Can Music Be Objectively Good?

[Genowyn]

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.

[sirbradford117]

Music is a fine art.  It cannot have objectively good or bad qualities.

[Pirate]

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!

[Jamesman42]

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.

[LudwigVan]

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?

[Marvellous G]

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.

[Ravenheart]

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  " 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 

[LudwigVan]

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.  

[Dimitrius]

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!

[Sigz]

STFU noise is awesome.

[sonatafanica]

STFU noise is awesome.

[Dimitrius]

STFU noise is awesome.

See what I mean, Genowyn?

[Fuzzboy]

STFU noise is awesome.

[Gorille85]

^ This.

[Jamesman42]

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.

[Sigz]

That would be John Cage.

[Jamesman42]

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.

[Marvellous G]

STFU noise is awesome.

See what I mean, Genowyn?

I lol'd.

[Portrucci]

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   " 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  

Finally, someone else in thread agrees with me   good post

[Sigz]

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.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

I would pay good money to see someone give "evidence" why a song is good or bad.

[ariich]

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.

[ClairvoyantCat]

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.

[ReaPsTA]

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?

[Jamesman42]

^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.

[ReaPsTA]

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.

[ariich]

But yeah, James expressed my thoughts perfectly.

[ClairvoyantCat]

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.

[Jamesman42]

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.

nice

[Ravenheart]

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.

[Jamesman42]

^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.

[Genowyn]

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? 

I guess it's just too avant garde for me.

[ClairvoyantCat]

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? 

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. 

[TheOutlawXanadu]

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? 

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?

[Ravenheart]

^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."