I hope you know that some toddler smashing on a piano is objectively just as good as bach's the art of fugue.
What is this autism
>>60272555
Mozart here
dis nigga is right as fuk
Ok thanks
>>60272534
>objectively just as good
Music isn't objective m8.
That doesn't mean that's it's all objectively the same quality. That means quality is assigned by the listener and there is no objective measure of quality.
Only because existence is meaningless and nothing really matters. We all die in the end and talent/skill/wealth/success don't mean shit when you're dead.
>>60272571
>not all objectively the same quality
>quality is subjective
Nice paradoxical argument.
>>60272571
there are different objective measures of quality for different genres
Except that some genres are still better quality than other genres
>>60272587
Babby's first etc
>>60272602
Subjective quality doesn't mean all the same quality m8.
The point of saying that is to imply that there isn't a measure of quality that can arbitrarily be assigned to anything.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective
>>60272614
What are the objective measures of quality for a baroque concerto or a free jazz song? Is there like a list online somewhere of all the objective standards in each genre?
>>60272640
You can't argue that bach is better than a toddler smashing on a piano. Your subjective standard of quality is entirely arbitrary.
>>60272713
>Your subjective standard of quality is entirely arbitrary
You're right anon it is arbitrary. That's the fucking point of saying music is subjective as opposed to objective.
You can't argue it's better, the same or worse because it's quality is dependent on a person's arbitrary set of preferences. You can say you prefer it and why you prefer it but the statement:
>some toddler smashing on a piano is objectively just as good as bach's the art of fugue.
Is wrong. They aren't objectively just as good as each pother. If you subjectively believe they are, that's good for you but neither of them have any quality besides what individuals ascribe to them.
>>60272794
Okay, so music exists in the vacuum of infinity, where all other sounds go, down into the great sub atomic unknown where it's sucked into a black hole. I see what you're saying.
>>60272664
>list online somewhere
That's not really a good way to learn about art or folk music, which those two examples fall under. If you want to learn what makes a baroque concerto better than another one, you'd have to study them in detail and listen a lot, which is unfortunately outside my body of knowledge.
If you want to know what makes free jazz good, you'd have to listen to a lot (a LOT) yourself, and seeing it live is essential. My 2 cents as a musician working occasionally in free jazz is that there should be effective communication between the players, compositional-like spontaneous structure to the piece, sincerity, and connection to the jazz tradition. As you can tell, these aren't precise definitions but they are objective concepts that leave room for debate. But the "problem" here is that free jazz is a folk music, passed orally (and aurally) from musician to musician that has been packaged commercially, but the heart of the music isn't found in recordings.
But these are specialist discussions, and you're not going to find a website that just lists what makes the music good. I would read what critics wrote about whatever music you're interested in and listen to it actively and objectively yourself.
>>60272834
>they are objective concepts that leave room for debate.
Objective:not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Do you honestly believe that what you think is objectively well made free jazz isn't affected by your thoughts and opinions and that every person who is an expert in the field believes in the same measures of quality as you?
If it was objective, you would be able to list out factual truths about what makes free jazz good that everyone would agree on because they were just the facts and what they thought about those facts doesn't change them.
Enthusiasts having a consensus on the quality of an album doesn't assign an objective quality to that album.
>>60272900
>Enthusiasts having a consensus on the quality of an album doesn't assign an objective quality to that album.
Why not? Unless you have some ridiculous scientific measure for objectivity that you're trying to apply to an art. This all sounds very protestant to me.
>>60272916
>Unless you have some ridiculous scientific measure for objectivity that you're trying to apply to an art.
I don't. Jesus Christ, that's the bloody point: nobody does!
Music isn't objective!
>Why not?
Why should enthusiasts decide what makes their favourite type of art good? Why does their opinion matter more than a group of laymen who couldn't give a fuck about free jazz?
Taking the average opinion of a group of subjective opinions decided by the free jazz council lead by Coleman Coltrane and Dolphy has no more value than a group of laymen of the same size.
>>60273053
>Why should enthusiasts decide what makes their favourite type of art good?
Because they know more about it than laymen. Because they put time into decoding the music and what makes it good. Because they care.
>>60272534
My cats could produce free jazz by wrestling on a piano.
>>60272534
>objectively just as good
How is this measured, objectively?
