Music is subjective
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
Music is subjective
>music is subjective objectively
Skill is subjective
IQ is subjective
>>66323148
More accurately the assignment of value or quality to music by people is, yes.
>>66323198
everything is subjective. why are you getting unnecessarily specific?
>>66323198
Yeah, music itself has some objective factors. Idiots can't get this.
>>66323215
I'm not getting unnecessarily specific, I'm getting a useful level of specific. "Everything is subjective" is basically conversation ender, isn't it? "Music is subjective" is such a vague sentence it doesn't even make sense really, are you literally just meaning to say that it's experienced subjectively. . . well yes, so is literally every possible other thing you could mention, it's a very obvious non-statement.
Usually what people mean when they say "music is subjective" is "judgements of quality i.e x band/song is better than y are subjective judgements", so I was just meaning to clarify that for the sake of discussion.
>>66323318
umadbro?
>>66323237
However in my opinion it is impossible to directly prove any one of these objective factors prove superiority in one piece of music to another. For example, one song may be objectively more complex, more original, more balanced, required greater skill and craftsmanship to create than another. But when you link one of these features and then say "and therefore it is a better piece of music", you have then brought your own judgements of what is valuable or important into it, and it becomes a subjective claim.
>>66323357
Okay sweet I was keen to talk about music I guess I'll just go fuck myself then
>Spiderland is a shit album
taste is subjective quality isn't
>>66323378
Yes, ikr. Although I can't say "therefore it is a better piece of music", I can say "therefore it is a better piece of music in aspect of [quality/complexity/etc]". Yeah, that dosen't make album "better", because "better" is subjective thing. I agree with you.
>>66323198
>>66323215
>>66323237
>>66323318
>>66323378
>>66323517
>>66323630
>they think taste is subjective
>>66323318
yeah but if im out of key and off beat im probably making garbage
>>66323695 meant for >>66323378
Music puts you in a certain place based on your moods and past experiences
and how you feel about that determines what you think about a piece of music;
buts its more plastic than you think. Listen to anything 3 times regularly regardless
of how faggy it is and you're going to catch something you like. There are more factors
to it but I'm making it simple.
You can alter your tastes pretty easily. No it doesn't make you
cool that you got into /mu/ core in a short span of time because you were probably
excited to like the same thing as others. So since music often involves emotion it means
that people react to it differently and that part is subjective. Don't be a metalfag who relishes
how fast or complex something is (joke). Swans use 2 chords and they are
just fine while bands like 21 Pilots spill themselves and it sounds like a meme. Then again it
wouldn't if you were 15 and your experiences weren't shit and you weren't interested in
the quality of music production.
>inb4 Steve Reich makes music for calculators
>>66323740
But, Steve Reich makes music for calculators.
>they fell for the subjetive meme
>>66323740
major bait
>>66323695
Sounds like an obvious, pretty easy to agree with statement at first. But if I think about it, there's heaps of songs with singing that is slightly out of tune or just generally pretty unpolished sounding, or some instrumental parts that are a bit out of time or what have you that I absolutely love and would listen to 100x over a billion songs that are perfectly in tune and in time. Hell, something like a 60s Bob Dylan track or a Velvet Underground track or something might be nowhere near as on key and on time as a 2016 top 40 pop track, which if anything sound sterile and passionless to me because the vocals and much of the instrumentation are digitally programmed to be absolutely perfect. So yknow I really reckon it's just not as simple as that. There are many other values that may determine how much you like a song and therefore how "good" it is to you other than simply how technically polished the recorded performances are
>>66323148
Objective "good" and "bad" require the object (in this case, music) to be "good" or "bad," even if there isn't someone to experience it.
For something to be objectively good, in other words, it would have to retain goodness without someone to say that it is good--but that's literally impossible.
Objective quality doesn't exist, idiots.
>>66323695
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OjTspCqvk8
Jack white: I got a song ready
XL Recordings: Sorry it's shit there are dissonant notes in it. Not gonna happen.
