Objectivity vs. Subjectivity in Music, Movies, etc

[Dream Team]

This topic appears to have been discussed to death in various threads throughout the forum, and the conclusion always seems to be "there is no good or bad music or movie, it's just the individual's preference". Is that really the case? Don't peoples' lists of "favorites" vs "bests" differ? For instance, I think Voices and Trial of Tears are 2 of D's best-written songs, but they're not in my Top 20 favorites to listen to.

I think Casablanca is the superior movie, but I'd usually rather watch the first Avengers movie which is probably still my favorite movie. I'm curious if other people separate objective vs subjective views of such things. I guess the noise starts when trying to "prove" a movie like Casablanca is objectively better than Avengers. To me these arguments kind of follow the same lines as arguments about morality and whether there actually exists "good" and "bad" or if it's just up to each individual to decide for themselves. But then we get into the whole debate about how "survival of the fittest" and personal morality can justify any behavior and that has to be left to the political/religious subforum.

Personally, I have no problem defending my belief that most pop songs by Britney Spears and her ilk are objectively terrible because of reasons I could happily go into if someone cared to debate me . . . but I realize that is not a popular position to take around here.

Thoughts? Is this a right-brain/left-brain issue or something else? Do forumers acknowledge certain things as being "better" but still preferring something else?

[Implode]

I personally think that art can be judged on some objective qualities that will make some art superior to other art.

[Scorpion]

Could you give an example?

[Randaran]

As far as music goes, I tend to not be very critical of it. I either like it or I do not. It is a bit hard to describe, but music seems more...'intangible', if that makes sense. There is little to point at when compared to other mediums, such as film, where elements such as characterization, direction, themes, and so on come into play. There is only, well, the music and lyrics, which I find much harder to look at with a critical eye.

With other mediums, I find that my enjoyment and the 'objective' quality of the writing, while more connected than with music, are still somewhat independent. So yes, I could say that a film is terrible but still like it.

[Stadler]

This topic appears to have been discussed to death in various threads throughout the forum, and the conclusion always seems to be "there is no good or bad music or movie, it's just the individual's preference". Is that really the case? Don't peoples' lists of "favorites" vs "bests" differ? For instance, I think Voices and Trial of Tears are 2 of D's best-written songs, but they're not in my Top 20 favorites to listen to.

I think Casablanca is the superior movie, but I'd usually rather watch the first Avengers movie which is probably still my favorite movie. I'm curious if other people separate objective vs subjective views of such things. I guess the noise starts when trying to "prove" a movie like Casablanca is objectively better than Avengers. To me these arguments kind of follow the same lines as arguments about morality and whether there actually exists "good" and "bad" or if it's just up to each individual to decide for themselves. But then we get into the whole debate about how "survival of the fittest" and personal morality can justify any behavior and that has to be left to the political/religious subforum.

Personally, I have no problem defending my belief that most pop songs by Britney Spears and her ilk are objectively terrible because of reasons I could happily go into if someone cared to debate me . . . but I realize that is not a popular position to take around here.

Thoughts? Is this a right-brain/left-brain issue or something else? Do forumers acknowledge certain things as being "better" but still preferring something else?

Well, I'm the guy that is strenuously in the "there is no objective 'good' or 'bad' in music and movies", but admittedly, that is because I think to your point, people confuse the objective and the subjective.  I think it is really really rare that anyone actually says "I think Eddie Van Halen is the most technically accomplished guitar player on the planet.  I hate him and his music and playing."   

I think that we are generally poor at articulating what the objective standards are, and I think we tend to select "standards" that reflect our personal tastes.    I have no doubt there is SOME standard somewhere where Britney Spears songs don't fare well (number of key changes per 16 bars?), but invariably it devolves into some form of arbitrary subjective standard.  Is Britney "simpler" music than Dream Theater?  Well, yeah, in terms of notes per minute, but then again, "Yesterday" is one of the simplest songs on the planet, but I wouldn't ever say it was "a bad song" as a result.

I think too often we use these things as badges; I'm "hip" because I listen to "xxx".  I'm cool because I don't listen to "yyy".    And the problem is that "xxx" and "yyy" tends to change. 

[Implode]

Could you give an example?

Michelangelo's paintings vs a 7-year-old's drawing of a puppy.

[RuRoRul]

Well I think all assessments of art are going to be subjective by definition... But I think you can at least try to be more objective when judging something, even if it is impossible to be completely objective.

E.g. "I love this song because it reminds me of that amazing time..." or "This movie introduced me to the genre and really broadened my tastes..." If you were trying to be as objective as possible you could try to dismiss factors that you know are more to do with you and your own subjectivity than to do with the qualities inherent to the thing you are judging. Or if you know you have a bias towards a certain style but you don't necessarily believe that style is better from a "more objective" standpoint, you just know that it happens to resonate with you, you might consider some things outside of that style "better" even if you feel that you "like them less". That's what I would consider the difference between "Favourites" and "Best" lists, that have been mentioned. But your opinion on "the best" is still subjective, it is perhaps just making at least more of an effort to be a bit more neutral ans objective than you might if you are picking "your favourite".

[Dublagent66]

Yeah, I think art is mostly subjective but there can be some objectivity in one's opinion or analysis, especially when comparing one piece of art to another.  But, no matter what, it all usually boils down to taste.  Do you like what you're hearing/seeing?  Doesn't really matter why unless you feel the need to explain it to someone.  I know why I like or dislike something and that's pretty all that matters.

[rumborak]

My definition of art is "something conveyed that is not inherent to the medium". However, that requires a recipient that can recognize/appreciate that "something". So, it is inherently subjective.
The only thing you can objectively judge is the craft aspect.

[Zook]

Could you give an example?

Michelangelo's paintings vs a 7-year-old's drawing of a puppy.

Some paintings that look like they were done by a 7 year old are in museums and sold for millions.

[Implode]

Art is a skill that's developed over years and years of practice. No matter what it looks like, you can't seriously claim that a trained artist is no better than an untrained child.

[Scorpion]

So the creation process is more important that what actually stands at the end of it?

[rumborak]

Art is a skill that's developed over years and years of practice.

You are confusing art with craft. Art is what is *beyond* the craft.
Also, to get this out of the way, enjoyment is not necessary for art either.

[73109]

Could you give an example?

Michelangelo's paintings vs a 7-year-old's drawing of a puppy.

Some paintings that look like they were done by a 7 year old are in museums and sold for millions.

Indeed, and as a dude studying modern and contemporary art, let me be the one to say that those paintings are often brilliant works of art.

Art, especially recent art, i.e. in the 20th century until the present, is all about context and the development of the art world proper.

I just feel the need to say that as the person who is much more interested in, say, Cy Twombly than he is in Michelangelo.

[Implode]

The creation process /is/ what determines what it stands for at the end, or at least part of it. That's how art works. Every choice in a piece should be deliberate and done for a reason that creates the final expression. This is an inherent part of the final product and isn't separate.

And I'm not getting art confused with craft. There is a reason why we pay artists, why there are art schools, and why we hold artists to a higher standard than normal people. Being good at art isn't a gift like so many people think it is. Talent or a predisposition towards helps, but ask any real artist. It takes time. There's no point point in me arguing here since no one agrees with me.

[Zook]

Could you give an example?

Michelangelo's paintings vs a 7-year-old's drawing of a puppy.

Some paintings that look like they were done by a 7 year old are in museums and sold for millions.

Indeed, and as a dude studying modern and contemporary art, let me be the one to say that those paintings are often brilliant works of art.

Art, especially recent art, i.e. in the 20th century until the present, is all about context and the development of the art world proper.

I just feel the need to say that as the person who is much more interested in, say, Cy Twombly than he is in Michelangelo.

Random splotches and scribbles are brilliant works of art?

[PuffyPat]

there is never any "true" objectivity when it comes to art of any kind. every single person has preconceived notions that will affect how someone views something. people always try to be as objective as possible, but there is always going to be a bias. this is the reason why i think there isn't a point in assigning any type of art with a good or bad, or a rating of any kind. i do this all the time, yes, but i know that my views on certain things are highly subjective. there are certain movies or albums or poems that i would consider to be "the best", but what i actually mean is that they are simply my favorite. nothing is the best of it's kind; it simply exists, and we form our personal opinions.

[eric42434224]

If art is truly judged objectively, then it would help if there was the objective checklist and scale to which we solely judge art on.  Obviously there is not one objective list or scale, as art is judged...at least in part...by the emotions invoked in the observer.  This makes the evaluation of art....at least in part...subjective.

I knew a respected sommelier who wrote for the Wine News and Wine Spectator.  I asked about the objective criteria that led to the scores the wines received.  After a long discussion on the objective evaluations, I asked,"but what makes one wine really better than another"?
He replied, "If you like it".


The only real answer is BOTH.  Art is judged both objectively and subjectively.  There are some very well established and legitimate objective criteria to judge art.  But the emotional and individual aspect simply cant be exluded.

[73109]

Could you give an example?

Michelangelo's paintings vs a 7-year-old's drawing of a puppy.

Some paintings that look like they were done by a 7 year old are in museums and sold for millions.

Indeed, and as a dude studying modern and contemporary art, let me be the one to say that those paintings are often brilliant works of art.

Art, especially recent art, i.e. in the 20th century until the present, is all about context and the development of the art world proper.

I just feel the need to say that as the person who is much more interested in, say, Cy Twombly than he is in Michelangelo.

Random splotches and scribbles are brilliant works of art?

Of course!

The idea that art should be pretty or beautiful is a completely anachronistic mentality that was thrown by the wayside after Duchamp and co.

A lot of artists are good artists because they understand how to take the history of art and use it to their advantage in order to create new, interesting works. Cy Twombly is great because he produced the work he did during the height of abstract expressionism. When you view his work in conjunction with both the work immediately preceding it and the history of art, it is pretty awesome.

Art viewing—for better or for worse—became an intellectual activity in the 20th century, one that requires a certain knowledge before one steps in the gallery in order to appreciate the art to its fullest extent. Of course, there have been moments that have tried to subvert that (minimalism is a good example) but even understanding where minimalism is coming from requires art historical knowledge.

It should be noted that art was not always meant to be beautiful. It used to serve an entirely religious/devotional function as well as one used to show the power of royalty. Art started being about beauty in the renaissance and that carried for a very long time until the late 19th century when art started to be about art itself. It started off looking pretty beautiful (think of people like Monet, Renoir, Cezanne, Van Gogh, etc.) but the more the investigation into what exactly painting was, the more weird, ugly, and abstract stuff started looking.

I can go on for a lot longer—i'm very interested in thus stuff. Feel free to ask questions. I do know a lot of what I'm saying with probably fall on deaf ears because many people have the idea that art must be beautiful, that that is the purpose of art. The truth is that any good look into art over the last century has shown why that is demonstrably false. It's also the reason you see people who are "making art" that looks pretty often failing miserably. Hell, painting is kind of dead already. You still have the big dudes who are painting from a long time ago, but the vast majority of major contemporary artists are not painters.

[BlobVanDam]

I personally think that art can be judged on some objective qualities that will make some art superior to other art.

Art can be judged on objective qualities, but whether or not those objective qualities make that art better or worse is still completely subjective, and thus there is no such thing as objectively better or worse.
I can think something is better than another thing for the exact same reason that someone else thinks it's worse, because appreciation and enjoyment of any artform is subjective, and based on our own personal views based on a lifetime of being a unique individual.

In the case of judging "best" vs "favourite", people may think they're applying more objective than subjective measures, but really they're replacing their own subjective measure with a more widely held subjective measure, and is still not objectively better. I think people often mistake majority opinions as being measurably more correct.

Let's say I were to compare a movie widely considered one of the best movies of all time against a movie widely considered one of the worst of all time. I can objectively measure many differences between the two, in terms of technical precision, how natural the performances are, how believable I find the dialogue to be, and call one the better film, and many people might generally think it's obvious one is "better".
But at the end of the day, I could find the "better" movie to be extremely dull and boring, and find the "bad" movie to be hugely entertaining and fun. I have gained more enjoyment out of the "bad" movie. So I could consider that the better movie based on my criteria of enjoyment, and it wouldn't be wrong. If I were to think I was choosing the objectively better movie, I'd go with the other movie, but why is that any more objectively right? I'm just using someone else's criteria. What makes one element more important than another?

You could consider one musical performance better because it was tighter. Someone else may have considered it robotic and emotionless. You could prefer one bit of artwork for being very realistic, while I could prefer a different artwork for being completely abstract and raw instead. You may consider a movie better because of the darker tone. Someone else may hate it for being too dark, etc etc.

I get tired of the objectivity argument. It often just feels like people have a need to validate their opinions and feel like they're right, instead of just accepting and respecting differing tastes as having equal value.

[Cable]

I get tired of the objectivity argument. It often just feels like people have a need to validate their opinions and feel like they're right, instead of just accepting and respecting differing tastes as having equal value.

I am fully with you except for the equal value. If someone compares the song Blurred Lines, vs. Fur Elise or something else of the sort, many would say the later is objectively better, more artistic or whatever else.

I would say contrasting views are not fully equal, as someone with a background in knowing the structure of songs, changes and so on would have a more informed opinion. But yes, people need to accept various tastes. Instead of asking "what do you get out of Blurred Lines," often the 'objective person' would probably cite their knowledge and become arrogant about the prestige of their art music pieces vs. the latest popular song.

And more than a few who like Blurred Lines probably don't give a damn about the components of Fur Elise. 

[BlobVanDam]

I get tired of the objectivity argument. It often just feels like people have a need to validate their opinions and feel like they're right, instead of just accepting and respecting differing tastes as having equal value.

I am fully with you except for the equal value. If someone compares the song Blurred Lines, vs. Fur Elise or something else of the sort, many would say the later is objectively better, more artistic or whatever else.

I would say contrasting views are not fully equal, as someone with a background in knowing the structure of songs, changes and so on would have a more informed opinion. But yes, people need to accept various tastes. Instead of asking "what do you get out of Blurred Lines," often the 'objective person' would probably cite their knowledge and become arrogant about the prestige of their art music pieces vs. the latest popular song.

I've never heard of either of those songs you've mentioned, but it's still judging on personal criteria of what makes something better, isn't it? We can argue all we want about structures and melodies and chord progressions, but it doesn't objectively define something as better, because it's subjective to place importance on that side.

I do get what you're saying, but does having the more "informed" opinion make our overall opinion more correct? It obviously means you have a more complete understanding of that aspect on an extra level that others may not, which is great if you're discussing those particular points, but I'd also argue that it's not necessary or intended to the enjoyment of the end product, and doesn't change the subjectivity of judging good and bad. Is their assessment of good or bad less valid because they're judging it on a different and less technical level?

I love breaking down music and understanding why I feel the way I do about a song, and I feel I do understand that aspect better than someone else as a result (same with movies/TV), but it doesn't make my opinion of that song more correct, I'm just able to articulate it more clearly.
I can say I hate a certain pop song because the vocal melody sticks to the first and minor third of the scale, and the chord progression has been used in these 50 other songs, and the vocals are pitch corrected to hell, but it's only my opinion that those are relevant factors and make the song worse.

[Cable]

I agree too. Maybe the right thing to say is objectively comparing which song structures are better. Which still leaves some room for subjectivity, because someone might think that time signature change at that spot is a bad idea, where another likes it.

Maybe take it from this perspective, and we can all relate to someone making fun of DT. Someone might hear Another Day, and might think that song is bad. And then by extension, they think the band may be bad. And look at that guitarist, says he plays fast, and has no emotion, and song sounds like 80's cheese. When JP actually objectively is very good, and is mostly objective that a lot of his solos have soulful parts. But if someone is like that song sucks, and they give no other reason besides them not liking it, then I wouldn't hold their opinion as high. Where as, someone can notice that JLB has a good control of his higher range in the song, and JP plays some difficult parts, with solid phrasing in the solo. But the song really isn't for them, and they don't like the melodies in it.

I would value the latter's opinion a little more than the first. But ultimately yeah, both opinions are valid, and both have legit reasons to dislike the song. It's just the second gave more sound reasons, rather then dismissing it.

Or using visual art, I cannot really explain what fully goes into an Impressionist piece of art. I know they typically used gobs of paint. But they didn't look as clear as prior paintings of religious figures from the Renaissance. But I like the Impressionist piece better. However, someone who actually studied the techniques to make them, I would value their opinion more. They can tell me more clearly what went into both styles, and maybe what makes one better than the other technique wise. Or, why one was more effective at jarring emotions than the other.

I think Eric42434224 already hit on it though. There are objective ways to measure art, as we both agree on that. But there will always be a subjective nature to the actual emotional appeal, which is the core of any art I think. However, I would still argue that two things may be emotionally jarring, but one may be not as good for objective reasons.

[ThatOneGuy2112]

Art has objective qualities, no doubt.

In music, it'll be something like the tempo of a particular musical passage, or what actual sequence of notes is being played, or what instrument and recording technique is being used. In film, it's a panning shot, for example, or a transcript of a line of dialogue. But how can you even begin to describe to someone that you prefer something one way or the other, or that it all depends on some other sort of arbitrary quality?

For reasons I don't know myself, I often think the clashing differences between the Spanish and English versions of the 1931 Universal film Dracula are a good example of how one filming technique isn't necessarily inherently better than another, and that it all depends on the taste of the individual watching it. For those unaware, the Spanish version of the film was not just a dub; it was a re-cast with all new Spanish actors. The scene I always think of is how each film handles Dracula's entrance.

Watching the English version, we see Bela Lugosi creep closer into the shot in full view the entire time, going unnoticed by Dwight Frye's character, Renfield. The shot remains relatively motionless, and some might insist that this creates an eerie and unnerving sense of dread for Renfield, as we know something that he does not. Lugosi's casual stroll also might be seen as inhuman even, appealing to a more subtle sense of tension.

Now regarding the Spanish version, we have no knowledge of Carlos Villarias, here playing Dracula, coming into stage. The shot is focused solely on Renfield, and then quickly panning towards Villarias (striking a pose I might add). Some might claim that this makes the scene more dramatic and shocking, thus more scary and engaging.

You really could make the case for either scene depending on your preference, and that's the beauty of subjectivity I think. We can point out everything that makes the piece of art it, but at the end of the day, it's not always a blanket criteria we can throw onto art to justify if it's good or not. If art were truly objective, 100%, then wouldn't we have some concrete method of predicting what we're gonna like and dislike? But we don't. I feel that enjoying a piece of art goes beyond more than just satisfying some meaningless bullet-point list of objective qualities. We can certainly explain those qualities in greater detail and call them either well-thought out or not, but at some point we reach a barrier of understanding that separates our tastes. Not every person is going to like Dark Side of the Moon or Casablanca or Michelangelo's paintings, and to be frank, I'm glad for that. It makes life more interesting.

[ariich]

The only thing you can objectively judge is the craft aspect.

This this this this.

Craft (technical skill, if you like) can absolutely be evaluated objectively. But art - whether something is good or not - simply doesn't have a defined set of criteria. Every person has their own criteria.

[Scorpion]

Art has objective qualities, no doubt.

In music, it'll be something like the tempo of a particular musical passage, or what actual sequence of notes is being played, or what instrument and recording technique is being used. In film, it's a panning shot, for example, or a transcript of a line of dialogue. But how can you even begin to describe to someone that you prefer something one way or the other, or that it all depends on some other sort of arbitrary quality?

For reasons I don't know myself, I often think the clashing differences between the Spanish and English versions of the 1931 Universal film Dracula are a good example of how one filming technique isn't necessarily inherently better than another, and that it all depends on the taste of the individual watching it. For those unaware, the Spanish version of the film was not just a dub; it was a re-cast with all new Spanish actors. The scene I always think of is how each film handles Dracula's entrance.

Watching the English version, we see Bela Lugosi creep closer into the shot in full view the entire time, going unnoticed by Dwight Frye's character, Renfield. The shot remains relatively motionless, and some might insist that this creates an eerie and unnerving sense of dread for Renfield, as we know something that he does not. Lugosi's casual stroll also might be seen as inhuman even, appealing to a more subtle sense of tension.

Now regarding the Spanish version, we have no knowledge of Carlos Villarias, here playing Dracula, coming into stage. The shot is focused solely on Renfield, and then quickly panning towards Villarias (striking a pose I might add). Some might claim that this makes the scene more dramatic and shocking, thus more scary and engaging.

You really could make the case for either scene depending on your preference, and that's the beauty of subjectivity I think. We can point out everything that makes the piece of art it, but at the end of the day, it's not always a blanket criteria we can throw onto art to justify if it's good or not. If art were truly objective, 100%, then wouldn't we have some concrete method of predicting what we're gonna like and dislike? But we don't. I feel that enjoying a piece of art goes beyond more than just satisfying some meaningless bullet-point list of objective qualities. We can certainly explain those qualities in greater detail and call them either well-thought out or not, but at some point we reach a barrier of understanding that separates our tastes. Not every person is going to like Dark Side of the Moon or Casablanca or Michelangelo's paintings, and to be frank, I'm glad for that. It makes life more interesting.

I don't think I have ever agreed with a post this much. Very well said.

[Zantera]

not this discussion again...

[Skeever]

The only thing you can objectively judge is the craft aspect.

This this this this.

Craft (technical skill, if you like) can absolutely be evaluated objectively. But art - whether something is good or not - simply doesn't have a defined set of criteria. Every person has their own criteria.

[Chino]

Could you give an example?

Michelangelo's paintings vs a 7-year-old's drawing of a puppy.

One could consider this art;



There is nobody on this Earth that could convince me that it's not shit as far as art standards goes.

[Scorpion]

Why do you care if somebody considers it art?

[BlobVanDam]

One could consider this art;



There is nobody on this Earth that could convince me that it's not shit as far as art standards goes.

And there's also no way you can prove it's objectively shit. I find it very pleasing with its minimalism, vertical symmetry, and achromatic palette. It's like a clear horizon.

[King Postwhore]

I see a Canadian on South Park in that picture.

[Ħ]

"For instance, I think Voices and Trial of Tears are 2 of D's best-written songs, but they're not in my Top 20 favorites to listen to."

That's one of the same reasons I think there is a difference between what makes a song subjectively great (It's just your favorite!) and what makes a song, well, not subjectively great, but great according to some objective standard.

[Stadler]

Could you give an example?

Michelangelo's paintings vs a 7-year-old's drawing of a puppy.

But this is my point.  There might be an objective criteria on which Michelangelo "wins", but it is sloppy to then say "Michelangelo is better than that 7-year old" unless you can articulate what that standard is, and get everyone to agree that that should be the standard.

For me (and I don't suppose I am right, I just offer it up), about the only standard that could qualify art universally as "good" or "bad" is "how close did I, the artist, come to my ultimate vision"?    Michelangelo isn't likely better or worse than the 7-year old, except that he is likely able to more consistently attempt to evoke complex emotions from his "listeners" and more consistently achieve that evocation.

A better example is "Ohio" by CSNY.  That to me is an example of what one might consider "good art".  It doesn't matter if anyone likes the tune, or is okay with the vocals being out of pitch; the idea was succinct:  "I, Neil Young, saw this picture of four dead students, and expressed the resulting emotion.  THAT DAY, we played it as a group, and Dave Crosby GOT that emotion, to the point he is heard to be screaming and crying on the record.   Ahmet Ertegun (through Graham Nash) got the emotion, and made the entire company press the record in record time and get it out in two weeks, unheard of at the time.".   All parties involved regularly say "that is what art is all about, that's why I got into music to start with".   

And it doesn't matter one bit if anyone here actually "likes" the song. 

[Stadler]

The creation process /is/ what determines what it stands for at the end, or at least part of it. That's how art works. Every choice in a piece should be deliberate and done for a reason that creates the final expression. This is an inherent part of the final product and isn't separate.

And I'm not getting art confused with craft. There is a reason why we pay artists, why there are art schools, and why we hold artists to a higher standard than normal people. Being good at art isn't a gift like so many people think it is. Talent or a predisposition towards helps, but ask any real artist. It takes time. There's no point point in me arguing here since no one agrees with me.

And what does that last sentence tell you?  Haha, I'm kidding.   I don't "not agree" with you, I just do think you are confusing art and craft.  I have played guitar for over 30 years.  I can - and have - played professionally.  I've been lucky enough to have played an arena in my band (this is true, by the way).  But I am not an artist.  I'm just not.   I have CRAFT, and if a 7-year old and I sat in a room together, you would notice the difference.  Perhaps not as drastic as with Michelangelo, but still.  Yet I am not an artist.   I couldn't sit at the edge of a stage with an acoustic guitar and have 17,000 people DEAD SILENT listening to me (as I personally saw Garth Brooks do).  I can't stand there with an acoustic guitar and play a song and make several hundred people cry (as I personally saw Paul McCartney do).   I can't play my rock music and get 10,000 people to rip up the turf on the field they are standing on (as I personally saw Pearl Jam do). 

the difference for me is that yes, art has some objective measures that can be used.  But they are irrelevant in terms of extrapolating to a larger truth.  An MBA would say "they are not scalable".  And that's the essence, at least of my argument.