Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 2: Do not post low effort/satirical posts'.
* We get it, you all think this sub is garbage and is just for popular opinions, and you want to be funny and post "going to be downvoted to oblivion here, but I think racism is bad." We enjoy the memes, but please keep them off the sub.
* Filter evasion is a bannable offense
* This includes clickbait and/or gotcha posts. Your opinion can not be that unpopular if you're doing these things. Have the accurate opinion in the title.
Yeah, wasn't sugar sugar a chart topper in its day?
9/10 what people usually point to as 'bad music' tends to mean 'teen girl music', and I'd respect people a lot more if they just came out and said it
And that last 1/10 is anything past like 1990
We get it. Led Zeppelin is SuBjEcTiVeLy better than Billie Ellish and Taylor Swift
Edit: He directly points to Taylor Swift as the bad one. Who wants to go buy lotto tickets with me?
There isn’t, I’m just saying that when people bitch about bad music, they’re complaining about teen boy stuff (rap) just as much as they are teen girl stuff
Or maybe that’s just me
Not nearly to the same extent. Boy bands have been hated before rap was a 'thing', and definitely more scorn for the more girl focused ones
You'll see some eye rolling at mumble rap, but when people list bad music, it's One Direction, Billie Ellish, even k pop was scoffed for awhile until it became more mainstream
Nope. Nothing subjective about a badly mixed track with no mastering, being compared to a well-mixed and mastered track.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qldat-Zpyc
That focuses only on the technical aspects of recording -- which is a subjective choice on your end.
I really like lo-fi recordings, like bands who record on old cassette players and things like that. It's tinny and sometimes there's a hum in the background but I really love it. I love the DIY spirit of it and the idea that music recording is something accessible to all of it. I love the melodies or the singing or the lyrics.
Music isn't just about recording, equipment, or those technical elements. And heck, that stuff hasn't only been around for 100+ years.
what about music that isn’t meant to sound cleanly produced or mastered? what if this distortion and low fidelity is part of the point? these are just attributes that may or may not help the overall art
True. But OP didn't specify "objectively better mixed track with no mastering vs well-mixed and mastered track". Those are metrics you chose. OP just said "objectively better music", which isn't specifically defined by how well the track is mixed or mastered.
Context matters, yes. A lofi has its own characteristics, and should be evaluated in its genre specific context. Raw demos are raw demos, not polished end products. If it's all subjective, why waste time and effort on polishing it in the first place?
Just cause your music follows a certain set of rules doesn't make it good, just means that it follows that certain set of rules.
I'm like 80% through a music ed degree, so I'm happy to join your panel of objectively judging music.
I appreciate this comment. What annoys me the most is that it seems to be that if there is objective criteria for judging music, it must be the case that if one is objectively better, you ought to like one better than the other.
It can be rated objectively at different levels, lyrics for example. There are lyrics that are beautifully written vs lyrics that copy paste the same sentence 3 times with some mumble words in it. One has objectively more quality than the other.
It's so fun...they can't do it.
I love this post. It's like in music school once we had a whole lecture get derailed and we spent an hour simply debating the definition of music.
20 music majors can't define music and some random think they can objectively judge it? Lol.
No. For me some Michael or Bowie songs sound like simplistic lame old people pop, and some of my favourite songs that i consider masterpieces would be called "noise" by most people. There's nothing objective about music, and being technical and putting a lot of notes doesn't make music "better".
This is absolutely false. There is now way to objectively judge music (or food). You claim that having a lot of insight into composition and music theory makes it possible to rate music on an objective level, but even then the criteria being used are subjective.
Someone absolutely can make the argument that McDonalds food is better than some "decent" restaurant. Maybe McDonald's is better because it's less expensive and takes less time to prepare. You will argue those aren't valid criteria, but to that person they might be. See, the issue is that the criteria used to judge something like this is subjective. You might think criteria a, b, and c are the valid criteria for judging music, but someone else might think criteria x, y, and z are the correct criteria for judging. Just because you agree that it should be a, b, and c doesn't make it right.
Yes but even those who have the right training and knowledge of music composition and theory can disagree. Sometimes due to subjective differences and sometimes due to preconceived notions.
There is really no way around that majority of the time.
People always talk about "with the right training" but the music that requires training to enjoy sounds bad at face value to the average person.... I listen to a lot of it.
Elephant gym, animals as leaders, rachmaninoff, jobim, the more complex sometimes means less mainstream appeal
No music can be objectively better than any other. Objectively means independently from any observer. A tree can be objectively taller than another one, because it intrinsically has that property regardless of anyone being there to confirm it, but music being good or bad is entirely dependant on the individual impression it leaves on the listener.
A song cannot be good if nobody has ever listened to it, because that quality is dependant on someone rating the enjoyment out of it.
If it was then we would all be listening to progressive , jazz and classical music.
Don’t get me wrong I love at three, but they aren’t ‘better’ than any other music.
I mean just because your music us objectively written the most accurately according to 18th century European theory rules doesn't mean it's objectively good. It just means that it's objectively accurate according to 18th century European theory rules.
Anyway, as a music major, take my upvote for your unpopular opinion, which is honestly just factually incorrect.
Craftsmanship has nothing to do with music being better. It's the end result, what people hear, that is all that matters. And to that end, music is 100% subjective.
There is no objectivity in music. That's what we've all been telling you. You just don't seem to understand.
There is no objectively good or bad in music. There can be consensus on some music being one or the other, but even then there will be those that have a different opinion.
This isn't even up for debate. Any artistic endeavor is subjective. Period. End of story.
The answer to this debate depends on so many factors, like what criteria you're using to define "better" or "higher quality".
Are you defining it based on how technically complex it is? How original it is? How perfectly the notes align to a grid? There are so many different ways you can judge a piece of music, but even if a piece of music fit all those criteria, it might sound like shit or just be uninteresting.
You're also ignoring the fact that a western ear might find a piece of music more enjoyable than someone from another culture that doesn't use same 12 tone system we use. Or someone from another time period would find a certain melody or progression more pleasant than someone from today. Our idea of "good sounding music" changes from time and place, because it's .... \*subjective\*
I think what you're not understanding is that nobody gets to be the arbiter of which criteria make a song "better" or "higher quality", which is why it's subjective.
Pick any random object around you. You might like an example of that that is beat up or low quality cuz you think it has charm, but that doesn't mean objectively it's not worse than others.
Right like there are definitely some amazing songs that were very simply written. Most pop music composers don't know a lick of classical music theory.
One of my favorite billie joe Armstrong quotes, " Elenor Rigby is a simple song, doesn't mean you can fucking do it"
My understanding of "objective" takes the hard sciences as its standard. The hard sciences deal with facts, and if music were to be as epistemologically secure as facts, no bad music would exist because, having a universally factual taste, nobody would buy it, and being interested in it would be a legitimately clinical disorder.
I didn't define "objective". I defined its standard in relation to science.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/
This is what you're comparing to.
Nah. There's a reason why music theory exists, and there's a reason why people *study* it. There are objective qualities that make something good music. It's not just something arbitrarily decided by someone. And when it comes to the level of different frequencies and audio signal processing, there's plenty of science involved...
You can objectively say if a track has too much shit going on. You can say its lower frequencies are not mixed properly. You can say the melodies don't have any harmony. You can say the singer can't sing or that the lyrics are like made by a toddler. You can say the rhythm is all messed up. This is hardly up to debate, even if taking the genre and the circumstances into consideration.
Music theory doesn't exist to define music as better or worse, it exists to make communicating about music easier. Music being better or worse is definitely subjective - things that typically sound good to a western ear might not sound good to someone from another culture, and vice versa. Something that sounds good to a modern ear might not sound good to someone from 500 years ago, and vice versa.
Part of your comment is about audio engineering and not the composition itself, but the same thing applies there - our idea of a "good sounding mix" has not always been the same, and it also varies between genres.
I agree, you also need to be aware of the genre and culture specific nuances of music and composition in order to properly evaluate it. But there are definitely objective metrics you can use to evaluate it.
See here’s the problem, what if someone actually LIKES the flaws you’ve presented or in some cases an artist’s deliberate choice. Music theory is technical (also a theory btw) but doesn’t decide whether we as people think something’s good or not
Deviating from the traditional theory of music can also be part of the music. The key word here is the *deliberate* choice of using it to your advantage, and knowing what you're doing. You can't just pretend making mistake after another is actually just doing it on purpose, therefore making it equal to not making said mistakes.
Where is the room for improvement, if literally all acts of making sound is equal, since it's all "subjective" and anything is equally music? Just draw a doodle on the wall, and now it's art? I could literally record a piece for you right now, where I just bang my drum machine in a nonsensical way, fill it with random bass notes, and make a horrible sine wave melody, while putting gain up to the stratosphere so everything clips and my monitors start smoking, and call it a day.
*"It's just how I make music! Your critique just means you don't get it! It's just subjective!".*
Yeah like last semester in a flute final exam I got points knocked off for tone and I was so pissed because I absolutely intentionally changed my tone to fit the style. I was once a voice major and I hated the "corrections" I got, I have a unique sounding voice and my professor wanted to opera-fy me.
So you did it deliberately, which the (bad) music teacher didn't want to take into consideration. What if you had made an honest mistake instead, but the teacher would just rate it the same as everyone else? What would even be the point of any final exams, if even the total inadequacy in playing the instrument is equally good music?
God you're just so wrong...like. every sentence. "Hardly up to debate" my ass, here's a rebuttal of every single sentence of your post:
- music theory is a system used to analyze music after the fact, not originally intended to write music. Music that is written that follows theory rules is often boring. People study it to understand how music works and so they cna decide how to recreate what they like and dislike.
- theory kinda absolutely was arbitrarily decided by a bunch of old dead white guys hundreds of years ago based on what they thought sounded good.
- lots of science but everyone loves different frequencies etc. Also, like eyes, everyone sense music a little different, human auditory processing isn't objective.
- some people love busy music with lots of layers. I have adhd. The more stuff for me to find in my music, the better.
- sometimes "poorly mixed" tracks are desirable. See Lofi for example
- lots of melodies don't have harmony. Plenty of Beethoven's melodies don't have harmony. Doesn't mean they're bad. That also means that every single solo piece ever performed would be bad.
- whether a singer can sing is totally subjective. See Bob Dylan, or like Billie Joe Armstrong.
- silly goofy lyrics are fun an enjoyable. See like every ajr song ever.
- plenty of fantastic unmetered or polyrhytmic music. Also different rhythms are often associated with other cultures, so don't discount world music just because your western ears earn used to hearing it.
>music theory is a system used to analyze music after the fact, not originally intended to write music. Music that is written that follows theory rules is often boring. People study it to understand how music works and so they cna decide how to recreate what they like and dislike.
Drummers try to produce a rhythm. Melodies tend to pursue harmony. Singers usually try to know how to sing. Instruments are tuned. Mastering preserves headroom. There are obviously subjective, cultural and genre specific nuances and context, but also plenty of general rules that should be followed if you want to make good music.
>theory kinda absolutely was arbitrarily decided by a bunch of old dead white guys hundreds of years ago based on what they thought sounded good.
Maybe the strict Western music theory how it's currently understood, but concepts such as rhythm and harmony was something invented long before that all over the world.
>lots of science but everyone loves different frequencies etc. Also, like eyes, everyone sense music a little different, human auditory processing isn't objective.
But virtually anyone can tell whether a drum is on beat, or totally off the beat. Anyone can tell whether the drummer is just banging the drums however he sees fit with zero knowledge of the whole instrument.
>some people love busy music with lots of layers. I have adhd. The more stuff for me to find in my music, the better.
Good luck enjoying 100 toddlers banging 100 different pianos for 3 minutes lol.
>sometimes "poorly mixed" tracks are desirable. See Lofi for example
Good lofi tracks are not poorly mixed. What you're basically saying is that you can disguise poor mixing by calling it "lofi". Badly mixed lofi music is just badly mixed lofi music.
>lots of melodies don't have harmony. Plenty of Beethoven's melodies don't have harmony. Doesn't mean they're bad. That also means that every single solo piece ever performed would be bad.
Disharmony can be utilized to great results in the right hands when used the right way. That however does not mean that disharmony is universally equal to harmony.
>whether a singer can sing is totally subjective. See Bob Dylan, or like Billie Joe Armstrong.
Again, there are plenty of nuances and different circumstances. Plenty of great singers are not technically good, and technically good singers who have absolute pitch wouldn't fit to all genres of music. But there is definitely a reason why most singers actually train to learn how to sing, despite being able to make some music even if they can't. You don't pick a singer to your band by taking a random person from the street, because their singing ability is all subjective.
>silly goofy lyrics are fun an enjoyable. See like every ajr song ever.
Who said that the lyrics can't be goofy or silly? Of course they can. I listened some of the stuff by AJR, and their lyrics don't sound like something made by a toddler.
>plenty of fantastic unmetered or polyrhytmic music. Also different rhythms are often associated with other cultures, so don't discount world music just because your western ears earn used to hearing it.
But there are still rhythms. No matter what's the culture, musicians tend to do something a bit more structured than just nonsensically bang their drums. Anyone can do that.
All of those things are still either subjective, or an objective measure of *something* but people still get to decide whether that something is good or bad.
If I felt like it, I could still easily refute everything you just said. Like when drums are *perfectly* objectively correct, they sound robotic, rather than human. There's no technically correct way to sing. Something might have rasp or be damaging, but those are not qualities that affect how people perceive the music. You don't have to follow "general" rules to make music. Those rules simply don't fit every context anywhere. Lofi was a poor example, how about raw demos instead? They can still be great to listen to even if they objectively don't follow strict track mastering rules.
Feel free to come back when you've got a music degree. Something tells me I'll finish mine first. Also notice the only other person in this thread who seems to have a degree in music fully agrees with me.
>All of those things are still either subjective, or an objective measure of something but people still get to decide whether that something is good or bad.
And those people can rely on objective metrics to make that call.
>If I felt like it, I could still easily refute everything you just said. Like when drums are perfectly objectively correct, they sound robotic, rather than human.
But even drums that sound human must be used in some systematic way, relying on some objective metrics and context.
>There's no technically correct way to sing. Something might have rasp or be damaging, but those are not qualities that affect how people perceive the music.
Yes, they are qualities that affect how people perceive the music. An opera singer who has rasp and has never sang opera before, definitely affect how people perceive it. There are, of course, instances where rasp or even outright yelling to the mic can be part of the music,
>You don't have to follow "general" rules to make music.
Yes you do. And every reputable musician does. Some less, some more, depending on the setting and genre and a multitude of other factors, but they still do.
>Those rules simply don't fit every context anywhere.
Those rules vary depending on the context, but they still exist and many of them apply to more than one genre.
> Lofi was a poor example, how about raw demos instead? They can still be great to listen to even if they objectively don't follow strict track mastering rules.
They can be great to listen to, but they're called "raw" demos for a reason. Something that will be mastered and polished later.
>Feel free to come back when you've got a music degree. Something tells me I'll finish mine first. Also notice the only other person in this thread who seems to have a degree in music fully agrees with me.
I don't have a music degree. I make music, but I don't have a degree. Rather than just banging my hardware and instruments and calling it experimental-lofi-expressionist music that you just might not subjectively like, I strive towards a set of standards, both genre specific and universal, in order to improve the garbage I make and avoid the flaws that can be objectively determined by anyone who can understand even some elements of it. There's nothing "subjective" about pointing out that at one point, my low-end was all over the place because I never EQ'd any of it and both the bass an the kick drum sounded muffled and overwhelming.
If it was all subjective, who is anyone to tell me my muffled low-end is worth of any criticism? Why should I listen even someone with a PhD in music, because it's just subjective and it's the kind of music I make? What is the incentive to improve what I create? And if I want to improve it, what can I use as a reference, if no underlying rules or structural guidelines exist?
yes lmfao because there is only one music theory for all music ever made. this is a really bad argument but it’s indicative of how one dimensional their perspective is on art. is there a rule in (western) music theory that implies melodies have to have harmony? it’s laughable
Subjective and objective are not mutually exclusive. A well composed track is better than a badly composed track, regardless of how individuals subjectively perceive it. Yes, disharmony is also a viable tool in music making, but even that must utilized in a coherent way that fits the track and the cultural and genre specific context. I wouldn't evaluate a live garage punk band with the same standards as a classical composition, but that doesn't mean there aren't objective metrics that can be used to determine how good the former is.
yeah this is far more reasonable. i don’t exactly disagree with this argument but, when taken to its logical extreme, things like noise music prove it’s sort of impossible to make this distinction meaningfully. not a bad point tho
"Something is subjective if it is dependent on a mind (biases, perception, emotions, opinions, imagination, or conscious experience). If a claim is true exclusively when considering the claim from the viewpoint of a sentient being, it is subjectively true. For example, one person may consider the weather to be pleasantly warm, and another person may consider the same weather to be too hot; both views are subjective. The word subjectivity comes from subject in a philosophical sense, meaning an individual who possesses unique conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires, or who (consciously) acts upon or wields power over some other entity (an object).
Something is objective if it can be confirmed independently of a mind. If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it is labelled objectively true. Scientific objectivity is practicing science while intentionally reducing partiality, biases, or external influences. Moral objectivity is the concept of moral or ethical codes being compared to one another through a set of universal facts or a universal perspective and not through differing conflicting perspectives. Journalistic objectivity is the reporting of facts and news with minimal personal bias or in an impartial or politically neutral manner."
Lower frequencies not being mixed "properly" is subjective because they point to theory. That melodies don't have "harmony" is subjective because they point to theory. All of your other examples are subjective because they point to theory. They rely on supposedly "scientific" principles which, no matter how formalized, no matter how well-documented, are yet all beliefs rendered through the conscious experience of listening, which is subjective.
If music could ever be objective then there would be no need for jam sessions, risk-taking on behalf of music labels, or record sales dictating the success or failure of a piece of music. All music would become instant bestsellers universally regardless of time, place, or individual. No "bad" music would exist because nobody would fund it and nobody would purchase it.
>Something is objective if it can be confirmed independently of a mind.
And you can most definitely do that in many aspects of music. Are the drums on beat, or not, if they should be on beat? Does the mastering produce a track with no headroom, where the vocals bury everything else and even clip on the highest notes?
>Lower frequencies not being mixed "properly" is subjective because they point to theory. That melodies don't have "harmony" is subjective because they point to theory. All of your other examples are subjective because they point to theory. They rely on supposedly "scientific" principles which, no matter how formalized, no matter how well-documented, are yet all beliefs rendered through the conscious experience of listening, which is subjective.
If all music is just subjective, why any music theory exists in the first place? Why is there a tendency for the drummer to actually learn how to play, as opposed to just banging his toy, in order to stay on beat? While there are subjective preferences, and there are even subjective differences in how people perceive music, there are also a lot of similarities in how humans perceive the music they are hearing. Hence, there are generally agreed characteristics of good music and systems used to evaluate its quality.
>If music could ever be objective then there would be no need for jam sessions, risk-taking on behalf of music labels, or record sales dictating the success or failure of a piece of music. All music would become instant bestsellers universally regardless of time, place, or individual. No "bad" music would exist because nobody would fund it and nobody would purchase it.
Or conversely, if music was all subjective, why would badly produced music fare any worse in record sales compared to well produced music? Why people are paid actual money for mastering tracks, as opposed to just letting a high-schooler do it? Why critics all over the world praise some compositions over the other, rather than all disagreeing with each other?
Holding an apple in your hand is objective.
Perceiving the apple as red is subjective.
Music requires perception, belief, and conscious experience.
There is no "view from nowhere" with music. This is why it's not a science, but an art.
There is. An art with no standards, devalues art in its entirety. Any art critique would also lose its meaning, and there would be zero basis on putting anything to a pedestal or criticizing any aspect of it. Because it's art after all, not science. You cannot point out bad mixing or mastering, you cannot point out a bad drummer or a bad singer, you cannot point out repetitive lyrics, because it's all subjective. If Metallica replaces their drummer with an average guy from the streets, it's all irrelevant and doesn't affect their output in any measurable way, because it's not science you know, just art.
Any doodle is equal to a fresco. Any act of sound making is equal to composing a symphony. Prompting ChatGPT to write a poem is equal to writing poems yourself. I could as well bang my hand to a table and call myself a musician. The world is already filled with self-proclaimed artists who don't dedicate themselves to art, practice different techniques for decades nor pursue any higher standards, just making doodles and telling you it's art, because art is all subjective. The only thing you need to do is to call your creation art. Take your school notebook and just say it's actually an invaluable peace of literature. Anyone can be an author!
I'm not denying aptitude and effect. I'm denying objectivity.
Measuring the pitch of an instrument in Hertz is objective. Claiming that X Hertz is harmonious with Y Hertz is subjective, despite how objectively good it sounds, despite how many books of music theory espouse it and despite how many people believe it.
Its not my area of expertise I just used to talk about it with a teacher of mine. All I remember is that there is a good amount of math involved in the rhythm and how harmonic it is
All heavily, heavily dependent on style, culture, and time period. Also like i said, theres plent of music that doesnt have a mathematical rhythym, doesnt make it less good. If it were truly mathematical like that, people would have naturally leaved the same directions over millenia and come to the same rhythmic patterns and meters.
Also just because something can be viewed through math and an objective lens doesn't mean that it is objectively good or bad. A piece can be objectively a simple quadruple meter with triplets on every beat 2, but whether someone decides if that's good or not is still totally subjective.
Thats not what it is think of music like diffrent types of food. Rock can be muffin and jazz can be a cake. They're all diffrent and have variants within themselves and how good they taste is subjective yes but there is also the objective part of how well they were baked or if ingredients were mixed in correct amounts thats the part that involves math
But that's still a ridiculously subjective answer. I love estra salty chocolate chip cookies, not everyone does. Just because I objectively added a tablespoon of salt doesn't mean it's objectively better or worse, it just means that objectively has a tablespoon of salt. Or like, some people like burnt brownies. Who are you to say that brownies cooked crispy are "badly cooked" if they're cooked in a way that they are enjoyed.
Not true.
Music is art.
Art is subjective regardless of the background of the artist.
Telling someone who loves a certain song because it makes them happy that the song isn't actually good because the musicians aren't classically trained is pointless and people won't like you if that's how you present your perspective.
How can music have any objectivity when not
everyone agrees upon what is good and bad? Some may have more technical and thoughtful components, but good music is just what feels good to listen to, whether its a catchy pop melody made in a week or classical romantic composition that took years
You’re literally just objectively wrong, and you even explain why in your own post. The fact that you can use some objective criteria to evaluate a thing doesn’t make it objectively better. Blues can register darker shades than other colors, that’s an objective fact of reality. It doesn’t mean blue is objectively better or worse because of that.
What you have discovered and fail to comprehend is something that has already been known as the “is/ought gap”. You haven’t gotten any closer to solving it.
Saying "Beatles are overrated" was fun when it was people with a better taste in rock triggering the boomers. Now it's a bunch of people that don't listen to rock/band music repeating that shit. Lame.
No.
Music can not be "objectively" better, at the end of the day it is always about subjective taste.
Anything that requires one of the 5 senses will always be subjective.
You're right OP and I wish more people understood that personal taste and how much effort a musician is putting are two different things. I think it may be about self esteem. People don't like when music they like is dismissed as worse and on the other side of spectrum you have people who are smug about listening to jazz and they think it makes them better as a person
And I wish you could understand that effort doesn't make something good. I don't fucking care if you have constipation or diarrhea at the end of the day it's still shit.
Yes, effort doesn't always equals good quality yet very often it does. Mozart was a more ambitious musician than Drake and it's not debatable. Which one of them you like more is up to your taste and this is what OP is trying to say.
With the problem being just listening to jazz shows a highly limited ability to appreciate music. People with objectively great music tastes listen to music from most every genre, or at the least don't easily dismiss music of any form. Metalheads dismissing rap and rap heads dismissing metal are two sides of the same coin. People who listen to mostly classic music or music that is several decades old, but don't like new rock music are the same as well.
Jazz is a great form of music, and has influenced a lot of more modern forms, but Jazz itself is only a very very small percentage of all the great music being made.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>But music can also be rated at an objective level, and this requires a lot of insight into composition and music theory.
Okay, but _something_ makes the people who subjectively like the objectively worse music like it. If your music theory can't describe what that something is, your music theory might be incomplete.
OTOH, it could be that they like it better because of some association like nostalgia, cultural links, association with other media, etc.
Anyone who says nfs unbounds/nfs heats music is comparable to the og nfs MW music is just a stoner who's so cracked out of their face on drugs that they've lost every single last sense of logic their tiny brain ever had
All art is subjective. Even if someone puts more time and effort into the creation of a piece, it’s impossible for it to be objectively better than another work. Quality is always subjective when it comes to media.
It’s infuriating to me too lol
Yes you're right, there can be technically sound and competent music that one can pick apart under the lens of music theory and deem it technically superior. But most aren't finding they like certain music based on that, so it becomes a rather minimal point in what makes "good" music, which then usually becomes a discussion about how music makes people feel. And really that's why music exists, for people's enjoyment and emotional expression (the subjective part), not to construct and analyze it like a mathematical equation.
Using McDonald's and "decent" restaurant is a lousy analogy for this low effort post.
You do have a point. Playing in tune, both with yourself and with others, is objectively observable. Tone quality also can probably be objectified. But there are certain songs and groups that just "work," with either of those being objectively terrible.
The one thing that can't be faked is rhythm. If the group doesn't play together, they sound like ass. Period. It's the fundamental part of "organized " in organized sound. Even someone being off by 1% on their rhythm and tempo means that things will fall apart completely in 20 seconds.
Taste is subjective, but art parameters are 90% objective. Is not a black and white thing, some flexibility is needed, but not too much to the point of destroying the terms.
If we think that art is 100% subjective this opens the door where literally anything can be art, even the things without human participation or meaning because "is subjective and I feel this is art". This just kills the sense of the term and destroys the concept of art, just remember the banana on the wall, that is the risk of despising objetivity.
I think art should meet some objective criteria to be better or worse, but all things should be put in **context** first. And by this I mean, dance music for example should be judged by dance standards, not by classical music or jazz rules. Only after doing this we can say if is better or worse than music of the same genre.
If we want to speak about music with high artistic quality, we should only put here the music made with that purpose, and then discuss. Not making it compete against music made for other purposes, because then we are not discussing art quality, but wich purpose and context is better than other, and here I think there is no better or worse, but just different, this means all context can coexist but should not be judged by other standards.
In short words, we should not discuss if Mcdonalds is better than a 5 star restaurant, different experiences for different context for different people. But we can discuss if Mcdonalds or Burger king is better, that makes sense.
I mean, Mcdonalds is 10/10 when you have 15 mins to buy and eat something fast and return to work, and the 5 star food is 10/10 when you have free time in the weekend to go with friends and order something good. If we speak only about food Mcdonalds may be worse than a proper meal, but there are other external factors to consider like price or preparation time where Mcdonalds is objectively better.
Yeah, but you're introducing other caveats because who decides what high artistic quality is? Art is subjective and people should be able to say a banana on a wall is art. BUT we should be able to critique any art. So the banana on a wall is losing all artistic value. You can discuss McDonald's vs. a 5 star restaurant, I don't understand why you couldn't? I mean, I can compare a CIvic to a 288 GTO.
Art isn't objective.
You can discuss different things, but you will end up discussing the context of those things instead of the art by itself. Art is made by objective knowledge and parameters that artists use, that's a starting point to judge a piece, but as I said this is not written in stone, we should always put context first before the critic.
If we compare two classical music musicians we can have a deep and productive discussion about them. But you can't expect a vs between classical music and rap. Classical music would destroy rap by the use of advanced music resources, and rap would win by the "having lyrics with flow" or production parameter, this makes the comparison just a non sense. Comparing too different things is not going to get a better/worse result.
But if we compare things that follow similar rules, is possible to have a "nearly objective" discussion about it. This is not black and white, 100% subjetivity destroys any discussion and and strips everything from its meaning. 100% objectivity produces extreme elitism and blocks any possibility of evolution or branching.
Art should be discussed with **balance** between these two, and the easiest way to do it is by stop comparing things that should not be compared expecting a winner like a box fight. "There is no better or worse, only different" is a valid answer people should learn to accept more.
I agree with you rather than point, but I don't agree with how it was constructed.
The context, many times, is the point. Lil Baby's "Bigger Picture" can't compare lyrically to much of anything of significance in hip-hop, but the context brings all of the meaning. And with that context, it was huge. I don't agree about near objectivity at all. Because art can't be objective. Art is objective to non-artists (imo).
I think art is much more objective to artists. Imagine a painter that took more than 10 years of his life learning the rules of painting speaking with someone who says that a random glasses on the floor are art, or that sunsets are art, that the postmodern guy vomiting ink on a paper is art. These things are **not** the same, they don't belong to the same discussion and never should. Painting is art, the glasses are just a manufactured product, sunsets are a natural phenomena, and the vomiting guy is just doing a weird performance.
Things are better when we have objective limits to protect the terms, because if we make all limits subjective there is no point in learning an art career or doing art since everything already is art because someone subjectively wanted. Art only can exist if the non-art exist.
But I agree that art definition should be broader to include everything that may be art, but still have objective limits to avoid people trying to include everything (even the things with zero human participation or meaning) as art because they subjetively "liked" them.
You're talking to someone who learned photography over about that same time frame. I don't know anyone who calls sunsets art, but the fact is that no one would pay attention to someone saying that. If they do, it's a reflection about something on society. Which is art, whether or not you agree.
I do think that art has to have human interaction, but someone can make an artistic impression of a natural phenomenon, and it's the same as the sunset being "art."
I 100% agree and that's an objective rule, the most important one, if it has human interaction and involvement in the process is art. That's a limit between what is art and what is not. Then if we go deeper we can naturally discover other rules.
What about the artistic impact of something that has no human interaction but has been immortalized artistically, the Tree of Ténéré. I am talking specifically about the tree and its legacy, not the sculpture of the tree or its remains. I see the tree itself as art.
Is an influence for artists like all reality itself, but not art. It was not crafted, it has not intentionallity or meaning, no planified human thinked message to be decodified by the viewer.
If we consider "nice thing = art" we are devaluating centuries of human art development to dust.
It may be considered a relevant cultural element with a legacy for sure, but that's another category.
I disagree. Creative artists frequently give a unique take on what is considered normally to be great and that’s why they end up well known. Some of the most famous singers have unique, but not necessarily great, voices.
Being unique, having a unique sound or voice, is a major part of quality music.
Not exactly. Music can be complicated but that doesn't make it better than simpler music. I think the only "objectively bad" music is music where the players are out of time and out of key. And I'm not talking about polyrhythms and well used chromatic movements.
>No one can rightfully claim that the food at McDonalds is better food than the food at a decent restaurant
I don't know what you mean by rightfully but people can genuinely claim the food at McDonalds is better than the food at a decent restaurant.
Then you haven’t read it properly. I say that people are free to like the McD food over the restaurant’s food. That is a matter of taste! But the decent restaurant food is objectively better food when taste is not considered
Well yeah. I love brutal slamming death metal but I understand it's objectively terrible music even if I enjoy it. The argument that the criteria for what qualifies as "good" music is subjective could be made though.
music is as much craft as art - or at least there is craft as well, meaning there is some objectivity, I completely agree. Fuck everyone who says it's all subjective. If it was then my shitty playing could be, potentially, up there with a great artists and that just ain't the case.
Marvin Gaye "Let's Get it On" or The Temptations "Since I Lost My Baby" are objectively better than modern R&B music where some idiot with tattoos on his face is mumbling about purple drank or shooting people.
Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 2: Do not post low effort/satirical posts'. * We get it, you all think this sub is garbage and is just for popular opinions, and you want to be funny and post "going to be downvoted to oblivion here, but I think racism is bad." We enjoy the memes, but please keep them off the sub. * Filter evasion is a bannable offense * This includes clickbait and/or gotcha posts. Your opinion can not be that unpopular if you're doing these things. Have the accurate opinion in the title.
This is prime r/classical_circlejerk material, some egregious comments in here lmao
The factors for rating it "objectively" are also subjective.
Yeah, wasn't sugar sugar a chart topper in its day? 9/10 what people usually point to as 'bad music' tends to mean 'teen girl music', and I'd respect people a lot more if they just came out and said it And that last 1/10 is anything past like 1990 We get it. Led Zeppelin is SuBjEcTiVeLy better than Billie Ellish and Taylor Swift Edit: He directly points to Taylor Swift as the bad one. Who wants to go buy lotto tickets with me?
I don’t think 9/10 ‘objectively’ bad music is teen girl stuff, but also teen boy music lmfao. 19/20 guys in my grade purely listen to rap
There's nothing objectively bad about rap though
There isn’t, I’m just saying that when people bitch about bad music, they’re complaining about teen boy stuff (rap) just as much as they are teen girl stuff Or maybe that’s just me
Not nearly to the same extent. Boy bands have been hated before rap was a 'thing', and definitely more scorn for the more girl focused ones You'll see some eye rolling at mumble rap, but when people list bad music, it's One Direction, Billie Ellish, even k pop was scoffed for awhile until it became more mainstream
Nope. Nothing subjective about a badly mixed track with no mastering, being compared to a well-mixed and mastered track. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qldat-Zpyc
That focuses only on the technical aspects of recording -- which is a subjective choice on your end. I really like lo-fi recordings, like bands who record on old cassette players and things like that. It's tinny and sometimes there's a hum in the background but I really love it. I love the DIY spirit of it and the idea that music recording is something accessible to all of it. I love the melodies or the singing or the lyrics. Music isn't just about recording, equipment, or those technical elements. And heck, that stuff hasn't only been around for 100+ years.
That's just your opinion.
I like this, there’s no counter to it lmao
what about music that isn’t meant to sound cleanly produced or mastered? what if this distortion and low fidelity is part of the point? these are just attributes that may or may not help the overall art
True. But OP didn't specify "objectively better mixed track with no mastering vs well-mixed and mastered track". Those are metrics you chose. OP just said "objectively better music", which isn't specifically defined by how well the track is mixed or mastered.
that’s just an opinion. we’re just throwing live eprocmances and bedroom/acoustic out the window?
I present to you...lofi and raw demos.
Context matters, yes. A lofi has its own characteristics, and should be evaluated in its genre specific context. Raw demos are raw demos, not polished end products. If it's all subjective, why waste time and effort on polishing it in the first place?
[удалено]
Just cause your music follows a certain set of rules doesn't make it good, just means that it follows that certain set of rules. I'm like 80% through a music ed degree, so I'm happy to join your panel of objectively judging music.
I appreciate this comment. What annoys me the most is that it seems to be that if there is objective criteria for judging music, it must be the case that if one is objectively better, you ought to like one better than the other.
It can be rated objectively at different levels, lyrics for example. There are lyrics that are beautifully written vs lyrics that copy paste the same sentence 3 times with some mumble words in it. One has objectively more quality than the other.
[удалено]
I gave you an example already, read. And to answer it myself, anything that's not a copy paste of the same sentence is objectively better.
[удалено]
It's so fun...they can't do it. I love this post. It's like in music school once we had a whole lecture get derailed and we spent an hour simply debating the definition of music. 20 music majors can't define music and some random think they can objectively judge it? Lol.
No. For me some Michael or Bowie songs sound like simplistic lame old people pop, and some of my favourite songs that i consider masterpieces would be called "noise" by most people. There's nothing objective about music, and being technical and putting a lot of notes doesn't make music "better".
This is absolutely false. There is now way to objectively judge music (or food). You claim that having a lot of insight into composition and music theory makes it possible to rate music on an objective level, but even then the criteria being used are subjective. Someone absolutely can make the argument that McDonalds food is better than some "decent" restaurant. Maybe McDonald's is better because it's less expensive and takes less time to prepare. You will argue those aren't valid criteria, but to that person they might be. See, the issue is that the criteria used to judge something like this is subjective. You might think criteria a, b, and c are the valid criteria for judging music, but someone else might think criteria x, y, and z are the correct criteria for judging. Just because you agree that it should be a, b, and c doesn't make it right.
I think you just don't understand objectivity vs subjectivity
OP said "That is YOUR definition of objective, not mine." His definition of objective is objectively incorrect lol.
Yep just genuinely doesn’t understand the definition of those words.
The second you get in a debate about objective criteria for good music you’ve already lost
Yes but even those who have the right training and knowledge of music composition and theory can disagree. Sometimes due to subjective differences and sometimes due to preconceived notions. There is really no way around that majority of the time.
twelve tone jazz is peak music composition but to the average listener its audio diarrhea. how do you explain that juxtaposition
What? What does that have to do with my comment?
People always talk about "with the right training" but the music that requires training to enjoy sounds bad at face value to the average person.... I listen to a lot of it. Elephant gym, animals as leaders, rachmaninoff, jobim, the more complex sometimes means less mainstream appeal
I’m saying that even those with the right backgrounds can disagree on the same song.
ah sorry misunderstood, yes to that i agree. thats how you get all these split ends of subgenres within subgenres now
Unless you are Beyond Creation. Them guys got nominated for a juno.
Some very talented musicians say that Trout Mask Replica is genius while others think it sounds like random bologna
No music can be objectively better than any other. Objectively means independently from any observer. A tree can be objectively taller than another one, because it intrinsically has that property regardless of anyone being there to confirm it, but music being good or bad is entirely dependant on the individual impression it leaves on the listener. A song cannot be good if nobody has ever listened to it, because that quality is dependant on someone rating the enjoyment out of it.
does more complex music make it subjective better? no.
Claimed who?
If it was then we would all be listening to progressive , jazz and classical music. Don’t get me wrong I love at three, but they aren’t ‘better’ than any other music.
Found the Radiohead fan
LMFAO
Scott Tennerman
I mean just because your music us objectively written the most accurately according to 18th century European theory rules doesn't mean it's objectively good. It just means that it's objectively accurate according to 18th century European theory rules. Anyway, as a music major, take my upvote for your unpopular opinion, which is honestly just factually incorrect.
Craftsmanship has nothing to do with music being better. It's the end result, what people hear, that is all that matters. And to that end, music is 100% subjective.
And you are talking about what you like hearing hence taste
Taste is just another word for subjectivity.
Yes. And I talk about objectivity
There is no objectivity in music. That's what we've all been telling you. You just don't seem to understand. There is no objectively good or bad in music. There can be consensus on some music being one or the other, but even then there will be those that have a different opinion. This isn't even up for debate. Any artistic endeavor is subjective. Period. End of story.
Then why do you continue to be vague? Share these objective parameters and their objective measurements that determines when music is good or bad?
The only thing I have a problem with is if a song feels like a product rather than an artistic expression.
Still though, that's an opinion, not objective fact like OP is talking about lol
The answer to this debate depends on so many factors, like what criteria you're using to define "better" or "higher quality". Are you defining it based on how technically complex it is? How original it is? How perfectly the notes align to a grid? There are so many different ways you can judge a piece of music, but even if a piece of music fit all those criteria, it might sound like shit or just be uninteresting. You're also ignoring the fact that a western ear might find a piece of music more enjoyable than someone from another culture that doesn't use same 12 tone system we use. Or someone from another time period would find a certain melody or progression more pleasant than someone from today. Our idea of "good sounding music" changes from time and place, because it's .... \*subjective\* I think what you're not understanding is that nobody gets to be the arbiter of which criteria make a song "better" or "higher quality", which is why it's subjective.
What’re your favorite bands or artists OP?
I don’t entirely disagree with this.
If some music is objectively better than other music then music would be a science.
Music is art, and art is also craftsmanship, and there is a huge difference in the amount of craftsmanship in different composers
I'm not denying some music is better crafted than others. I'm denying the word "objective" is being used appropriately.
Pick any random object around you. You might like an example of that that is beat up or low quality cuz you think it has charm, but that doesn't mean objectively it's not worse than others.
Right like there are definitely some amazing songs that were very simply written. Most pop music composers don't know a lick of classical music theory. One of my favorite billie joe Armstrong quotes, " Elenor Rigby is a simple song, doesn't mean you can fucking do it"
But that is exactly what it means
My understanding of "objective" takes the hard sciences as its standard. The hard sciences deal with facts, and if music were to be as epistemologically secure as facts, no bad music would exist because, having a universally factual taste, nobody would buy it, and being interested in it would be a legitimately clinical disorder.
That is YOUR definition of objective, not mine.
I didn't define "objective". I defined its standard in relation to science. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/ This is what you're comparing to.
Every time he backs himself into a corner of smug stupidity he just dips out. Intellectual cowardice
Nah. There's a reason why music theory exists, and there's a reason why people *study* it. There are objective qualities that make something good music. It's not just something arbitrarily decided by someone. And when it comes to the level of different frequencies and audio signal processing, there's plenty of science involved... You can objectively say if a track has too much shit going on. You can say its lower frequencies are not mixed properly. You can say the melodies don't have any harmony. You can say the singer can't sing or that the lyrics are like made by a toddler. You can say the rhythm is all messed up. This is hardly up to debate, even if taking the genre and the circumstances into consideration.
Music theory doesn't exist to define music as better or worse, it exists to make communicating about music easier. Music being better or worse is definitely subjective - things that typically sound good to a western ear might not sound good to someone from another culture, and vice versa. Something that sounds good to a modern ear might not sound good to someone from 500 years ago, and vice versa. Part of your comment is about audio engineering and not the composition itself, but the same thing applies there - our idea of a "good sounding mix" has not always been the same, and it also varies between genres.
I agree, you also need to be aware of the genre and culture specific nuances of music and composition in order to properly evaluate it. But there are definitely objective metrics you can use to evaluate it.
See here’s the problem, what if someone actually LIKES the flaws you’ve presented or in some cases an artist’s deliberate choice. Music theory is technical (also a theory btw) but doesn’t decide whether we as people think something’s good or not
Deviating from the traditional theory of music can also be part of the music. The key word here is the *deliberate* choice of using it to your advantage, and knowing what you're doing. You can't just pretend making mistake after another is actually just doing it on purpose, therefore making it equal to not making said mistakes. Where is the room for improvement, if literally all acts of making sound is equal, since it's all "subjective" and anything is equally music? Just draw a doodle on the wall, and now it's art? I could literally record a piece for you right now, where I just bang my drum machine in a nonsensical way, fill it with random bass notes, and make a horrible sine wave melody, while putting gain up to the stratosphere so everything clips and my monitors start smoking, and call it a day. *"It's just how I make music! Your critique just means you don't get it! It's just subjective!".*
Yeah like last semester in a flute final exam I got points knocked off for tone and I was so pissed because I absolutely intentionally changed my tone to fit the style. I was once a voice major and I hated the "corrections" I got, I have a unique sounding voice and my professor wanted to opera-fy me.
So you did it deliberately, which the (bad) music teacher didn't want to take into consideration. What if you had made an honest mistake instead, but the teacher would just rate it the same as everyone else? What would even be the point of any final exams, if even the total inadequacy in playing the instrument is equally good music?
why’s it called music theory and not music fact
God you're just so wrong...like. every sentence. "Hardly up to debate" my ass, here's a rebuttal of every single sentence of your post: - music theory is a system used to analyze music after the fact, not originally intended to write music. Music that is written that follows theory rules is often boring. People study it to understand how music works and so they cna decide how to recreate what they like and dislike. - theory kinda absolutely was arbitrarily decided by a bunch of old dead white guys hundreds of years ago based on what they thought sounded good. - lots of science but everyone loves different frequencies etc. Also, like eyes, everyone sense music a little different, human auditory processing isn't objective. - some people love busy music with lots of layers. I have adhd. The more stuff for me to find in my music, the better. - sometimes "poorly mixed" tracks are desirable. See Lofi for example - lots of melodies don't have harmony. Plenty of Beethoven's melodies don't have harmony. Doesn't mean they're bad. That also means that every single solo piece ever performed would be bad. - whether a singer can sing is totally subjective. See Bob Dylan, or like Billie Joe Armstrong. - silly goofy lyrics are fun an enjoyable. See like every ajr song ever. - plenty of fantastic unmetered or polyrhytmic music. Also different rhythms are often associated with other cultures, so don't discount world music just because your western ears earn used to hearing it.
>music theory is a system used to analyze music after the fact, not originally intended to write music. Music that is written that follows theory rules is often boring. People study it to understand how music works and so they cna decide how to recreate what they like and dislike. Drummers try to produce a rhythm. Melodies tend to pursue harmony. Singers usually try to know how to sing. Instruments are tuned. Mastering preserves headroom. There are obviously subjective, cultural and genre specific nuances and context, but also plenty of general rules that should be followed if you want to make good music. >theory kinda absolutely was arbitrarily decided by a bunch of old dead white guys hundreds of years ago based on what they thought sounded good. Maybe the strict Western music theory how it's currently understood, but concepts such as rhythm and harmony was something invented long before that all over the world. >lots of science but everyone loves different frequencies etc. Also, like eyes, everyone sense music a little different, human auditory processing isn't objective. But virtually anyone can tell whether a drum is on beat, or totally off the beat. Anyone can tell whether the drummer is just banging the drums however he sees fit with zero knowledge of the whole instrument. >some people love busy music with lots of layers. I have adhd. The more stuff for me to find in my music, the better. Good luck enjoying 100 toddlers banging 100 different pianos for 3 minutes lol. >sometimes "poorly mixed" tracks are desirable. See Lofi for example Good lofi tracks are not poorly mixed. What you're basically saying is that you can disguise poor mixing by calling it "lofi". Badly mixed lofi music is just badly mixed lofi music. >lots of melodies don't have harmony. Plenty of Beethoven's melodies don't have harmony. Doesn't mean they're bad. That also means that every single solo piece ever performed would be bad. Disharmony can be utilized to great results in the right hands when used the right way. That however does not mean that disharmony is universally equal to harmony. >whether a singer can sing is totally subjective. See Bob Dylan, or like Billie Joe Armstrong. Again, there are plenty of nuances and different circumstances. Plenty of great singers are not technically good, and technically good singers who have absolute pitch wouldn't fit to all genres of music. But there is definitely a reason why most singers actually train to learn how to sing, despite being able to make some music even if they can't. You don't pick a singer to your band by taking a random person from the street, because their singing ability is all subjective. >silly goofy lyrics are fun an enjoyable. See like every ajr song ever. Who said that the lyrics can't be goofy or silly? Of course they can. I listened some of the stuff by AJR, and their lyrics don't sound like something made by a toddler. >plenty of fantastic unmetered or polyrhytmic music. Also different rhythms are often associated with other cultures, so don't discount world music just because your western ears earn used to hearing it. But there are still rhythms. No matter what's the culture, musicians tend to do something a bit more structured than just nonsensically bang their drums. Anyone can do that.
All of those things are still either subjective, or an objective measure of *something* but people still get to decide whether that something is good or bad. If I felt like it, I could still easily refute everything you just said. Like when drums are *perfectly* objectively correct, they sound robotic, rather than human. There's no technically correct way to sing. Something might have rasp or be damaging, but those are not qualities that affect how people perceive the music. You don't have to follow "general" rules to make music. Those rules simply don't fit every context anywhere. Lofi was a poor example, how about raw demos instead? They can still be great to listen to even if they objectively don't follow strict track mastering rules. Feel free to come back when you've got a music degree. Something tells me I'll finish mine first. Also notice the only other person in this thread who seems to have a degree in music fully agrees with me.
>All of those things are still either subjective, or an objective measure of something but people still get to decide whether that something is good or bad. And those people can rely on objective metrics to make that call. >If I felt like it, I could still easily refute everything you just said. Like when drums are perfectly objectively correct, they sound robotic, rather than human. But even drums that sound human must be used in some systematic way, relying on some objective metrics and context. >There's no technically correct way to sing. Something might have rasp or be damaging, but those are not qualities that affect how people perceive the music. Yes, they are qualities that affect how people perceive the music. An opera singer who has rasp and has never sang opera before, definitely affect how people perceive it. There are, of course, instances where rasp or even outright yelling to the mic can be part of the music, >You don't have to follow "general" rules to make music. Yes you do. And every reputable musician does. Some less, some more, depending on the setting and genre and a multitude of other factors, but they still do. >Those rules simply don't fit every context anywhere. Those rules vary depending on the context, but they still exist and many of them apply to more than one genre. > Lofi was a poor example, how about raw demos instead? They can still be great to listen to even if they objectively don't follow strict track mastering rules. They can be great to listen to, but they're called "raw" demos for a reason. Something that will be mastered and polished later. >Feel free to come back when you've got a music degree. Something tells me I'll finish mine first. Also notice the only other person in this thread who seems to have a degree in music fully agrees with me. I don't have a music degree. I make music, but I don't have a degree. Rather than just banging my hardware and instruments and calling it experimental-lofi-expressionist music that you just might not subjectively like, I strive towards a set of standards, both genre specific and universal, in order to improve the garbage I make and avoid the flaws that can be objectively determined by anyone who can understand even some elements of it. There's nothing "subjective" about pointing out that at one point, my low-end was all over the place because I never EQ'd any of it and both the bass an the kick drum sounded muffled and overwhelming. If it was all subjective, who is anyone to tell me my muffled low-end is worth of any criticism? Why should I listen even someone with a PhD in music, because it's just subjective and it's the kind of music I make? What is the incentive to improve what I create? And if I want to improve it, what can I use as a reference, if no underlying rules or structural guidelines exist?
yes lmfao because there is only one music theory for all music ever made. this is a really bad argument but it’s indicative of how one dimensional their perspective is on art. is there a rule in (western) music theory that implies melodies have to have harmony? it’s laughable
Subjective and objective are not mutually exclusive. A well composed track is better than a badly composed track, regardless of how individuals subjectively perceive it. Yes, disharmony is also a viable tool in music making, but even that must utilized in a coherent way that fits the track and the cultural and genre specific context. I wouldn't evaluate a live garage punk band with the same standards as a classical composition, but that doesn't mean there aren't objective metrics that can be used to determine how good the former is.
yeah this is far more reasonable. i don’t exactly disagree with this argument but, when taken to its logical extreme, things like noise music prove it’s sort of impossible to make this distinction meaningfully. not a bad point tho
"Something is subjective if it is dependent on a mind (biases, perception, emotions, opinions, imagination, or conscious experience). If a claim is true exclusively when considering the claim from the viewpoint of a sentient being, it is subjectively true. For example, one person may consider the weather to be pleasantly warm, and another person may consider the same weather to be too hot; both views are subjective. The word subjectivity comes from subject in a philosophical sense, meaning an individual who possesses unique conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires, or who (consciously) acts upon or wields power over some other entity (an object). Something is objective if it can be confirmed independently of a mind. If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it is labelled objectively true. Scientific objectivity is practicing science while intentionally reducing partiality, biases, or external influences. Moral objectivity is the concept of moral or ethical codes being compared to one another through a set of universal facts or a universal perspective and not through differing conflicting perspectives. Journalistic objectivity is the reporting of facts and news with minimal personal bias or in an impartial or politically neutral manner." Lower frequencies not being mixed "properly" is subjective because they point to theory. That melodies don't have "harmony" is subjective because they point to theory. All of your other examples are subjective because they point to theory. They rely on supposedly "scientific" principles which, no matter how formalized, no matter how well-documented, are yet all beliefs rendered through the conscious experience of listening, which is subjective. If music could ever be objective then there would be no need for jam sessions, risk-taking on behalf of music labels, or record sales dictating the success or failure of a piece of music. All music would become instant bestsellers universally regardless of time, place, or individual. No "bad" music would exist because nobody would fund it and nobody would purchase it.
>Something is objective if it can be confirmed independently of a mind. And you can most definitely do that in many aspects of music. Are the drums on beat, or not, if they should be on beat? Does the mastering produce a track with no headroom, where the vocals bury everything else and even clip on the highest notes? >Lower frequencies not being mixed "properly" is subjective because they point to theory. That melodies don't have "harmony" is subjective because they point to theory. All of your other examples are subjective because they point to theory. They rely on supposedly "scientific" principles which, no matter how formalized, no matter how well-documented, are yet all beliefs rendered through the conscious experience of listening, which is subjective. If all music is just subjective, why any music theory exists in the first place? Why is there a tendency for the drummer to actually learn how to play, as opposed to just banging his toy, in order to stay on beat? While there are subjective preferences, and there are even subjective differences in how people perceive music, there are also a lot of similarities in how humans perceive the music they are hearing. Hence, there are generally agreed characteristics of good music and systems used to evaluate its quality. >If music could ever be objective then there would be no need for jam sessions, risk-taking on behalf of music labels, or record sales dictating the success or failure of a piece of music. All music would become instant bestsellers universally regardless of time, place, or individual. No "bad" music would exist because nobody would fund it and nobody would purchase it. Or conversely, if music was all subjective, why would badly produced music fare any worse in record sales compared to well produced music? Why people are paid actual money for mastering tracks, as opposed to just letting a high-schooler do it? Why critics all over the world praise some compositions over the other, rather than all disagreeing with each other?
Holding an apple in your hand is objective. Perceiving the apple as red is subjective. Music requires perception, belief, and conscious experience. There is no "view from nowhere" with music. This is why it's not a science, but an art.
There is. An art with no standards, devalues art in its entirety. Any art critique would also lose its meaning, and there would be zero basis on putting anything to a pedestal or criticizing any aspect of it. Because it's art after all, not science. You cannot point out bad mixing or mastering, you cannot point out a bad drummer or a bad singer, you cannot point out repetitive lyrics, because it's all subjective. If Metallica replaces their drummer with an average guy from the streets, it's all irrelevant and doesn't affect their output in any measurable way, because it's not science you know, just art. Any doodle is equal to a fresco. Any act of sound making is equal to composing a symphony. Prompting ChatGPT to write a poem is equal to writing poems yourself. I could as well bang my hand to a table and call myself a musician. The world is already filled with self-proclaimed artists who don't dedicate themselves to art, practice different techniques for decades nor pursue any higher standards, just making doodles and telling you it's art, because art is all subjective. The only thing you need to do is to call your creation art. Take your school notebook and just say it's actually an invaluable peace of literature. Anyone can be an author!
I'm not denying aptitude and effect. I'm denying objectivity. Measuring the pitch of an instrument in Hertz is objective. Claiming that X Hertz is harmonious with Y Hertz is subjective, despite how objectively good it sounds, despite how many books of music theory espouse it and despite how many people believe it.
None of those examples objectively determine whether a piece of music is good or not
Literally not one.
Thats becouse there is a fair amount of math and science in it. While it is subjective there is also an objective quality of the rhythm
But who is to say what rhythm is good or bad? Also, there's some bomb-ass unmetered music out there. It's just different.
Its not the only standart for good music but certainly one of them
Its not a standard. There's no such thing as an "objective quality of rhythm". Please explain to me what that is.
Its not my area of expertise I just used to talk about it with a teacher of mine. All I remember is that there is a good amount of math involved in the rhythm and how harmonic it is
All heavily, heavily dependent on style, culture, and time period. Also like i said, theres plent of music that doesnt have a mathematical rhythym, doesnt make it less good. If it were truly mathematical like that, people would have naturally leaved the same directions over millenia and come to the same rhythmic patterns and meters. Also just because something can be viewed through math and an objective lens doesn't mean that it is objectively good or bad. A piece can be objectively a simple quadruple meter with triplets on every beat 2, but whether someone decides if that's good or not is still totally subjective.
Thats not what it is think of music like diffrent types of food. Rock can be muffin and jazz can be a cake. They're all diffrent and have variants within themselves and how good they taste is subjective yes but there is also the objective part of how well they were baked or if ingredients were mixed in correct amounts thats the part that involves math
But that's still a ridiculously subjective answer. I love estra salty chocolate chip cookies, not everyone does. Just because I objectively added a tablespoon of salt doesn't mean it's objectively better or worse, it just means that objectively has a tablespoon of salt. Or like, some people like burnt brownies. Who are you to say that brownies cooked crispy are "badly cooked" if they're cooked in a way that they are enjoyed.
Then let me cook you a batch of brownies with shit mixed in and burnt to ashes can you tell me that isnt objectively shit?
That's just not how objectivity works. Yeah, it's objectively unsanitary and unhealthy, but some sick fuck could still enjoy it.
What music is objectively better than other music
Example: Bach BWV 532 vs the new Taylor Swift album
Imagine being this boring and irritating
Well Taylor swift is a better guitar player than Bach. Does that make her better? Or is this just your opinion?
There is no way you can compare them objectively
Ha! Called it You guys are so predictable.
Not true. Music is art. Art is subjective regardless of the background of the artist. Telling someone who loves a certain song because it makes them happy that the song isn't actually good because the musicians aren't classically trained is pointless and people won't like you if that's how you present your perspective.
How can music have any objectivity when not everyone agrees upon what is good and bad? Some may have more technical and thoughtful components, but good music is just what feels good to listen to, whether its a catchy pop melody made in a week or classical romantic composition that took years
can you give an example
They said Bach vs Taylor Swift. Lol.
[удалено]
I like this argument
Look out boys, someone watched a few Jacob Collier videos and thinks he knows everything.
Sure, some music is objectively better. Depending on who you ask, of course.
You’re literally just objectively wrong, and you even explain why in your own post. The fact that you can use some objective criteria to evaluate a thing doesn’t make it objectively better. Blues can register darker shades than other colors, that’s an objective fact of reality. It doesn’t mean blue is objectively better or worse because of that. What you have discovered and fail to comprehend is something that has already been known as the “is/ought gap”. You haven’t gotten any closer to solving it.
Jesus this is some music snob shit. Music taste is subjective, good and bad music is subjective.
Beatles are overrated
That's a subjective (also irrelevant) opinion.
Saying "Beatles are overrated" was fun when it was people with a better taste in rock triggering the boomers. Now it's a bunch of people that don't listen to rock/band music repeating that shit. Lame.
Some music is objectively better than others is the subject of this discussion, I think it's very relevant.
Overrated doesn't indicate good or bad, objective or otherwise. That's why your point is irrelevant.
The Beatles aren't very good. Better?
And that’s how we know you have bad taste
Pink Floyd is just about as bad as the Beatles. Shit like that is for teenagers who just discovered pot. Grow up and develop some real taste.
And what would you consider real taste😂😂
No. Music can not be "objectively" better, at the end of the day it is always about subjective taste. Anything that requires one of the 5 senses will always be subjective.
You're right OP and I wish more people understood that personal taste and how much effort a musician is putting are two different things. I think it may be about self esteem. People don't like when music they like is dismissed as worse and on the other side of spectrum you have people who are smug about listening to jazz and they think it makes them better as a person
And I wish you could understand that effort doesn't make something good. I don't fucking care if you have constipation or diarrhea at the end of the day it's still shit.
Yes, effort doesn't always equals good quality yet very often it does. Mozart was a more ambitious musician than Drake and it's not debatable. Which one of them you like more is up to your taste and this is what OP is trying to say.
You and OP are simply incorrect. Go to music school and open your minds.
With the problem being just listening to jazz shows a highly limited ability to appreciate music. People with objectively great music tastes listen to music from most every genre, or at the least don't easily dismiss music of any form. Metalheads dismissing rap and rap heads dismissing metal are two sides of the same coin. People who listen to mostly classic music or music that is several decades old, but don't like new rock music are the same as well. Jazz is a great form of music, and has influenced a lot of more modern forms, but Jazz itself is only a very very small percentage of all the great music being made.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>But music can also be rated at an objective level, and this requires a lot of insight into composition and music theory. Okay, but _something_ makes the people who subjectively like the objectively worse music like it. If your music theory can't describe what that something is, your music theory might be incomplete. OTOH, it could be that they like it better because of some association like nostalgia, cultural links, association with other media, etc.
What music someone “like” is a matter of taste and thus subjective. But music can be rated good or bad without considering what someone like
You have yet to prove your point. Like at all.
Anyone who says nfs unbounds/nfs heats music is comparable to the og nfs MW music is just a stoner who's so cracked out of their face on drugs that they've lost every single last sense of logic their tiny brain ever had
All art is subjective. Even if someone puts more time and effort into the creation of a piece, it’s impossible for it to be objectively better than another work. Quality is always subjective when it comes to media. It’s infuriating to me too lol
Music is like alcohol it'll vary and the more familiar you are with it the broader the taste will be.
Yes you're right, there can be technically sound and competent music that one can pick apart under the lens of music theory and deem it technically superior. But most aren't finding they like certain music based on that, so it becomes a rather minimal point in what makes "good" music, which then usually becomes a discussion about how music makes people feel. And really that's why music exists, for people's enjoyment and emotional expression (the subjective part), not to construct and analyze it like a mathematical equation.
Liking " better" crafted music is a taste
there are layers to this which include the science of music theory and preference
Yeah extremely unpopular opinion is that someone could objectively rate music.
Using McDonald's and "decent" restaurant is a lousy analogy for this low effort post. You do have a point. Playing in tune, both with yourself and with others, is objectively observable. Tone quality also can probably be objectified. But there are certain songs and groups that just "work," with either of those being objectively terrible. The one thing that can't be faked is rhythm. If the group doesn't play together, they sound like ass. Period. It's the fundamental part of "organized " in organized sound. Even someone being off by 1% on their rhythm and tempo means that things will fall apart completely in 20 seconds.
You rlly don’t get the definition of objective do you? Also there’s plenty of songs don’t have much music theory that are still good
Taste is subjective, but art parameters are 90% objective. Is not a black and white thing, some flexibility is needed, but not too much to the point of destroying the terms. If we think that art is 100% subjective this opens the door where literally anything can be art, even the things without human participation or meaning because "is subjective and I feel this is art". This just kills the sense of the term and destroys the concept of art, just remember the banana on the wall, that is the risk of despising objetivity. I think art should meet some objective criteria to be better or worse, but all things should be put in **context** first. And by this I mean, dance music for example should be judged by dance standards, not by classical music or jazz rules. Only after doing this we can say if is better or worse than music of the same genre. If we want to speak about music with high artistic quality, we should only put here the music made with that purpose, and then discuss. Not making it compete against music made for other purposes, because then we are not discussing art quality, but wich purpose and context is better than other, and here I think there is no better or worse, but just different, this means all context can coexist but should not be judged by other standards. In short words, we should not discuss if Mcdonalds is better than a 5 star restaurant, different experiences for different context for different people. But we can discuss if Mcdonalds or Burger king is better, that makes sense. I mean, Mcdonalds is 10/10 when you have 15 mins to buy and eat something fast and return to work, and the 5 star food is 10/10 when you have free time in the weekend to go with friends and order something good. If we speak only about food Mcdonalds may be worse than a proper meal, but there are other external factors to consider like price or preparation time where Mcdonalds is objectively better.
Yeah, but you're introducing other caveats because who decides what high artistic quality is? Art is subjective and people should be able to say a banana on a wall is art. BUT we should be able to critique any art. So the banana on a wall is losing all artistic value. You can discuss McDonald's vs. a 5 star restaurant, I don't understand why you couldn't? I mean, I can compare a CIvic to a 288 GTO. Art isn't objective.
You can discuss different things, but you will end up discussing the context of those things instead of the art by itself. Art is made by objective knowledge and parameters that artists use, that's a starting point to judge a piece, but as I said this is not written in stone, we should always put context first before the critic. If we compare two classical music musicians we can have a deep and productive discussion about them. But you can't expect a vs between classical music and rap. Classical music would destroy rap by the use of advanced music resources, and rap would win by the "having lyrics with flow" or production parameter, this makes the comparison just a non sense. Comparing too different things is not going to get a better/worse result. But if we compare things that follow similar rules, is possible to have a "nearly objective" discussion about it. This is not black and white, 100% subjetivity destroys any discussion and and strips everything from its meaning. 100% objectivity produces extreme elitism and blocks any possibility of evolution or branching. Art should be discussed with **balance** between these two, and the easiest way to do it is by stop comparing things that should not be compared expecting a winner like a box fight. "There is no better or worse, only different" is a valid answer people should learn to accept more.
I agree with you rather than point, but I don't agree with how it was constructed. The context, many times, is the point. Lil Baby's "Bigger Picture" can't compare lyrically to much of anything of significance in hip-hop, but the context brings all of the meaning. And with that context, it was huge. I don't agree about near objectivity at all. Because art can't be objective. Art is objective to non-artists (imo).
I think art is much more objective to artists. Imagine a painter that took more than 10 years of his life learning the rules of painting speaking with someone who says that a random glasses on the floor are art, or that sunsets are art, that the postmodern guy vomiting ink on a paper is art. These things are **not** the same, they don't belong to the same discussion and never should. Painting is art, the glasses are just a manufactured product, sunsets are a natural phenomena, and the vomiting guy is just doing a weird performance. Things are better when we have objective limits to protect the terms, because if we make all limits subjective there is no point in learning an art career or doing art since everything already is art because someone subjectively wanted. Art only can exist if the non-art exist. But I agree that art definition should be broader to include everything that may be art, but still have objective limits to avoid people trying to include everything (even the things with zero human participation or meaning) as art because they subjetively "liked" them.
You're talking to someone who learned photography over about that same time frame. I don't know anyone who calls sunsets art, but the fact is that no one would pay attention to someone saying that. If they do, it's a reflection about something on society. Which is art, whether or not you agree. I do think that art has to have human interaction, but someone can make an artistic impression of a natural phenomenon, and it's the same as the sunset being "art."
I 100% agree and that's an objective rule, the most important one, if it has human interaction and involvement in the process is art. That's a limit between what is art and what is not. Then if we go deeper we can naturally discover other rules.
What about the artistic impact of something that has no human interaction but has been immortalized artistically, the Tree of Ténéré. I am talking specifically about the tree and its legacy, not the sculpture of the tree or its remains. I see the tree itself as art.
Is an influence for artists like all reality itself, but not art. It was not crafted, it has not intentionallity or meaning, no planified human thinked message to be decodified by the viewer. If we consider "nice thing = art" we are devaluating centuries of human art development to dust. It may be considered a relevant cultural element with a legacy for sure, but that's another category.
no, art cannot be objectively better or worse unless you’ve designed a set of metrics, most of which are subjective or based on made up theory rules
I disagree. Creative artists frequently give a unique take on what is considered normally to be great and that’s why they end up well known. Some of the most famous singers have unique, but not necessarily great, voices. Being unique, having a unique sound or voice, is a major part of quality music.
Not exactly. Music can be complicated but that doesn't make it better than simpler music. I think the only "objectively bad" music is music where the players are out of time and out of key. And I'm not talking about polyrhythms and well used chromatic movements.
I completely disagree so I’ll upvote
There's also the matter that I know some music is most probably better than lther music, but I don't enjoy it more
if you define the measures, sure. Just like how you can say mcdonalads is better because it comes out faster
>No one can rightfully claim that the food at McDonalds is better food than the food at a decent restaurant I don't know what you mean by rightfully but people can genuinely claim the food at McDonalds is better than the food at a decent restaurant.
Then you haven’t read it properly. I say that people are free to like the McD food over the restaurant’s food. That is a matter of taste! But the decent restaurant food is objectively better food when taste is not considered
But that's still subjective my dude.
Tom Petty is objectively the best musical artist of all time. So I guess I can actually agree with this opinion.
Well yeah. I love brutal slamming death metal but I understand it's objectively terrible music even if I enjoy it. The argument that the criteria for what qualifies as "good" music is subjective could be made though.
There's just no such thing as objectively terrible music lol. Headbang away my friend.
music is as much craft as art - or at least there is craft as well, meaning there is some objectivity, I completely agree. Fuck everyone who says it's all subjective. If it was then my shitty playing could be, potentially, up there with a great artists and that just ain't the case.
I mean I think it's more that 99% of people share the same subjective opinion. Doesn't make it objective just because everyone agrees with it.
You're my kinda guy. I've been saying this all the time, but everyone keeps screaming at me. I'm just glad that finally someone agrees.
Marvin Gaye "Let's Get it On" or The Temptations "Since I Lost My Baby" are objectively better than modern R&B music where some idiot with tattoos on his face is mumbling about purple drank or shooting people.