.

thats a word i hear all the time when people give opinions about an artist or an album or music in general...its all subjective.....but is it really ?..

.

lets take two examples...prince and the irish group westlife....now if you are looking at this from a uk viewpoint only....in terms of success ...sales and chart wise...westlife have had an amazing 14 number one singles in the uk chart and 6 number one albums......prince has had 1 number one single and 5 number one albums in the uk....

.

so westlife have clearly had more commercial success in the uk than prince...

.

now most of the general public in the uk if you asked them would prefer westlife to prince...

.

but my point is that prince is ...clearly superior to westlife in every way imagineable in music terms

.

he is a multi instumentalist, songwriter, performer and producer of his music and writer to many other artists....music flows from him on a constant basis

.

westlife dont play any instruments (to any pro level)...dont write their own songs and need to hire a band to play their gigs in front of 8 year old girls...

.

music isnt always subjective.....prince is musically very good.....westlife are crap...thank you...

blackbob said:

.

thats a word i hear all the time when people give opinions about an artist or an album or music in general...its all subjective.....but is it really ?..

.

lets take two examples...prince and the irish group westlife....now if you are looking at this from a uk viewpoint only....in terms of success ...sales and chart wise...westlife have had an amazing 14 number one singles in the uk chart and 6 number one albums......prince has had 1 number one single and 5 number one albums in the uk....

.

so westlife have clearly had more commercial success in the uk than prince...

.

now most of the general public in the uk if you asked them would prefer westlife to prince...

.

but my point is that prince is ...clearly superior to westlife in every way imagineable in music terms

.

he is a multi instumentalist, songwriter, performer and producer of his music and writer to many other artists....music flows from him on a constant basis

.

westlife dont play any instruments (to any pro level)...dont write their own songs and need to hire a band to play their gigs in front of 8 year old girls...

.

music isnt always subjective.....prince is musically very good.....westlife are crap...thank you...

All of that is an opinion. The average person doesn't care if someone can play an instrument or not or whether an act writes their own songs. Like the kids used to say on American Bandstand, they like songs because "It has a good beat and I can dance to it".

westlife have a more commercial appeal. it's like asking people to name their favourite food and chocolate coming out on top. it doesn't mean chocolate is the best food

as for playing instruments, is aretha franklin less good because she doesn't play instruments? or frank sinatra?

just remember it's a music BUSINESS, and westlife and management do everything to play the game and sell records, whilst prince lives in his own solar system and does what he wants to do. he already became a superstar and got umpteen awards and made a pile of money. he's made more money than westlife and doesn't have loony walsh as a manager, so who's the most succesful really?

could westlife sell out 4 arena shows in the same city with less than a weeks notice?

unique said:

aretha franklin

She plays piano.

MickyDolenz said:

unique said:

aretha franklin

She plays piano.

See, Aretha is a REAL musician. Sinatra on the otherhand... ha! Don't even get me started.

/flamebait

unique said:

westlife have a more commercial appeal. it's like asking people to name their favourite food and chocolate coming out on top. it doesn't mean chocolate is the best food

as for playing instruments, is aretha franklin less good because she doesn't play instruments? or frank sinatra?

just remember it's a music BUSINESS, and westlife and management do everything to play the game and sell records, whilst prince lives in his own solar system and does what he wants to do. he already became a superstar and got umpteen awards and made a pile of money. he's made more money than westlife and doesn't have loony walsh as a manager, so who's the most succesful really?

could westlife sell out 4 arena shows in the same city with less than a weeks notice?

i specifically didn't say aretha couldn't play instruments, i said she doesn't. the point being that she's a singer and no-one cares if she plays an instrument or not

yes but aretha IS a truly great singer and most people who know music would agree...i dont know if she wrote some of her songs or not...but ...in my eyes....that is always important if you want to be taken seriously as a music artist...

Well, apparently Aretha "does" play, otherwise there wouldn't be any video-footage available lol.

And if no one really cared, then i doubt if producers would've ever let Aretha play piano on her own records,

or let her make song-arrangements for which the piano is a useful instrument. Or the tv-producer(s) of Murphy

Brown could've said : "The idea of having Miss Franklin perform together with Murphy on a piano isn't interesting for viewing rates,

we want her to stand by the piano and just sing while Murphy performs the keys"

Shango said:

Well, apparently Aretha "does" play, otherwise there wouldn't be any video-footage available lol.

And if no one really cared, then i doubt if producers would've ever let Aretha play piano on her own records,

or let her make song-arrangements for which the piano is a useful instrument. Or the tv-producer(s) of Murphy

Brown could've said : "The idea of having Miss Franklin perform together with Murphy on a piano isn't interesting for viewing rates,

we want her to stand by the piano and just sing while Murphy performs the keys"

I love this

I'm not Martha, and you ain't no Vandella

Lol, yeah

I've seen on youtube great 60's/70's studio-footage of her arranging on the piano.

Interesting to watch that recording-process. I tried to find it again but so far no luck.

blackbob said:

music isnt always subjective.....prince is musically very good.....westlife are crap...thank you...

The irony of your post is that it's nothing, but one big opinion as well.

Music is art and art is subjective. There is no objective way to state that someone's art is better than someone else's art, at all. It's just whatever you prefer. It's all just OPINION. Just as you could pull up valid reasons Prince's music is amazing, someone could also pull up just as many valid reasons as to why Prince's music is shitty as well. Commercial success is the only objective fact that people have when it comes to this stuff which is why it's used in arguments about who is 'better' or when artists are lauded.

Example, 1,000,000 people may consider the Beatles to be better than the Rolling Stones, but I do not. Am I wrong and those 1,000,000 people are correct? Or am I correct and those 1,000,000 people are wrong? The answer is neither. Everyone has their own opinion that it their truth and that's really it tbqh.

Though, there are some things you could be objective about. Example: if I were to compare MJ and Prince in terms of singing/vocals you can objectively compare technique and range, but which one you, personally, prefer or take a liking to is rather subjective. Or another one would be to compare the guitar playing of Prince and Jimi Hendrix or even Buckethead. I mean you can compare the technique and playing of all of them, but which you, personally, prefer is subjective.

U like what u like.............

Unholyalliance said:

blackbob said:

music isnt always subjective.....prince is musically very good.....westlife are crap...thank you...

The irony of your post is that it's nothing, but one big opinion as well.

Music is art and art is subjective. There is no objective way to state that someone's art is better than someone else's art, at all. It's just whatever you prefer. It's all just OPINION. Just as you could pull up valid reasons Prince's music is amazing, someone could also pull up just as many valid reasons as to why Prince's music is shitty as well. Commercial success is the only objective fact that people have when it comes to this stuff which is why it's used in arguments about who is 'better' or when artists are lauded.

Example, 1,000,000 people may consider the Beatles to be better than the Rolling Stones, but I do not. Am I wrong and those 1,000,000 people are correct? Or am I correct and those 1,000,000 people are wrong? The answer is neither. Everyone has their own opinion that it their truth and that's really it tbqh.

Though, there are some things you could be objective about. Example: if I were to compare MJ and Prince in terms of singing/vocals you can objectively compare technique and range, but which one you, personally, prefer or take a liking to is rather subjective. Or another one would be to compare the guitar playing of Prince and Jimi Hendrix or even Buckethead. I mean you can compare the technique and playing of all of them, but which you, personally, prefer is subjective.

yes ....but my point is prince is clearly....clearly far more musically talented than the guys who make up westlife...no one can seriously argue that......

.

someone saying that prince is better than stevie wonder or vice versa is purely subjective because there isnt much between them when you look at the talent they both have and what they have recorded.....there cant be that between stevie wonder and cast of glee....

.

someone may say the cast of glee are musically better than stevie wonder but they are wrong...pure and simple....not everything in music is subjective...

blackbob said:

yes ....but my point is prince is clearly....clearly far more musically talented than the guys who make up westlife...no one can seriously argue that......

.

someone saying that prince is better than stevie wonder or vice versa is purely subjective because there isnt much between them when you look at the talent they both have and what they have recorded.....there cant be that between stevie wonder and cast of glee....

.

someone may say the cast of glee are musically better than stevie wonder but they are wrong...pure and simple....not everything in music is subjective...

Just because you consider him to be more musically talented than a lot of people doesn't make him better or his work objectively better than theirs.

It's still subjective, because it is ART.

Also, for the bolded I stated that everything in music wasn't subjective and there are some things you can objectively critique. I am pretty sure I stated that in my initial post.

I think there are 2 ways to look at it.

If you're talking about music you like or enjoy, then sure it's completely subjective.

If you are talking about the relative quality or "artistic value" of music, then I think it's just like anything else - - movies, art, literature, etc. There can be "expert opinions" by those who are knowledgeable about a certain topic or area.

If someone has been in the music industry for many years, or is a musician and artist I respect, or someone who is a student of music, or maybe someone who just has a vast and diverse music collection and has been immersed in music for many years, then I think they can speak intelligently about the relative quality of music beyond just a general "I like it".

Of course, you will find "experts" who disagree - but generally speaking, there is value when you have a panel or a large pool of experts who come together and their votes are compiled. Like when Rolling Stones polls writers, artists, musicians, critics, etc. to come up with their "Best Albums" lists.

Radiohead, for example, to get back to your other thread are widely considered by a majority of critics, artists and writers to be among the most important artists recording today. You might find someone on a message board that says RADIOHEAD SUCKS!!! and of course they are entitled to their opinion, just like anybody else. But personally I will respect the opinion of those who have shown they know what they are talking about, and I can respect certain artists that I don't enjoy listening to personally (Joanna Newsom, for instance - - she is widely respected and revered by many critics and many fans whose opinions I respect, but I really can't abide listening to her stuff personally. It's just not my thing. But I wouldn't say JOANNA NEWSOM SUCKS!!!!!)

Hahaha I knew this thread was in trouble when the OP mentioned that Aretha didn't play an instrument.

WELL SHE CAN PLAY THE HELL OUT OF THAT PIANO.

Just joking about the thread by the way.

But, seriously, to answer the question: yeah it's all subjective. If you don't believe it, cool. But in my opinion it is.

[Edited 3/4/11 10:12am]

NoVideo said:

If you are talking about the relative quality or "artistic value" of music, then I think it's just like anything else - - movies, art, literature, etc. There can be "expert opinions" by those who are knowledgeable about a certain topic or area.

Critics are full of shit too, especially ones who have a great deal of bias and an agenda. Personally, I take it all with a grain of salt, ESPECIALLY rock critics and don't even get me started with those fools at Pitckfork. They are the worst. They may know a little more, but their opinion isn't any better or worse than anyone else's.

You like what you like. You treasure what you treasure. Trust your own opinion. That's all that can really said about that.

NoVideo said:

I think there are 2 ways to look at it.

If you're talking about music you like or enjoy, then sure it's completely subjective.

If you are talking about the relative quality or "artistic value" of music, then I think it's just like anything else - - movies, art, literature, etc. There can be "expert opinions" by those who are knowledgeable about a certain topic or area.

If someone has been in the music industry for many years, or is a musician and artist I respect, or someone who is a student of music, or maybe someone who just has a vast and diverse music collection and has been immersed in music for many years, then I think they can speak intelligently about the relative quality of music beyond just a general "I like it".

Of course, you will find "experts" who disagree - but generally speaking, there is value when you have a panel or a large pool of experts who come together and their votes are compiled. Like when Rolling Stones polls writers, artists, musicians, critics, etc. to come up with their "Best Albums" lists.

Radiohead, for example, to get back to your other thread are widely considered by a majority of critics, artists and writers to be among the most important artists recording today. You might find someone on a message board that says RADIOHEAD SUCKS!!! and of course they are entitled to their opinion, just like anybody else. But personally I will respect the opinion of those who have shown they know what they are talking about, and I can respect certain artists that I don't enjoy listening to personally (Joanna Newsom, for instance - - she is widely respected and revered by many critics and many fans whose opinions I respect, but I really can't abide listening to her stuff personally. It's just not my thing. But I wouldn't say JOANNA NEWSOM SUCKS!!!!!)

.

yes...i would agree with you on everything you said there.( i will be raiding your cd collection next time i am in the states ) ..but we both already have a very similar taste im music based on artistic merit as we both know from last.fm...

.

if you get a group of music critic's making a best of list....you will get something of artistic merit and worth reading....if you get a general public's list of what great music is.....you will get a steaming pile of shit based on whatever was in the charts at the time...

.

Most people enjoy music because it gives them enjoyment or makes them happy. Music snobs care about stuff like whether or not someone can play a really fast guitar solo better than someone else or if their songs have some sort of "deep meaning" or writes their own tunes. Critics are people who are given free records to listen to (or watch movies for free) and tend to praise music that the general public has never heard of and don't care about, but trash whatever is popular. Then they are paid on top of it.

blackbob said:

i will be raiding your cd collection next time i am in the states

sounds good to me!

blackbob said: if you get a group of music critic's making a best of list....you will get something of artistic merit and worth reading....if you get a general public's list of what great music is.....you will get a steaming pile of shit based on whatever was in the charts at the time...

It might read more pleasantly, but in the end it all still comes down to their personal opinion. I think it's unrealistic to generalize

the whole general public's taste as a steaming pile of shit. Musical preferences are too diverse to file in narrow boxes.

Unholyalliance said:

blackbob said:

music isnt always subjective.....prince is musically very good.....westlife are crap...thank you...

The irony of your post is that it's nothing, but one big opinion as well.

Music is art and art is subjective. There is no objective way to state that someone's art is better than someone else's art, at all. It's just whatever you prefer. It's all just OPINION. Just as you could pull up valid reasons Prince's music is amazing, someone could also pull up just as many valid reasons as to why Prince's music is shitty as well. Commercial success is the only objective fact that people have when it comes to this stuff which is why it's used in arguments about who is 'better' or when artists are lauded.

Example...

exactly - to your whole post Unholy

Why are we comparing apples and oranges to the initial ?. Art, whether it be visual or audio or physical - it's all a language and speaks to everyone differently. It's catharctic. It can be inspiring, moody, even enraging. If I'm in a lousy space and I put on reggae, something immediately takes place within - suddenly everything is OK. If I hear traditional east indian music - dammit, I can't help myself. I have to get up and belly dance AND I DON'T BELLY DANCE hahaha. Whatever the arrangment, whatever the medium - it's individual specific. No such thing as better - just different. And in that way only - is it subjective - to each and everyone of us.

Like Cap says - we like what we like.

Timmy84 said:

Hahaha I knew this thread was in trouble when the OP mentioned that Aretha didn't play an instrument.

WELL SHE CAN PLAY THE HELL OUT OF THAT PIANO.

Just joking about the thread by the way.

But, seriously, to answer the question: yeah it's all subjective. If you don't believe it, cool. But in my opinion it is.

[Edited 3/4/11 10:12am]

the op didn't say that, i did, and i didn't say she couldn't, i said she didn't. the point being that no-one cares what a great singer does apart from them singing

and by that i mean she is a great singer, as opposed to a great artist or great musician. and by that i mean that her voice stands head and shoulders above most and above any other talent, so she can be considered great for that vocal talent alone

westlife on the other hand is a boyband made up of people that few could name without googling, unless you were a teenage girl in the uk. they lack the personality and talent to go solo, they don't play instruments or dance or do anything remotely interesting, BUT they sell a shitload of records in the UK. why is that? because people who buy singles in the uk aren't descerning music lovers. music lovers don't buy singles anymore, thy buy albums. so westlfe and manager appeal specifically to the demographic that buys singles so they get in the charts, get publicity, get on tv and sell albums and make money. artistic integrity means nothing to them. they are only in it for the money, and as it's the music business it means they are good at what they do

milli vanilli also sold a lot of records, so did boney m. joe dolce got to number 1 in the uk, so did mr blobby and bob the builder. you don't get shit like that topping the top 10 in the states. a fucking computer frog got to number 1 with the most annoying track ever. thats the type of shit that westlife compete with to be number 1, not prince or aretha or anyone else talented

you just need to remember that the top 10 singles charts is a specialised chart, and artistic integrity, quality of music, musicianship and writing and production skills have little to no bearing on that subgroup, so you don't need to worry about what is number 1

Oh yeah it's all subjective

definitely

nvmnd

[Edited 3/4/11 13:59pm]

NoVideo said:

I think there are 2 ways to look at it.

If you're talking about music you like or enjoy, then sure it's completely subjective.

If you are talking about the relative quality or "artistic value" of music, then I think it's just like anything else - - movies, art, literature, etc. There can be "expert opinions" by those who are knowledgeable about a certain topic or area.

If someone has been in the music industry for many years, or is a musician and artist I respect, or someone who is a student of music, or maybe someone who just has a vast and diverse music collection and has been immersed in music for many years, then I think they can speak intelligently about the relative quality of music beyond just a general "I like it".

Of course, you will find "experts" who disagree - but generally speaking, there is value when you have a panel or a large pool of experts who come together and their votes are compiled. Like when Rolling Stones polls writers, artists, musicians, critics, etc. to come up with their "Best Albums" lists.

Radiohead, for example, to get back to your other thread are widely considered by a majority of critics, artists and writers to be among the most important artists recording today. You might find someone on a message board that says RADIOHEAD SUCKS!!! and of course they are entitled to their opinion, just like anybody else. But personally I will respect the opinion of those who have shown they know what they are talking about, and I can respect certain artists that I don't enjoy listening to personally (Joanna Newsom, for instance - - she is widely respected and revered by many critics and many fans whose opinions I respect, but I really can't abide listening to her stuff personally. It's just not my thing. But I wouldn't say JOANNA NEWSOM SUCKS!!!!!)

Totally agree on that, i mean, its all a different thing and its for the person who buys and listens to music to make that decision, i mean people ask me how someone who loves Norah Jones and Heart still listen to Britney Spears, well its very easy, because at the end of the day i know what they are put here to do, and i like them all in different ways, i mean i like Norah in ways i could never like Heart or Joni Mitchell or Alicia Keys or Alison Krauss, i mean music is so varied. I understand the point of "musically" gifted, and sure the Rolling Stones are more talented than the Backstreet Boys, but if a song like the "Call" by the BSB comes by i like it, just as much as when a classic stones song comes on, but does it mean i give BSB the props of being this groundbreakng group? NO because i know what there purpose is too.

As far as opinions, as someone said they are like A**HOLES everyone has one. So when someone says Radihead Sucks or a-ha is a one hit wonder or this or that, i dont really care because i only want to hear opinions from people that are into the artists, i dont want someones opinion on Ryan Adams new cd from someone that already hates the man or finds him boring.

unique said:

Timmy84 said:

Hahaha I knew this thread was in trouble when the OP mentioned that Aretha didn't play an instrument.

WELL SHE CAN PLAY THE HELL OUT OF THAT PIANO.

Just joking about the thread by the way.

But, seriously, to answer the question: yeah it's all subjective. If you don't believe it, cool. But in my opinion it is.

[Edited 3/4/11 10:12am]

the op didn't say that, i did, and i didn't say she couldn't, i said she didn't. the point being that no-one cares what a great singer does apart from them singing

and by that i mean she is a great singer, as opposed to a great artist or great musician. and by that i mean that her voice stands head and shoulders above most and above any other talent, so she can be considered great for that vocal talent alone

Then my apologies to you and blackbob then.

Red said:

Unholyalliance said:

The irony of your post is that it's nothing, but one big opinion as well.

Music is art and art is subjective. There is no objective way to state that someone's art is better than someone else's art, at all. It's just whatever you prefer. It's all just OPINION. Just as you could pull up valid reasons Prince's music is amazing, someone could also pull up just as many valid reasons as to why Prince's music is shitty as well. Commercial success is the only objective fact that people have when it comes to this stuff which is why it's used in arguments about who is 'better' or when artists are lauded.

Example...

exactly - to your whole post Unholy

Why are we comparing apples and oranges to the initial ?. Art, whether it be visual or audio or physical - it's all a language and speaks to everyone differently. It's catharctic. It can be inspiring, moody, even enraging. If I'm in a lousy space and I put on reggae, something immediately takes place within - suddenly everything is OK. If I hear traditional east indian music - dammit, I can't help myself. I have to get up and belly dance AND I DON'T BELLY DANCE hahaha. Whatever the arrangment, whatever the medium - it's individual specific. No such thing as better - just different. And in that way only - is it subjective - to each and everyone of us.

Like Cap says - we like what we like.

That's like comparing Prince to Mozart, apples and oranges. What makes it interesting though, Prince is a fan of his art.

angel345 said:

Red said:

exactly - to your whole post Unholy

Why are we comparing apples and oranges to the initial ?. Art, whether it be visual or audio or physical - it's all a language and speaks to everyone differently. It's catharctic. It can be inspiring, moody, even enraging. If I'm in a lousy space and I put on reggae, something immediately takes place within - suddenly everything is OK. If I hear traditional east indian music - dammit, I can't help myself. I have to get up and belly dance AND I DON'T BELLY DANCE hahaha. Whatever the arrangment, whatever the medium - it's individual specific. No such thing as better - just different. And in that way only - is it subjective - to each and everyone of us.

Like Cap says - we like what we like.

That's like comparing Prince to Mozart, apples and oranges. What makes it interesting though, Prince is a fan of his art.

actually, I think Mozart & Prince have MANY similarities.

[Edited 3/4/11 21:05pm]