Objectivity vs Subjectivity In Music

[Marvellous G]

This debate's been coming up a fair amount recently, and it seems like there's pretty divided opinions about it here on DTF. So, the question, is there objectivity in music?

I'd personally say definitely yes, even though (this is the key failing in my argument, I admit) I can't quantify it in any way, I can see, for myself at least, that there's a difference between how much I enjoy something and how good it is. For instance, my favourite Radiohead album is In Rainbows, but their best to me is Kid A, even though I don't enjoy it as much. An example from film would be Hotel Rwanda; I don't 'enjoy' it at all per se, but I think it's a great film.

But yeah, discuss.

[Ravenheart]

I don't think there's any objectivity in music, and I think that's kind of a silly claim to make (not that you are).

With something as emotional and cathartic as music, I fail to see how anything other than enjoyment should matter. It doesn't matter how well this or that is made if you can't enjoy it. You can sit back and appreciate it, sure, but if album A is more enjoyable or catches your interest more than album B, then album A obviously has something that album B lacks, and I think that hook that it lacks is the key factor in quality music.

[orcus116]

I do think there is some objectivity regarding quality of music but a good lot of it deals with stuff like "Album A contains more complex chord structures than Album B" and similar statements regarding technicality.

[ariich]

Well there is objectivity to the extent that there will be objective characteristics, and there are even some qualities that to an extent could be objectively ranked (e.g. clarity of sound, proficiency at the instruments, vocal range, etc - EDIT: Or indeed complexity of chord structures, as orcus suggested).

But when it comes to whether the music is good or not, no it is not objective. At all. You may see a difference between "favourite" and "best" but those are still both subjective, you're just looking at them from a different angle. If it was objective, at least the majority of, if not all, people would agree.

[Marvellous G]

I do completely see that side of the argument, and I'm pretty sure I'm in the (probably incorrect) minority here, so fair enough.

But whilst I completely see that enjoyment should be the only factor influencing the quality of music, I just can't dismiss the idea that there is a difference between the two. Otherwise I don't see how there could be the concept of a 'guilty pleasure;' I can't believe that my enjoyment of John Mayer over my enjoyment of Mozart, which is more, negates the idea of some sort of quality difference between the two.

And whilst I do much prefer John Mayer to Mozart (these examples are ridiculous, but I'm riding them straight to hell), I personally feel like I just know that Mayer's the inferior artist. And it's not like that influences my listening; you can see from my charts on LastFM that I listen to a disturbing number of guilty pleasure artists (hello Dixie Chicks) which I'm fine with, I just feel like I can accept that they're 'not as good.'

[ariich]

I do think there is some objectivity regarding quality of music but a good lot of it deals with stuff like "Album A contains more complex chord structures than Album B" and similar statements regarding technicality.

That has nothing to do with quality though, it's just a characteristic that some will consider to be better, some will consider to be worse, and others won't care about in the slightest.

And whilst I do much prefer John Mayer to Mozart (these examples are ridiculous, but I'm riding them straight to hell), I personally feel like I just know that Mayer's the inferior artist. And it's not like that influences my listening; you can see from my charts on LastFM that I listen to a disturbing number of guilty pleasure artists (hello Dixie Chicks) which I'm fine with, I just feel like I can accept that they're 'not as good.'

Why is he an inferior artist? Mozart was maybe more technically proficient (in composition that is), but apart from his masterpieces, a lot of his works can be seen as quite soulless, whereas Mayer's music has character. I personally think Mozart was better, but there's nothing objective about that, his music just speaks to me more.

[orcus116]

Those were actually two separate thoughts. The "good lot of it" deals with the majority of objectiveness surrounding music.

[ariich]

Ah ok, yeah that makes sense then.

[Ravenheart]

Trent Reznor's lyrics might be considered pedestrian compared to other songwriters who can write their negative emotions in more poetic ways, but his lyrics speak to me more than 99% of everything else I've heard.

[Marvellous G]

I do think there is some objectivity regarding quality of music but a good lot of it deals with stuff like "Album A contains more complex chord structures than Album B" and similar statements regarding technicality.

That has nothing to do with quality though, it's just a characteristic that some will consider to be better, some will consider to be worse, and others won't care about in the slightest.

And whilst I do much prefer John Mayer to Mozart (these examples are ridiculous, but I'm riding them straight to hell), I personally feel like I just know that Mayer's the inferior artist. And it's not like that influences my listening; you can see from my charts on LastFM that I listen to a disturbing number of guilty pleasure artists (hello Dixie Chicks) which I'm fine with, I just feel like I can accept that they're 'not as good.'

Why is he an inferior artist? Mozart was maybe more technically proficient (in composition that is), but apart from his masterpieces, a lot of his works can be seen as quite soulless, whereas Mayer's music has character. I personally think Mozart was better, but there's nothing objective about that, his music just speaks to me more.

That's the key flaw with my side of the argument, I can't prove it in any way. I guess it's kind of a socially constructed thing, with the 'general consensus' playing a big role, but I dunno, I really just feel like it's just clear, even if I don't adhere to it in my own listening habits.

And I know Orcus wasn't saying this as his opinion, but I'm not talking about technical stuff or anything when I say I think something is objectively better.

[orcus116]

I definitely agree with you in terms that some bands are just flat out not good bands or clearly inferior not matter what anyone argues but I'd have to sit down and word the argument right. My friend and I have talked extensively about this.

[Marvellous G]

I definitely agree with you in terms that some bands are just flat out not good bands or clearly inferior not matter what anyone argues but I'd have to sit down and word the argument right. My friend and I have talked extensively about this.

That's exactly it, please do word it better than I have so I can take a proper standpoint. 

Even though this might all end in tears, I think this is a really interesting and fairly important discussion about all art, music especially.

[Nick]

While not focusing on this exclusively I wrote a paper a few years back that touches on this topic. It used to be posted here but was lost in the forum crash.

In any case, if you ever find yourself with nothing better to do for 15 minutes...

https://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=55451

[Ravenheart]

Well, if the music speaks to you, isn't that how you decide your favorite or preferred bands? I doubt you sit down and say, "Hmm, yes, this song has just the right amount of chord progressions and obscure lyrical references to make it acceptable. Therefore it is good and I enjoy it."

[Marvellous G]

Yeah, sorry, it was dumb to suggest that it would affect my listening habits, I'm just clarifying that it doesn't. Although I'd feel less 'guilty,' (although I wouldn't use a word as strong as that) telling someone that I listened to Bob Dylan than I did Dixie Chicks, if you know what I mean.


And technically I'm a Tool fan so the stereotype dictates that I do exactly what you said in your post.

[Ravenheart]

Yeah, sorry, it was dumb to suggest that it would affect my listening habits, I'm just clarifying that it doesn't. Although I'd feel less 'guilty,' (although I wouldn't use a word as strong as that) telling someone that I listened to Bob Dylan than I did Dixie Chicks, if you know what I mean.

Well, yeah, but that's only because the Dixie Chicks are typically looked down upon by most music snobs 

And technically I'm a Tool fan so the stereotype dictates that I do exactly what you said in your post.

Oh God, you're one of those people.




 

[TheOutlawXanadu]

There is no objectivity in music. Why? Because if you want to say something is objectively good, you have to make a criteria for what "good" means, and everyone is going to differ on what criteria they make/value.

[Gorille85]

There is no objectivity in music. Why? Because if you want to say something is objectively good, you have to make a criteria for what "good" means, and everyone is going to differ on what criteria they make/value.

This. Someone can enjoy way more what I qualify a shitty punkshit band than Ulver for example.

[Pirate]

There is just as much objectivity in music as there is in anything else. None.

[Gorille85]

There is just as much objectivity in music as there is in anything else. None.

Well there is some basic facts that everybody or the vast majority of people agree on. This is as close as objectivity it gets.

[orcus116]

There is just as much objectivity in music as there is in anything else. None.

There's not objectivity in science?

[Pirate]

Depends on how you define objective. In one case, nothing we perceive can be proven as an object, and science is the study of our perceptions, not objects. Reality is an object, but we don't know what reality is exactly. If you define objective in terms of our idea of 'logic' and 'reason' and quantifiability, then that's another case altogether.

[orcus116]

That is by far the dumbest assertion I have heard regarding that topic.

[orcus116]

...in my opinion.

[Pirate]

Enlighten me!

[ClairvoyantCat]

Well, my thoughts on this is that music is an art, and art is driven by affecting one personally, and with a connection like that there is no way for there to be an objective scale.  Anything driven by a personal response from an individual cannot be objective.  I'm pretty strict on this notion.  I think that an individual can have his personal objective scale on what constitutes good music, of course, but on a level of comparison between people with differing emotional responses and personal viewpoints there's really no way to claim "better" artists. 

This little opinion of mine has probably been regurgitated through every single person arguing subjectivity, but it's my thoughts on the matter.

[pain of occupation]

i believe in objectivity in music. but its definitely a hard thing to argue or put into words.

that, and i'm too lazy.

[sonatafanica]

No way there's objectivity in the art of music. At ALL. Or in any art for that matter.


For example: you (not you) say Radiohead is better than Brokencyde.

I ask, "why?"

"the music is better."

"how is the music better?"

"i dunno man, it just has way more feel."

"feel? like a sense? like a highly subjective sort of thing?"

"well anyone you'd ask would agree that radiohead is better"

"yeah, maybe, based on their opinions of radiohead and brokencyde."

"whatever man, i'm outta here"

"no no, just hold up a second. so radiohead is objectively better than brokencyde?"

"yeah"

"prove it."

"THEY JUST ARE."

"they just are isn't a reason. that's a belief. as in something subjective. you have no evidence, no proof."

"hey fuck you man"

"no fuck you, you aren't even making sense and you're being a douche"

"says you with your fucking questions, you're not even good at this"

"that's it motherfucker"

"hey man, put that knife down"

"no fuck you okay, you're going to fucking listen to me"

"alright jesus OW FUCK"

"and there's more where that came from. now tell me, Tesla, how the fuck do you objectively scale an art?"

"you fucking listen to it you fucking maniac!!"

"but what if someone doesn't like your precious fucking radiohead, did they do their research wrong or some shit??"

"fuck you, let me go!"

"ANSWER ME"

"I DON'T FUCKING KNOW MAN"

"AND YOU NEVER WILL"

"UUAAHUGHughhgughhghggggughhgughghugghguhgug"

[SPNKr]

^ Sweet... Allah...

[Bombardana]

Music is objectively subjective.

[Zook]

Brokencyde is objectively the worst shit out there right now. Fortunately, I'm pretty sure their 15 minutes are long over.

[skydivingninja]

No way there's objectivity in the art of music. At ALL. Or in any art for that matter.


For example: you (not you) say Radiohead is better than Brokencyde.

I ask, "why?"

"the music is better."

"how is the music better?"

"i dunno man, it just has way more feel."

"feel? like a sense? like a highly subjective sort of thing?"

"well anyone you'd ask would agree that radiohead is better"

"yeah, maybe, based on their opinions of radiohead and brokencyde."

"whatever man, i'm outta here"

"no no, just hold up a second. so radiohead is objectively better than brokencyde?"

"yeah"

"prove it."

"THEY JUST ARE."

"they just are isn't a reason. that's a belief. as in something subjective. you have no evidence, no proof."

"hey fuck you man"

"no fuck you, you aren't even making sense and you're being a douche"

"says you with your fucking questions, you're not even good at this"

"that's it motherfucker"

"hey man, put that knife down"

"no fuck you okay, you're going to fucking listen to me"

"alright jesus OW FUCK"

"and there's more where that came from. now tell me, Tesla, how the fuck do you objectively scale an art?"

"you fucking listen to it you fucking maniac!!"

"but what if someone doesn't like your precious fucking radiohead, did they do their research wrong or some shit??"

"fuck you, let me go!"

"ANSWER ME"

"I DON'T FUCKING KNOW MAN"

"AND YOU NEVER WILL"

"UUAAHUGHughhgughhghggggughhgughghugghguhgug"

POTY

[JosephAOI]

I think objectivity exists in music but it's not something we should use to decide our listening habits on. It's something that should be kept to the side just as a sort of 'for the record' type thing. For example, one of my favorite albums is Korpiklaani's Tales Along This Road (Which, by the way, is a fantastic album) but I adknowledge the 'fact' (If some would rather argue it as opinion) that an album like Animals As Leaders' Animals As Leaders is MUCH more technically proficient and difficult to play than TATR. If you were to argue objectivity in music, you obviously need to decide (comprimise) on the criteria for what makes a band or album objectively 'best'.

And also, Sonata's post was amazing 

[j]

Music is objectively subjective.

Actually, this demonstrates the huge flaw in strict relativism, or claiming that anything is *purely* subjective.  When you claim that, you implicitly state that your own claim that it is subjective, is also subjective.

Anyway, the "objective" components to music are things like the notes being played, the beats and rhythms, etc.  Simple statements of fact that can be made and (for all practical purposes) are basically indisputable.

ANYTHING to do with perceived "quality" of music (i.e. this is good or bad, this is better than that, etc.) is subjective.  Period.  If there is a distinction between your favorite album by a band and the one you think is the "best", that is a distinction between two of your subjective opinions, not between an opinion and a fact.

-J

[Nighthawkwill7]

I don't think there can be objectivity in music since what we consider good or not good at all, comes down to taste and taste is subjective.

No matter how much technicality or feel or soul or groove or vibe or whatever you put into music, there will be those that find it enjoyable and those that don't for different reasons.