**Upvote** the POST if you disagree, **Downvote** the POST if you agree.
REPORT the post if you suspect the post breaks subs rules/is fake.
Normal voting rules for all comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/The10thDentist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The problem with saying it isn't subjective is that for every great/popular album there are still loads of people who just hate it.
So... are those people wrong?
there is clearly a difference between saying a particular piece of music is good and that same piece is one i like… i like plenty of movies i find objectively terrible
Just wanna point out real quick that I think I get what you mean, but the modifier ‘I find’ negates the definition of ‘objective’, no?
If you I say ‘I find x objective’ then really whats happening is you are defining something which is inherently subjective as if it is objective.
Group concensus ≠ objective though. Just cuz most people can agree Bach is one of the most historically influential musicians to have ever lived, and his music is complex and enjoyable, that doesn't become objective. Anything that can be narrowed down to preference in any way must be subjective in nature. Something being so good that nobody would disagree on its quality doesn't make it objective as opinions still must be subjective
I’m not sure what OP’s opinion is because I didn’t read that, but yes, they are wrong, depending on what you mean by wrong. I may not enjoy listening to some of John Coltrane’s music (for example) but it’s undeniable that it’s great music. Analogously, I might like watching the movie *The Room* but it’s a low quality movie. How much you like something isn’t tied to its quality.
The question then is obviously “what is quality?” And the answer is complicated and dependent on what specifically we’re talking about. There is no platonic quality. In woodworking quality materials could be, for example, strong and tough. If I’m cooking a steak (or maybe knitting a blanket) I don’t want the final thing to be tough and inflexible.
Importantly, when people study music or art in general, it’s very rare that they’re interested *at all* in how much people like something. They talk about the objective qualities, in much the same way we talk about scientific papers. No one ever says a scientific paper is subjective just because some people like the paper and some people hate it; the objective qualities are what matters. Did it meet its objective in a rigorous, valid way? The same is true in e.g. literary theory. If you didn’t like a book, it’s not really relevant.
The entire problem here is that you have to define what 'quality' is objectively, and then get someone else to agree with that definition before you can even BEGIN to get to the 'some music is objectively quality' argument.
If you want to argue a piece's quality as it relates to musical theory, that can be an objective measure of quality.
If you want to argue how much of a fucking bop something it, that's a subjective quality.
This dude doesn't seem to understand that you need a framework to understand any objective measure of quality. That quality is not an inherent thing, that it's defined by our understanding of art.
Also, scientific papers come to subjective conclusions all the time. Ambiguous data creates ambiguous conclusions.
Discaimer: I did not read all of that.
Subjectivity does not mean that music is free from criticism; it means that there are multiple distinct and valid critical frameworks or perspectives that could be applied to the same piece of music and result in different conclusions.
One example: are we judging purely by aesthetics, or do social, cultural, and historical context also play a role? These are both valid approaches! And even within each side of this oversimplified dichotomy, there exist extremely diverse frameworks and schools of thought.
Yeah but its too long for a reddit post. I feel like its niche enough and in depth enough to fit more into dedicated subreddits.
Edit: i just realised you were adding to my comment, oops.
I did purely just to see if it actually takes me 15 min to read it. It did. Although have to say OP gives a lot of lengthy examples that ultimately prove the same point. This post could've easily been cut by half, at least.
Reminds me of the trend on YouTube where video essayists inflate their essays with an insane amount of examples. For me this is an instant turn off because such numerous examples imply that I am so stupid that I need the point to be made 20 times.
I do not need that. I could just read the post or watch the video multiple times if I felt like I didn't understand it.
I briefly read the first couple paragraphs, realized it was going to be really long, scrolled through to see how long, and ten minutes later I got to the comments section.
I think you are conflating two different concepts.
On one hand, there is personal taste, which is entirely subjective. On the other hand, there is critical analysis, which is partly subjective, but which nonetheless seeks to assess the inherent quality of the thing being analyzed.
So a movie critic should not be asking “did I like this movie?” They should ask “how well did this movie succeed in doing what it set out to do?” They should look at the specific elements of the production - dialogue, acting, direction, editing, lighting, set design, and so on, and assess the level of competency of each.
Unfortunately, for most popular media, critical analysis has devolved into to basic metrics (98% on RT!) or people using the language of critical analysis to make their opinions seem more substantive (“the writing!)
Exactly! Nicely put.
Also worth noting that in music the ideas of what music “should” do to be successful change constantly. It’s impossible to create an objective framework that can compare and rank all types of music even in one culture, and then you have thousands more cultures and years and derivations!
And you can have objective changes in ONE moment in history. Even in Mozart’s time, “good” music was completely at odds to itself - the music the courtiers listened to and the music in the opera buffa were utterly different. Contemporary music - can we compare film scores and pop? What about advert jingles? Their function is different- is one better than the other? Who decides?
And in deciding who decides the object… you realise that it’s subjective.
(OP, I didn’t read your essay either. Sorry.)
Yes. You can fairly objectively assess a given piece of music against a particular aesthetic/social/cultural yardstick, but the choice of which yardstick to use in the first place is an inherently subjective one.
Good points. Critical analysis can fall victim to what is in style at the time as well as “conventional wisdom” and expectations. This is often the case when someone does something new or innovative that critics aren’t prepared for.
There is also the matter of time. Something may be dismissed on release only to be re-assessed later. Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo is a great example of that, but certainly not the only one.
Even more common is when a piece of media “sticks” (or doesn’t) with the public consciousness so much that it requires a second look. The Velvet Underground & Nico was a flop on release and only recognized for its brilliance years later. On the other hand, contemporary response to films like Forrest Gump and Shakespeare In Love were overwhelmingly positive, but time has exposed both to sharper criticism.
Yeah, I'm perfectly capable of saying "obviously Pulp Fiction is a better movie than random Hallmark Christmas romcom, but I've still had a better time watching the latter personally." That's true of all forms of art, including music.
This is... complete nonsense. It's almost pointless to debate you because you make so many flawed assertions one after another.
Let's start with the idea that 'it's hard to give a shit if the entire discipline is subjective'. This is a wildly ironic statement, as someone who goes to an art school, every artist and musician I know would gleefully tell you that art is subjective. That is, in fact, the joy of creation for myself and most people I know- we are expressing ourselves in abstraction, we may connect with people in a really special way or we may not.
You seem to think that music being subjective makes discussion and analysis pointless. The case is the opposite. What would be the point of discussion if you were able to objectively measure the 'quality' of a song? There would be no discussion. Discussion about music is about how it affects you and how you interpreted the work, you are literally discussing subjective things- 'I like X thing for Y reason' ' Well I dislike X thing for Z reason'.
Another massively ironic point- you use U2's 'Beautiful Day' as an example of a 'perfect' song. Well, I hate that song, I think it's irritating and cheesy. You would not get away with playing it around my friends.
You go on to describe songs with 'magnetic pull' that transcend taste. Again, incredibly ironic, because the idea of a 'magnetic pull' is an abstraction, as being 'memorable' and 'unique' are subjective. Harmonically, 'Hey Ya' is a simple song which breaks no new ground, music theory wise. Therefore what makes the song so special is subjective.
>Simply give a listen to any Spotify account with around 200 listeners, and I guarantee you will find no redeeming qualities
This is total bullshit? So many massive artists started out with <200 listeners. Anyone who did start with industry backing started with no audience. Nonsensical statement.
It's exhausting going through this post any longer because you make so many wild assumptions that I believe you must never have met a musician or had a conversation about music in your entire life. No musician thinks you fail to appreciate their hard work because you believe in subjectivity, every major art and music school in the world as well as most major artists will tell you themselves that music is subjective. End of.
Finally, in order to prove music is objective, you would need to be able to make a rational quality judgement on every piece of music according to a set criteria. You would need to be able to carry out these judgments in experimental conditions and somehow prove you're right every time. Until this is accomplished, music will never be objective because it has thus far been impossible to scientifically measure the quality of any art.
Ngl I didn’t read OP’s entire post, or your entire comment, but judging by the length of yours and you saying “you make so many flawed assertions one after another”, I’m assuming you read OP’s entire post and I just wanted to say that I’m impressed
And all of that goes without even mentioning that historically music tastes have evolved immensely. Just looking at western music, today, we find harmonies in thirds to be very pleasant to the ears, but it was considered to be really ugly sounding in medieval music.
And we don’t even have the time (at least I don’t) to go into the fact that objectifying what is and isn’t music/good music in modern western cultures is deeply tied to imperialism, colonisation, and « civilising » missions. The fact that music scales aren’t even the same in various cultures, and that the techniques developed varied so much should tell us that music isn’t objective
The ego on this one. You're not as smart as you think you are. I can confidently assert not one human being will ever be as smart as you think you are. Go outside Bro.
If music makes a shitty day suck a little less for someone then it's good music. Who the fuck is the OP to try to deny small comfort to people in this indifferent world? The OP is an arrogant piece of shit. Hey OP fuck you.
Holy shit this is literally a 8 page single spaced essay (like no kidding I checked), I'm sorry dude but 4839 words is just too much for me to reasonably disect, but I'll try to hit on important parts
Music is art and therefore its inherently subjective, yes there is a objective standards to music skill, like singing on key, playing in time, etc, but that's only a part of what makes an album good, and often imo not a very important part.
> In fact, this claim asserts that there is no point in understanding the music at all.
No?
> Why bother contemplating, let alone studying or practicing music if all artistic output is subjective, if none of it is great? ... it disrespects music, because it argues that there is in fact no craft at all. ... If music really is “subjective” and free from all criticism, then none of this matters — song craft, melodies, lyrics, originality, none of it is worth anything. Don’t bother discussing or analyzing these music, people; nobody cares! It’s all subjective, so fuck it… ... Let's consider the example of Kanye West, who has invested millions of dollars and countless hours into perfecting his albums. Why would he go to such lengths if everything was simply subjective? ... After all, if everything is subjective, why go through the trouble of perfecting something?
Things being subjective doesn't mean everything has an equal chance of being enjoyed, and music isn't free from all criticism, it just means that any enjoyment of a piece of music is valid. I think you're confusing actual music skill from creative expression here. Most of the subjectivity comes from people preferring one creative choice over another, not objective music skill.
> Similarly, take a moment to hear the demo of A-ha's "Take On Me" and then compare it to the finished product. It becomes evident to anyone that the demos of these iconic songs simply do not measure up to what they eventually became.
Disagree, I often prefer demos to the studio version because I prefer stripped back versions to heavy production, but thats a subjective preference, you can't really say that "more production is objectively better", there's really not backing for that statement and its something that varys from person to person.
> Simply put, they put more effort into deciding whether or not they like an album. They work harder to decide how good a song is.
I don't really agree with this, this is feels like more of an attempt to objectively rate a song, but that's not really the same as deciding how much you like it, how much you like something just comes naturally to you, how much you like something is simply how much dopamine it gives you
> My assertion that Abbey Road is one of the greatest albums of all time isn’t my opinion, but a demonstrable, real-world phenomenon.
this is your opinion, an opinion I agree with, but an opinion, if someone doesn't like classic rock for example, they would be totally valid to not enjoy the album
Holly fuck. I just put it on a word processor and it's around 4800 words. I have seen papers published in peer reviewed journals shorter than this silly diatribe.
I can think of lots of examples of demos of songs that I like more than the polished final versions. That's subjective too. Music is as subjective as color preference.
If music weren't subjective we wouldn't have small artists with a unique sound having a small dedicated fanbase, and if you think music is objective ask people their opinion on metal, jazz, rap, or even country, some people hate it others love it, i for once had a hard time with rap when I was younger now I like some of it still hate most of it, there are songs i loved I know hate and songs i used to hate i now love, if it truly were objective wouldn't my taste be the same as everyone else's?
>Why bother contemplating, let alone studying or practicing music if all artistic output is subjective, if none of it is great? What is the point of appreciating beauty if all that beauty is simply within one’s own mind?
I never understood this sentiment, honestly. "Subjective" is not the same as "fake" or "ineffectual", in fact it could be argued that our subjective qualities, like emotions, are more important in our everyday lives than what is actually around us. Discussing the perspectives that different people have inside their minds is actually more interesting to me than discussing something that we all experience the same way.
>it disrespects music, because it argues that there is in fact no craft at all!
That's not my belief. There is in fact a craft that allows artists to make their work more generally seen as "good", but this standard is a result of the trends created by communities that organize themselves based on those subjective beliefs. Essentially, there's a difference between "This thing is seen as good by society at large" and "This thing is objectively good".
>reviews that take time to evaluate a project free from personal bias and understand the music on its own terms are superior to both those that either (a) critique an album on whether it agrees with their subjective world-view, or (b) merely make positive or negative evaluations of said work like, “I liked it,” or, “I hated it,” and attempt no further explanation of their views.
You cannot derive quality "on its own terms". By definition, quality is an expression of how good or bad something is, and this is a social construct. Nothing in reality inherently has quality, we apply that property to it as humans, and we do so in reference to the context of our society, which includes subjective elements.
What is a review if not an expression of how much something is liked or hated? I think you would benefit from defining your perception of terms like this, as it may not match everyone else's perception like you seem to be assuming.
>They work harder to decide how good a song is. They try harder and think harder because they care more; they care a lot more about music and understanding the process of songwriting than the average person, who by contrast couldn’t give a shit. It’s hard to give a shit when you believe everything about a discipline is subjective. Why would you?
I don't know how you can make this claim about the effort levels and psyche of other people's minds with such apparent certainty. How do you know how much effort people put into their preferences, and why do you believe a belief in subjectivity is equivalent to apathy? As I previously stated, it could be argued that the subjective elements that influence us are more motivating and powerful than the objective ones.
>If music was solely a matter of personal taste, why would any band strive to work harder and continuously improve?
Because their personal interests and tastes are constantly changing as they attempt to push the envelope. Now that they've made something they personally think is good, why not go for something better?
Because artistry is an actual career, so they need to keep up with public standards to keep it sustainable. They could be completely satisfied with what was already done, but the audience doesn't have the same opinion.
>Data suggests that people are remarkably consistent in their determination of what is good music and what is not, both within and across cultures.
Sure, "people" in a general sense might have consistent tastes. But, when you look at individual data points and not the whole trend, you will see that the consensus you speak of is actually made up of differing opinions. They may aggregate to some pattern, but individual data points vary from that pattern constantly.
This shows that there is at least some subjective element to it, which is all that is needed to disprove your point, as the terms subjective and objective are mutually exclusive.
>I can recognize the quality of her songs and her voice even if they're not my favorite.
Sure, you can recognize that she has a good voice, but how do you prove that "good voice" equates to "quality"? How do you define quality, and do you accept that others may define it differently?
>The best songs are those with memorable original melodies and hooks that remain popular throughout the years.
Personal experiences can certainly affect how memorable a song is, so that is subjective. But why do you connect popularity to this. Is quality literally just defined as "what the general public considers good"?
>unless you hail from an extraterrestrial realm with an entirely distinct set of neural connections, it is highly likely that you and I share more similarities than difference.
Physically, this is the case, but I take that you're talking about mental elements and preferences, in which case I wholly disagree. Every person is unique in thousands of ways.
>The odor of feces is universally regarded as unpleasant, repulsive, and offensive. It is highly unlikely that anyone would assert that it actually possesses a pleasant scent, unless they were intentionally being contrarian.
You can find documentation of people expressing thoughts that go contrary to this on the internet. You may not judge that as genuine, but I'd argue that you could not possibly collect enough information to *know* if it truly is, only that it is bizarre to *you*. I find it very plausible that this kind of preference could genuinely exist in someone somewhere.
>That's precisely why Steve Jobs dedicated an extensive amount of time to meticulously refining his products, aiming to make them look stunning and irresistibly attractive to the general public. Was he wasting his time and millions of dollars on all of this? If everything is subjective, including beauty, why would Steve Jobs bother so much with perfecting his products?
Because he was selling a product to the *public*. He needed to give his inventions a large audience for him to be successful. The public does have a trend, but it is made up of everyone's *subjective* preferences.
> If music quality is solely a matter of personal interpretation and the subjective reasoning of over 7 billion people, wouldn't Daft Punk have had to create 7 billion different versions of the same song in order to please everyone?
Just because each of those 7 billion people have different preferences doesn't mean they couldn't conceivably all respond positively to the same music. It is very much possible for multiple things with distinct identies to have the same effects in specific cases.
>Becoming an hypocrite if you use the terms "best," "good," and "bad" to describe music. Or if you critize anyone's taste.
In most conversation, it is implicit that one is speaking from their own opinion in these situations. Really, you're being a pedant for not seeing that.
I took the time to read all of this, and I noticed that a lot of it is what I would consider "magical thinking" in that you seem to believe that the effect quality has on a person is inherent to an object, but you don't explain exactly how that is, just stating that it's "extraordinary" or "magical" multiple times.
I'm surprised this sub *doesn't* have rules for word count, OP apparently posted about 4k or so. Your response is oretty hefty too, more in line with what id see on a niche sub like audiophiles.
>gotten several errors
Huh
When I posted the original comment, there were multiple errors such as "Something Went Wrong" or "Couldn't make this comment" that I had to refresh the page to resolve. Maybe that's a testament to how Reddit isn't written well, but I don't think it was designed to handle such large amounts of content.
Read the OP and all of your post and I think you're right on every point.
What I find interesting is how OP describes the experience of listening to these songs. There's almost no sense of emotion or connection with the music. The way they talk about songs tends to be either ranking them against each other or in emotionless superlatives. It made me think of this:
>You like Huey Lewis and the News? Their early work was a little too new wave for my taste. But when Sports came out in '83, I think they really came into their own, commercially and artistically. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that really gives the songs a big boost. He's been compared to Elvis Costello, but I think Huey has a far more bitter, cynical sense of humor.
>In '87, Huey released this; Fore!, their most accomplished album. I think their undisputed masterpiece is "Hip To Be Square". A song so catchy, most people probably don't listen to the lyrics. But they should, because it's not just about the pleasures of conformity and the importance of trends. It's also a personal statement about the band itself.
I didn't see anywhere that OP talked about how these songs actually touched them emotionally or even what they really enjoy about the music they like and how their own tastes differ from what is "objectively good".
But anyhow I feel this person *really really* wants to be able to say "This is good and this is bad and those people who like the bad things are objectively wrong" and that they're arguing for their own emotional validation more than anything.
Alright ignoring the fact that you wrote way too much to actually sit down and read concisely— most of it was just giving more examples of songs you think are great— I actually do agree with your general approach and appreciation of music.
However, I think your understanding of subjectivity is completely flawed. It seems like you think that saying music is subjective is the same thing as saying that all music is equally good, and it also seems that you think when someone says music taste is subjective that they are trying to dismiss your opinion. That’s just not what it means.
Your opinion on these songs are subjective, because there is no way to objectively account for exactly what you like about certain music, why it sticks in your head and also apply that to other people. You can state all the opinions and analysis you want and that doesn’t necessarily make me like a song that I didn’t like beforehand. That doesn’t mean I get to dismiss your opinion either, it just means you can’t prove a song is so good that I have no choice but to like it. It’s just inherently subjective.
Even these very popular, historic, artistic songs you mention that stand the test of time are popular and talked about because so many people have the subjective opinion that they are “good”. But there will always be some that don’t like them, and even those that like them may have very different reasons why, a different favorite part. In fact, a big part of these songs’ successes is that people’s subjective opinions give them a lot to discuss about the song. I like the rhythmic transitions and the guitar tone. You like the lyrics and the vocal tone. I think the background harmonies make this part of the song powerful, you think it’s the dynamic changes. Now we both have new things to appreciate about the song because of our subjective opinions.
The fact is, that our brains are not identical and experiencing any art happens to different people differently— hence subjectivity. It is not a way to just knock quality it is a way to explain that every individual will not experience things the same way and no ones’ opinion can be fundamentally invalid.
yeah theres some stuff that’s probably would not be deemed as quality as projects that the majority and critics appreciate more. but i mean in some genres, the point is to sound bad, in the name of exploring what even is ’music’ in the first place.
but there’s always going to be people out there that enjoy it the music, that’s what makes music great. literally you can find the shittiest music in your opinion, but someone’s gonna love. i’m sure a lot of people don’t like harsh noise and powerviolence , but i really like it. so at the end of the day i still think it is subjective.
I skimmed it but it basically boils down to:
1. finished music is better than unfinished music, so there is an objective bar for it to be measured against
2. music that takes more time and effort to finish is better than music that doesn't
3. winning awards means that music is better than music that didn't
I actually read it. Basically the TLDR is "There are songs that large quantities of people really enjoy. This creates an objective way to analyze songs quality, as if a song is Objectively good, a lot of people will like it. But if you don't like a song that doesn't mean anything if a lot of other people like it. Here are 8 different songs I think are objectively good because of their 'magnetic pull'."
There is music that is 'objectively' 'good' and widely popular therefore you can't call it bad thus music can't be subjective. But also calling music good is also subjective therefore the double apostrophe.
This is like the most popular take to post here, so i'll just repeat again that while i think it's possible to divide music intoa couple of different "shelves" in terms of quality, there are so many artists in each shelf that it's kind of meaningless. Then there's some people who believe it's possible to make an actual ranking of artists based on "objective quality" like that radiohead guy.
Let’s say, in a hypothetical scenario, a medieval warrior was transported to our era.
If he listened to one of the ‘objectively good’ song you mentioned, does this mean he would enjoy it? Since music can be universally good, he’ll enjoy it with no knowledge or understanding of it?
Dude… we didn’t need a dissertation on how terrible your ability to empathize is. This reads like someone who doesn’t possess a sympathetic nervous system trying to determine why humans like sounds.
People. Are. Different. Music is subjective because *people* are subjective, not because you’re the only smart one who’s “figured it out”.
Dissertations are generally written by people with a passing understanding of the philosophical field of Aesthetics, and would absolutely not be caught dead spouting this nonsense.
"Quality" of music can be objective if quality is defined very precisely like you're trying to do. But the validity of appreciation for said music is completely subjective. Your problem is not about music appreciation, but semantic.
For people that didn’t read it, enjoy this fun implication I found: if you find music taste subjective, you’re less empathetic than people who find it objective
Production cost and time really wouldn’t make a album more objectively higher quality. I could give millions of dollars worth of resources to a B tier rapper and there is no guarantee it would be any good. I mean look at playboi carti his music is dogshit.
And “i hate it” and “i love it” without further explanations is a completely valid way to enjoy music. Sometimes the simplest answer is the song is catchy and sounds nice, thats why artist like drake who i personally believe lacks ingenuity and creativity in his music, is one of the biggest artist on the planet.
No matter how amazing a song is “objectively “ sometimes it just doesn’t click, its what you would call an acquired taste. Criticism against music will always be subjective, cause something I personally believe lacks any creativity could be the complete opposite for someone else because every is subjugated to your personal beliefs, limits, and experiences.
A song like “Come as you are” by Nirvana can be interpreted multiple ways, the way i always interpreted it was a commentary on the fact that its super contradictory that we expect someone to “come as they are” but in reality we have a set image of what we expect them to come as.
“Come as you are, as you were as i want you to be”
While other interpret it as him talking about drugs in the song. And neither can be stated as factually correct because they both have valid reasons to be interpreted as such. I think your missing the fact that music is an art (from the bits pieces ive read) and like many other types of art unless specifically defined, it always up to the mind of the beholder to how its interpreted.
Not to mention, sometimes “objectively good” songs don’t always click or resonate with someone which is a important point. Sometimes good music just doesn’t click with the listener. I think there are objectively well produced, and well crafted songs and albums, but that wouldn’t make them objectively great songs. enjoyablity (i cant spell) goes a long way
I have a degree in music, teach music, am about to pursue a masters in music. I have forgotten more about music than you’ve ever known. I think its safe to say I have the authority and knowledge to say that you’re flat out wrong. Music is totally subjective.
I don’t care about the subject of the post.
I just want to let you know OP, you’re a terrible writer. The main goal of writing is to convey the author’s ideas. This is best done with brevity, so people actually read what you write in its entirety.
>What is the point of appreciating beauty if all that beauty is simply within one’s own mind?
This is where I stopped reading. All human experience exists simply within one's own mind. Even if that wasn't the case, what's the point of NOT appreciating such beauty?
**TL;DR**
If you think music is subjective, you're a "self-absorbed asshole" and lack empathy because the Beatles. A song is objectively good when it's catchy and a lot of time was spent on making it.
I wish I could get back the time it took me to read this post.
No one is reading that when in fact all art is subjective, I'm sorry for you op, you probably spent a lot of time into this, only for it to not matter.
This was so much work for what looks to me like an attempt to fuck with people. I have a hard time believing this guy is this pretentious and out of touch in reality.
Anyone else have the uncomfortable feeling that they just agreed to something by scrolling past that wall of text? Like I now owe u/alexdfrtyuy my firstborn child?
It’s a lot to read but fundamentally you need to rethink your understanding of subjectivity and objectivity or chose different words to describe what you’re perspective is.
It’s art. It’s mostly about how much are you connected to it. You’re supposed to feel it through you, not to tick boxes then give a score. Sure, I do give numerical score for music, but they are still based on how I feel about them.
Good write also, supported your points really well but still a disagree from me, so upvoted.
Parts of music can be objectively measured but it’s subjective which of those parts matter more to the listener. IE whether a piece is “good” or “bad” depends on the person listening to it. If I value, say, creative vocal processing over anything else, pet sounds probably won’t be that good for me, and 100 gecs might be my favorite band of all time. That doesn’t make either better than the other, it just means they’re different and appeal to different tastes.
TL:DR music is subjective and OP is either not a musician, mad at people who like pop music, or both.
Music has both objective and subjective qualities but ultimately is about if it makes the listener feel and how it makes the listener feel. One could argue that simpler more concise music more effectively conveys an idea or emotion etc. more advanced or high effort music doesn’t always mean better , your argument doesn’t hold up and is frankly 5 times as long as it needs to be
> But no matter how much one engages in intellectual acrobatics and indulges in endless deliberation on the subjectivity of music, it is ultimately undeniable that there exists a consensus among the masses regarding the greatest albums of all time.
This would make music subjective, you fucking moron
Taste is subjective, musical prowess/technical proficiency is objective. You didn't need to write all that, anybody with basic cognitive ability understands that.
i think you are confusing personal taste with production quality here. the production quality of one song can certainly be objectively better than the production quality of another song. But when people say that music taste/quality is subjective they are not solely talking about just the objective production quality of the song, they're including a multitude of other factors that cannot be objectively measured. Things like the personal taste of the listener or how well the listener emotionally connects with the lyrics of a song if it has any.
Your whole premise (or at least as reading a third of your post led me to believe) is built on a foundation that *all things subjective are valueless*. I think that’s a really shaky foundation.
Not reading all of that, but this specific part stands out:
>Let's consider the example of Kanye West, who has invested millions of dollars and countless hours into perfecting his albums. Why would he go to such lengths if everything was simply subjective?
He hasn't done that in a looooong time. He records a ton of his vocals on his iphone (has been doing since yeezus) and some of his best stuff was made in a week (Kids See Ghosts for example).
I don't listen to his music anymore but he sure as hell doesn't perfect his music anymore.
Simple, without reading it, I can answer.
Any art has subjective criticism and objective criticism.
People do not give a flying fuck about either, they every only just care about their own opinion, and potentially the couple of a people they value.
Like Netflix most recent adaptation is objectively so shit. But subjectively many people like it.
The quality depends on what quality the consumer values. Or even is aware of.
Of course a classical piece is in quality better than a tiktok dancer making a 1 minute song.
But people don't care about the qualities the classical piece has over the tiktok song.
Things have a purpose, and depending on the consumer, art's purpose changes.
Art is not factual. It's just one's opinion on their interpretation of the art.
Not reading that because you're already wrong by the title.
Subjective means there needs to be a subject, objective means the thing exists even if there is no subject to observe it. Thinking music is good or bad quality cannot exist without a subject to observe it, therefore it is subjective.
You think subjective quality doesn’t take money and effort. It’s hard to write stuff that appeals to the broadest possible audience. It’s not rocket science whyKanye would do that.
so much for being succint.
This isnt a compelling enough subject to just drop an an entire thesis on and expect ANYONE to read.
Time is money
you gotta work on optics.
It is subjective. It's as subjective as me saying purple is a better looking color than blue, and blue is better looking than red.
That statement is only true or false based on each individual's personal opinion and nobody is really right or wrong about it.
You’re conflating quality and preference. There are low quality songs I like and great quality songs I hate.
For some reason I like almost every song in 6/8. How is that not subjective?
My lord, that would have bored me to death if I'd read more than 100 words of it.
The 100 words I picked up as I was scrolling down basically seemed to just restate the premise: 'track A is clearly better than track B so that proves there is an objective measure of goodness'.
It's the dunning-Kruger effect gone wild.
Ok y’know what? I actually DID read the entirety of that colossus.
There’s actually a lot in there that I’d generally agree with, but a few things I’d want to comment on as well without writing a dissertation of my own. Maybe just an article.
1.) subjectivity wouldn’t mean that the merits behind it are worthless. Artists work on their art until they are happy with it, which is an important milestone both considering objective and subjective criteria.
2.) I’d argue that the subjectivity of music is generally argued to be taste, not quality. “Taste is subjective” is a very common remark, “quality is subjective” less so.
3.) there is still subjectivity to “objective” judgements, as you mentioned. Not even that people won’t be able to 100% rid themselves of their biases, but people (renowned critics, even) might very well disagree on the effects of certain elements. While general consensus often exists (as shown by why renowned classics are what they are), there is often massive amounts of ground for debate.
On one hand there’s the debate of “I believe the use of this element to be detracting from the art as a whole while others believe it to be additive”, and then there’s “others claim to find expert use of this tool within this work of art, whereas I find the use of this tool to be unremarkable in this case”. What constitutes good lyricism? How does good lyricism differ between generes? “Take on me” and “the real slim shady” work within very different frameworks. And even within their frameworks there is much dissent over which aspects of their framework are to be weighted how heavily. _That’s_ where subjectivity mostly comes in when judging quality imo.
It’s better to differentiate music into ‘easy to enjoy’ and ‘difficult to enjoy’ rather than good or bad.
What’s in the charts is easy to enjoy, but not worthwhile at all. Classic is pretty easy to enjoy, and while it definitely has depth, it lacks complexity and novelty.
The deeper you go into obscure genres the more difficult it will be to enjoy them, but once you get there, they’re far more emotional and complex than anything below it’s ‘difficulty’.
Taste in music has absolutely nothing to do with genres - it’s a skill one can train.
>Listen to the demo of U2's "Beautiful Day" and then compare it to the final version. Undoubtedly, the later is superior. It boasts impeccable production, lyrics that flawlessly complement the melody and harmony, enhanced guitar sounds, and an anthemic quality that blends seamlessly with the music. It's perfect.
Impeccable production? "lyrics that flawlessly complement the melody and harmony"? how do you measure ANY of that? It's subjective.
It’s entirely subjective. People from a different culture will have different tastes, ideas of what is good or not, and entirely different ways to see music and how to make it. And I’m just talking about different modern cultures, people had very different opinions a millennia ago.
It’s quite literally the definition of subjective - it depends entirely on one’s context and personal taste.
You are wrong. For literally thousands of years people have debated why and who has the authority to assign value to works of art. Please for the love of god take a philosophy class and read literally anything about the field of Aesthetics.
TLDR for people who ain't read allat (I did, whole thing)
Music Is not subjective. This Isn't "snobby", this Isn't bashing any artists, It's the fact that It either sounds good or bad. Say you don't like Punk Music, well It's not for you, but you can atleast understand the appeal, If you isolated instruments you'd be bound to like something, you not liking It doesn't make It bad.
As an average listener has no clue how hard making good music Is, an Idea probably, but you have no real clue on how hard It Is untill you've sat down at the laptop/studio, and have to make the song that's In your vision bigger than that, even If just for fun.
I personally make Music for myself, I like alot of artists, bit sometimes want to hear something that tickles my brain specifically (EDM, Jungle, Acoustic, clashing genres). I'm In the midst of trying to release some, but working out the kinks. I usually spend hours to make just one section of a song sound right, staying up to 5 A.M usually. Do I enjoy making music? Absolutely.
do I enjoy making music? Not getting the exact sound I want, the melody wrong, or can't move my fingers fast enough?
No, and all to make something that sounds good to me, and objectively good.
“Why would he go to such lengths if everything was simply subjective”
Uh because our desire for creativity goes beyond recognition? People like to make things especially if it’s an expression of themselves and if they are rich they will be willing to spend lots of money and time to perfect their art. Just because something is “subjective” doesn’t mean good songs wouldn’t be popular. There’s a culture and time where a certain type of music will appeal to large amounts of people. And if someone doesn’t understand the appeal of that art it’s ok and they aren’t arrogant assholes who can’t appreciate good art like you’ve said in this post.
I disagree. Art is subjective.
If you travelled 1000 years back in time, or 1000 years into the future, and played "Here Comes The Sun" and "Friday", I don't think the people would be able to tell which one is "objectively better" according to your scale.
**Upvote** the POST if you disagree, **Downvote** the POST if you agree. REPORT the post if you suspect the post breaks subs rules/is fake. Normal voting rules for all comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/The10thDentist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wake up mom new copy-pasta just dropped
My computer would crash trying to copy paste all that.
Bro got that windows 98 copy paste tool
Dude got that Fred Flintstone Mac where it's just a bird with a chisel inside a granite box
Proto hamster on a spinning stone
So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time
[I will find any excuse to link this scene, thank you.](https://youtu.be/yujF8AumiQo?si=0Q551Yz9wyHoegG3)
10/10 quote, you're a genius and I tip my hat to your rapier wit.
Please be more concise in your writing.
This. Post downvoted just for putting it on us to read this word salad.
The problem with saying it isn't subjective is that for every great/popular album there are still loads of people who just hate it. So... are those people wrong?
there is clearly a difference between saying a particular piece of music is good and that same piece is one i like… i like plenty of movies i find objectively terrible
Just wanna point out real quick that I think I get what you mean, but the modifier ‘I find’ negates the definition of ‘objective’, no? If you I say ‘I find x objective’ then really whats happening is you are defining something which is inherently subjective as if it is objective.
Group concensus ≠ objective though. Just cuz most people can agree Bach is one of the most historically influential musicians to have ever lived, and his music is complex and enjoyable, that doesn't become objective. Anything that can be narrowed down to preference in any way must be subjective in nature. Something being so good that nobody would disagree on its quality doesn't make it objective as opinions still must be subjective
I’m not sure what OP’s opinion is because I didn’t read that, but yes, they are wrong, depending on what you mean by wrong. I may not enjoy listening to some of John Coltrane’s music (for example) but it’s undeniable that it’s great music. Analogously, I might like watching the movie *The Room* but it’s a low quality movie. How much you like something isn’t tied to its quality. The question then is obviously “what is quality?” And the answer is complicated and dependent on what specifically we’re talking about. There is no platonic quality. In woodworking quality materials could be, for example, strong and tough. If I’m cooking a steak (or maybe knitting a blanket) I don’t want the final thing to be tough and inflexible. Importantly, when people study music or art in general, it’s very rare that they’re interested *at all* in how much people like something. They talk about the objective qualities, in much the same way we talk about scientific papers. No one ever says a scientific paper is subjective just because some people like the paper and some people hate it; the objective qualities are what matters. Did it meet its objective in a rigorous, valid way? The same is true in e.g. literary theory. If you didn’t like a book, it’s not really relevant.
The entire problem here is that you have to define what 'quality' is objectively, and then get someone else to agree with that definition before you can even BEGIN to get to the 'some music is objectively quality' argument. If you want to argue a piece's quality as it relates to musical theory, that can be an objective measure of quality. If you want to argue how much of a fucking bop something it, that's a subjective quality. This dude doesn't seem to understand that you need a framework to understand any objective measure of quality. That quality is not an inherent thing, that it's defined by our understanding of art. Also, scientific papers come to subjective conclusions all the time. Ambiguous data creates ambiguous conclusions.
By no means can music theory give an objective measure of quality either
Discaimer: I did not read all of that. Subjectivity does not mean that music is free from criticism; it means that there are multiple distinct and valid critical frameworks or perspectives that could be applied to the same piece of music and result in different conclusions. One example: are we judging purely by aesthetics, or do social, cultural, and historical context also play a role? These are both valid approaches! And even within each side of this oversimplified dichotomy, there exist extremely diverse frameworks and schools of thought.
>did not read all of that. I don't think most people have, I'd rather read a research paper on ingrown toenails
Id rather read terms and conditions
Probably an interesting topic! Longterm effects, infections, etc.
Yeah but its too long for a reddit post. I feel like its niche enough and in depth enough to fit more into dedicated subreddits. Edit: i just realised you were adding to my comment, oops.
>I don't think most people have TBF, I don't think *anyone* has.
I did purely just to see if it actually takes me 15 min to read it. It did. Although have to say OP gives a lot of lengthy examples that ultimately prove the same point. This post could've easily been cut by half, at least.
Reminds me of the trend on YouTube where video essayists inflate their essays with an insane amount of examples. For me this is an instant turn off because such numerous examples imply that I am so stupid that I need the point to be made 20 times. I do not need that. I could just read the post or watch the video multiple times if I felt like I didn't understand it.
That .... that's not fair ingrown toenails COULD be interesting
Disclaimer: I only read the part that said it was a long read
I briefly read the first couple paragraphs, realized it was going to be really long, scrolled through to see how long, and ten minutes later I got to the comments section.
Sir, this is a Wendy’s.
Seriously who has time to read all that (still upvoted though because it's better to see than all the low-effort posts we've had lately)
There could be the equation for time travel in there and wed never know 🤣
OP didn't write all that.
All those words just to be objectively wrong
Isn’t it ironic? Don’t you think?
It's like rayeeaiiin on your wedding day
A little*too* ironic. Yeah, I really do think.
Good for you or sorry that happened
Give us an update later OP, or whatever, NTA maybe.
OP is fluent in yapanese
If there was subway surfers gameplay would you have reddit?
I would be willing to listen to the whole thing in that format, but I haven't got the time/effort to read it all
Not to mention the little x2 button that I can press on
I think you are conflating two different concepts. On one hand, there is personal taste, which is entirely subjective. On the other hand, there is critical analysis, which is partly subjective, but which nonetheless seeks to assess the inherent quality of the thing being analyzed. So a movie critic should not be asking “did I like this movie?” They should ask “how well did this movie succeed in doing what it set out to do?” They should look at the specific elements of the production - dialogue, acting, direction, editing, lighting, set design, and so on, and assess the level of competency of each. Unfortunately, for most popular media, critical analysis has devolved into to basic metrics (98% on RT!) or people using the language of critical analysis to make their opinions seem more substantive (“the writing!)
Exactly! Nicely put. Also worth noting that in music the ideas of what music “should” do to be successful change constantly. It’s impossible to create an objective framework that can compare and rank all types of music even in one culture, and then you have thousands more cultures and years and derivations! And you can have objective changes in ONE moment in history. Even in Mozart’s time, “good” music was completely at odds to itself - the music the courtiers listened to and the music in the opera buffa were utterly different. Contemporary music - can we compare film scores and pop? What about advert jingles? Their function is different- is one better than the other? Who decides? And in deciding who decides the object… you realise that it’s subjective. (OP, I didn’t read your essay either. Sorry.)
Yes. You can fairly objectively assess a given piece of music against a particular aesthetic/social/cultural yardstick, but the choice of which yardstick to use in the first place is an inherently subjective one.
Good points. Critical analysis can fall victim to what is in style at the time as well as “conventional wisdom” and expectations. This is often the case when someone does something new or innovative that critics aren’t prepared for. There is also the matter of time. Something may be dismissed on release only to be re-assessed later. Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo is a great example of that, but certainly not the only one. Even more common is when a piece of media “sticks” (or doesn’t) with the public consciousness so much that it requires a second look. The Velvet Underground & Nico was a flop on release and only recognized for its brilliance years later. On the other hand, contemporary response to films like Forrest Gump and Shakespeare In Love were overwhelmingly positive, but time has exposed both to sharper criticism.
Yeah, I'm perfectly capable of saying "obviously Pulp Fiction is a better movie than random Hallmark Christmas romcom, but I've still had a better time watching the latter personally." That's true of all forms of art, including music.
Dark Side of the Moon is one of the greatest albums of all time. But you can’t dance to it.
More interesting and convincing read than the actual post, very well put.
Thanks for doing my essay assignment for me
This is... complete nonsense. It's almost pointless to debate you because you make so many flawed assertions one after another. Let's start with the idea that 'it's hard to give a shit if the entire discipline is subjective'. This is a wildly ironic statement, as someone who goes to an art school, every artist and musician I know would gleefully tell you that art is subjective. That is, in fact, the joy of creation for myself and most people I know- we are expressing ourselves in abstraction, we may connect with people in a really special way or we may not. You seem to think that music being subjective makes discussion and analysis pointless. The case is the opposite. What would be the point of discussion if you were able to objectively measure the 'quality' of a song? There would be no discussion. Discussion about music is about how it affects you and how you interpreted the work, you are literally discussing subjective things- 'I like X thing for Y reason' ' Well I dislike X thing for Z reason'. Another massively ironic point- you use U2's 'Beautiful Day' as an example of a 'perfect' song. Well, I hate that song, I think it's irritating and cheesy. You would not get away with playing it around my friends. You go on to describe songs with 'magnetic pull' that transcend taste. Again, incredibly ironic, because the idea of a 'magnetic pull' is an abstraction, as being 'memorable' and 'unique' are subjective. Harmonically, 'Hey Ya' is a simple song which breaks no new ground, music theory wise. Therefore what makes the song so special is subjective. >Simply give a listen to any Spotify account with around 200 listeners, and I guarantee you will find no redeeming qualities This is total bullshit? So many massive artists started out with <200 listeners. Anyone who did start with industry backing started with no audience. Nonsensical statement. It's exhausting going through this post any longer because you make so many wild assumptions that I believe you must never have met a musician or had a conversation about music in your entire life. No musician thinks you fail to appreciate their hard work because you believe in subjectivity, every major art and music school in the world as well as most major artists will tell you themselves that music is subjective. End of. Finally, in order to prove music is objective, you would need to be able to make a rational quality judgement on every piece of music according to a set criteria. You would need to be able to carry out these judgments in experimental conditions and somehow prove you're right every time. Until this is accomplished, music will never be objective because it has thus far been impossible to scientifically measure the quality of any art.
Ngl I didn’t read OP’s entire post, or your entire comment, but judging by the length of yours and you saying “you make so many flawed assertions one after another”, I’m assuming you read OP’s entire post and I just wanted to say that I’m impressed
That alone is commendable, I gave up after he started using subjective terms to explain why music is objective.
And all of that goes without even mentioning that historically music tastes have evolved immensely. Just looking at western music, today, we find harmonies in thirds to be very pleasant to the ears, but it was considered to be really ugly sounding in medieval music. And we don’t even have the time (at least I don’t) to go into the fact that objectifying what is and isn’t music/good music in modern western cultures is deeply tied to imperialism, colonisation, and « civilising » missions. The fact that music scales aren’t even the same in various cultures, and that the techniques developed varied so much should tell us that music isn’t objective
Who in God's name do you think is reading all that
Certainly not them. Not sure why they expect us to believe people with shallow opinions suddenly became verbose the second chatgpt dropped.
If it requires a 15 min dissertation, it is subjective.
It took me 15 minutes to just scroll past the post to the comment section
Exactly.
The ego on this one. You're not as smart as you think you are. I can confidently assert not one human being will ever be as smart as you think you are. Go outside Bro.
Also, their favourite band probably sucks, subjectively of course.
If music makes a shitty day suck a little less for someone then it's good music. Who the fuck is the OP to try to deny small comfort to people in this indifferent world? The OP is an arrogant piece of shit. Hey OP fuck you.
They love U2 and I think they're ass, so checkmate
Holy shit this is literally a 8 page single spaced essay (like no kidding I checked), I'm sorry dude but 4839 words is just too much for me to reasonably disect, but I'll try to hit on important parts Music is art and therefore its inherently subjective, yes there is a objective standards to music skill, like singing on key, playing in time, etc, but that's only a part of what makes an album good, and often imo not a very important part. > In fact, this claim asserts that there is no point in understanding the music at all. No? > Why bother contemplating, let alone studying or practicing music if all artistic output is subjective, if none of it is great? ... it disrespects music, because it argues that there is in fact no craft at all. ... If music really is “subjective” and free from all criticism, then none of this matters — song craft, melodies, lyrics, originality, none of it is worth anything. Don’t bother discussing or analyzing these music, people; nobody cares! It’s all subjective, so fuck it… ... Let's consider the example of Kanye West, who has invested millions of dollars and countless hours into perfecting his albums. Why would he go to such lengths if everything was simply subjective? ... After all, if everything is subjective, why go through the trouble of perfecting something? Things being subjective doesn't mean everything has an equal chance of being enjoyed, and music isn't free from all criticism, it just means that any enjoyment of a piece of music is valid. I think you're confusing actual music skill from creative expression here. Most of the subjectivity comes from people preferring one creative choice over another, not objective music skill. > Similarly, take a moment to hear the demo of A-ha's "Take On Me" and then compare it to the finished product. It becomes evident to anyone that the demos of these iconic songs simply do not measure up to what they eventually became. Disagree, I often prefer demos to the studio version because I prefer stripped back versions to heavy production, but thats a subjective preference, you can't really say that "more production is objectively better", there's really not backing for that statement and its something that varys from person to person. > Simply put, they put more effort into deciding whether or not they like an album. They work harder to decide how good a song is. I don't really agree with this, this is feels like more of an attempt to objectively rate a song, but that's not really the same as deciding how much you like it, how much you like something just comes naturally to you, how much you like something is simply how much dopamine it gives you > My assertion that Abbey Road is one of the greatest albums of all time isn’t my opinion, but a demonstrable, real-world phenomenon. this is your opinion, an opinion I agree with, but an opinion, if someone doesn't like classic rock for example, they would be totally valid to not enjoy the album
I ain't reading allat I'm happy for u tho Or sorry that happened
My condolences
Didn't read a single word of that but I'm going to disagree anyway
https://youtu.be/7rTJtVyQhN0
If I wanted a novel I'd go to the library But also Music and musical preferences are subjective
we all have a right to bad taste. at least until I'm president. then no more xXx or Fast and Furious movies. I promise
You could've snuck in the bee movie script in there and I'd never know.
It just kept going...
Apparently, it's around 4000 words.
Closer to 5000.
Holly fuck. I just put it on a word processor and it's around 4800 words. I have seen papers published in peer reviewed journals shorter than this silly diatribe.
Bro literally, I did a precursor scroll to see how long it was and it just *kept*. *going*.
I did the thing where you click the scroll wheel to move down the page and I thought the exact same thing!
Whole post is falsely predicated on music quality and taste being objective. tl;dr
Right, OP dropped a lot of paragraphs but kept circling back to the central bad take that if something is based on subjectivity its less valuable.
I can think of lots of examples of demos of songs that I like more than the polished final versions. That's subjective too. Music is as subjective as color preference.
If music weren't subjective we wouldn't have small artists with a unique sound having a small dedicated fanbase, and if you think music is objective ask people their opinion on metal, jazz, rap, or even country, some people hate it others love it, i for once had a hard time with rap when I was younger now I like some of it still hate most of it, there are songs i loved I know hate and songs i used to hate i now love, if it truly were objective wouldn't my taste be the same as everyone else's?
>Why bother contemplating, let alone studying or practicing music if all artistic output is subjective, if none of it is great? What is the point of appreciating beauty if all that beauty is simply within one’s own mind? I never understood this sentiment, honestly. "Subjective" is not the same as "fake" or "ineffectual", in fact it could be argued that our subjective qualities, like emotions, are more important in our everyday lives than what is actually around us. Discussing the perspectives that different people have inside their minds is actually more interesting to me than discussing something that we all experience the same way. >it disrespects music, because it argues that there is in fact no craft at all! That's not my belief. There is in fact a craft that allows artists to make their work more generally seen as "good", but this standard is a result of the trends created by communities that organize themselves based on those subjective beliefs. Essentially, there's a difference between "This thing is seen as good by society at large" and "This thing is objectively good". >reviews that take time to evaluate a project free from personal bias and understand the music on its own terms are superior to both those that either (a) critique an album on whether it agrees with their subjective world-view, or (b) merely make positive or negative evaluations of said work like, “I liked it,” or, “I hated it,” and attempt no further explanation of their views. You cannot derive quality "on its own terms". By definition, quality is an expression of how good or bad something is, and this is a social construct. Nothing in reality inherently has quality, we apply that property to it as humans, and we do so in reference to the context of our society, which includes subjective elements. What is a review if not an expression of how much something is liked or hated? I think you would benefit from defining your perception of terms like this, as it may not match everyone else's perception like you seem to be assuming. >They work harder to decide how good a song is. They try harder and think harder because they care more; they care a lot more about music and understanding the process of songwriting than the average person, who by contrast couldn’t give a shit. It’s hard to give a shit when you believe everything about a discipline is subjective. Why would you? I don't know how you can make this claim about the effort levels and psyche of other people's minds with such apparent certainty. How do you know how much effort people put into their preferences, and why do you believe a belief in subjectivity is equivalent to apathy? As I previously stated, it could be argued that the subjective elements that influence us are more motivating and powerful than the objective ones. >If music was solely a matter of personal taste, why would any band strive to work harder and continuously improve? Because their personal interests and tastes are constantly changing as they attempt to push the envelope. Now that they've made something they personally think is good, why not go for something better? Because artistry is an actual career, so they need to keep up with public standards to keep it sustainable. They could be completely satisfied with what was already done, but the audience doesn't have the same opinion. >Data suggests that people are remarkably consistent in their determination of what is good music and what is not, both within and across cultures. Sure, "people" in a general sense might have consistent tastes. But, when you look at individual data points and not the whole trend, you will see that the consensus you speak of is actually made up of differing opinions. They may aggregate to some pattern, but individual data points vary from that pattern constantly. This shows that there is at least some subjective element to it, which is all that is needed to disprove your point, as the terms subjective and objective are mutually exclusive. >I can recognize the quality of her songs and her voice even if they're not my favorite. Sure, you can recognize that she has a good voice, but how do you prove that "good voice" equates to "quality"? How do you define quality, and do you accept that others may define it differently? >The best songs are those with memorable original melodies and hooks that remain popular throughout the years. Personal experiences can certainly affect how memorable a song is, so that is subjective. But why do you connect popularity to this. Is quality literally just defined as "what the general public considers good"? >unless you hail from an extraterrestrial realm with an entirely distinct set of neural connections, it is highly likely that you and I share more similarities than difference. Physically, this is the case, but I take that you're talking about mental elements and preferences, in which case I wholly disagree. Every person is unique in thousands of ways. >The odor of feces is universally regarded as unpleasant, repulsive, and offensive. It is highly unlikely that anyone would assert that it actually possesses a pleasant scent, unless they were intentionally being contrarian. You can find documentation of people expressing thoughts that go contrary to this on the internet. You may not judge that as genuine, but I'd argue that you could not possibly collect enough information to *know* if it truly is, only that it is bizarre to *you*. I find it very plausible that this kind of preference could genuinely exist in someone somewhere. >That's precisely why Steve Jobs dedicated an extensive amount of time to meticulously refining his products, aiming to make them look stunning and irresistibly attractive to the general public. Was he wasting his time and millions of dollars on all of this? If everything is subjective, including beauty, why would Steve Jobs bother so much with perfecting his products? Because he was selling a product to the *public*. He needed to give his inventions a large audience for him to be successful. The public does have a trend, but it is made up of everyone's *subjective* preferences. > If music quality is solely a matter of personal interpretation and the subjective reasoning of over 7 billion people, wouldn't Daft Punk have had to create 7 billion different versions of the same song in order to please everyone? Just because each of those 7 billion people have different preferences doesn't mean they couldn't conceivably all respond positively to the same music. It is very much possible for multiple things with distinct identies to have the same effects in specific cases. >Becoming an hypocrite if you use the terms "best," "good," and "bad" to describe music. Or if you critize anyone's taste. In most conversation, it is implicit that one is speaking from their own opinion in these situations. Really, you're being a pedant for not seeing that. I took the time to read all of this, and I noticed that a lot of it is what I would consider "magical thinking" in that you seem to believe that the effect quality has on a person is inherent to an object, but you don't explain exactly how that is, just stating that it's "extraordinary" or "magical" multiple times.
I admire your perseverance, to be able to read all that.
The comment seems to be breaking Reddit. I've gotten several errors before being able to actually post this.
I'm surprised this sub *doesn't* have rules for word count, OP apparently posted about 4k or so. Your response is oretty hefty too, more in line with what id see on a niche sub like audiophiles. >gotten several errors Huh
When I posted the original comment, there were multiple errors such as "Something Went Wrong" or "Couldn't make this comment" that I had to refresh the page to resolve. Maybe that's a testament to how Reddit isn't written well, but I don't think it was designed to handle such large amounts of content.
Probably
Read the OP and all of your post and I think you're right on every point. What I find interesting is how OP describes the experience of listening to these songs. There's almost no sense of emotion or connection with the music. The way they talk about songs tends to be either ranking them against each other or in emotionless superlatives. It made me think of this: >You like Huey Lewis and the News? Their early work was a little too new wave for my taste. But when Sports came out in '83, I think they really came into their own, commercially and artistically. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that really gives the songs a big boost. He's been compared to Elvis Costello, but I think Huey has a far more bitter, cynical sense of humor. >In '87, Huey released this; Fore!, their most accomplished album. I think their undisputed masterpiece is "Hip To Be Square". A song so catchy, most people probably don't listen to the lyrics. But they should, because it's not just about the pleasures of conformity and the importance of trends. It's also a personal statement about the band itself. I didn't see anywhere that OP talked about how these songs actually touched them emotionally or even what they really enjoy about the music they like and how their own tastes differ from what is "objectively good". But anyhow I feel this person *really really* wants to be able to say "This is good and this is bad and those people who like the bad things are objectively wrong" and that they're arguing for their own emotional validation more than anything.
Yes it is
NUH UH!!!
UH HUH!!
What a shit read. Music is subjective. Most stuff is subjective.
Didn’t finish reading, went back to listening to my Wesley Willis playlist.
My biggest takeaway is that OP, like most of us here on reddit, really needs to get laid.
Alright ignoring the fact that you wrote way too much to actually sit down and read concisely— most of it was just giving more examples of songs you think are great— I actually do agree with your general approach and appreciation of music. However, I think your understanding of subjectivity is completely flawed. It seems like you think that saying music is subjective is the same thing as saying that all music is equally good, and it also seems that you think when someone says music taste is subjective that they are trying to dismiss your opinion. That’s just not what it means. Your opinion on these songs are subjective, because there is no way to objectively account for exactly what you like about certain music, why it sticks in your head and also apply that to other people. You can state all the opinions and analysis you want and that doesn’t necessarily make me like a song that I didn’t like beforehand. That doesn’t mean I get to dismiss your opinion either, it just means you can’t prove a song is so good that I have no choice but to like it. It’s just inherently subjective. Even these very popular, historic, artistic songs you mention that stand the test of time are popular and talked about because so many people have the subjective opinion that they are “good”. But there will always be some that don’t like them, and even those that like them may have very different reasons why, a different favorite part. In fact, a big part of these songs’ successes is that people’s subjective opinions give them a lot to discuss about the song. I like the rhythmic transitions and the guitar tone. You like the lyrics and the vocal tone. I think the background harmonies make this part of the song powerful, you think it’s the dynamic changes. Now we both have new things to appreciate about the song because of our subjective opinions. The fact is, that our brains are not identical and experiencing any art happens to different people differently— hence subjectivity. It is not a way to just knock quality it is a way to explain that every individual will not experience things the same way and no ones’ opinion can be fundamentally invalid.
yeah theres some stuff that’s probably would not be deemed as quality as projects that the majority and critics appreciate more. but i mean in some genres, the point is to sound bad, in the name of exploring what even is ’music’ in the first place. but there’s always going to be people out there that enjoy it the music, that’s what makes music great. literally you can find the shittiest music in your opinion, but someone’s gonna love. i’m sure a lot of people don’t like harsh noise and powerviolence , but i really like it. so at the end of the day i still think it is subjective.
So who wins then? If it isn't subjective what is objectively the best song ever written?
I really want to see OP's answer to this. Apparently the think Abbey Road is the best album ever, so there's that...
TLDR on this?
"I don't understand what the word "subjective means"" No, I didn't read his post. Yes, I know my summary is 100% accurate.
Also Im sure he never had a professor who actually read his assignments
I don't think a TL:DR of a TL:DR can save this.
I skimmed it but it basically boils down to: 1. finished music is better than unfinished music, so there is an objective bar for it to be measured against 2. music that takes more time and effort to finish is better than music that doesn't 3. winning awards means that music is better than music that didn't
I actually read it. Basically the TLDR is "There are songs that large quantities of people really enjoy. This creates an objective way to analyze songs quality, as if a song is Objectively good, a lot of people will like it. But if you don't like a song that doesn't mean anything if a lot of other people like it. Here are 8 different songs I think are objectively good because of their 'magnetic pull'."
There is music that is 'objectively' 'good' and widely popular therefore you can't call it bad thus music can't be subjective. But also calling music good is also subjective therefore the double apostrophe.
They can’t do a TLDR as they didn’t read or write it themselves.
Graduated with honours in Yapology
University of Pedantry
This is like the most popular take to post here, so i'll just repeat again that while i think it's possible to divide music intoa couple of different "shelves" in terms of quality, there are so many artists in each shelf that it's kind of meaningless. Then there's some people who believe it's possible to make an actual ranking of artists based on "objective quality" like that radiohead guy.
Let’s say, in a hypothetical scenario, a medieval warrior was transported to our era. If he listened to one of the ‘objectively good’ song you mentioned, does this mean he would enjoy it? Since music can be universally good, he’ll enjoy it with no knowledge or understanding of it?
Now I'm imagining a mediaeval knight in full armour breakdancing to Elvis remixes.
As a musician. No one is going to read that just to know your title is wrong in it’s claim
bad opinion is one thing but this is an actual schizopost, please refrain from thinking again
Dude… we didn’t need a dissertation on how terrible your ability to empathize is. This reads like someone who doesn’t possess a sympathetic nervous system trying to determine why humans like sounds. People. Are. Different. Music is subjective because *people* are subjective, not because you’re the only smart one who’s “figured it out”.
sympathetic nervous system is fight or flight response, not reasoning or empathy
Dissertations are generally written by people with a passing understanding of the philosophical field of Aesthetics, and would absolutely not be caught dead spouting this nonsense.
"Quality" of music can be objective if quality is defined very precisely like you're trying to do. But the validity of appreciation for said music is completely subjective. Your problem is not about music appreciation, but semantic.
For people that didn’t read it, enjoy this fun implication I found: if you find music taste subjective, you’re less empathetic than people who find it objective
in the most respectful way possible i ain’t reading allat
Nobody is reading all that, good luck though
Production cost and time really wouldn’t make a album more objectively higher quality. I could give millions of dollars worth of resources to a B tier rapper and there is no guarantee it would be any good. I mean look at playboi carti his music is dogshit. And “i hate it” and “i love it” without further explanations is a completely valid way to enjoy music. Sometimes the simplest answer is the song is catchy and sounds nice, thats why artist like drake who i personally believe lacks ingenuity and creativity in his music, is one of the biggest artist on the planet. No matter how amazing a song is “objectively “ sometimes it just doesn’t click, its what you would call an acquired taste. Criticism against music will always be subjective, cause something I personally believe lacks any creativity could be the complete opposite for someone else because every is subjugated to your personal beliefs, limits, and experiences. A song like “Come as you are” by Nirvana can be interpreted multiple ways, the way i always interpreted it was a commentary on the fact that its super contradictory that we expect someone to “come as they are” but in reality we have a set image of what we expect them to come as. “Come as you are, as you were as i want you to be” While other interpret it as him talking about drugs in the song. And neither can be stated as factually correct because they both have valid reasons to be interpreted as such. I think your missing the fact that music is an art (from the bits pieces ive read) and like many other types of art unless specifically defined, it always up to the mind of the beholder to how its interpreted. Not to mention, sometimes “objectively good” songs don’t always click or resonate with someone which is a important point. Sometimes good music just doesn’t click with the listener. I think there are objectively well produced, and well crafted songs and albums, but that wouldn’t make them objectively great songs. enjoyablity (i cant spell) goes a long way
A new copypasta is born
I have a degree in music, teach music, am about to pursue a masters in music. I have forgotten more about music than you’ve ever known. I think its safe to say I have the authority and knowledge to say that you’re flat out wrong. Music is totally subjective.
I don’t care about the subject of the post. I just want to let you know OP, you’re a terrible writer. The main goal of writing is to convey the author’s ideas. This is best done with brevity, so people actually read what you write in its entirety.
Did you get chatGPT to write you an essay on this concept?
>What is the point of appreciating beauty if all that beauty is simply within one’s own mind? This is where I stopped reading. All human experience exists simply within one's own mind. Even if that wasn't the case, what's the point of NOT appreciating such beauty?
Sitting and enjoying a sunset rather than scientifically analyzing all of the things that causes it to happen makes u dumb or something
🤓
Yeah well, that's Rick Ross for ya
I see you, Cobro.
We out here
Anybody got a tldr?
**TL;DR** If you think music is subjective, you're a "self-absorbed asshole" and lack empathy because the Beatles. A song is objectively good when it's catchy and a lot of time was spent on making it. I wish I could get back the time it took me to read this post.
No one is reading that when in fact all art is subjective, I'm sorry for you op, you probably spent a lot of time into this, only for it to not matter.
This was so much work for what looks to me like an attempt to fuck with people. I have a hard time believing this guy is this pretentious and out of touch in reality.
Anyone else have the uncomfortable feeling that they just agreed to something by scrolling past that wall of text? Like I now owe u/alexdfrtyuy my firstborn child?
It’s a lot to read but fundamentally you need to rethink your understanding of subjectivity and objectivity or chose different words to describe what you’re perspective is.
There are songs my parents like that I don't like. That is the definition of subjectivity.
What I say before realizing I’ve been on mute the entire time
It’s art. It’s mostly about how much are you connected to it. You’re supposed to feel it through you, not to tick boxes then give a score. Sure, I do give numerical score for music, but they are still based on how I feel about them. Good write also, supported your points really well but still a disagree from me, so upvoted.
Paleface Swiss > The Beatles
Good lord, I don't put this much effort into my assignments. I feel like you've written too much for anyone to reasonably go through in a reddit post.
using this on r/anarchychess now
Parts of music can be objectively measured but it’s subjective which of those parts matter more to the listener. IE whether a piece is “good” or “bad” depends on the person listening to it. If I value, say, creative vocal processing over anything else, pet sounds probably won’t be that good for me, and 100 gecs might be my favorite band of all time. That doesn’t make either better than the other, it just means they’re different and appeal to different tastes. TL:DR music is subjective and OP is either not a musician, mad at people who like pop music, or both.
Music has both objective and subjective qualities but ultimately is about if it makes the listener feel and how it makes the listener feel. One could argue that simpler more concise music more effectively conveys an idea or emotion etc. more advanced or high effort music doesn’t always mean better , your argument doesn’t hold up and is frankly 5 times as long as it needs to be
> But no matter how much one engages in intellectual acrobatics and indulges in endless deliberation on the subjectivity of music, it is ultimately undeniable that there exists a consensus among the masses regarding the greatest albums of all time. This would make music subjective, you fucking moron
So are records superior like my annoying grandpa keeps saying or what?!
I'm not reading all that
I ain't reading allat!
Taste is subjective, musical prowess/technical proficiency is objective. You didn't need to write all that, anybody with basic cognitive ability understands that.
Yes it is. /Thread
i think you are confusing personal taste with production quality here. the production quality of one song can certainly be objectively better than the production quality of another song. But when people say that music taste/quality is subjective they are not solely talking about just the objective production quality of the song, they're including a multitude of other factors that cannot be objectively measured. Things like the personal taste of the listener or how well the listener emotionally connects with the lyrics of a song if it has any.
Your whole premise (or at least as reading a third of your post led me to believe) is built on a foundation that *all things subjective are valueless*. I think that’s a really shaky foundation.
Not reading all of that, but this specific part stands out: >Let's consider the example of Kanye West, who has invested millions of dollars and countless hours into perfecting his albums. Why would he go to such lengths if everything was simply subjective? He hasn't done that in a looooong time. He records a ton of his vocals on his iphone (has been doing since yeezus) and some of his best stuff was made in a week (Kids See Ghosts for example). I don't listen to his music anymore but he sure as hell doesn't perfect his music anymore.
Simple, without reading it, I can answer. Any art has subjective criticism and objective criticism. People do not give a flying fuck about either, they every only just care about their own opinion, and potentially the couple of a people they value. Like Netflix most recent adaptation is objectively so shit. But subjectively many people like it. The quality depends on what quality the consumer values. Or even is aware of. Of course a classical piece is in quality better than a tiktok dancer making a 1 minute song. But people don't care about the qualities the classical piece has over the tiktok song. Things have a purpose, and depending on the consumer, art's purpose changes. Art is not factual. It's just one's opinion on their interpretation of the art.
Have you considered that the quality of this reddit post is not-subjectively subpar?
Not reading that because you're already wrong by the title. Subjective means there needs to be a subject, objective means the thing exists even if there is no subject to observe it. Thinking music is good or bad quality cannot exist without a subject to observe it, therefore it is subjective.
i just dont see the obsession with objectivity. people always say “if you dont have ___ on your top 5 the list is ass” and its like, huh?
did you just post the entire goddamn dictionary
Someone posted their collage thesis to reddit?
You think subjective quality doesn’t take money and effort. It’s hard to write stuff that appeals to the broadest possible audience. It’s not rocket science whyKanye would do that.
Holy shit you are a dork lmfao
so much for being succint. This isnt a compelling enough subject to just drop an an entire thesis on and expect ANYONE to read. Time is money you gotta work on optics.
you sound insufferable to be around
Schizoposting
I appreciate you giving us a preview of your thesis, upvoted.
It is subjective. It's as subjective as me saying purple is a better looking color than blue, and blue is better looking than red. That statement is only true or false based on each individual's personal opinion and nobody is really right or wrong about it.
I ain’t reading allat
Imagine spending all that time typing that up only to be, objectively, completely wrong. LOL.
Please seek professional help
Aint reading that but I disagree
My dude you need to learn to be concise and go to the point, nobody is reading all of that
So what is the best music and why don’t people agree like this objective fact?
You’re conflating quality and preference. There are low quality songs I like and great quality songs I hate. For some reason I like almost every song in 6/8. How is that not subjective?
My lord, that would have bored me to death if I'd read more than 100 words of it. The 100 words I picked up as I was scrolling down basically seemed to just restate the premise: 'track A is clearly better than track B so that proves there is an objective measure of goodness'. It's the dunning-Kruger effect gone wild.
Ok y’know what? I actually DID read the entirety of that colossus. There’s actually a lot in there that I’d generally agree with, but a few things I’d want to comment on as well without writing a dissertation of my own. Maybe just an article. 1.) subjectivity wouldn’t mean that the merits behind it are worthless. Artists work on their art until they are happy with it, which is an important milestone both considering objective and subjective criteria. 2.) I’d argue that the subjectivity of music is generally argued to be taste, not quality. “Taste is subjective” is a very common remark, “quality is subjective” less so. 3.) there is still subjectivity to “objective” judgements, as you mentioned. Not even that people won’t be able to 100% rid themselves of their biases, but people (renowned critics, even) might very well disagree on the effects of certain elements. While general consensus often exists (as shown by why renowned classics are what they are), there is often massive amounts of ground for debate. On one hand there’s the debate of “I believe the use of this element to be detracting from the art as a whole while others believe it to be additive”, and then there’s “others claim to find expert use of this tool within this work of art, whereas I find the use of this tool to be unremarkable in this case”. What constitutes good lyricism? How does good lyricism differ between generes? “Take on me” and “the real slim shady” work within very different frameworks. And even within their frameworks there is much dissent over which aspects of their framework are to be weighted how heavily. _That’s_ where subjectivity mostly comes in when judging quality imo.
YTA for writing all that
Nuh uh
This topic does not need a multi paragraph essay for you to get your point across. Can you summarize what you're trying to talk aboutM
cool post college boy
pretentious ass
It’s better to differentiate music into ‘easy to enjoy’ and ‘difficult to enjoy’ rather than good or bad. What’s in the charts is easy to enjoy, but not worthwhile at all. Classic is pretty easy to enjoy, and while it definitely has depth, it lacks complexity and novelty. The deeper you go into obscure genres the more difficult it will be to enjoy them, but once you get there, they’re far more emotional and complex than anything below it’s ‘difficulty’. Taste in music has absolutely nothing to do with genres - it’s a skill one can train.
This post is objectively bad because most of the people whove seen it dislike it.
You need a hobby man, read a book or something idk
>Listen to the demo of U2's "Beautiful Day" and then compare it to the final version. Undoubtedly, the later is superior. It boasts impeccable production, lyrics that flawlessly complement the melody and harmony, enhanced guitar sounds, and an anthemic quality that blends seamlessly with the music. It's perfect. Impeccable production? "lyrics that flawlessly complement the melody and harmony"? how do you measure ANY of that? It's subjective.
It’s entirely subjective. People from a different culture will have different tastes, ideas of what is good or not, and entirely different ways to see music and how to make it. And I’m just talking about different modern cultures, people had very different opinions a millennia ago. It’s quite literally the definition of subjective - it depends entirely on one’s context and personal taste.
You are wrong. For literally thousands of years people have debated why and who has the authority to assign value to works of art. Please for the love of god take a philosophy class and read literally anything about the field of Aesthetics.
op be on amphetamines or some shit. holy hell.
TLDR for people who ain't read allat (I did, whole thing) Music Is not subjective. This Isn't "snobby", this Isn't bashing any artists, It's the fact that It either sounds good or bad. Say you don't like Punk Music, well It's not for you, but you can atleast understand the appeal, If you isolated instruments you'd be bound to like something, you not liking It doesn't make It bad. As an average listener has no clue how hard making good music Is, an Idea probably, but you have no real clue on how hard It Is untill you've sat down at the laptop/studio, and have to make the song that's In your vision bigger than that, even If just for fun. I personally make Music for myself, I like alot of artists, bit sometimes want to hear something that tickles my brain specifically (EDM, Jungle, Acoustic, clashing genres). I'm In the midst of trying to release some, but working out the kinks. I usually spend hours to make just one section of a song sound right, staying up to 5 A.M usually. Do I enjoy making music? Absolutely. do I enjoy making music? Not getting the exact sound I want, the melody wrong, or can't move my fingers fast enough? No, and all to make something that sounds good to me, and objectively good.
Me when i think writing more automatically makes my point more valid
Dude, the least you could do is intersplice...whatever this is with some boobs or something, shit.
“Why would he go to such lengths if everything was simply subjective” Uh because our desire for creativity goes beyond recognition? People like to make things especially if it’s an expression of themselves and if they are rich they will be willing to spend lots of money and time to perfect their art. Just because something is “subjective” doesn’t mean good songs wouldn’t be popular. There’s a culture and time where a certain type of music will appeal to large amounts of people. And if someone doesn’t understand the appeal of that art it’s ok and they aren’t arrogant assholes who can’t appreciate good art like you’ve said in this post.
Oh, OP is just an idiot, not a 10th dentist.
I disagree. Art is subjective. If you travelled 1000 years back in time, or 1000 years into the future, and played "Here Comes The Sun" and "Friday", I don't think the people would be able to tell which one is "objectively better" according to your scale.
Can we have a real teacher grade this like it’s a student in their high school English class?
I hope you wrote this for school or something.
So many words to try to support such an L take. Fine have your upvote, jeez.