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...

Out of all the artistic mediums Music is the hardest to define because of this protection of subjectivism. Art overall is of a subjective nature but that doesn't mean there isn't some type of hierarchy to judge art by. Sure lot of it is based on critical B.S.. But there is most definitely "good" music and there most certainly is "bad" music. The same thing with art of any medium, there are tons of crappy canvas artist, who hide under the guise of artistry and subjectivity. There is a reason why some artist achieve acclaim and others don't. There is a human collective unconscious that taps into you when you listen to say Beethoven or Hendrix and see David's Death of Socrates or Monets Water Lilies. However the problem with art and this is something that critics don't understand, Art evolves with the state of society and in many ways is a reflection of society. This single notion makes art even harder to cast restraints under. Art changes, and People don't like change. A lot of art hides in the subjectivity of time.

Problem with art of this generation.

We are and have been entering an era of gross artistic bastardization.

This is happening in the paintings as well as music.

This has to do with a severe influx of people entering these mediums attempting to "make" art rather than "create." And there is a difference. Making art is something people do when they have drawn an idea in their head of what art is suppose to look like be. So they recreate what they see, hear or what they have been taught.

You can call these people "Posers." And I've been to a lot of galleries, and there are a lot of posers. Same thing is happening in the music world. Alot of this is because academic society has pigeonholed art into fitting an ideal, rather than remaining free. Art can't be learned in schools.

There's nothing more ridiculous then hearing a college jazz ensemble playing Miles' Kind of Blue,

they play each solo note for note, whereas when you see miles perform it, it's different everytime you hear it. But this isn't only an academic problem. It has to do with Society as well.

Now you could be saying, I just don't like the art I criticize and for every person who doesn't like a work, there is someone who does, Art is subjective.

WRONG!

I don't like Picasso and Pollock because my personal subjective preference is 19th century impressionism, HOWEVER I understand what they are trying to achieve in their art and I understand the value of it. Their art still has a soul. When I look at contemporary art, I don't like not because of my personal politics, it's because it's soul less. And thats where we have conflict.

Defending mediocrity with subjectivity.

Sure there are people who are going to like it. But alot of the times people like it sadly because THEY DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER. It's really a fallacy rooted in cultural relativism

This however is a thin line, especially when it comes to world music. While this notion does exist it must treaded on lightly. One could say that indonesian Gamlan music is mediocre because it doesn't adhere to western rules, and one could also say that Indian Raga music complexities are so vast it supersedes western music. But there is most certainly a standard within those mediums to judge. So the problem is with making wide dispersions on art.

But when you're dealing with a small medium like Pop Music, one with such a rich history, it's easier to see. And in the brief timeline of pop music, you can see a musical degradation that's been happening since the late 70's.

Music, especially POP music is in a worse off shape, cause not only has the soul left from music, but the ability for the listener to choose has been eradicated. Record Companies own the airwaves, thus this generation has no choice but to listen. (sort of)

Music is also strange because its a medium that is power promoted packaged and sold.

It is a product. music artist don't get grants or donations any more to do their art.

they are selling purely to turn a profit.

This is a reflection of the times.

Call me a socialist, but i believe that capitalism is to blame.

In addition the degradation of intelligence is also affecting the status quo of art

The population (american one specifically)

Is getting stupider so they tend to like stupider things.

So the music reflects on that as well.

i can go on and on about this

But in short

Yes art and music is subjective,

But there is a threshold that defines what is mediocre and what is a great work.

Something in our collective unconscious tells us that Highway 61 Revisited or Purple Rain is a masterpiece and something like K-fed's Playing With Fire is a travesty.

And because of the state of society, people are fed mediocrity and learn to love it.

You can find this in every facet of our life.

However there is a positive spin...

The music industry is in flames, capitalism is failing dramatically

and there is a silent revolution going on

Perhaps Aldous Huxley was right

"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical

School, 1961

[Edited 3/5/11 12:46pm]

EmbattledWarrior said:

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...

Out of all the artistic mediums Music is the hardest to define because of this protection of subjectivism. Art overall is of a subjective nature but that doesn't mean there isn't some type of hierarchy to judge art by. Sure lot of it is based on critical B.S.. But there is most definitely "good" music and there most certainly is "bad" music. The same thing with art of any medium, there are tons of crappy canvas artist, who hide under the guise of artistry and subjectivity. There is a reason why some artist achieve acclaim and others don't. There is a human collective unconscious that taps into you when you listen to say Beethoven or Hendrix and see David's Death of Socrates or Monets Water Lilies. However the problem with art and this is something that critics don't understand, Art evolves with the state of society and in many ways is a reflection of society. This single notion makes art even harder to cast restraints under. Art changes, and People don't like change. A lot of art hides in the subjectivity of time.

Problem with art of this generation.

We are and have been entering an era of gross artistic bastardization.

This is happening in the paintings as well as music.

This has to do with a severe influx of people entering these mediums attempting to "make" art rather than "create." And there is a difference. Making art is something people do when they have drawn an idea in their head of what art is suppose to look like be. So they recreate what they see, hear or what they have been taught.

You can call these people "Posers." And I've been to a lot of galleries, and there are a lot of posers. Same thing is happening in the music world. Alot of this is because academic society has pigeonholed art into fitting an ideal, rather than remaining free. Art can't be learned in schools.

There's nothing more ridiculous then hearing a college jazz ensemble playing Miles' Kind of Blue,

they play each solo note for note, whereas when you see miles perform it, it's different everytime you hear it. But this isn't only an academic problem. It has to do with Society as well.

Now you could be saying, I just don't like the art I criticize and for every person who doesn't like a work, there is someone who does, Art is subjective.

WRONG!

I don't like Picasso and Pollock because my personal subjective preference is 19th century impressionism, HOWEVER I understand what they are trying to achieve in their art and I understand the value of it. Their art still has a soul. When I look at contemporary art, I don't like not because of my personal politics, it's because it's soul less. And thats where we have conflict.

Defending mediocrity with subjectivity.

Sure there are people who are going to like it. But alot of the times people like it sadly because THEY DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER. It's really a fallacy rooted in cultural relativism

This however is a thin line, especially when it comes to world music. While this notion does exist it must treaded on lightly. One could say that indonesian Gamlan music is mediocre because it doesn't adhere to western rules, and one could also say that Indian Raga music complexities are so vast it supersedes western music. But there is most certainly a standard within those mediums to judge. So the problem is with making wide dispersions on art.

But when you're dealing with a small medium like Pop Music, one with such a rich history, it's easier to see. And in the brief timeline of pop music, you can see a musical degradation that's been happening since the late 70's.

Music, especially POP music is in a worse off shape, cause not only has the soul left from music, but the ability for the listener to choose has been eradicated. Record Companies own the airwaves, thus this generation has no choice but to listen. (sort of)

Music is also strange because its a medium that is power promoted packaged and sold.

It is a product. music artist don't get grants or donations any more to do their art.

they are selling purely to turn a profit.

This is a reflection of the times.

Call me a socialist, but i believe that capitalism is to blame.

In addition the degradation of intelligence is also affecting the status quo of art

The population (american one specifically)

Is getting stupider so they tend to like stupider things.

So the music reflects on that as well.

i can go on and on about this

But in short

Yes art and music is subjective,

But there is a threshold that defines what is mediocre and what is a great work.

Something in our collective unconscious tells us that Highway 61 Revisited or Purple Rain is a masterpiece and something like K-fed's Playing With Fire is a travesty.

And because of the state of society, people are fed mediocrity and learn to love it.

You can find this in every facet of our life.

However there is a positive spin...

The music industry is in flames, capitalism is failing dramatically

and there is a silent revolution going on

Perhaps Aldous Huxley was right

"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical

School, 1961

[Edited 3/5/11 12:46pm]

.

.

thanks for the reply...i think i agree with you on almost everything you say here...

.

.

EmbattledWarrior said:

But there is a threshold that defines what is mediocre and what is a great work.

Nope there isn't. Your entire post is a long attempt to validate why the music you like is objectively better than the music you don't like.

Obviously the vast majority of people who come here would agree that Purple Rain is better than anything released in the past 20 years that entered the top 10 of Billboard but that still does not make it a "great work everyone should agree with". Complaining about pop music being a product is not a valid reason either, Prince was signed to a major record label and that implies anything he released was a product because he was a brand and had to feed hundreds of people emplyed in the label etc. But alas, it seems until the end of time this will never be settled on the internet, it'll always be about people fighting "my taste is better than yours!"...

LiveToTell86 said:

EmbattledWarrior said:

But there is a threshold that defines what is mediocre and what is a great work.

Nope there isn't. Your entire post is a long attempt to validate why the music you like is objectively better than the music you don't like.

Obviously the vast majority of people who come here would agree that Purple Rain is better than anything released in the past 20 years that entered the top 10 of Billboard but that still does not make it a "great work everyone should agree with". Complaining about pop music being a product is not a valid reason either, Prince was signed to a major record label and that implies anything he released was a product because he was a brand and had to feed hundreds of people emplyed in the label etc. But alas, it seems until the end of time this will never be settled on the internet, it'll always be about people fighting "my taste is better than yours!"...

.

as long as someone can show me that however they like musically can play instrument to a pro level and/or write songs and be able to perform them to a reasonable level then they can say whatever they want about music and can have a reasonable discussion about what is good and bad in music with me....if the music is based on some modicum of musical talent...i think most us can agree if someone can play an instrument to a reasonable level or can write a song ....

.

but if someone tries to argue that ' ITSY BITSY TEENY WEENY YELLOW POLKA DOT BIKINI ' by TIMMY FECKIN MALLET is better than ' when doves cry ' then i just walk out the room.........subjective my arse........they are wrong....pure and simple...

blackbob said:

but if someone tries to argue that ' ITSY BITSY TEENY WEENY YELLOW POLKA DOT BIKINI ' by TIMMY FECKIN MALLET is better than ' when doves cry ' then i just walk out the room.........subjective my arse........they are wrong....pure and simple...

This is still your opinion. It can't be proven that one song is better than another. You can't prove Mozart is better than Soulja Boy. Maybe you can in a music theory way, but not in appeal to a person. If someone is raised up listening to Soulja Boy, then he or she might consider classical music as ancient fuddy duddy music by dead Europeans. They can't relate to it. They are not "wrong" because they like something that you don't consider music and don't like your so-called superior music. In a way, your type of thinking is kind of like "music bigotry" and elitism. It's like anything else. A person might like Arnold Schwarzenegger action movies and not "art films". They are not wrong either. What makes one "superior" to the other? It's just high class snobbery to put down something that doesn't follow the rules of what they call "art".

MickyDolenz said:

blackbob said:

but if someone tries to argue that ' ITSY BITSY TEENY WEENY YELLOW POLKA DOT BIKINI ' by TIMMY FECKIN MALLET is better than ' when doves cry ' then i just walk out the room.........subjective my arse........they are wrong....pure and simple...

This is still your opinion. It can't be proven that one song is better than another. You can't prove Mozart is better than Soulja Boy. Maybe you can in a music theory way, but not in appeal to a person. If someone is raised up listening to Soulja Boy, then he or she might consider classical music as ancient fuddy duddy music by dead Europeans. They can't relate to it. They are not "wrong" because they like something that you don't consider music and don't like your so-called superior music. In a way, your type of thinking is kind of like "music bigotry" and elitism. It's like anything else. A person might like Arnold Schwarzenegger action movies and not "art films". They are not wrong either. What makes one "superior" to the other? It's just high class snobbery to put down something that doesn't follow the rules of what they call "art".

.

.

my argument is that music IS subjective IF it is on a similar level...if someone has some musical talent in whatever it is then ...yes...it it totally subjective...but if someone has NO musical talent...they cant be compared to stevie wonder or prince 's work or anybody else who has a degree of recognisable talent....

.

i know you are saying that its all art and is in the eye of the beholder and...yes...in general ...this is true....

.

but not in all cases can it apply...to any person with a bit of knowledge about music...

blackbob said:

MickyDolenz said:

This is still your opinion. It can't be proven that one song is better than another. You can't prove Mozart is better than Soulja Boy. Maybe you can in a music theory way, but not in appeal to a person. If someone is raised up listening to Soulja Boy, then he or she might consider classical music as ancient fuddy duddy music by dead Europeans. They can't relate to it. They are not "wrong" because they like something that you don't consider music and don't like your so-called superior music. In a way, your type of thinking is kind of like "music bigotry" and elitism. It's like anything else. A person might like Arnold Schwarzenegger action movies and not "art films". They are not wrong either. What makes one "superior" to the other? It's just high class snobbery to put down something that doesn't follow the rules of what they call "art".

.

.

my argument is that music IS subjective IF it is on a similar level...if someone has some musical talent in whatever it is then ...yes...it it totally subjective...but if someone has NO musical talent...they cant be compared to stevie wonder or prince 's work or anybody else who has a degree of recognisable talent....

.

i know you are saying that its all art and is in the eye of the beholder and...yes...in general ...this is true....

.

but not in all cases can it apply...to any person with a bit of knowledge about music...

Just because one person has more ability on an instrument than somebody else doesn't mean that person's music is better or has more appeal. I'm sure musicians who play on Muzak recordings can play an instrument better than somebody who just samples old records and uses a program like Reason to create music. But the "beatmaker's" music might appeal to someone more than the "elevator" music. On a technical level Yngwie Malmsteen might be a better guitar player than B.B. King, but many folks consider Malmsteen's playing "soulless" and just showing off. It doesn't make his music superior to B.B.'s. A lot of people consider Whitney Houston or Barbra Striesand great singers, but at the same time don't like their music and think it's bland and whitebread. Another person might like Bob Dylan. A Whitney Houston fan might say that Bob can't sing. It's still an opinion, just like yours is.

EmbattledWarrior said:

Out of all the artistic mediums Music is the hardest to define because of this protection of subjectivism. Art overall is of a subjective nature but that doesn't mean there isn't some type of hierarchy to judge art by.

[img:$uid]http://i.imgur.com/yxKTq.jpg[/img:$uid]

This is what pretentious elitists try to say to justify their taste in art as if liking one type of genre of music makes them better than everyone else who doesn't like the same thing. It's all just a bunch of organized sounds. That's all it is. That's all it ever was. That's all it ever will be.

I believe that there is no way to truthfully distinguish "good" and "bad" music on an objective level.

Unholyalliance said:

EmbattledWarrior said:

Out of all the artistic mediums Music is the hardest to define because of this protection of subjectivism. Art overall is of a subjective nature but that doesn't mean there isn't some type of hierarchy to judge art by.

This is what pretentious elitists try to say to justify their taste in art as if liking one type of genre of music makes them better than everyone else who doesn't like the same thing. It's all just a bunch of organized sounds. That's all it is. That's all it ever was. That's all it ever will be.

Bullshit. People can have their preferences, and I have nothing against any genre of music, but in art of any sort, some pieces are superior to other pieces. In fact, music itself as you said is a bunch of organized sounds. Apparently organized sounds are more appealing to human ears than say... a bunch of disorganized aural crap. It's all about following a pattern of some sort. And some patterns are universally more appealing than others. Not just on a subjective level, but on a mathematical level as well.

MickyDolenz said:

blackbob said:

.

.

my argument is that music IS subjective IF it is on a similar level...if someone has some musical talent in whatever it is then ...yes...it it totally subjective...but if someone has NO musical talent...they cant be compared to stevie wonder or prince 's work or anybody else who has a degree of recognisable talent....

.

i know you are saying that its all art and is in the eye of the beholder and...yes...in general ...this is true....

.

but not in all cases can it apply...to any person with a bit of knowledge about music...

Just because one person has more ability on an instrument than somebody else doesn't mean that person's music is better or has more appeal. I'm sure musicians who play on Muzak recordings can play an instrument better than somebody who just samples old records and uses a program like Reason to create music. But the "beatmaker's" music might appeal to someone more than the "elevator" music. On a technical level Yngwie Malmsteen might be a better guitar player than B.B. King, but many folks consider Malmsteen's playing "soulless" and just showing off. It doesn't make his music superior to B.B.'s. A lot of people consider Whitney Houston or Barbra Striesand great singers, but at the same time don't like their music and think it's bland and whitebread. Another person might like Bob Dylan. A Whitney Houston fan might say that Bob can't sing. It's still an opinion, just like yours is.

.

.

ok....i take your point....but a bit of knowledge on a certain subject always helps when trying to judge something.....thats why music critics lists of whats good music is almost always more interesting to me than the general public's lists of what is good....but i take on board what your saying...

Oooooh Forum Bombs... How original.

Can't we have a debate without it getting Juvenile? Oh wait...

I'm on the org... Where opinions don't exist.

If you think I'm pretentious then you obviously didn't read my whole explanation.

Which is cool, I understand...

It's long and has big words.

I am an elitist. Proud to be one.

But this notion doesn't protect my taste.

Fuck I like 90's boy bands which is as mediocre as you can get.

I never said one music is "better" than another.

I said that there is a threshold within the collective unconscious that makes the decision of what is mediocre and what is a masterpiece.

It doesn't discriminate on things like musicianship, or vocal timbre.

It only cares about Art.

In addition it's not perfect because of the variables.

Humans are easily susceptible to anything with a pitch.

Plus cultural relativism takes place.

It's not perfect, but it does exist.

It has nothing to do with complexity, vocals, musicianship, or having record label power promoting you.

Artistically true music has soul.

I fucking hate Lady Gaga, but she's got soul.

Which is something that we may be losing in popculture,

But it's still very much there.

It really doesn't matter whether one music is better than the other.

All I have to say is this.

In this day & age, and you can call me an elitist.

If you only like one type of music...

You're an asshole.

Over and done.

That's what they want us to think...

rhythmtonic said:

Unholyalliance said:

This is what pretentious elitists try to say to justify their taste in art as if liking one type of genre of music makes them better than everyone else who doesn't like the same thing. It's all just a bunch of organized sounds. That's all it is. That's all it ever was. That's all it ever will be.

Bullshit. People can have their preferences, and I have nothing against any genre of music, but in art of any sort, some pieces are superior to other pieces. In fact, music itself as you said is a bunch of organized sounds. Apparently organized sounds are more appealing to human ears than say... a bunch of disorganized aural crap. It's all about following a pattern of some sort. And some patterns are universally more appealing than others. Not just on a subjective level, but on a mathematical level as well.

Whoa, talk about contradiction! ALL the music discussed here is "organized sounds", every music act has supporters and the "patterns" might be more commercial, crowd-pleasing or whatever but that doesn't make it "superior".

EmbattledWarrior said:

Yes you said that, and that IS pretentious. There's no "collective unconscious" because there are millions of people who don't even acknowledge any of the music discussed on this forum. 20 of the most visited music critics sites don't make a collective unconscious eiher. Same for the "has soul" thing, it's also elitist to say "I don't like him/her but at least s/he has soul...", obviously a lot of people don't agree that Gaga "has soul" either.

The rest of your post doesn't say anything, you call out on people not allowing you to have an opinion while it's you who's trying to prove some stuff in art are NOT a matter of opinion?

Pot calling the kettle black.

Unholyalliance said:

EmbattledWarrior said:

Out of all the artistic mediums Music is the hardest to define because of this protection of subjectivism. Art overall is of a subjective nature but that doesn't mean there isn't some type of hierarchy to judge art by.

This is what pretentious elitists try to say to justify their taste in art as if liking one type of genre of music makes them better than everyone else who doesn't like the same thing. It's all just a bunch of organized sounds. That's all it is. That's all it ever was. That's all it ever will be.

Art is just a bunch of organized (or unorganized) paint daubs. Literature is just a bunch of organized words. Different music, art, literature, film accomplishes different things for different people. We all react to it differently. That is subjective, for sure - completely.

But there is another way to look at music, art and literature - from a more analytical perspective. One need not do that in order to enjoy it. But someone who spends their life studying or making art, music, literature, film, etc is in better position to speak to the accomplishment (or lack thereof) of a particular work from an artistic standpoint.

EmbattledWarrior said:

Out of all the artistic mediums Music is the hardest to define because of this protection of subjectivism....Perhaps Aldous Huxley was right

This post seems closest to the best explanation I have read on this thread.

There is also the matter of proficiency that many musicians use to help define their own (as well as others') art. How well one uses their proficiency to create and how they apply it plays well into how musicians value their abilities as well as how well they create.

A certain level of accomplished playing among musicians usually garners a degree of respect because the peers of said musician(s) usually have a better understanding of what it takes to make it to that level of accomplishment.

It seems like since the 90s, there has been a strong effort on the part of the mediocre to devalue that common denominator.

Musical taste is completely subjective but proficiency and accomplishment can be measured. As wth anything, those who study have a better understanding than those who don't. A great piece of literature may go misunderstood and unappreciated by the masses because the masses may not be learned enough to understand what the writer was doing. For instance, a well-written usage of allegories, metaphors, paradoxes or alliterations may go right over the heads of a casual reader because they may not even be familiar enough with those literary devices to understand a clever usage of them and that could be completely missed by the reader but picked up on by another mmore learned reader. Such is also the case with music.

"Mary Had a Little Lamb" could be argued as subjectively equal to or better than Paganini's 5th Caprice but an accomplished music scholar or musician would have a better understanding of the complexities of the melodies in Paganini's piece as well as a comprehension of the musical devices being applied and how, and would therefore most likely have a better recognition of how the caprice is a superior piece of work in comparison to "Mary Had...". Nowadays, people like to argue away accomplishment and proficiency but deep down, most musicians know.

A good musician aspires to be a great musician. You can't achieve a level of greatness by trying to get those knowledgeable to grade you on a curve. Great musicians can already do what mediocre musicians can do, or to put it in Princespeak "Why should I do that when I can do this?" Usually, mediocre musicians aspire to become good; the good aspire to become great. In most cases, as you learn more, you aspire to create "better" work based on what you know. It has become a recent trend of the mediocre to resort to rationalizing themselves into greatness. Well, a seventh grader can convince third graders that he is a genius but college kids know better. Deep down, so does the seventh grader.

I'll stop there.

LiveToTell86 said:

rhythmtonic said:

Bullshit. People can have their preferences, and I have nothing against any genre of music, but in art of any sort, some pieces are superior to other pieces. In fact, music itself as you said is a bunch of organized sounds. Apparently organized sounds are more appealing to human ears than say... a bunch of disorganized aural crap. It's all about following a pattern of some sort. And some patterns are universally more appealing than others. Not just on a subjective level, but on a mathematical level as well.

Whoa, talk about contradiction! ALL the music discussed here is "organized sounds", every music act has supporters and the "patterns" might be more commercial, crowd-pleasing or whatever but that doesn't make it "superior".

Errr... what condradiction? I was comparing the concept of music to disorganized and meaningless noise. I was implying that in order for something to be considered music, it needs to fall within certain definitions, guidelines, and parameters. Otherwise, without defintion, there is no meaning. Encouraging a concept where anything can be defined as anything is foolhardy and pretentious. Likewise, the idea that definition can not exist within a defined area is equally absurd.

You can call a blank canvas a piece of art for example, but you can not call it a painting.

I think the problem people have is that they are viewing art, such as music, in too simplistic of terms of good vs bad, which entirely depends on what the parameters of good and bad become. "Good and Bad" is vague. What is good and bad? It would be more appropriate to judge music by how how well it succeeds at what it is trying to accomplish. Does a sad piece of music make you mourn from the emotional pain and grief induced by it? Does a happy piece of music fill you with jubilation? How happy does that piece of music make you feel compared to other pieces of happy music. How many people agree with you? Do most people agree that a particular piece of music is the most successful at creating an intense feeling of joy and happiness? Etc.

BlaqueKnight said:

EmbattledWarrior said:

Out of all the artistic mediums Music is the hardest to define because of this protection of subjectivism....Perhaps Aldous Huxley was right

This post seems closest to the best explanation I have read on this thread.

There is also the matter of proficiency that many musicians use to help define their own (as well as others') art. How well one uses their proficiency to create and how they apply it plays well into how musicians value their abilities as well as how well they create.

A certain level of accomplished playing among musicians usually garners a degree of respect because the peers of said musician(s) usually have a better understanding of what it takes to make it to that level of accomplishment.

It seems like since the 90s, there has been a strong effort on the part of the mediocre to devalue that common denominator.

Musical taste is completely subjective but proficiency and accomplishment can be measured. As wth anything, those who study have a better understanding than those who don't. A great piece of literature may go misunderstood and unappreciated by the masses because the masses may not be learned enough to understand what the writer was doing. For instance, a well-written usage of allegories, metaphors, paradoxes or alliterations may go right over the heads of a casual reader because they may not even be familiar enough with those literary devices to understand a clever usage of them and that could be completely missed by the reader but picked up on by another mmore learned reader. Such is also the case with music.

"Mary Had a Little Lamb" could be argued as subjectively equal to or better than Paganini's 5th Caprice but an accomplished music scholar or musician would have a better understanding of the complexities of the melodies in Paganini's piece as well as a comprehension of the musical devices being applied and how, and would therefore most likely have a better recognition of how the caprice is a superior piece of work in comparison to "Mary Had...". Nowadays, people like to argue away accomplishment and proficiency but deep down, most musicians know.

A good musician aspires to be a great musician. You can't achieve a level of greatness by trying to get those knowledgeable to grade you on a curve. Great musicians can already do what mediocre musicians can do, or to put it in Princespeak "Why should I do that when I can do this?" Usually, mediocre musicians aspire to become good; the good aspire to become great. In most cases, as you learn more, you aspire to create "better" work based on what you know. It has become a recent trend of the mediocre to resort to rationalizing themselves into greatness. Well, a seventh grader can convince third graders that he is a genius but college kids know better. Deep down, so does the seventh grader.

I'll stop there.

I agree with that as well

Music is subjective only when it comes to styles and timbre's.

But when it does come down to proficiency. There is a scale.

It's really the first thing you learn when you become a musician.

But I do think it goes deeper than musicianship.

There is a switch in creativity when an artist finds that sweet spot.

But the commercialism in music has ruined something, and we're in an era of mediocrity.

Least upon the surface level.