Can Music Be Objectively Good?

[ClairvoyantCat]

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. 

[LudwigVan]

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.   

[ClairvoyantCat]

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?

[2Timer]

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.

[emindead]

Unless you're briang, no.

[kala1928]

I think music can be objectively not crappy, but can't expect everyone to enjoy/like any band, no matter what.

[MetalManiac666]

I don't think music can be objectively good, but it can certainly be objectively bad.

I agree with this man.

[icysk8r]

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) 

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

[MetalManiac666]

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.

[WildRanger]

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.

[Elite]

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

[twosuitsluke]

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

Objectively, the latter is funnier, without question!

[WildRanger]

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

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.

[Crow]

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

[Adami]

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.

[WildRanger]

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?

[Crow]

despacito is a jam & also a great meme

[Adami]

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.

[Zook]

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.

[Podaar]

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.

[RoeDent]

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.

[King Postwhore]

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.

[Podaar]

 

[Implode]

Why did you resurrect this horrible thread?

[nobloodyname]

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".

[WildRanger]

What would @ChuckSteak say on my post?

[jammindude]

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.

[Podaar]

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.

[TAC]

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

[Mladen]

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.

[jammindude]

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.

 

[jammindude]

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.

[Adami]

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?

[Adami]

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.

[nobloodyname]

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.