The 'Music is Objective/Subjective' lol thread

[MasterShakezula]

I refuse to recognize Al Qaeda's authority over objectivity or subjectivity, but I do agree that whether or not it's rude to spit in one's face can vary.

[Gadough]

Discussing this subject is like trying to convince a Christian to become an Atheist, or vice versa. It's a waste of time and neither party will be swayed.

[73109]

Discussing this subject is like trying to convince a Christian to become an Atheist, or vice versa. It's a waste of time and neither party will be swayed.

This is hysterical on so many levels.

[zxlkho]

Discussing this subject is like trying to convince a Christian to become an Atheist, or vice versa. It's a waste of time and neither party will be swayed.

This is hysterical on so many levels.

It's also completely true.

[73109]

I'd also like to point out something about the apple pie vs. dirt debate...

I fucking hate mayo...my mom doesn't. Who's right? OH YEAH!!! IF FORGOT!!!!!!!! THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS AN OBJECTIVE PALLET!!!!!

[Jirpo]

I was going to post this in the other thread, but then I realized this thread was here:



Do you guys need an example of subjectivity?
I think the new Dream Theater album is not good. Am I correct? Yes.
You think the new Dream Theater album is good. Are you correct? Yes.
How fucking hard is this concept, people.

Seriously, this. Its not very hard to grasp. All art forms are really subjective.

[skydivingninja]

I'd also like to point out something about the apple pie vs. dirt debate...

I fucking hate mayo...my mom doesn't. Who's right? OH YEAH!!! IF FORGOT!!!!!!!! THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS AN OBJECTIVE PALLET!!!!!

Well...there is.  Two people can eat a dish of paella.  One person can definitely taste the saffron, for instance, but the other person could miss it entirely.  Assuming the paella WAS made with saffron, the first person's palate is objectively better.  As for taste preference though its obviously subjective. 

Which is kind of like music.  Two people could listen to Metropolis.  Both hear John Myung's bass solo.  One says he is very skilled while the other disagrees.  In this instance, the second person is objectively wrong, since the technique for that solo is quite difficult and Myung plays many complicated difficult parts throughout the song.  However, if those two people heard the Metropolis bass solo, and one said it was amazing while the other thought it was unnecessary and boring, neither of them are wrong.  That's where subjective opinions come in.  I don't see how the objective/subjective thing keeps on getting brought up.  It seems like a fairly simple concept to grasp.

[73109]

I still think you're off with your objective pallet and bass solos but I have an insane view of subjectivity.

[Jirpo]

Is this debate subjective? Like, if someone thinks music is subjective and someone thinks it isn't, are they both right?

[zxlkho]

I think technicality can be objective as well. Someone who is well versed and talented in an instrument can write a part they they find relatively easy to play, but to someone else it may be extremely difficult or near impossible.

[Zook]

Ripper in my avatar is objectively drunk.

[73109]

But who's to say what technicality is? In the end, it's a human definition.

[zxlkho]

But who's to say what technicality is? In the end, it's a human definition.

This is true, and it backs up my point.

[73109]

I think this is a time to say that I think the only truth that exists independent of reality is math. No matter what, one and one is two. I need to look into the philosophy of science before I make a decision on that.

Oh, and truth by definition also. It is objectively true that an unmarried man is a bachelor.

[skydivingninja]

I still think you're off with your objective pallet and bass solos but I have an insane view of subjectivity.

Not the quality of the bass solo, just recognizing that yes, that particular bass solo demonstrates Myung's technical skill that he does possess.  As for the palate, any chef will tell you that people can have objectively better palates.  Preferring one taste to another isn't really included in the definition of a better palate though.

[73109]

Yes, but what you are failing to understand about my opinion is that I personally strip everything down so that one can say, "What makes playing a million notes a minute 'technical'?"

[Sigz]

Because it requires ability and precision that few people, even few musicians, possess.

[skydivingninja]

Because it requires ability and precision that few people, even few musicians, possess.

This.  Objectively, Yngwie Malmsteen is a faster guitarist than, say, Kurt Cobain was.  Objectively, he is more skilled than Kurt Cobain was.  Was he a better guitarist though?  Depends on who's answering and their personal tastes. 

[73109]

Because it requires ability and precision that few people, even few musicians, possess.

But who says that is the definition of technicality?

It has come to be the common definition amongst most people, but it can be open to other definitions so I think it is a massively subjective term, but it results in near nihilism, so it's rather irrelevant. What I'm talking about is a little weirder than music now.

[King Postwhore]

Because it requires ability and precision that few people, even few musicians, possess.

This.  Objectively, Yngwie Malmsteen is a faster guitarist than, say, Kurt Cobain was.  Objectively, he is more skilled than Kurt Cobain was.  Was he a better guitarist though?  Depends on who's answering and their personal tastes.

I've always said I'd take Gilmour over Malmsteen because one great note is better than a thousand good ones.

[ClairvoyantCat]

The thing about trying to compare technical skill objectively is that there are so many different disciplines and aspects of technical ability in music that trying to measure up different musicians in terms of technical skill is at best a bit shaky and at worst completely impossible. 

[73109]

Exactly...and the definition of technical is:

 having special and usually practical knowledge especially of a mechanical or scientific subject

So who's to say King doesn't believe that by his own definition DG is the more technical guitarist? It's open to interpretation which leads to subjectivity, but once again, it doesn't really get us anywhere, so all we can do it stick by modern definitions and go from there.

[King Postwhore]

It definitely a personal thing.  I agree numbers.  That's always been my mantra.

[Sigz]

The thing about trying to compare technical skill objectively is that there are so many different disciplines and aspects of technical ability in music that trying to measure up different musicians in terms of technical skill is at best a bit shaky and at worst completely impossible.

Sure, but we're not talking about comparing musicians. It's pretty obvious that something like the As I Am solo is technical, simply because few musicians are able to play it. Whether it's 'more' technical some other shred solo is certainly harder to say.

[73109]

BUT WHAT IS TECHNICAL!?!?!? If you define technical as "hard to play" than the solo to Comfortably Numb is infinitely more "technical" than the most insane solo JP or Yngwie could ever hope to come up with. Hard to play in my opinion means able to sound like the CD. There are a million dudes out there that can play 15 notes a second. No one sounds like DG. So, by that method, DG is the more technical player. Of course, you disagree, but all that does it strengthen my point that everything...EVERYTHING...is subjective.

[Sigz]

Hard to play in my opinion means able to sound like the CD.

So having complex/fiddly effects chains = technical?

[Ħ]

Okay I have another thought.

I like Surrounded more then Learning to Live.  I would rank it higher.  But if I was trying to be objective in my ranking, I'd put Learning to Live higher.

So...there are intangible "elements" that make music good.  Adjectives we don't have words for.  But they exist, apparently.

[Sigz]

If you can't explain why you'd rank something higher, then you're not being objective.

[Adami]

I object to this subject.

[Ravenheart]

I keep trying to think of something new to add to this discussion, but I think others have conveyed points I would have made, plus much more coherently and better than I could.

I would like to stress, though, that all this bullshit about there being "objectivity" in the quality of music is ridiculous. Music can't be compared to a political agenda or a business strategy. They're completely different entities in this world that have entirely different effects on individuals and communities.

[SPNKr]

Sure you can sound like DG, just need to have the right feel like his and no he's not a technical player. Pentatonic minor ≠ technicality. Of course I've only assumed he mainly uses pentatonics like the minor and blues. I don't know what he exactly used/uses.

[ehra]

BUT WHAT IS TECHNICAL!?!?!? If you define technical as "hard to play" than the solo to Comfortably Numb is infinitely more "technical" than the most insane solo JP or Yngwie could ever hope to come up with. Hard to play in my opinion means able to sound like the CD.

That's a pretty crappy definition of "hard to play" considering that, to a degree, it has absolutely nothing to do with your ability to "play"your instrument  and instead is based on your ability to figure out and replicate all of the effects going on in the album ("ololo you've got a shitty amp, you've got no technical guitar playing skill"). The closest definition I can think of is that technicality is being able to play whatever the sheet music says, regardless of how difficult and regardless of how it "sounds."

Of course, you disagree, but all that does it strengthen my point that everything...EVERYTHING...is subjective.

Something moving in a straight line at 10 miles per hour is objectively moving faster than something moving in a straight line at 5 miles per hour.

[snapple]

Music is a lot like love, it's all a feeling
And it fills the room, from the floor to the ceiling/quote] - ICP, Miracles.

[ZBomber]

Okay I have another thought.

I like Surrounded more then Learning to Live.  I would rank it higher.  But if I was trying to be objective in my ranking, I'd put Learning to Live higher.

So...there are intangible "elements" that make music good.  Adjectives we don't have words for.  But they exist, apparently.

No. That's just you thinking one song might be better than something, but you personally have a soft spot for a different song.

[73109]

Ok, I'll try to explain my point using morality and a little but of philosophy.

Many people don't realize how difficult it actually is to come to the conclusion about moral relativism. On the surface, it seems like an easy choice,  but when you examine the effects it has on society, they kinda suck. In saying that morals are not universal, we can't technically punish the man who killed and raped his entire family because "Who's to say he didn't think what he was doing was moral? Who are we to judge?"

Even if you do believe in moral relativism, what it really does is shrink to moral nihilism and all ethics becomes null and void. So in order to fix it, one needs to understand that we all have moral relativism, but act in such a way that most of society would find you to be a "moral" character.

The same can be said for what I'm talking about. In my personal view, everything in music is subjective. When I say everything, I don't mean everything. That would be stupid. Wait for Sleep is shorter than ACOS, but that's not what I'm getting at. Better? More technical? More soulful? We don't have a concept of the absolute of any of these ideas. We have a human definition and all it seems, is that we as a people try to place people closer and closer to that absolute. Yngwie is closer to "THE TECHNICAL GUITARIST" than David Gilmour is. Now, this actually interests me because this entire process is called Essentialism and was originally founded by Plato.

My issue with this way of looking at things is that we have no idea how to really define technical. We have a fuzzy definition, and when one would ask another what their definition of technical was, odds are, you'd get a different answer from person to person. So, what that means to me is that there really is not way to define who is more technical than another; who is more soulful than another. However, this world view really dissolves into "definitional" nihilism. So, what do I do to get out of it? I act in accordance with the modern fuzzy definition. I know that no one can really prove that Yngwie is the more technical guitarist, but you kinda need to go with it, because otherwise, everything you do when comparing two musicians is futile.

Excuse the philosophy rant. I'm kinda on a kick with it.