[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trains are bad So you say, objective criteria exist in music. Say one work A is found to be, by these these objective criteria, better than some work B. Say, Vivaldi's Spring vs. Small Brown Bike's 'Unsung Zero'. If I like SBB better, it's better. There is no objectivity in assigning musical merit. There is only what I like.

Vivaldi can't accurately be compared to anything but other Vivaldi (in terms of how a performance of his music is executed) or to similar Baroque composers (in terms of the quality of the compostion). Those are examples of objective appraisal of music.

You're liking (or disliking) Vivaldi more than another composer's music (or liking one recording of Vivaldi more than another) or liking rock or jazz or blues more than Vivaldi are all examples of subjectivity in the appraisal of music.

 

[periurban]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jashugan What I mean is that, as you said, there are many ways to calculate mathematically the complexity of music, and those ways sometime contradict themselves. IMHO, music theory is what is important in terms of mathematical complexity, although I do not like classical myself. Generally speaking, the more advanced the music theory the more technique is needed to play an instrument or sing certain lyrics, this is IMHO one of the most important criterias as to judging for myself wether some music is to my liking or not. Of course that isnt the only criteria, far from it, but you understand my point im sure.

That isn't really the case though, because little numbers (fast notes) or big numbers (slow notes) or many numbers (chords) or single numbers (melody) are each no more complex than the other! Is a minor or a suspended chord more "complex" than a major chord? Is a syncopated rhythm more complex than a series of triplets? Is a layered loop with a thousand instruments more complex than an unrepeated melody and chordal accompaniment?

Is there some esoteric mathematical relationship between notes that can be measured and labelled as complex? If a rising figure is repeated in a descending form is that more complex than a melody that contains only unrepeated figures?

Perhaps you're thinking of the density of music, so that an orchestral arrangement with many instruments would neccessarily be more "complex" than the same piece arranged for flute and piano.

Or perhaps you are talking about the legibility of the music, in that some music is inherently easier to understand.

A pole is less "complex" than a tree, but when measuring a sensory experience like music we have no object to measure. There is no tree, no pole.

All there is exists entirely within our experience. The rest is just wiggling air molecules.

 

[ken36]

I agree. I believe we all hear somewhat differently. How can I truly express what sounds good to me? Can I? No! Sorry.

 

[elmoe]

Yes and if we do all hear differently, can you give me a single worthy critic? My point is that as everybody hears things differently (ie: the way they like, or are made to listen, whichever you prefer), no single opinion can be entirely true and thus judging musical quality becomes irrelevant.

 

[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jashugan Yes and if we do all hear differently, can you give me a single worthy critic? My point is that as everybody hears things differently (ie: the way they like, or are made to listen, whichever you prefer), no single opinion can be entirely true and thus judging musical quality becomes irrelevant.

Well, I use the allmusic website all the time (for jazz, blues, avante-garde, and rock). They have a fairly standard 5-star rating system, and a pool of writers (critics, would be more accurate). Most of the time, if it is music I am already familiar with, I agree with their rating (within a half-star or so). Much less often, they give an album five stars, but I just don't like it, or they only give one 3 stars, but I disagree. I would say then, on the whole, that their crticism is useful and relevant, becuase it helps inform my decision of whehter to go out an buy an album that I have never heard.

But I also shop at Amazon quite frequently. I read the "reviews" there as well, but I can quickly see who is giving 5 stars just because they love an album, but cannot really explain to why it deserves 5 stars. Others write more careful reviews, and that helps me decide.

I think allmusic is more relevant at judging musical quality than amazon.

 

[elmoe]

Sure, finding some things relevant and helpful exist I am not saying the contrary, just that you not agreeing with all reviewers' opinions means that you cannot judge music objectively. Within a certain group of people, which have similar taste/opinions, you may be able to catch a glimpse of objectivity as what they may think comes close enough (in your opinion again) to what you think yourself, but there are 6 billion people on this planet

 

[Fizzmix]

Objectivity about anything in the world doesn't really matter, especially since it can't exist.

Bear with me here. I would say that the thing that most people would agree about as an objective term is that murder is wrong. Most books of religion teach this basic fact, and most athiests/agnostics would agree with this. There are some, however, that disagree with this. Since not all people can agree on the same code of objectivity, no one can truely be wrong about it, and objectivity is null and moot.

So if not everyone agrees that murder is wrong, why do we continue to support this assertion? Because under the parameters that have been set, that human life is an important thing, murder is not something that the majority support. Everyone who disagrees is "wrong", essentially, and we do not apply different parameters to these people because they disagree. Murder supporters are still punished when they commit the act.

As a whole, this world has agreed on parameters of what is worthwhile in music. No, clearly not everyone agrees on these parameters, but critics and enthusiasts speak loudest and most often, and what we're left with is a strong appreciation for classical, jazz, and classic rock, over country, rap, punk, and the like.

Subjectivity remains your personal taste, but objectivity is merely what has come to be in the general appreciation of music and general acceptance of what makes music good. I don't think objectivity needs to be anything else.

 

[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jashugan ... just that you not agreeing with all reviewers' opinions means that you cannot judge music objectively.

I don't follow you here...

Anyway, I do think I can judge some music objectively. And I recognize that I use my auditory perceptions to form the basis of my appraisal, as well as my knowledge of musical styles and music history. Whether or not I subjectively "like" it, is a different matter.

 

[ATAT]

Eh. Topic states the obvious. I dont understand why there'd be any discussion on this (other than the sake of arguing)..
a). Each person is different. There are people who listen to what sounds like "noise" to me. Gescom [OR] 1998 "1d shapethrower". Any attempt to describe music via harmonies and other music theory would fail since it has no harmonies, no nothing really..
b). Context is key, a sappy horrid song about a breakup may be "better" to someone than Mahler's 2nd ,depending on the context.. One cant really asses the context in which the peice is percieved
c). Music is inherently an interpreted act.. to detatch it is failure.. A person whose lost high-frequency hearing might not like a peice compared to someone who has that frequency.. Each person is different, and therefore hears different things. This is the reason why some like senns and others grado.
d). Mathematical constructs can only objectively analyze.. but at best that remains within the realm of theory. Yes peice a has more harmonics than b, perhaps one could even find out what would be a pleasing harmonic, yet that doesnt judge "musical merit"

 

[trains are bad]

Quote:

So if not everyone agrees that murder is wrong, why do we continue to support this assertion? Because under the parameters that have been set, that human life is an important thing, murder is not something that the majority support. Everyone who disagrees is "wrong", essentially, and we do not apply different parameters to these people because they disagree. Murder supporters are still punished when they commit the act.

Your argument is flawed.

1. Not all killing is immoral, Murder is wrongful killing by definition, therefore murder exists unless all forms of killing are considered moral, which is absurd.
2. Any debate over morality has pretty much nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is art and the appreciation thereof

Quote:

As a whole, this world has agreed on parameters of what is worthwhile in music.

BS
Quote:

but critics and enthusiasts speak loudest and most often

So you define popular=good. Many others define underground=unpopular=good.

1. 
   Music can be analyzed objectively. Music is, after all, nothing but an SPL vs Time function. You can analyze music all you want.
2. When you have analyzed the music, and start saying things like 'this is better because it's more complex' (translation: I like it better becaues I think complexity sounds more entertaining) and so on, ALL such is subjective. A things artistic merit, to me, is a function of its emotional impact.
3. The logical conclusion is that there is no such thing as good or bad music.

Bach can be objectively shown to be different from garage band x. But Bach is only better than garage band x if you think those differences are in Bach's favor. And you can't tell people what they are supposed to, and not supposed to like. That's disrespectful, and an insult to all artistic creation.

 

[00940]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fizzmix Bear with me here. I would say that the thing that most people would agree about as an objective term is that murder is wrong. Most books of religion teach this basic fact, and most athiests/agnostics would agree with this. There are some, however, that disagree with this. Since not all people can agree on the same code of objectivity, no one can truely be wrong about it, and objectivity is null and moot.

To put it in a non offensive way.

You do realize that the starting point : "A disagrees with B" does not have as logical consequence that A would be right, B right or both wrong ? And thus, it does not allow us, like you do, to jump to a conclusion about the respective positions of A and B, especially to invalidate both.

To put it another way. Replace in your argument "murder is wrong" by "this two meter high tree is smaller than this five meter high tree". Now, see where the argument leads you.

 

[trains are bad]

Quote:

So if not everyone agrees that murder is wrong, why do we continue to support this assertion? Because under the parameters that have been set, that human life is an important thing, murder is not something that the majority support. Everyone who disagrees is "wrong", essentially, and we do not apply different parameters to these people because they disagree. Murder supporters are still punished when they commit the act.

Your argument is flawed.

1. Not all killing is immoral, Murder is wrongful killing by definition, therefore murder exists unless all forms of killing are considered moral, which is absurd.
2. Any debate over morality has pretty much nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is art and the appreciation thereof

Quote:

As a whole, this world has agreed on parameters of what is worthwhile in music.

BS
Quote:

but critics and enthusiasts speak loudest and most often

So you define popular=good. Many others define underground=unpopular=good.

1. 
   Music can be analyzed objectively. Music is, after all, nothing but an SPL vs Time function. You can analyze music all you want.
2. When you have analyzed the music, and start saying things like 'this is better because it's more complex' (translation: I like it better becaues I think complexity sounds more entertaining) and so on, ALL such is subjective. A things artistic merit, to me, is a function of its emotional impact.
3. The logical conclusion is that there is no such thing as good or bad music.

Bach can be objectively shown to be different from garage band x. But Bach is only better than garage band x if you think those differences are in Bach's favor. And you can't tell people what they are supposed to, and not supposed to like. That's disrespectful, and an insult to all artistic creation.

 

[PhilS]

If the appraisal of musical merit is entirely subjective, would you say the appraisal of beauty is entirely subjective as well? If someone said "I find a mass of vomit on the sidewalk to be one of the most beautiful constructs in nature," would you say, "Well, that's not my cup of tea, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? Similarly, would you say that someone who enjoys a "musical" piece filled with the sounds of flatulence and the tearing metal of a car crash "just has different tastes and nobody is really entitled to say that music is not meritorrious"? There are some generally accepted standards or components of meritorious works, aren't there?

I agree that music is heavily subjective, but I don't think that one can really say it is entirely subjective, and I don't think people can converse with one another about music at all (or beauty) without some acknowledgment that there are some objective standards that apply -- or should apply. I would also venture the probably unpopular opinion that the notion that musical merit is entirely subjective explains some of the trash that passes as music today. (Wow, I sound like my father now. That's depressing.)

 

[trains are bad]

Quote:

If the appraisal of musical merit is entirely subjective, would you say the appraisal of beauty is entirely subjective as well?

Yes.
Quote:

If someone said "I find a mass of vomit on the sidewalk to be one of the most beautiful constructs in nature," would you say, "Well, that's not my cup of tea, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder"?

Something like that.
Quote:

Similarly, would you say that someone who enjoys a "musical" piece filled with the sounds of flatulence and the tearing metal of a car crash "just has different tastes and nobody is really entitled to say that music is not meritorrious"?

Yes. Nobody is entitled to say that. Anyone is free to express his opinion that it is meritorrious, but being able to express an opinion does not make it fact.
Quote:

There are some generally accepted standards or components of meritorious works, aren't there?

Clearly, most people agree on basic things that make music good or bad. These, however, are still entirely subjective.
Quote:

I don't think that one can really say it is entirely subjective

I never said that music is entirely subjective. I said that the appraisal of its artistic merit is entirely sujective.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trains are bad Clearly, most people agree on basic things that make music good or bad. These, however, are still entirely subjective.

I would say that this either contains an internal contradiction, or the entire issue bascially reduces to semantics (i.e., regarding the meaning of, or what is included within, the word "subjective"), at which point it cannot be argued further to any real purpose.