So music is subjective, right?
yea i have objectively best taste tho
whatever helps you r/indieheads browsers sleep at night
Ayyy lmao Jenny death when amirite senpai?
>>61298202
your life is a meme
>>61298163
How we perceive music is subjective, yes.
>>61298163
not when it comes to itaots desu
yeah no shit don't let 4chan tell you otherwise
humans are objective
music is made by humans
music is objective
>>61298163
I'm pretty sure it's an auditory form of entertainment.
>>61298925
>entertainment
>>61298894
lel
>>61298163
I would say our enjoyment of music is subjective but quality,skill, etc is objective.
>>61298997
>quality,skill, etc is objective.
How do you measure them?
>>61299014
objectively
>he fell for the meme
>>61299058
By what measurements? How are they measured exactly?
>>61298894
Even if the first premise was applicable, which it obviously isn't, this syllogism would only make any sense if all music IS humans, not just made by them.
>>61299108
well i was trying to make a dumb joke but I'll reply for real this time:
There is no real way to accurately and objectively measure any given musician's ability/songwriting talent. The only way would be to look at their time signatures, originality (by directly comparing it to previous works), and ability on their given instrument. It's a very hard thing to do and really there's no accurate way to measure it.
That's life I suppose.
>>61299153
>There is no real way to accurately and objectively measure any given musician's ability/songwriting talent
Then it's not objective. It's subjective.
But what about people who spend their lives analyzing music and its quality? The general consensus that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are the greatest composers (and other like Chopin)? If music was entirely subjective, it would be impossible to make summaries like this.
>>61299550
>The general consensus that...
The fact that you need to qualify the statement with "the general consensus is..." shows that it is subjective. If it wasn't and was instead objective, it would be empirically true and not necessary to state it that way.
Also
>are the greatest composers
A qualitative statement, based on subjective criteria. Not objective at all.
>>61298163
Liking music is subjective.
Appreciating and critically assessing it is not.
>>61298894
Muffin is bread
You put butter on bread
Butter is muffin
you can put music in a context, which turns subjectivity into objectivity.
you dont have to accept whatever context they put it in, but it doesn't make it invalid
>>61298894
Existence is objective
Music exists
Music is objective
>>61299014
The less boring the music the better music. In my opinion music is somewhat objetive and somewhat subjective. If you ever find music "too weird" you cannot judge the music in any way. if you find it "just boring" you have my permission to judge it and be just as right as everyone else.
>>61299786
What's the distinction?
I know this is a bait thread but here's the real answer
>music is objective
>music enjoyment is subjective (but if it's well thought out, it can be based on the objective features of music)
>>61299908
>The less boring
>"too weird"
Both subjective value judgements.
>>61299997
>(but if it's well thought out, it can be based on the objective features of music)
How so?
Nice try though.
>>61299943
Imagin a Justin Biebers "What do you mean" in the year of 1958
That would be something immense and innovative whereas today it is pretty boring and not very innovative
>>61299856
Yea, well context doesn't mean it's necessarily of quality. Like if there's an album that's part of a genre I hate, but even if it's extremely influential, it doesn't mean I have to like it, nor if it's better than albums that aren't "influential".
>>61300041
>pretty boring and not very innovative
Is this supposed to be a subjective analysis or "appreciating critically assessing"?
Because "pretty boring" and "not very innovative" are subjective statements.
>>61300065
>it doesn't mean I have to like it
Not him but you don't have to like/dislike anything.
>>61300065
>>61300118
both you ended up proving my point v nicely
>>61300152
Not really, because
>which turns subjectivity into objectivity.
Is not how it works. You are adorable for trying though.
>>61300104
innovative is objetive. boring is subjetive.
Hopefully you would appreciate if that single came out in 1958
>>61299893
>Existence is objective
>>61300202
>innovative is objective
Not really. Innovation is a very ambiguous term, mostly stretched by the listening habits and musical knowledge of the listener. Pretty much everything or nothing is innovative.
Your example, it's just a pop song structurally, and could exist in 1958
>>61300260
But the sounds would something never heard before and therefore your listening habits and musical knowledge would be limited and therefore this would be objectively innovative.
>>61299856
>you can put music in a context, which turns subjectivity into objectivity.
That's not at all what happens. Are you high?
>>61300323
>But the sounds would something never heard before
All sound is innovative unless it's a direct sample, because it is performed uniquely by a unique musician.
Yes and no. It's hard to explain and I'd rather not
>>61300471
Opinion discarded
>>61300380
You can mesure soundwaves and how different the soundwaves are compared to anything made before.
>>61300380
stop being deliberately obtuse, you cock
>>61300503
How are the soundwaves different, in your example?
Please chart out the frequencies.
>>61300526
If you can't keep up, leave the thread, winterfriend
>>61300558
If music is not objetive it is subjetive, right?
That means i can mesure the the "happisness" or "entertainment" that each musician have brought to the world and objetively decide who is the best muscian and i am pretty sure that whoever it is you would not agree with this result. Therefore you think there must be an objetive side of music
I am pretty sure
>>61300632
>That means i can mesure the the "happisness" or "entertainment" that each musician have brought to the world and objetively decide who is the best muscian
Incorrect, because you make the assumption that the goal of music is "happiness and entertainment", which is untrue. Your experiment is pointless.
Also the Just Beiber in 1958 example is a Nirvana Fallacy, FYI.
>Therefore you think there must be an objetive side of music
Of course there is. But it is the technical aspect of it, measured in dBs and Hz, which is mostly useless to the layman.
>>61300698
>>That means i can mesure the the "happisness" or "entertainment" that each musician have brought to the world and objetively decide who is the best muscian
>Incorrect, because you make the assumption that the goal of music is "happiness and entertainment", which is untrue. Your experiment is pointless.
"Happiness and entertainment was just examples. I could change the goal of the music to be a mix of whatever. my "experiment" is legit and you just wont give up.
This discussion i pointless as you already understand me and probably agree with me in most ways
>>61300698
also if music is subjektivly a dogs opinion of music is just a valid as your
>>61300889
>I could change the goal of the music to be a mix of whatever
It would still not work, because you don't seem to understand the goal of music.
>my "experiment" is legit and you just wont give up.
It's also a Nirvana Fallacy as well. Give a real-life, possible example or experiment.
>This discussion i pointless as you already understand me
I agree that you haven't sufficiently proven yourself as not a complete idiot
>>61300913
>also if music is subjektivly a dogs opinion of music is just a valid as your
Have fun asking your dog their opinions on music.
>>61301085
>>I could change the goal of the music to be a mix of whatever
>It would still not work, because you don't seem to understand the goal of music.
There is no "goal" of music. Music is apriciated for may different reasons and a lot of times not even the intended reason.
Everyday on /mu/ everyone rates music and that means there is a "scale" where you can mesure music objetivly.
>>also if music is subjektivly a dogs opinion of music is just a valid as your
>Have fun asking your dog their opinions on music.
If i knew everything i would know how to mesure a dogs brainactivity and figure how much a dog would rate the album
Since the product of atoms movement in your brain makes up your mind i can describe the atoms in your brain and therefore you.
And therefore your even your opinion is objetive
>>61298163
Whiplash?
>>61301558
>There is no "goal" of music
Not true, but if we pretend you are right here, then it proves your experiment is invalid
>Music is apriciated for may different reasons and a lot of times not even the intended reason.
Which is why it's subjective
>"scale" where you can mesure music objetivly.
Tell me about this objective scale. How is it determined, based on what rubric?
>If i knew everything i would know how to mesure a dogs brainactivity and figure how much a dog would rate the album
>Since the product of atoms movement in your brain makes up your mind i can describe the atoms in your brain and therefore you.
It took you 25 minutes to think of this?
>And therefore your even your opinion is objetive
Only if your opinion is "this song is 5 dBs" or "this frequency is 20 kHz"
>>61301575
well the drummer disagreed, so that solves it. Music is objective.
>>61298163
no
"music is subjective" is just a pleb's trump card to get out of an argument when they get called out on their shit taste
>>61301811
I am no longer sure what we are discussing. There would be a way to figure whats the "best album ever" but that is besides the point an totally irelevent.
This is the clearest i can be:
Music taste i objetive, Music is subjetive.
If you disagree you are a moron and if you agree you are a moron for dissagreeing with me even tho we were in the same boat all along...
>>61302010
>There would be a way to figure whats the "best album ever"
There isn't. I challenge you to prove your assertion, it will be entertaining
>Music taste i objetive,
How so? Taste = "What I like in music..." which is clearly subjective.
>Music is subjetive.
The technical properties of music itself is objective.
Maybe you are confused what objective and subjective means?
time signature, bpm, key, originality (to some extent), etc are objective. You can't say "well in my opinion this is 125 bpm, not 130", it's objective.
What sounds good and what sounds bad is completely subjective tho, and that is what actually matters. Ariana Grande may be shite music but you can't tell anyone they're wrong because of what sounds they enjoy hearing, it doesn't make any sense.
>>61302122
By music taste i do not mean "what do you like?"
Music taste for me is if you are able to "taste" all the sounds.
if you are able to "taste" every aspect of music. I do not have the ability to do that and i am not sure if i will ever aquire that.
When i say music is subjetive i mean that even if you have the abillity to taste everything and you have listened to every album and song and you still think Doo-Wops & Hooligans is the best album ever made that is just as true as any other person who have the same abillities and have listened to all the same music no matter their top pick.
>>There would be a way to figure whats the "best album ever"
>There isn't. I challenge you to prove your assertion, it will be entertaining
Just because i cannot find the perfect solution right now doesnt mean that there isnt one. I can tell you that if you every person ever lived listened to every piece of music ever made and rated everything on a scale from a to b it and summed everything up we would have a nice
approximation.
>>61302122
I agree about the technical properties thing you said
The influence and innovation in music is objective. Wether you enjoy it is subjective
this is really good bait
all worms n erryhin
>>61303135
fuk u faget im fukin invincibl;e
>>61303162
feel better?
>>61303135
Don't you have any shame thinking about how many people die
>>61303188
iim always feelin better my man, life is easy breezy
>>61303212
good to hear man, merry whatevervevr
>>61303296
same to you anon, see you in another life
>>61302494
>The influence and innovation in music is objective
Already covered that. See >>61300260
>>61302469
You are still an idiot. Please stop listening to music.
>>61298163
This album was good when it came out in '98. I heard it around '01 and was impressed (as it was quite an interesting album for the folk genre). Not many people really knew about it but it would be discussed on irc or other places where people talked about random albums that they found that were strange, interesting, and good.
Fast forward nearly a decade later and the millennials get a hold of it. Several flannel shirts and tight girl pants later the album became circulated and meme-ified. Over time the album became a skewed ironic shitposted view of itself. To truly understand how good it was you would have had to hear it back around the time where it came out.
TL;DR hipster millennials found an above quality lo-fi folk album made by a bunch of weirdos and turned it into a shitty joke that was never funny. Is it a good album? Yes. Is it worth talking about all these years later? I suppose, but any discussion of the album is skewed by the faggots that turned it into a shitty meme.
>>61304792
This, except
>folk
lol
>>61305219
That's basically what genre the album is, just a bunch of lo-fi hippies with acoustic guitars and blown out fuzz (with misc horns and analog overdub in the mix).
>>61303135
ugh
>>61303135
>open linux crayola professional suite
>use the decropper tool
after further investigation we're all gonna be ok
>>61303135
i love memes
>>61303135
reply
