to be made.
So the more "personal talent, time and creative effort" goes into a piece of music, the more objectively good it is? Right. Got it.
The question was answered on the first page with a simple "no".
So a 3 yr old “writing a song” by banging on pots and pans in the kitchen is the equal of a Beethoven symphony, because it’s all completely subjective? Right. Got it.
-
Objective argument: Canon is on a much higher musical level than Despacito, it takes a way more personal talent, time and creative effort to be made.
So the more "personal talent, time and creative effort" goes into a piece of music, the more objectively good it is? Right. Got it.
The question was answered on the first page with a simple "no".
So a 3 yr old “writing a song” by banging on pots and pans in the kitchen is the equal of a Beethoven symphony, because it’s all completely subjective? Right. Got it.
Whew! Finally. I was beginning to lose hope that we would ever get here.
-
So a 3 yr old “writing a song” by banging on pots and pans in the kitchen is the equal of a Beethoven symphony, because it’s all completely subjective? Right. Got it.
https://youtu.be/Qkf4cAfJqxI?t=61
-
This is a legitimate question, given that people always play the "subjective" or "it's a matter of taste" card when someone makes a point of certain music being bad. If the music cannot be objectively bad, then it could be argued that music cannot be objectively good neither. Then again, there are obvious reasons why something is good, whereas something being called bad music by a group of people can be dismissed from various perspectives by another group.
-
Objective argument: Canon is on a much higher musical level than Despacito, it takes a way more personal talent, time and creative effort to be made.
So the more "personal talent, time and creative effort" goes into a piece of music, the more objectively good it is? Right. Got it.
The question was answered on the first page with a simple "no".
So a 3 yr old “writing a song” by banging on pots and pans in the kitchen is the equal of a Beethoven symphony, because it’s all completely subjective? Right. Got it.
Whew! Finally. I was beginning to lose hope that we would ever get here.
:rollin
-
My take is an abstract one.
There IS a line.
No one can define it. No one can say precisely where it is. And it may, in fact, be a very blurry line that moves around for different people. But no one can say the line doesn’t exist. Because it does exist.
-
Objective argument: Canon is on a much higher musical level than Despacito, it takes a way more personal talent, time and creative effort to be made.
So the more "personal talent, time and creative effort" goes into a piece of music, the more objectively good it is? Right. Got it.
The question was answered on the first page with a simple "no".
So a 3 yr old “writing a song” by banging on pots and pans in the kitchen is the equal of a Beethoven symphony, because it’s all completely subjective? Right. Got it.
The equal? Who cares?
Even if every single human being on earth agrees that Beethoven is better than a 3 yr old writing a song on pots and pans, it's STILL not objective.
Again.........who cares? Why does it need to be objective? Why do we need our opinions so validated? Are we so insecure that we can't feel better without knowing we're objectively right?
-
My take is an abstract one.
There IS a line.
No one can define it. No one can say precisely where it is. And it may, in fact, be a very blurry line that moves around for different people. But no one can say the line doesn’t exist. Because it does exist.
It doesn't exist.
boom.
-
Objective argument: Canon is on a much higher musical level than Despacito, it takes a way more personal talent, time and creative effort to be made.
So the more "personal talent, time and creative effort" goes into a piece of music, the more objectively good it is? Right. Got it.
The question was answered on the first page with a simple "no".
So a 3 yr old “writing a song” by banging on pots and pans in the kitchen is the equal of a Beethoven symphony, because it’s all completely subjective? Right. Got it.
Oh, good grief.
-
Objective implies that there is some absolute way of measuring or otherwise applying criteria to something. There is no such way of qualifying music. 10 million people liking doesn't make it "good" to you if you don't like it. 10 million people hating something doesn't make it "bad" to you if you like it.
If I hate Beethoven symphonies and listening to them drives me nucking futs, meanwhile my 3-year-old is in the kitchen banging pots and pans and keeping a pretty good rhythm and I love him and thus pretty much anything he does, then yeah, I'd rather listen to that than a Beethoven symphony. There is no objective scale to apply, there are no objective criteria. My kid banging on pots and pans isn't just the equal of a Beethoven symphony; it's better, because I would rather listen to it.
-
Orbert is objectively awesome.
I don't think that disproves my other arguments, however.
-
Oh DTF :heart
-
Objective implies that there is some absolute way of measuring or otherwise applying criteria to something. There is no such way of qualifying music. 10 million people liking doesn't make it "good" to you if you don't like it. 10 million people hating something doesn't make it "bad" to you if you like it.
If I hate Beethoven symphonies and listening to them drives me nucking futs, meanwhile my 3-year-old is in the kitchen banging pots and pans and keeping a pretty good rhythm and I love him and thus pretty much anything he does, then yeah, I'd rather listen to that than a Beethoven symphony. There is no objective scale to apply, there are no objective criteria. My kid banging on pots and pans isn't just the equal of a Beethoven symphony; it's better, because I would rather listen to it.
So then Nickelback could be subjectively BETTER than Led Zeppelin because there are some people who would rather listen to Nickelback than Zeppelin. But most discerning music fans would find that statement pretty absurd. Saying Nickelback is better than Zep is like saying something illogical. It's like saying that a piss tastes better than orange juice. Come on, then we can say that the answer on a question "What tastes better: piss or orange juice" is not objective, but subjective.
-
Orbert is objectively awesome.
I don't think that disproves my other arguments, however.
Can’t have it both ways...
:angel:
-
Objective implies that there is some absolute way of measuring or otherwise applying criteria to something. There is no such way of qualifying music. 10 million people liking doesn't make it "good" to you if you don't like it. 10 million people hating something doesn't make it "bad" to you if you like it.
If I hate Beethoven symphonies and listening to them drives me nucking futs, meanwhile my 3-year-old is in the kitchen banging pots and pans and keeping a pretty good rhythm and I love him and thus pretty much anything he does, then yeah, I'd rather listen to that than a Beethoven symphony. There is no objective scale to apply, there are no objective criteria. My kid banging on pots and pans isn't just the equal of a Beethoven symphony; it's better, because I would rather listen to it.
So then Nickelback could be subjectively BETTER than Led Zeppelin because there are some people who would rather listen to Nickelback than Zeppelin. But most discerning music fans would find that statement pretty absurd. Saying Nickelback is better than Zep is like saying something illogical. It's like saying that a piss tastes better than orange juice. Come on, then we can say that the answer on a question "What tastes better: piss or orange juice" is not objective, but subjective.
:metal
-
Come on, then we can say that the answer on a question "What tastes better: piss or orange juice" is not objective, but subjective.
I think you have an extraordinarily hard time separating facts from opinions, because the very question you’re mockingly asking is, indeed, going to give you a subjective answer.
-
Objective implies that there is some absolute way of measuring or otherwise applying criteria to something. There is no such way of qualifying music. 10 million people liking doesn't make it "good" to you if you don't like it. 10 million people hating something doesn't make it "bad" to you if you like it.
If I hate Beethoven symphonies and listening to them drives me nucking futs, meanwhile my 3-year-old is in the kitchen banging pots and pans and keeping a pretty good rhythm and I love him and thus pretty much anything he does, then yeah, I'd rather listen to that than a Beethoven symphony. There is no objective scale to apply, there are no objective criteria. My kid banging on pots and pans isn't just the equal of a Beethoven symphony; it's better, because I would rather listen to it.
So then Nickelback could be subjectively BETTER than Led Zeppelin because there are some people who would rather listen to Nickelback than Zeppelin. But most discerning music fans would find that statement pretty absurd. Saying Nickelback is better than Zep is like saying something illogical. It's like saying that a piss tastes better than orange juice. Come on, then we can say that the answer on a question "What tastes better: piss or orange juice" is not objective, but subjective.
Dude, I don't know why you find it hard to get to grips with the fact that yes, some people like Nickelback more than Led Zep. I mean, I'd be surprised if out of the whole DTF crowd more people liked Nickelback over Led Zep (but I wouldn't lose sleep over it) but if we're talking about the population if the planet then no, I really wouldn't be surprised.
Also, I work in care and have supported lots of people (especially with Autistic Spectrum Conditions) who have different sensory needs and preferences. Trust me, for some piss is better than orange juice!
-
i think i figured it out
wildranger is an evolutionary algorithm designed by scientists to find the answer to what is objectively "good" and "bad" in music
it's why he makes so many poll threads and has such a hard time with opinions vs. facts
and he learned by looking at RYM's dumb "top albums of all time" list
-
My take is an abstract one.
There IS a line.
No one can define it. No one can say precisely where it is. And it may, in fact, be a very blurry line that moves around for different people. But no one can say the line doesn’t exist. Because it does exist.
It sounds like you're describing the line for everyone's personal subjective taste. If the line moves around from person to person then it's not objective.
-
So then Nickelback could be subjectively BETTER than Led Zeppelin because there are some people who would rather listen to Nickelback than Zeppelin. But most discerning music fans would find that statement pretty absurd. Saying Nickelback is better than Zep is like saying something illogical. It's like saying that a piss tastes better than orange juice. Come on, then we can say that the answer on a question "What tastes better: piss or orange juice" is not objective, but subjective.
I knew someone is going to throw Nickelback as an example since they are everyone's favorite rock band punching bags around the internet (Creed, as well. Not here though, but elsewhere).
Here's the thing. I am not a classic rock listener, I usually change stations if I hear a classic rock tune if there a modern rock track that I want to listen to elsewhere. Some people would actually like to listen to Nickelback over Led Zeppelin for their own unique reasons. If I had a choice listening to a Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, AC/DC, etc. track or a Nickelback track, oddly enough, I probably would choose the Nickelback track. Heck, I've been listening to Nickelback more than the majority of the heralded classic rock bands in recent times and not regret that thought process.
Would I say Nickelback is the better band than those bands? I can't honestly say that, but I also can't say that those older bands are better than Nickelback, because that's not how I want to view music. I view what music I listen to more on my overall enjoyment which is based on a variety of things that only I can define. People can listen to what music they want to based on what they want for their own personal reasoning. How else would a guy like Ed Sheeran (who I like) draw stadium crowds over bands we feel is sorely overlooked? It's because people would prefer listening to a guy like Ed Sheeran and want to see his show above all else for their own unique reasons. It can't be something that's easily defined.
The same goes for wrestling. Who is the best wrestler of all time? What can we based that off of? It could be a lot of reasons. Their drawing power and attendance to crowds and PPV buys, how they wrestle a match, how they talk in interviews, engage their crowds, etc. People would say Hulk Hogan is the best wrestler of all time. Some would say Stone Cold Steve Austin. Some would say Ric Flair, The Rock, Bret Hart, etc. It's something that cannot be easily be looked at and go, "That is the definitive answer and anything else is a crap answer." The same goes for music as well.
Musicians and wrestlers are not like sports athlete in that sense where we look at an athlete stats in a career and go "this is the greatest basketball player, football player, hockey player, etc. in the world." Even then, some people in modern times would argue whether or not a guy like Michael Jordan or Wayne Gretzky would complete, like the greatest of all time players they are deemed, in today's sports environment in comparison to a guy like Lebron James or Sidney Crosby.
-
I saw this thread was resurrected and thought "nah, no one's gonna engage this time".
I underestimated DTF.
-
I saw this thread was resurrected and thought "nah, no one's gonna engage this time".
I underestimated DTF.
My thought too.
-
Stadler and I have tried to soapbox about a particular point that's relevant here.
The difference between "better" and "preference". For instance, I am a big supporter of the idea that Steely Dan is one of the BEST and most important and influential rock acts in history. If I were to put together a list of "best" artists from the 70's, I could easily see them in the top 10. But as far as "what I like", they wouldn't even crack my top 100. I just don't get it. I like a song or two, but they just don't appeal to me at all. But I still consider them one of the greatest rock acts of all time.
-
I find this thread not important at all.
-
I find this thread not important at all.
Is an OP written by Einstein objectively better than an OP written by a 3 year old?
-
Sorry. I meant I couldn't care less and the same for that as well.
-
(https://www.askideas.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Funny-Sad-Baby-Face-Photo.jpg)
-
A simple "no" and the thread locked would have been answer enough to this mindbogglingly stupid question.
-
A simple "no" and the thread locked would have been answer enough to this mindbogglingly stupid question.
:'(
You're totally right tho
-
If the definitive answer on this topic is NO, it should give some kind of excuse to some people to listen whatever "crap" they want and they can't be judged for that by other people who have different ("superior") tastes than them.
Then some person whose favorite music acts are Ed Sheeran, Bruno Mars, Nicki Minaj, Coldplay and Britney Spears have an equally "good" taste with some person whose favorite music acts are Pink Floyd, David Bowie, Led Zeppelin, Prince and Yes, because good music is subjective and then tastes are relative.
-
Why are you quick to call things you don’t like ‘crap’ when there’s clearly a (very large) audience for that type of music? Also, why would there be a need to ‘judge’ those people on their music tastes? Have you ever thought that your thought process could go the other way round as well?
This shit is unbelievable.
-
So, basically, you're just looking for a justification for the sense of moral superiority you feel over people who have different taste than you.
-
Isn’t that the underlying theme for all his threads though?
-
Look. I absolutely do NOT feel any of this makes me a "better person" somehow. I just have a different skill set.
Some people are REALLY into cars. I don't get it. I probably never will. But I don't consider myself a car expert. I like the car I have because it gets me from point A to point B, and I really don't care what car I have as long as it continues to do that.
...and I think the opinion of a car expert is much more valid than mine is. And it doesn't make him a better person, it just means he is better than me in that department because he has a skilled interest in that subject. Coming to me for advice on cars would be like getting music advice from someone who's favorite artist is Britney Spears. There's nothing WRONG with that, but they obviously know jack about music. And that's OK. It doesn't make me better than them. It just means we have different interests. If I need advice on cars, I go to a car expert. If I suddenly decide I would like to know more about cars, I can learn from the experts. Maybe I'll find out that the car I'm driving isn't all that great after all. If someone who has only listened to pop music and enjoys certain singles and that's all they have ever needed suddenly decides that they would like to "explore" music more because maybe they're missing out on something....they can go to the experts.
-
So, basically, you're just looking for a justification for the sense of moral superiority you feel over people who have different taste than you.
Nope. It's not a matter of my personal taste in music. I just said that if one person has Ed Sheeran, Bruno Mars, Nicki Minaj, Coldplay and Britney Spears as his favorite acts, it's not the same as other person has Pink Floyd, David Bowie, Led Zeppelin, Prince and Yes as his favorite acts, because Pink Floyd, David Bowie, Led Zeppelin, Prince and Yes are like "venerated saints" of music, while Ed Sheeran, Bruno Mars, Nicki Minaj, Coldplay and Britney Spears are definitely not. That's the difference.
I don't divide taste in music on bad and good, I just think people either have a taste or not. And I don't think that people must have the same or similar taste like me(to listen most music acts that I love), but they should "have a taste".
-
Look. I absolutely do NOT feel any of this makes me a "better person" somehow. I just have a different skill set.
Some people are REALLY into cars. I don't get it. I probably never will. But I don't consider myself a car expert. I like the car I have because it gets me from point A to point B, and I really don't care what car I have as long as it continues to do that.
...and I think the opinion of a car expert is much more valid than mine is. And it doesn't make him a better person, it just means he is better than me in that department because he has a skilled interest in that subject. Coming to me for advice on cars would be like getting music advice from someone who's favorite artist is Britney Spears. There's nothing WRONG with that, but they obviously know jack about music. And that's OK. It doesn't make me better than them. It just means we have different interests. If I need advice on cars, I go to a car expert. If I suddenly decide I would like to know more about cars, I can learn from the experts. Maybe I'll find out that the car I'm driving isn't all that great after all. If someone who has only listened to pop music and enjoys certain singles and that's all they have ever needed suddenly decides that they would like to "explore" music more because maybe they're missing out on something....they can go to the experts.
Cars are tools. You can't be an expert in taste (meh). There are no car experts in the field of aesthetics. You can have a music expert who knows all about theory and how sound works, but that STILL has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
-
So, basically, you're just looking for a justification for the sense of moral superiority you feel over people who have different taste than you.
Nope. It's not a matter of my personal taste in music. I just said that if one person has Ed Sheeran, Bruno Mars, Nicki Minaj, Coldplay and Britney Spears as his favorite acts, it's not the same as other person has Pink Floyd, David Bowie, Led Zeppelin, Prince and Yes as his favorite acts, because Pink Floyd, David Bowie, Led Zeppelin, Prince and Yes are like "venerated saints" of music, while Ed Sheeran, Bruno Mars, Nicki Minaj, Coldplay and Britney Spears are definitely not. That's the difference.
I don't divide taste in music on bad and good, I just think people either have a taste or not. And I don't think that people must have the same or similar taste like me(to listen most music acts that I love), but they should "have a taste".
You're also comparing old acts to brand new ones.
Madonna, Beyonce, Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, Run DMC, Jay Z, are all, and will continue to be giant legends in music.
I'm not 100% why I'm even engaging in this discussion. Probably boredom.
-
Look. I absolutely do NOT feel any of this makes me a "better person" somehow. I just have a different skill set.
Some people are REALLY into cars. I don't get it. I probably never will. But I don't consider myself a car expert. I like the car I have because it gets me from point A to point B, and I really don't care what car I have as long as it continues to do that.
...and I think the opinion of a car expert is much more valid than mine is. And it doesn't make him a better person, it just means he is better than me in that department because he has a skilled interest in that subject. Coming to me for advice on cars would be like getting music advice from someone who's favorite artist is Britney Spears. There's nothing WRONG with that, but they obviously know jack about music. And that's OK. It doesn't make me better than them. It just means we have different interests. If I need advice on cars, I go to a car expert. If I suddenly decide I would like to know more about cars, I can learn from the experts. Maybe I'll find out that the car I'm driving isn't all that great after all. If someone who has only listened to pop music and enjoys certain singles and that's all they have ever needed suddenly decides that they would like to "explore" music more because maybe they're missing out on something....they can go to the experts.
Cars are tools. You can't be an expert in taste (meh). There are no car experts in the field of aesthetics. You can have a music expert who knows all about theory and how sound works, but that STILL has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
Ever hear a Ford guy and a Chevy guy argue about which is "the best car"?
Heck, TOP GEAR is an entire show dedicated to car experts debating about personal tastes (among many other things). So there isn't a definitive "best car"......BUT I STILL consider their opinions to be more valid than mine because THEY ARE EXPERTS. And I want to underline again that it doesn't make them better people. Just their opinions on cars are more valid than mine because it is their field of expertise. Their opinions on cars mean more than the opinion on cars of a person who isn't all that interested in the details of what goes into a car. Driving a car every day does not make your opinion on cars valid. A daily commute doesn't make you a car expert. Just like listening to pop music in the background on that daily commute doesn't mean you know anything about music.
-
JD,
A respected opinion is not the same as objectivity. You're moving the goal post here or at the very least substituting one definition for another. For language to work, words have to have agreed upon definition. In this instance objectivity is to be completely divorced of opinion and only pertains to facts. Whether something is good or bad is by it's very nature an opinion.
See the difference?
-
JD,
A respected opinion is not the same as objectivity. You're moving the goal post here or at the very least substituting one definition for another. For language to work, words have to have agreed upon definition. In this instance objectivity is to be completely divorced of opinion and only pertains to facts. Whether something is good or bad is by it's very nature an opinion.
See the difference?
One thing I will confess to (but I have always been *consistent* in this opinion) is that I've been arguing for a much more abstract concept from the very beginning. It might seem like "moving the goal posts" but I've stated before that this line...the line between subjectivity and objectivity...is a blurry fuzzy line that seems to move around every time you try to define what it is. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Some things are difficult to define...but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
What is "the flow of traffic"? We use that phrase in our daily lives, but who can actually put a black and white definition on it? And I guarantee that, now that I've said that, someone will try. But no matter what definition you come up with, it will fail to fully describe the concept of what the phrase means. What speed is "the flow of traffic"? What is the MPH of "the flow of traffic"? You cannot answer these questions *without creating new questions*! Because the concept is really impossible to define in black and white terms and everyone will have a different opinion about what it actually is. But know one denies that it does exist. And most of us also know when someone who doesn't know how to drive breaks that "flow"....
-
JD, I say this with all the love in the world toward you.
You're not being abstract. You're just being wrong. Objective and subjective are not hard to define. They are very definable.
PS: I love you.
-
I love you too, JD!
-
We're also forgetting a thing that we, as hardcore fans of music, sometimes gloss over: not everyone has the same deep passion for music like we do, regardless of the genre. There are people who don't watch movies, there are people who don't read books, and there are people who are just fine with hearing a nice beat or a hummable tune when they're working out or when they have nothing else do to. For them, simple pop music is more than enough.
While we discuss about music, there are art experts out there who cringe at the idea that the only thing people know of Leonardo is the Monna Lisa, and the only thing people remember of Van Gogh is the Starry Night and maybe they don't even know it's from Van Gogh, they just like to have the picture as wallpaper. Tastes aside, not everyone has the same deep dedication to music like us, so it's not that they like "bad" music 'cause they can't tell the difference - for them, it's not so important nor, after all, they'd have a moral obligation to themselves to discover more, just like people who have a mug of the Starry Night don't owe to themselves to check all the impressionists' work.
-
i'm just surprised this thread is still open considering the first thing i did when wildranger bumped it was report him
like are all the mods on holiday still
-
(https://beta-static.photobucket.com/images/r47/jammindude/0/eca21fc9-1fd2-4aaa-8a20-6dacfe13eddd-original.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds)
-
Why would you report him for a thread? Why not just not come to this thread?
-
I suppose the more concise, TLDR version of my argument would be:
What's the greatest car ever made? There are probably hundreds of cars that would be debatable options. That's subjective. But ANY expert will tell you that it's NOT a Yugo. And that is objective. But where does that line get crossed? It's different for everyone, and many people at different levels of expertise will have different opinions on where the line gets crossed. But the line DOES exist. It's just not a black and white line. It's an abstract concept.
-
I suppose the more concise, TLDR version of my argument would be:
What's the greatest car ever made? There are probably hundreds of cars that would be debatable options. That's subjective. But ANY expert will tell you that it's NOT a Yugo. And that is objective. But where does that line get crossed? It's different for everyone, and many people at different levels of expertise will have different opinions on where the line gets crossed. But the line DOES exist. It's just not a black and white line. It's an abstract concept.
What's the greatest screw driver ever made? Phillips? Flat head? Well, it depends what you need it for. Because it's a tool.
Just like a car.
Unlike music.
-
I suppose the more concise, TLDR version of my argument would be:
What's the greatest car ever made? There are probably hundreds of cars that would be debatable options. That's subjective. But ANY expert will tell you that it's NOT a Yugo. And that is objective. But where does that line get crossed? It's different for everyone, and many people at different levels of expertise will have different opinions on where the line gets crossed. But the line DOES exist. It's just not a black and white line. It's an abstract concept.
No it's not. That's just the expert's opinion.
I'll try one last time:
I have a jar with 60 Skittles in it. If I asked everyone on DTF to guess the number of Skittles, we could tell who was right or wrong my simply counting them. That's objective
If we asked everyone on DTF which color of Skittle is the best (even if someone was the most experienced candy maker the world has ever known) no one's answer would be wrong or right. It would all be a matter of opinion. That's subjective
-
By that argument, a person who feels that the Yugo is the greatest car ever made has an equally valid opinion as the thousands of experts who say otherwise. Sorry....but I'm going with the experts and say that that guy is a nut job who doesn't know anything about cars. I don't know a damn thing about cars, and even I can figure out that guy knows even less than I do. The very fact that he would say that opinion with a straight face would PROVE that he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. And putting his opinion on equal footing with those who know better only serves to confuse people who come to the table and actually want to learn something about cars.
-
The whole "all opinions are valid" POV is just ridiculous to me. It throws the need for any sort of education or expertise completely out the window.
-
Like Adami says, cars are tools, tools aren't music, music is an artistic aesthetic.
Let me put it to you this way. Which color of car is best, objectively?
-
Do you know what car I personally LOVE? I wish I had one, but I don't. But I want one someday.
A Chrysler PT Cruiser. I think that car is SOOO cool looking.
My car expert friends roll their eyes, and tell me I'm nuts, and that it's a crappy car. But I actually think THEY are right. Because I don't place my opinion on the same level as theirs. I like the PT Cruiser better than better cars, but I'm open about the fact that I'm a dumbass when it comes to cars. And that's all OK. There's nothing wrong with saying, "I like Nickelback, even though I know that they actually suck. I know there are people out there who know more about music than I do, and their opinions on music are more valid than mine BECAUSE they care more about it than I do. I care more about GOLF (or insert whatever field of study you want) than they do, so if they ever want golf advice, I'll be there for them, and if I ever want to know more about music, they will be there for me."
-
The whole "all opinions are valid" POV is just ridiculous to me. It throws the need for any sort of education or expertise completely out the window.
No it does not.
-
Is Monica Belluci objectively a beautiful woman? Who can argue with that? And which objective arguments that she is not, someone could have ?
-
1. This thread was answered in the first post. Done.
2. JD, you are objectively incorrect. You clearly do not understand what "objective" and "subjective" mean.
3. WildRanger, you likewise clearly do not understand. From day 1 of your presence here, all you seem interested in is taking ridiculous positions to annoy others and create arguments. Think about this during your 7-day vacation. If you persist, you will be banned from the forum permanently. Yes, this is the first time you are being told his by the forum staff. But that is largely because countless forum members have beat us to the punch in the past and told you the same thing, over and over and over again. There is no place for acting like that on this forum.