The 'Music is Objective/Subjective' lol thread

[ehra]

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?"

Actually, yes we can. It's part of living in a society with other people; there are rules that you are expected to conform to if you want to be accepted into the group. It doesn't really matter if the rules are objectively wrong or right, if you want to interact positively with other people then you need to play right by their rules; right being defined by that particular group of people.

More technical? More soulful? We don't have a concept of the absolute of any of these ideas. We have a human definition

Congratulations, numbers. You finally realized how language and interaction between humans works; agreed upon definitions of sounds and noises with no real objective meaning.

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

No, that's not what it means. Specifics may be debated over, but the general idea of what "technical skill" means is pretty solid. You almost NEVER hear someone use "technical" to describe a simple but emotional solo because that's not what the term refers to. And people who use the term know that, which is why it's used to describe some things but not others.

You're really the only person in this thread that seems to be having any issue understanding what people mean when the term is used. While that's unfortunate for you, it doesn't mean that no one has any idea what it could possibly be referring to.

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

It'd be excusable if you didn't make such terrible arguments 


In before "what does 'terrible' mean?"

[73109]

Arguing this is really futile, because for the most part, we agree. I just take it to more of an extreme level.

Now, I'll stop arguing, because like I said, it's me vs. everyone vs. Hayden, so whatever. However, I'll leave with this...

Why is it that as players get closer to the "technical absolute," it gets more difficult to place them in order. Who is the more technical? Satch? Vai? Petrucci? Yngwie? Loomis?

Ever think it could be that all we really have is some vague idea as opposed to a real definition, because with a real definition, we could place every single one of those dudes in order without a problem.

Anyways, I'll stop now.

[ehra]

I'd say it's more because most people aren't able to play as well as those people and it's hard to judge relative difficulties in playing things that you yourself aren't able to play, especially once you start getting into musicians that use a wide range of techniques and produce music that's technically difficult for different reasons. And the people that can aren't likely to get together, compare, and tell us, so the discussion becomes more of a "who would win, superman or batman?" argument than anything else.

[LCArenas]

Everything's subjective, and something objective is something subjective, but that has the same opinion in a vast majority of people.

[ehra]

Nope.

[73109]

Everything's subjective, and something objective is something subjective, but that has the same opinion in a vast majority of people.

Yep.

[Sigz]

Whether or not a solo has 'feel' is subjective simply because feel is totally subjective. There's no way to measure the emotion conveyed by a solo. Technicality, however, is at least partly measurable - it's pretty clear that Dance of Eternity is harder to replicate than Smoke on the Water, i.e. fewer musicians are able to perform it. Not really sure what's so hard to understand about all this.

[ehra]

Everything's subjective, and something objective is something subjective, but that has the same opinion in a vast majority of people.

Yep.

We already went over how that's wrong. Like, just a few posts ago.

[zxlkho]

Everything's subjective, and something objective is something subjective, but that has the same opinion in a vast majority of people.

Yep.

Yessir.


So I guess it's everyone vs. ehra vs. Hayden.

[ehra]

Only if you can't read the thread.

[zxlkho]

I can read, it's just that your argument is incorrect.

[ehra]

1) That has nothing to do with no one agreeing with me that technicality = objective (to a degree).

2) Feel free to point out what's wrong with it.

[Sigz]

1) That has nothing to do with no one agreeing with me that technicality = objective (to a degree).

I'm agreeing with you.

[zxlkho]

2) Feel free to point out what's wrong with it.

I would, but...

Arguing this is really futile

[Sigz]

Just because no one's changed their opinion doesn't make an discussion futile.

[skydivingninja]

Whether or not a solo has 'feel' is subjective simply because feel is totally subjective. There's no way to measure the emotion conveyed by a solo. Technicality, however, is at least partly measurable - it's pretty clear that Dance of Eternity is harder to replicate than Smoke on the Water, i.e. fewer musicians are able to perform it. Not really sure what's so hard to understand about all this.

I'm with you man.

[73109]

ehra, sigs, and sdn vs everyone vs me and ryan vs Hayden!!!! LET'S GO!!!!!!

[skydivingninja]

Figuring out who's with or against anybody is subjective, y'know.

[ehra]

1) That has nothing to do with no one agreeing with me that technicality = objective (to a degree).

I'm agreeing with you.

Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make. He was acting like I was arguing on my own (as if it meant anything either way) when simply reading the thread would show that wasn't the case.

2) Feel free to point out what's wrong with it.

I would, but...

Arguing this is really futile

So why mention it at all?

[73109]

Let's stop shall we?

[ariich]

i think the onluy thing people can tink of is statistical facts. say for dream theatre, if you were to make a poll of their best albums which one is best album, images and words would win,. that is objective data, but is it the best album? hmmmmm

That is NOT objective at all. It's just a statistic of everyone's subjective opinions.

If someone said Systematic Chaos was DT's best album, I would call them an idiot, but they would also be just as right as someone who said I&W was the best.

What James said is correct. It is objective data (e.g. it would be objective fact that more DT fans like I&W than SC, if that is what the statistics show), but that doesn't inform a conclusion about quality. I've seen people try to use that argument regarding DT albums but then state that the rule doesn't apply when it comes to pop bands like the Backstreet Boys being more popular than DT.

It is an objective statistic, but how good something is is completely 100% down to the individual.

[skydivingninja]

Yyyyyyyyup!

[ZBomber]

I hate all of you guys, and by extension, myself for clicking on this thread in the first place.

[Bedwetting Cosmonaut]

The only objective truth:

Steven Wilson is the Father, Casey Crescenzo is the Son, and Jesse Lacey is the Holy Ghost.

Yeah.

BC

[BlobVanDam]

The only objective truth:

Steven Wilson is the Father, Casey Crescenzo is the Son, and Jesse Lacey is the Holy Ghost.

Yeah.

BC

no, who? and who?

[TheOutlawXanadu]

All it comes down to is this: If you really think that the quality of music is objective, try and argue that one album is objectively better than another album. You're going to realize real quick that it's impossible to do.

[Marvellous G]

I think music is objective; I wouldn't classify most of my favourite bands as truly 'great,' I just enjoy them a lot. There's a clear difference between 'good' and 'something I enjoy' to my mind when talking about music, I just can't ever articulate it and I end up losing the argument, so I'll admit defeat before even starting to discuss this here. 

[Ravenheart]

There's a clear difference between 'good' and 'something I enjoy' to my mind when talking about music

That doesn't make it any more objective, though.

[Sigz]

It seems like everyone who claims objectivity says that there's some hidden metric that can't really be described - like "well, this album feels better, even though I like this one more". That's in no way objectivity though - unless you can provide a clear line of reasoning supported by sound assumptions as to why it's better, it's juts something you've made up.

[Implode]

I do think there is an objectivity to music. However, it's not one the people can necessarily use to judge it.

Objectivity in music is in its merit as music. I'm not going to be snooty and say that only certain genres can be considered music.  To me, the only way you can say if a song is objectively good or bad is if the song accomplishes a goal of communication intended or unintended by the artist. I hold the same kind of standard for all kinds of art. Art is there not just for an artist to get a message out, but it is there to provoke thoughts and feelings about ourselves and the world we live in. If an work accomplishes that in anyway, it was been successful.

[BlobVanDam]

I think music is objective; I wouldn't classify most of my favourite bands as truly 'great,' I just enjoy them a lot. There's a clear difference between 'good' and 'something I enjoy' to my mind when talking about music, I just can't ever articulate it and I end up losing the argument, so I'll admit defeat before even starting to discuss this here. 

I think it's a case of confusing or accepting a wider majority opinion of something as the "objective" comparison perhaps?
For example, let's just say I prefer The Dance of Eternity to Learning To Live (I don't, but hypothetically), but I think that "objectively" LTL is the better song. Really it's just that I'm aware of wider opinions and am able to view it through a more general viewpoint, rather than my own opinion. It's still entirely subjective, no matter how strong anyone's opinion or reasoning is, because those reasons are still entirely subjective.
Very little of music can be compared objectively, because at its foundation, you're still measuring based on subjective ideas of what makes it better or worse. Which is why I may love a song for the exact reasons someone else hates it.

[Marvellous G]

I think music is objective; I wouldn't classify most of my favourite bands as truly 'great,' I just enjoy them a lot. There's a clear difference between 'good' and 'something I enjoy' to my mind when talking about music, I just can't ever articulate it and I end up losing the argument, so I'll admit defeat before even starting to discuss this here. 

I think it's a case of confusing or accepting a wider majority opinion of something as the "objective" comparison perhaps?
For example, let's just say I prefer The Dance of Eternity to Learning To Live (I don't, but hypothetically), but I think that "objectively" LTL is the better song. Really it's just that I'm aware of wider opinions and am able to view it through a more general viewpoint, rather than my own opinion. It's still entirely subjective, no matter how strong anyone's opinion or reasoning is, because those reasons are still entirely subjective.
Very little of music can be compared objectively, because at its foundation, you're still measuring based on subjective ideas of what makes it better or worse. Which is why I may love a song for the exact reasons someone else hates it.

I think that's probably a very, very large part of it, although there are certain much-lauded albums that I don't think are as objectively good as some albums that have a generally 'bad' consensus. Although I'm sure a lot of the time your idea is right.

[Ħ]

I find the objective/subjective debate very very similar to the tier-war debate in Super Smash Bros Melee.  Are some characters definitively better than others or are they all up to "interpretation"?

Marth > Roy

[Ravenheart]

Except the two aren't comparable at all.

[ZBomber]

I find the objective/subjective debate very very similar to the tier-war debate in Super Smash Bros Melee.  Are some characters definitively better than others or are they all up to "interpretation"?

Marth > Roy

Hayden, you should just leave the bizarre analogies to me. I feel like, somehow, mine actually make more sense than yours do.