The 'Music is Objective/Subjective' lol thread

[Ħ]

It's just like anything else.  Things in the world just aren't equal.  There are better and worse sports teams.  There are better and worse leaders.  There are better and worse kinds of food.  It just follows that there are better and worse pieces of music.

[Sigz]

unless you can provide a clear line of reasoning supported by sound assumptions as to why it's better, it's just something you've made up.

[MasterShakezula]

What would you say are the best and worst individual pieces of music in the world, Hayden?

I'm currently listening to Chamelion by Helloween, and I think it may be the worst album in the world, if not for the fact that the first song is totally awesome.  (In an 80s cheez-wiz sorta way).

[ZBomber]

It's just like anything else.  Things in the world just aren't equal.  There are better and worse sports teams.  There are better and worse leaders.  There are better and worse kinds of food.  It just follows that there are better and worse pieces of music.

...

Sports teams have competitions where they compete against each other. There are clear winners in things like the Super Bowl. Yet, one could argue a team is still a "better team" than one that won the competition.

Music CAN'T have a winner because what is "best" depends solely on someone's taste. There may be elements in music that YOU find make good music, but someone who listens to noise/hardcore/boybands would have completely different justifications as to what makes something "good".

[Ħ]

I guess the only way to truly know the objective value of music is to get a large enough sample size of unbiased virgin listeners to rank a group of songs, or something.  That's competition.

[Sigz]

...that's not objective AT ALL.

[MasterShakezula]

If you're an ad executive or a pop music marketer, a song can have objective value based on its volume. 

[ClairvoyantCat]

I guess the only way to truly know the objective value of music is to get a large enough sample size of unbiased virgin listeners to rank a group of songs, or something.  That's competition.

So then you'd have a general popular opinion.  Not an objective scale.  Sigz keeps bringing it up and you continue to ignore it.

unless you can provide a clear line of reasoning supported by sound assumptions as to why it's better, it's just something you've made up.

[ZBomber]

...that's not objective AT ALL.

 

[ehra]

I guess the only way to truly know the objective value of music is to get a large enough sample size of unbiased virgin listeners to rank a group of songs, or something.  That's competition.

FFS, cut your hair.

[Ravenheart]

I guess the only way to truly know the objective value of music is to get a large enough sample size of unbiased virgin listeners to rank a group of songs, or something.  That's competition.

FFS, cut your hair.

[Ħ]

Sigz keeps bringing it up and you continue to ignore it.

unless you can provide a clear line of reasoning supported by sound assumptions as to why it's better, it's just something you've made up.

You haven't done the same, and my viewpoint is "objective until proven subjective", so I'm sticking with "objective".

[Sigz]

I haven't done the same because by definition a subjective statement has no line reasoning to back it up. If you're going to say "X is objectively better than Y" you have to be able to explain the reasoning behind it, otherwise it's not objective. Simply saying you think it's objective doesn't make it so, and saying "well these other things are so this must be too" isn't either.

[Ħ]

Hmm...what about this?

https://brindedcow.umd.edu/philosophy/opinions.html

Based on this, I'd say my opinion (or the opinion of most DTFers) is more reflective of objective reality than your average top 40 listener.

[zxlkho]

I'd say my opinion (or the opinion of most DTFers) is more reflective of objective reality than your average top 40 listener.

The fact that anyone can possibly think this is true is completely baffling to me. Ignorance at its finest.

[Ħ]

Not all opinions are equal.  Seeing as I listen to a truckload of music, play multiple instruments, know music theory, and am an attentive listener, I'd say my opinions on music hold more water than someone's like my mom's.  She only flips on the radio every once in a while.

[73109]

You have a better understanding of music, so your opinion might hold more weight to another, but it does not make you any more right than your mom.

[Ħ]

I don't have to be, but I likely am.

[zxlkho]

It's blowing my mind that you still aren't getting this concept, and I was going to attempt to explain it to you one more time, but it's just hopeless.

[73109]

Ok Hayden, I understand your point of view. I really do. I had to deal with it in my philosophy class, so I've become accustomed to it. My issue is not that you think it is objective, it is that you think it is objective but have no means of a definite scale to back up your thesis.

[Sigz]

If you're going to say "X is objectively better than Y" you have to be able to explain the reasoning behind it, otherwise it's not objective.

Regardless of how much music you've listened to, how much music theory you know, or any other reason or paper you can throw out there, until you can answer that you can't demonstrate that music, or your opinion on it, is objective.

[Perpetual Change]

If you're going to say "X is objectively better than Y" you have to be able to explain the reasoning behind it, otherwise it's not objective.

Regardless of how much music you've listened to, how much music theory you know, or any other reason or paper you can throw out there, until you can answer that you can't demonstrate that music, or your opinion on it, is objective.

Yeah, I agree.

Saying x is better than y is one thing. Being able to give quantitative reasons why is another. I suspect you won't be able to do that without it being completely lolworthy, so right now I can't see this whole objective standards for music being anything more than authoritative chest-pounding (aka, people thinking they have better tastes just because they play an instrument or something).

[skydivingninja]

I play bass and know some music theory therefore my opinion on bass players is objectively correct.

Pete Wentz is the greatest bassist of the century and Les Claypool is an insult. 

[ZBomber]

I just want to say that I am objectively better than Hayden because I am

[Bedwetting Cosmonaut]

I am objectively seeing Opeth tonight in live concert and Hayden is not.

BC

[Jirpo]

There are better and worse kinds of food.  It just follows that there are better and worse pieces of music.

These two aren't true, unless you mean healthwise for food.

[Ħ]

How are you guys not getting it?

What I'm saying is much like the philosophical idea of "true knowledge" vs. "head knowledge."  It's been a while, so I forgot the actual terms, but hopefully these suffice.  "True knowledge" is that which is objectively true.  "Head knowledge" is basically true knowledge run through the filter of our individual perspectives.  Since no one is omnipotent, no one knows what "true knowledge" actually is.  But as we learn more, we try to make the overlap between our head knowledge and true knowledge as high as possible.

This can be used to compare the perspectives and opinions of two different people.  Let's say Person A knows 10% there is to know about music, and Person B knows 1%.  These numbers are just arbitrary for arguments sake.  All that really means in the context of true knowledge is that Person A's perspective is 10x less "foggy" than Person B's.  If I were to put money on who's "head knowledge" overlapped with "true knowledge" the most, I'd bet on Person A (even though there remains the possibility that Person B actually has more true knowledge overlap).

That's why I've been careful to use words like "probably" and "likely".  There is no way to know with 100% certainty the objective quality of music.  But as we listen more, learn more, etc., our views grow ever more clear.  That's why I said that I probably "know" more (i.e. have more true knowledge overlap) than someone like my mom.

[ehra]

What does knowing a lot about and having a lot of experience with something have to do with that something being objective?

[Sigz]

Dude, all of this is irrelevant until you can actually prove that 'true knowledge' of music actually exists. You've yet to directly answer my point, and I'm on the verge of just giving up after having repeated it four times.

[skydivingninja]

How are you guys not getting it?

What I'm saying is much like the philosophical idea of "true knowledge" vs. "head knowledge."  It's been a while, so I forgot the actual terms, but hopefully these suffice.  "True knowledge" is that which is objectively true.  "Head knowledge" is basically true knowledge run through the filter of our individual perspectives.  Since no one is omnipotent, no one knows what "true knowledge" actually is.  But as we learn more, we try to make the overlap between our head knowledge and true knowledge as high as possible.

This can be used to compare the perspectives and opinions of two different people.  Let's say Person A knows 10% there is to know about music, and Person B knows 1%.  These numbers are just arbitrary for arguments sake.  All that really means in the context of true knowledge is that Person A's perspective is 10x less "foggy" than Person B's.  If I were to put money on who's "head knowledge" overlapped with "true knowledge" the most, I'd bet on Person A (even though there remains the possibility that Person B actually has more true knowledge overlap).

That's why I've been careful to use words like "probably" and "likely".  There is no way to know with 100% certainty the objective quality of music.  But as we listen more, learn more, etc., our views grow ever more clear.  That's why I said that I probably "know" more (i.e. have more true knowledge overlap) than someone like my mom.

You're also assuming that there's a limit to what people can know about music.  And if you don't know what "true knowledge" is in the first place, how do you know that your opinions/"knowledge" overlap with it?

You're trying to place objective bounds over the quality of music, bounds which don't exist and really can never exist.  Even if you know a lot about composing music, or how music works, saying one song is objectively better than another can't work.  There's really no way to give a piece of music an objective "score" if you will.  There isn't some universal criteria.  There CAN'T be a universal criteria.  Music as a whole is too big and the amount of music in the world is constantly growing at an exponential rate.  Quality is in the ear of the beholder. 

Sure you can use your music theory knowledge to examine the song, look at how the harmonies, melodies, and rhythms all interact with each other, and maybe that gives you more of an appreciation, which makes you like the song more, but you can't use that as a basis for why one song is better than another.

[ehra]

Let's say that tomorrow someone proves that blue is objectively the best color in the world. What use does this realization have? What does "objectively best color" even mean, and in what way could that knowledge be applied?

[Gorille85]

Not all opinions are equal.  Seeing as I listen to a truckload of music, play multiple instruments, know music theory, and am an attentive listener, I'd say my opinions on music hold more water than someone's like my mom's.  She only flips on the radio every once in a while.

 

[Ħ]

Dude, all of this is irrelevant until you can actually prove that 'true knowledge' of music actually exists. You've yet to directly answer my point, and I'm on the verge of just giving up after having repeated it four times.

Okay, I'm latching on to what you are saying.  Nothing can be "better" than anything else without a "better"-determining standard, even though X could be objectively more harmonious/melodic/whatever than Y.

Let me ask if I'm getting this.  Back to the SSBM example, it would be incorrect to say "Marth is 'better' than Roy", but it would be correct to say "Marth is better at winning than Roy".  Is this along the lines of what you're saying?

[Zantera]

There a lots of things that are objective, but there is no way that things like music, movies or food can be considered objective IMO, because it all depends on the individual's taste.

That's how I see it at least.

[Adami]

There a lots of things that are objective, but there is no way that things like music, movies or food can be considered objective IMO, because it all depends on the individual's taste.

That's how I see it at least.

I disagree about foods, cauliflower is objectively worse than things that aren't cauliflower.