[elmoe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gratefulshrink 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.

If you use your auditory perceptions to form the basis of your appraisal + knowledge of musical styles and everybody listens to music differently how can you say your judgement is objective?

 

[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jashugan If you use your auditory perceptions to form the basis of your appraisal + knowledge of musical styles and everybody listens to music differently how can you say your judgement is objective?

I think you misquoted me (or added in a phrase), and your sentence is confusing.

The most succinct way I can explain it is that my subjective appraisal informs my objective criticism.

Yes, we each listen differently, but obviously we share a common means to discuss our opinions of music. Those discussions are also an aspect of objective appraisal.

 

[elmoe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gratefulshrink I think you misquoted me (or added in a phrase), and your sentence is confusing. The most succinct way I can explain it is that my subjective appraisal informs my objective criticism. Yes, we each listen differently, but obviously we share a common means to discuss our opinions of music. Those discussions are also an aspect of objective appraisal.

An aspect which, IMHO, is not objective at all though. If your subjective appraisal informs in any way your objective criticism how is that criticism objective?

 

[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jashugan If your subjective appraisal informs in any way your objective criticism how is that criticism objective?

First of all, I apologize to anyone who may have made similar points before -- this thread and a related one in the music discussion forum are similar and both lengthy -- some duplication of ideas is inevitable.

I will try to be brief.

There is no such thing as purely objective music appraisal, because such appaisal does depend on a human being to perceive the music. However,
from a practical standpoint those with trained ears and either practical or theoretical experience in music will do a better job at approaching objectivity than the untrained novice. It is the same with all forms of artistic appraisal; people with training in visual art and art history will be better at objective appraisal than those with no background. That's how music and art progress.

I have news for anyone reading this who might think, for example, that medical science is more objective than something like music appraisal. Even though physicians go through years of training, they still rely on subjective appraisal of data. Interpreting an X-ray is an example. Each radiologist reads them slightly differently, yet they use their training to try to apply objective criteria towards their final interpretation. So even radiologists are not 100% objective, but, they would do a 100,000% better job at interpreting an X-ray than a non-radiologist because that is what they are trained to do.

So nothing involving humans can be fully objective, including music appraisal. But there are most certainly levels of objectivity, with the most trained ears being able to reach the highest levels.

 

[MartinJ]

But is not the different goal important? With music you are there to give something for others to like while doctors are meant to save life? I will never understand people that believe that art is something that can be mesasured and then labeled as "good", "bad", "meh" and believe that is objective results. Less can I understand people who claim that they can do it objectively.

 

[periurban]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gratefulshrink First of all, I apologize to anyone who may have made similar points before -- this thread and a related one in the music discussion forum are similar and both lengthy -- some duplication of ideas is inevitable. I will try to be brief. There is no such thing as purely objective music appraisal, because such appaisal does depend on a human being to perceive the music. However, from a practical standpoint those with trained ears and either practical or theoretical experience in music will do a better job at approaching objectivity than the untrained novice. It is the same with all forms of artistic appraisal; people with training in visual art and art history will be better at objective appraisal than those with no background. That's how music and art progress. I have news for anyone reading this who might think, for example, that medical science is more objective than something like music appraisal. Even though physicians go through years of training, they still rely on subjective appraisal of data. Interpreting an X-ray is an example. Each radiologist reads them slightly differently, yet they use their training to try to apply objective criteria towards their final interpretation. So even radiologists are not 100% objective, but, they would do a 100,000% better job at interpreting an X-ray than a non-radiologist because that is what they are trained to do. So nothing involving humans can be fully objective, including music appraisal. But there are most certainly levels of objectivity, with the most trained ears being able to reach the highest levels.

The problem with your example is that in music there is no external object (such as a broken bone) to examine. The "object" in this case is experience, which cannot be quantified.

No objective assessment of the merit of a piece of music can be made. But what can be achieved is a technical description of the music, coloured by the experience of the listener. That isn't objective, and the description given by an experienced listener isn't any more valid than any other, even if more people might find it useful.

 

[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartinJ But is not the different goal important? With music you are there to give something for others to like while doctors are meant to save life? I will never understand people that believe that art is something that can be mesasured and then labeled as "good", "bad", "meh" and believe that is objective results. Less can I understand people who claim that they can do it objectively.

I never meant to discuss the relative importance of music vs. medicine -- I was merely trying to find an analog of a situation which people often assume is fully objective, but really is only partly objective.

Decsions are made all the time about art -- which paintings to hang in a museum, which artist to award a prestigious fellowship. These are made by epxerts or panels of experts. The arts would not progress without them. I think such experts offer more objective appraisals than the average man in the street.

 

[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by periurban The problem with your example is that in music there is no external object (such as a broken bone) to examine. The "object" in this case is experience, which cannot be quantified. No objective assessment of the merit of a piece of music can be made. But what can be achieved is a technical description of the music, coloured by the experience of the listener. That isn't objective, and the description given by an experienced listener isn't any more valid than any other, even if more people might find it useful.

There are practical reasons why we have attempts at objective appraisal of music, even if many dispute that this is even possible.

Decisions about music have to be made everyday which compare and contrast different songs or recordings or musicians -- decisoins which rely on objective appraisal/criticism. It ain't perfect, but it's the best we got.

 

[MartinJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gratefulshrink I never meant to discuss the relative importance of music vs. medicine -- I was merely trying to find an analog of a situation which people often assume is fully objective, but really is only partly objective. Decsions are made all the time about art -- which paintings to hang in a museum, which artist to award a prestigious fellowship. These are made by epxerts or panels of experts. The arts would not progress without them. I think such experts offer more objective appraisals than the average man in the street.

I have found "experts" with time are warped into their own world and shun new art movements. When I spoke about the analog, I wanted to point out that the end goal of a doctor can be easily found if it was a good choice in many cases on the end result. The person recovered. While with art, what is the end goal? Is it to be creative? Appeal to the masses? Appeal to a small number? Appeal at all?

I am pretty sure anything is ruled by money as many artists would be with out jobs if they were not paid. Research would not go through, ect.

IMO the only objectiveness you can find is based on subjective values.

Any why do we have to rate matters of taste?

 

[ken36]

You hear what you hear.

 

[ken36]

You hear what you hear.

 

[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by periurban The problem with your example is that in music there is no external object (such as a broken bone) to examine. The "object" in this case is experience, which cannot be quantified. No objective assessment of the merit of a piece of music can be made. But what can be achieved is a technical description of the music, coloured by the experience of the listener. That isn't objective, and the description given by an experienced listener isn't any more valid than any other, even if more people might find it useful.

No, even the "broken bone" is open to interpretation -- physicians have no absolutes with which to work.

Quantification is a different point, but that is where the analogy no longer is valid. Perhaps another analogy would be useful: architecture.

LIke music, architecture can be appraised both subjectively ("I like this building" or "I hate that house") and objectively (which submission to a contest is chosen as winner).

I have never meant to argue that there can be perfect objectivity in the appraisal of music, but only that objective appraisal does exist, and differs from subjective appraisal.

 

[periurban]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gratefulshrink No, even the "broken bone" is open to interpretation -- physicians have no absolutes with which to work. Quantification is a different point, but that is where the analogy no longer is valid. Perhaps another analogy would be useful: architecture. LIke music, architecture can be appraised both subjectively ("I like this building" or "I hate that house") and objectively (which submission to a contest is chosen as winner). I have never meant to argue that there can be perfect objectivity in the appraisal of music, but only that objective appraisal does exist, and differs from subjective appraisal.

That's interesting, but I'm with Frank Zappa who said, "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."

Architecture has a function (much like a bone or a doctor attempting to aid the healing of a fracture), which music (broadly speaking) does not.

Yes, you can make an assessment of "why" one piece is better than another, but that doesn't mean anything. We humans are fantastic at rationalising everything, even when none is required.

The pop charts are full of bland pap, with very occasional moments of true genius, but even those are hotly debated. The number one single is the song that the greatest number of people like at that time, but this doesn't say anything else about the song or the artist.

But the blunt instrument that is the pop chart is the only real consensus we have about what people like. Everything else is subjective posturing.