There's a thread running in PM&M that was originally about the Lovesexy cover art but has veered into a discussion on whether art in general and music in particular can be objectively superior or inferior, or whether it's all a matter of taste:

http://prince.org/msg/7/367997

Since the discussion has veered off topic for that thread, I thought I would start one here. What do you think? Is it possible to say, for example, that Rebecca Black's "Friday" is objectively inferior to "A Day in the Life" by the Beatles? Or does it just depend on your preference? I think there is such a thing as objective quality in music (and other art) but others seem to disagree.

[Edited 10/1/11 9:46am]

There's one "little" thing called COMMON SENSE/INSTINCT/SIXTH SENSE

so the answer to your question is FUCKIN YES

of course, that doesn't mean thart bad/inferior music should be banned. To each their own. But just accept that you like bad/inferior music. Is it that hard?

[Edited 10/1/11 10:02am]

I guess we've resolved that then. Should I let V1OLETBLUES and ufoclub know that I won the debate?

electricberet said:

Is it possible to say, for example, that Rebecca Black's "Friday" is objectively inferior to "A Day in the Life" by the Beatles? Or does it just depend on your preference? I think there is such a thing as objective quality in music (and other art) but others seem to disagree.

Depends on how you define "objective", "superior" and "inferior", I suppose. If you google "Is music objective", you'll get a range of opinions, and a lot of people have different definitions of "objective". Personally, I think it's stupid to try to look at music objectively. You like music or you don't. How "great" or "superior" a song is means nothing to me if it doesn't connect with me. I don't know why anyone else would feel any different.

The1592 said:

electricberet said:

Is it possible to say, for example, that Rebecca Black's "Friday" is objectively inferior to "A Day in the Life" by the Beatles? Or does it just depend on your preference? I think there is such a thing as objective quality in music (and other art) but others seem to disagree.

Depends on how you define "objective", "superior" and "inferior", I suppose. If you google "Is music objective", you'll get a range of opinions, and a lot of people have different definitions of "objective". Personally, I think it's stupid to try to look at music objectively. You like music or you don't. How "great" or "superior" a song is means nothing to me if it doesn't connect with me. I don't know why anyone else would feel any different.

I don't have time in my life to listen to all the music that has ever been recorded. No one does. So how do we make choices about what music to seek out and listen to? Well, either you can listen to what radio or TV or YouTube is currently pushing, or you can seek out the best music by reading music criticism or following recommendations of friends or people on boards like this. If the experience of listening is entirely subjective, however, you might as well choose your music at random because the experience of others is no guide to what you will prefer. We can disagree on what is objectively better, but if we don't accept the concept of objective quality, debating which songs, albums, or groups are better than others is pointless.

[Edited 10/1/11 10:54am]

electricberet said:

I don't have time in my life to listen to all the music that has ever been recorded. No one does. So how do we make choices about what music to seek out and listen to? Well, either you can listen to what radio or TV or YouTube is currently pushing, or you can seek out the best music by reading music criticism or following recommendations of friends or people on boards like this. If the experience of listening is entirely subjective, however, you might as well choose your music at random because the experience of others is no guide to what you will prefer. We can disagree on what is objectively better, but if we don't accept the concept of objective quality, debating which songs, albums, or groups are better than others is pointless.

If we're arguing over what's better anyway, then what difference does it make whether we claim the music is objectively or subjectively better? It's still just our opinion, isn't it?

An article I read on this subject claims that the quality of music is objective, but a person's taste in music is subjective, which to me makes it pointless to argue whether music is objectively good or bad, because a person's taste in music (which is subjective) is all that really matters to them when deciding what music to listen to.

[Edited 10/1/11 11:17am]

No. I don't think there is a such thing as good or bad music. It's an opinion. I don't believe in "cheesy" or "guilty pleasures" either. If someone is embarrased to like something, then they shouldn't listen to it or try to hide it in order to appear "cool" or "hip". Putting someone down because they don't like so-called real music is just a form of bigotry to me, no different than any other superiority thinking.

The1592 said:

electricberet said:

I don't have time in my life to listen to all the music that has ever been recorded. No one does. So how do we make choices about what music to seek out and listen to? Well, either you can listen to what radio or TV or YouTube is currently pushing, or you can seek out the best music by reading music criticism or following recommendations of friends or people on boards like this. If the experience of listening is entirely subjective, however, you might as well choose your music at random because the experience of others is no guide to what you will prefer. We can disagree on what is objectively better, but if we don't accept the concept of objective quality, debating which songs, albums, or groups are better than others is pointless.

If we're arguing over what's better anyway, than what difference does it make whether we claim the music is objectively or subjectively better? It's still just our opinion, isn't it?

An article I read on this subject claims that the quality of music is objective, but a person's taste in music is subjective, which to me makes it pointless to argue whether music is objectively good or bad, because a person's taste in music (which is subjective) is all that really matters to them when deciding what music to listen to.

[Edited 10/1/11 11:17am]

I can separate the concept of what's better in an objective sense from what I prefer subjectively. For example, right now my favorite John Lennon solo album is Walls & Bridges. The songs are well-crafted and I can relate to the lyrics, especially since I'm about the same age Lennon was when he made the album. But if you asked me what his best solo album is, I would tell you without any doubt to pick up John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band. I know it's a better album even though it's not my personal favorite, though it's one of my favorites. It's more daring and innovative and the lyrics cut straight through your soul.

If I accepted the idea that preferences are entirely subjective, I'd have no reason to give greater weight to the opinions of professional music critics than that of a random person on the street. And I would have missed out on a lot of great music that way. When I was a teenager, nobody I knew listened to Frank Zappa. I only found out about him through my old copy of the Rolling Stone Record Guide. And his music didn't connect with me right away, but it grew on me and now I treasure those albums. Most of my favorite albums sounded weird when I first heard them because they weren't like things I had heard before. But I trusted the consensus of people who were knowledgeable about music and the experience was enriching for me. That's not to say I love every album that critics rave about--I've never gotten into Jethro Tull's Aqualung or Bruce Springsteen's Born to Run, for example. But I understand why those albums are so well-regarded. They are objectively good.

[Edited 10/1/11 11:28am]

Preferences are of course subjective, but people tend to use the word "subjective" in these type of discussions in a rather awkward manner. It's often used in a way that suggests preferences for various things are just randomly scattered across the population. The discussions are also attempted to be concluded by stating that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Apparently everyone's opinion should be "equal" based on some sketchy attempt to appropriate the notions of social equality also to taste.

It's just obvious that people that know their shit are the ones that you can actually discuss these type of topics with on a much deeper level. A person that knows a thing or two about music and has studied playing an instrument him / herself for years is bound to have different type of opinions on music than someone that does not and is usually able to explain why they prefer something over something else. An average 12-year-old can not explain his or her preference for something usually by any other terms than by saying that they find something "cool", "fun" or something similar. Seems to apply to too many grown ups these days too.

Likewise, a person that works in the automobile industry should have a pretty good grasp on what is a good car and what is not. A 12-year-old might be "entitled to opinion" on such matters as well, but what difference would that make?

However, I don't think you should restrict your listening habits due to this. I enjoy all kinds of pop fluff even if I think I have a pretty good understanding of artful music as well. I am just not going to make the claim that some silly pop song with nonsensical lyrics I've listened to over 100 times on repeat is "better" than some classic record that I've listened to maybe 1-3 times throughout. I still think "better" in the context of music means that it is a better piece of art in the end.

Brendan said:

To me art appreciation is an endless rainbow of grey. And anyone who thinks that they've arrived, simply hasn't realized yet that they're standing kneedeep in manure. But just because something can never be proven in formula, doesn't make the attempt any less worthy/evolutionary. Everyone of us carries around some level of truth, how accurately we can recognize it others and see it in ourselves, seems the ultimate challenge for achieving more clarity outside of our own countless biases and inflated egos. In other words, if you feel you have to proove superiority, you clearly don't have it yet. But on the other hand, I've found plenty of truth wrapped in my own stupidity.

Sounds like Plato's "Allegory of the Cave." Objective superiority exists but we cannot always discern it?

I guess that would make Lester Bangs the enlightened philosopher-king.

[Edited 10/1/11 12:07pm]

I believe that music can be a poweful tool in altering your mood. There's been studies on that, and I agree with it.

electricberet said:

Brendan said:

To me art appreciation is an endless rainbow of grey. And anyone who thinks that they've arrived, simply hasn't realized yet that they're standing kneedeep in manure. But just because something can never be proven in formula, doesn't make the attempt any less worthy/evolutionary. Everyone of us carries around some level of truth, how accurately we can recognize it others and see it in ourselves, seems the ultimate challenge for achieving more clarity outside of our own countless biases and inflated egos. In other words, if you feel you have to proove superiority, you clearly don't have it yet. But on the other hand, I've found plenty of truth wrapped in my own stupidity.

Sounds like Plato's "Allegory of the Cave." Objective superiority exists but we cannot always discern it?

I guess that would make Lester Bangs the enlightened philosopher-king.

[Edited 10/1/11 12:07pm]

Everyone is on their own trip, I just wish sometimes that we wouldn't tripout!

In my opinion, it depends on how "objective" is understood. If it means that it can be proved, like in the natural sciences, that some music is superior to other, due to the features of the instrumentation, performances, production, etc., then I would say no; on the contrary, if it means a consensus reached by experienced and knowledgable music lovers, then I'd say yes.

However, to me the most important thing is the subjective experience. In the case you mention, electricberet, I'd think that your personal preference of Walls And Bridges over John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band would be more important to me than the existing consensus regarding Lennon's records, that is, his first solo record being actually the first.

I like to put this problem in Bowie's terms: The best music is the one that makes you cry. Purely subjective.

electricberet said:

I guess we've resolved that then. Should I let V1OLETBLUES and ufoclub know that I won the debate?

There was no debate from me. I said I was not arguing with you, or saying you were wrong, becasue I said you are 100% correct. FOR YOU.

But there is a "consensus" that we can use to gauge things if we want to. Whether it be critical, or commercial success, that we can use, for those of us that need to quantify our personal tastes.

We should post a poll on the Rebecca Black fan site and ask if they prefer Revolution 9 by the Beatles or Friday. The consensus should be all we need to decide which is "best".

[Edited 10/1/11 15:03pm]

I don't know, could drinking sewege water and bottled water be objectively the same?

We've become too damn accepting of bullshit for the sake of avoiding being described "music snobs".

[Edited 10/1/11 15:05pm]

There is no concrete way of determining superiority in art. It comes down to opinon, and the person who does not agree won't ever have their minds changed with statistics.

But it's pretty obvious in many cases that, yes, one thing is superior to the other

[Edited 10/1/11 15:28pm]

Within reason, yes.

For example: Nickleback is the worst band ever.

It's also curious how popular music is relatively "safe" from the IT'S BAD/IT'S GOOD judgments.

As far as movies go, for example, NOBODY would say that Saw III is just as good as The Shining, or that the last (and forgettable) Jennifer Aniston's romantic comedy is just as good as Annie Hall, for example...

[Edited 10/2/11 3:59am]

V10LETBLUES said:

electricberet said:

I guess we've resolved that then. Should I let V1OLETBLUES and ufoclub know that I won the debate?

There was no debate from me. I said I was not arguing with you, or saying you were wrong, becasue I said you are 100% correct. FOR YOU.

But there is a "consensus" that we can use to gauge things if we want to. Whether it be critical, or commercial success, that we can use, for those of us that need to quantify our personal tastes.

We should post a poll on the Rebecca Black fan site and ask if they prefer Revolution 9 by the Beatles or Friday. The consensus should be all we need to decide which is "best".

[Edited 10/1/11 15:03pm]

It sounds like you're saying that my preferences are fine for me because they are subjective. That's not the same as acknowledging that there is real objectivity even though we can't always agree on what it is.

Yes.

Art or anything that meets the eye is ugly, neutral or beautiful. The best are the ugly and beautiful, they'r touching. I can't stand neutral. Same goes for music.

There is no objective standard for it. It's not to be reason about, it's deeper than reasoning. it can't be modeled into words.

JoeTyler said:

electricberet said:

What do you think? Is it possible to say, for example, that Rebecca Black's "Friday" is objectively inferior to "A Day in the Life" by the Beatles? Or does it just depend on your preference? I think there is such a thing as objective quality in music (and other art) but others seem to disagree.

I believe that you can, in the right environment.
This type of forum would not be a very good choice.

Subjective: (placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions)
A song is considered good because "I like it".
End of discussion with no facts or further explanation required.

Objective: (not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts)
A song is considered good because of how well specific musical techniques are employed.


Most here would prefer that discussions stay in the subjective realm because it's easier.
Those that dare to go objective will generally get the "snob" tag.



Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

theAudience said:

electricberet said:

What do you think? Is it possible to say, for example, that Rebecca Black's "Friday" is objectively inferior to "A Day in the Life" by the Beatles? Or does it just depend on your preference? I think there is such a thing as objective quality in music (and other art) but others seem to disagree.

I believe that you can, in the right environment.
This type of forum would not be a very good choice.

Subjective: (placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions)
A song is considered good because "I like it".
End of discussion with no facts or further explanation required.

Objective: (not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts)
A song is considered good because of how well specific musical techniques are employed.


Most here would prefer that discussions stay in the subjective realm because it's easier.
Those that dare to go objective will generally get the "snob" tag.



Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

[img:$uid]http://www.gmvsworld.com/Smileys/default/free-sign-smileys-968.gif[/img:$uid]

MickyDolenz said:

No. I don't think there is a such thing as good or bad music. It's an opinion. I don't believe in "cheesy" or "guilty pleasures" either. If someone is embarrased to like something, then they shouldn't listen to it or try to hide it in order to appear "cool" or "hip". Putting someone down because they don't like so-called real music is just a form of bigotry to me, no different than any other superiority thinking.

Very good point.

Good shit = My music collection

Shit = Everyone elses music collection

theAudience said:

electricberet said:

What do you think? Is it possible to say, for example, that Rebecca Black's "Friday" is objectively inferior to "A Day in the Life" by the Beatles? Or does it just depend on your preference? I think there is such a thing as objective quality in music (and other art) but others seem to disagree.

I believe that you can, in the right environment.
This type of forum would not be a very good choice.

Subjective: (placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions)
A song is considered good because "I like it".
End of discussion with no facts or further explanation required.

Objective: (not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts)
A song is considered good because of how well specific musical techniques are employed.


Most here would prefer that discussions stay in the subjective realm because it's easier.
Those that dare to go objective will generally get the "snob" tag.



Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

I don' think so. I am in the subjective camp and I am the biggest snob here. I think most of the music a lot of people here cherish is crap. That's my opinion. That's why I remain on the subjective camp. You just cannot quantify personal taste. You cannot do it no matter how anyone tries. It can NEVER be objective. No way, no how.

[Edited 10/3/11 6:11am]

V10LETBLUES said:

I don' think so. I am in the subjective camp and I am the biggest snob here. I think most of the music a lot of people here cherish is crap. That's my opinion. That's why I remain on the subjective camp. You just cannot quantify personal taste. You cannot do it no matter how anyone tries. It can NEVER be objective. No way, no how.

I think we're talking about two different types of discussions.
I'm not interested in discussing anyone's personal tastes but rather an objective discussion of a specific piece of music.

There are tunes I may not like personally but I feel I can recognize and discuss certain musical merits they may have.



Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

I remember I had a link to a great debate on another forum that spoke about this in great detail. There was one poster that studied music, but didn't play it and some of the others did.

Not that it was the end all, be all to this kind of topic, but from what I could recall, while everyone agreed that musis taste, itself, was subjective, you could apply objectivity to music in terms of techniques and execution applied. I don't have the link now, I will fish it out a little later though.

That being said, in order for objectivity to exist though, there has to be standard that to which it needs to be compared against correct? That standard may vary from culture to culture as I'm not really aware of their being a universal one for music...or any artform in general. I think that each culture has it's own idea of what is superior or inferior in terms of music. Knowing that...doesn't that mean that that music is still subjective?

Because...in all honesty, heavy metal music has been compared to or often cited for its closesness to classical music due to its sheer complexity. Does that mean that heavy metal music is, objectively, the most superior form of popular music out today? Is classical music superior to jazz music or vice versa? Is all popular music inferior? Doesn't that mean that blues music is, essentially, vastly inferior as well considering how much of today's popular music was born from its simplistic chord structure and the such?

[Edited 10/3/11 7:59am]

theAudience said:

V10LETBLUES said:

I don' think so. I am in the subjective camp and I am the biggest snob here. I think most of the music a lot of people here cherish is crap. That's my opinion. That's why I remain on the subjective camp. You just cannot quantify personal taste. You cannot do it no matter how anyone tries. It can NEVER be objective. No way, no how.

I think we're talking about two different types of discussions.
I'm not interested in discussing anyone's personal tastes but rather an objective discussion of a specific piece of music.

There are tunes I may not like personally but I feel I can recognize and discuss certain musical merits they may have.



Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

I love all of the "top 100" lists of all time. And I get upset whenever my favorite artist is not as high on the list as I think they should be. lol

But I know it is all for fun. One year my favorites are at the very top, a couple of years lower, and back and forth.

Could there be a DEFINITIVE objective list? I do not think so. Do you?

My favorite color is blue. My friend likes pink best. To think there is a quantifiable way to definitively say which is better, I think we would all need to take way more meds.

[Edited 10/3/11 8:30am]