"My taste in music is better than yours"

Here's a conclusion to a paper titles How Can We Objectively rank and rate Musicianship....

Conclusion Musicality is the greatest variable when evaluating music performance at the highest level. Most groups can achieve technically proficient performances. The value put on the demand of the literature being played, the context of the performance, and the expressive and stylistic qualities – the musicality – can make one performance better than another. Assessing musicality is ultimately an aesthetic judgment on the part of the evaluator and is at least partly intellectual and interpretative. By creating rating scales and systems that serve to enhance the understanding of the criteria for the evaluators and the participants in the assessment process, musicianship can be quantified fairly and objectively.

LJS9502_basic

Nowhere did that passage say anything about objectivity.

The terms "value put on" and "aesthetic judgment" point to subjectivitity.

The realm of the objective exists independently of what "value" one puts on something.

Here's a conclusion to a paper titles How Can We Objectively rank and rate Musicianship....

Conclusion Musicality is the greatest variable when evaluating music performance at the highest level. Most groups can achieve technically proficient performances. The value put on the demand of the literature being played, the context of the performance, and the expressive and stylistic qualities – the musicality – can make one performance better than another. Assessing musicality is ultimately an aesthetic judgment on the part of the evaluator and is at least partly intellectual and interpretative. By creating rating scales and systems that serve to enhance the understanding of the criteria for the evaluators and the participants in the assessment process, musicianship can be quantified fairly and objectively.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Here's a conclusion to a paper titles How Can We Objectively rank and rate Musicianship....

Conclusion Musicality is the greatest variable when evaluating music performance at the highest level. Most groups can achieve technically proficient performances. The value put on the demand of the literature being played, the context of the performance, and the expressive and stylistic qualities – the musicality – can make one performance better than another. Assessing musicality is ultimately an aesthetic judgment on the part of the evaluator and is at least partly intellectual and interpretative. By creating rating scales and systems that serve to enhance the understanding of the criteria for the evaluators and the participants in the assessment process, musicianship can be quantified fairly and objectively.

chrisPperson

And really, he should link us to the essay so we can see where we got it since the other source was not peer-reviewed and didn't offer proper citations.

And that passage doesn't really say anything about objectivity.

It even says "interpretative", which automatically points to subjectivity.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Here's a conclusion to a paper titles How Can We Objectively rank and rate Musicianship....

Conclusion Musicality is the greatest variable when evaluating music performance at the highest level. Most groups can achieve technically proficient performances. The value put on the demand of the literature being played, the context of the performance, and the expressive and stylistic qualities – the musicality – can make one performance better than another. Assessing musicality is ultimately an aesthetic judgment on the part of the evaluator and is at least partly intellectual and interpretative. By creating rating scales and systems that serve to enhance the understanding of the criteria for the evaluators and the participants in the assessment process, musicianship can be quantified fairly and objectively.

Nibroc420

A paper someone wrote.
Where they give their opinion on a topic.

Awesome, that MUST be objective :roll:

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Here's a conclusion to a paper titles How Can We Objectively rank and rate Musicianship....

Conclusion Musicality is the greatest variable when evaluating music performance at the highest level. Most groups can achieve technically proficient performances. The value put on the demand of the literature being played, the context of the performance, and the expressive and stylistic qualities – the musicality – can make one performance better than another. Assessing musicality is ultimately an aesthetic judgment on the part of the evaluator and is at least partly intellectual and interpretative. By creating rating scales and systems that serve to enhance the understanding of the criteria for the evaluators and the participants in the assessment process, musicianship can be quantified fairly and objectively.

LJS9502_basic

A paper someone wrote.
Where they give their opinion on a topic.

Awesome, that MUST be objective :roll:

It's pretty ironic for you to accuse me of pushing opinions as fact and then claim that one can objectively say that music is "good" or bad". That is the opitome of pushing opinions as fact.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Here's a conclusion to a paper titles How Can We Objectively rank and rate Musicianship....

Conclusion Musicality is the greatest variable when evaluating music performance at the highest level. Most groups can achieve technically proficient performances. The value put on the demand of the literature being played, the context of the performance, and the expressive and stylistic qualities – the musicality – can make one performance better than another. Assessing musicality is ultimately an aesthetic judgment on the part of the evaluator and is at least partly intellectual and interpretative. By creating rating scales and systems that serve to enhance the understanding of the criteria for the evaluators and the participants in the assessment process, musicianship can be quantified fairly and objectively.

chrisPperson

[QUOTE="chrisPperson"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Here's a conclusion to a paper titles How Can We Objectively rank and rate Musicianship....

Conclusion Musicality is the greatest variable when evaluating music performance at the highest level. Most groups can achieve technically proficient performances. The value put on the demand of the literature being played, the context of the performance, and the expressive and stylistic qualities – the musicality – can make one performance better than another. Assessing musicality is ultimately an aesthetic judgment on the part of the evaluator and is at least partly intellectual and interpretative. By creating rating scales and systems that serve to enhance the understanding of the criteria for the evaluators and the participants in the assessment process, musicianship can be quantified fairly and objectively.

LJS9502_basic

One cannot objectively critique music unless they don't use any judgments. They can have an informed opinion, but judgments neccesarily introduce subjectivity into equation. Objectivity is mind-independent and a critique is mind-depenent.

When they say "this is good piece", that is automatically an opinion.

I never told you how I evaluate music.

Also, the things I like, I consider to be quality. I like music in part because it's quality.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Here's a conclusion to a paper titles How Can We Objectively rank and rate Musicianship....

Conclusion Musicality is the greatest variable when evaluating music performance at the highest level. Most groups can achieve technically proficient performances. The value put on the demand of the literature being played, the context of the performance, and the expressive and stylistic qualities – the musicality – can make one performance better than another. Assessing musicality is ultimately an aesthetic judgment on the part of the evaluator and is at least partly intellectual and interpretative. By creating rating scales and systems that serve to enhance the understanding of the criteria for the evaluators and the participants in the assessment process, musicianship can be quantified fairly and objectively.

LJS9502_basic

A paper someone wrote.
Where they give their opinion on a topic.

Awesome, that MUST be objective :roll:

As a measure of TALENT.

As in, if someone is popular, they're clearly talented in some regard. Even if YOU think William Hung is a bad singer, does not make it so. Clearly William Hung made money off his singing, so in some regards he does have a talent.

I've yet to try and state my opinion as a fact. I've stated the definitions of words, and explained to you why what you're saying is wrong. I'm not "forcing" opinions on anyone. I'm using the definitions of Objective and Subjective to try to explain that no-one can have an Objective opinion music.
Music is an art. Art is defined as a something created by someone as a creative way to express feelings or emotions. People cannot say it is "Good" or "Bad" Objectively, because those words are values that indicate the insertion of your opinion into a matter, making it Subjective, and not Objective.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="chrisPperson"] Just because it is outfitted formally with big words does not make it correct.

GreySeal9

One cannot objectively critique music unless they don't use any judgments. They can have an informed opinion, but judgments neccesarily introduce subjectivity into equation. Objectivity is mind-independent and a critique is mind-depenent.

When they say "this is good piece", that is automatically an opinion.

I never told you how I evaluate music.

Also, the things I like, I consider to be quality. I like music in part because it's quality.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Just because someone doesn't deconstruct what they listen to doesn't make them correct either. It appears some people project how they evaluate music onto others and cannot conceive that someone can step back from what they like and objectively critique music. And therein lies the problem and while agreement won't be met. Experience is important. And now I'm done going round and round about this. Talk to professionals.....they even critique themselves let alone other music. And no..critique does not mean what they live vs what they don't.Nibroc420

One cannot objectively critique music unless they don't use any judgments. They can have an informed opinion, but judgments neccesarily introduce subjectivity into equation. Objectivity is mind-independent and a critique is mind-depenent.

When they say "this is good piece", that is automatically an opinion.

I never told you how I evaluate music.

Also, the things I like, I consider to be quality. I like music in part because it's quality.

IF that turns out to be the case, it's just as well. I'm finally getting tired of this thread.

I think it's silly to say any music is bad... Depends on who you are and what you like to listen to.Aquat1cF1sh

That's a slap in the face to anyone who ever takes the time and effort to become skilled at making music.

Is it silly to call your car mechanic bad when he ruins your transmission because he doesn't know what the **** he is doing? Is it silly to call your surgeon bad when he accidentally leaves a scalpel inside your torso after performing surgery on you? Now, there's probably SOMEONE out there who got sewed up with medical instruments inside him, and still liked the doctor because he/she was just really nice. But what you're essentially saying is that it's silly to call ANYTHING bad, since it is possible to form an objective opinion about ANYTHING. By your standards, it'd be "silly" to say that even genocide is bad. I'm sure that someone really liked Adolf Hitler and thought that he was just a totally decent guy.

[QUOTE="Aquat1cF1sh"]I think it's silly to say any music is bad... Depends on who you are and what you like to listen to.MrGeezer

That's a slap in the face to anyone who ever takes the time and effort to become skilled at making music.

Is it silly to call your car mechanic bad when he ruins your transmission because he doesn't know what the **** he is doing? Is it silly to call your surgeon bad when he accidentally leaves a scalpel inside your torso after performing surgery on you? Now, there's probably SOMEONE out there who got sewed up with medical instruments inside him, and still liked the doctor because he/she was just really nice. But what you're essentially saying is that it's silly to call ANYTHING bad, since it is possible to form an objective opinion about ANYTHING. By your standards, it'd be "silly" to say that even genocide is bad. I'm sure that someone really liked Adolf Hitler and thought that he was just a totally decent guy.

That's a slap in the face to anyone who ever takes the time and effort to become skilled at making music.MrGeezer

I don't agree that it's silly to call anything bad (after all, I have my own opinions on what is good and bad), but it's only a slap in the face if a musician chooses to take it that way.

Music is an art that some people appreciate and some dont. Some people like Opera, some dont. No-one likes having a scalpel inside them, they're sharp, and chances are they're going to cut you and cause internal bleeding. Now someone who might be suicidal might think that a scalpel being inside them is the most awesome thing ever, However most people wont. It's not "silly" to be thankful for not dying in a car accident. However it is "silly" to tell someone that "Opera is stupid" just because you might not like it.Nibroc420

Some people like to swallow freaking nails. People absolutely have died or come near death as a result of swallowing massive amounts of sharp metal objects.

Some people DO like having sharp metal objects inside of them. You're saying that it's NOT silly to call that "bad", since YOU don't like it.

Yes, some people like opera and some people don't. Some people like excruciating pain and some people don't. If the reason why calling opera "bad" is silly is due to the fact that some people out there like it, then it also becomes silly to call ANYTHING "bad". Since, somewhere out there, there's guaranteed to be someone out there who likes that outcome.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

Music is an art that some people appreciate and some dont. Some people like Opera, some dont. No-one likes having a scalpel inside them, they're sharp, and chances are they're going to cut you and cause internal bleeding. Now someone who might be suicidal might think that a scalpel being inside them is the most awesome thing ever, However most people wont. It's not "silly" to be thankful for not dying in a car accident. However it is "silly" to tell someone that "Opera is stupid" just because you might not like it.MrGeezer

Some people like to swallow freaking nails. People absolutely have died or come near death as a result of swallowing massive amounts of sharp metal objects.

Some people DO like having sharp metal objects inside of them. You're saying that it's NOT silly to call that "bad", since YOU don't like it.

Yes, some people like opera and some people don't. Some people like excruciating pain and some people don't. If the reason why calling opera "bad" is silly is due to the fact that some people out there like it, then it also becomes silly to call ANYTHING "bad". Since, somewhere out there, there's guaranteed to be someone out there who likes that outcome.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

Music is an art that some people appreciate and some dont. Some people like Opera, some dont. No-one likes having a scalpel inside them, they're sharp, and chances are they're going to cut you and cause internal bleeding. Now someone who might be suicidal might think that a scalpel being inside them is the most awesome thing ever, However most people wont. It's not "silly" to be thankful for not dying in a car accident. However it is "silly" to tell someone that "Opera is stupid" just because you might not like it.Nibroc420

Some people like to swallow freaking nails. People absolutely have died or come near death as a result of swallowing massive amounts of sharp metal objects.

Some people DO like having sharp metal objects inside of them. You're saying that it's NOT silly to call that "bad", since YOU don't like it.

Yes, some people like opera and some people don't. Some people like excruciating pain and some people don't. If the reason why calling opera "bad" is silly is due to the fact that some people out there like it, then it also becomes silly to call ANYTHING "bad". Since, somewhere out there, there's guaranteed to be someone out there who likes that outcome.

So...standards don't exist in art?

I see a double standard going on here. You seem to be saying that a mechanic can reasonably be called bad because his work is far below society's acceptable standards. Yet, someone who is completely IGNORANT about any of society's standards about art can't be deemed to have bad taste since his sole personal opinion trumps everything else.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Some people like to swallow freaking nails. People absolutely have died or come near death as a result of swallowing massive amounts of sharp metal objects.

Some people DO like having sharp metal objects inside of them. You're saying that it's NOT silly to call that "bad", since YOU don't like it.

Yes, some people like opera and some people don't. Some people like excruciating pain and some people don't. If the reason why calling opera "bad" is silly is due to the fact that some people out there like it, then it also becomes silly to call ANYTHING "bad". Since, somewhere out there, there's guaranteed to be someone out there who likes that outcome.

MrGeezer

So...standards don't exist in art?

I see a double standard going on here. You seem to be saying that a mechanic can reasonably be called bad because his work is far below society's acceptable standards. Yet, someone who is completely IGNORANT about any of society's standards about art can't be deemed to have bad taste since his sole personal opinion trumps everything else.

You're comparing quality of a job done, to the quality of Art.

If i wanted my house painted, and hired a painter. And said painter forgets to prime the walls before painting, or paints in such a way that causes the coats to not be even. That would not be quality work on his part, as people expect a certain level of quality when hiring a professional to do a job.

Art is expression of one's emotions through creativity. Even something as simplistic as a giant can of soup may be stupid to me, but to some people it's "deep" and as such even though i may view it as bad, doesn't make it bad.
In my Opinion it would be bad, however it is still art, people still enjoy it, they still get the message that the piece of art was trying to convey, and as such it's not "bad"

This thread man...

You're comparing quality of a job done, to the quality of Art.

If i wanted my house painted, and hired a painter. And said painter forgets to prime the walls before painting, or paints in such a way that causes the coats to not be even. That would not be quality work on his part, as people expect a certain level of quality when hiring a professional to do a job.

Art is expression of one's emotions through creativity. Even something as simplistic as a giant can of soup may be stupid to me, but to some people it's "deep" and as such even though i may view it as bad, doesn't make it bad.
In my Opinion it would be bad, however it is still art, people still enjoy it, they still get the message that the piece of art was trying to convey, and as such it's not "bad"

Nibroc420

Art is work. Mechanical repairs are work.

INTENT is still present in both cases. The person does x as a means of achieving y.

You might hire a painter, and you might not WANT the coats to be even. Having uneven coats might be the single and ONLY thing you demand out of the paint job.

Now...who's the better painter. The one who only does uneven coats because that's all he can do, or the one who only does uneven coats because that's specifically what you hired him to do?

In both cases, the work is the same. You wanted a bad paint job, both painters gave you exactly what you wanted. If one is "better" than the other simply because they were doing a "job" instead of "art", then which one is the better painter? And furthermore, how can you state that he is the better painter when they BOTH did the same exact job?

This thread man...

Dylan_11

It's a war of attrition brother.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

You're comparing quality of a job done, to the quality of Art.

If i wanted my house painted, and hired a painter. And said painter forgets to prime the walls before painting, or paints in such a way that causes the coats to not be even. That would not be quality work on his part, as people expect a certain level of quality when hiring a professional to do a job.

Art is expression of one's emotions through creativity. Even something as simplistic as a giant can of soup may be stupid to me, but to some people it's "deep" and as such even though i may view it as bad, doesn't make it bad.
In my Opinion it would be bad, however it is still art, people still enjoy it, they still get the message that the piece of art was trying to convey, and as such it's not "bad"

MrGeezer

Art is work. Mechanical repairs are work.

INTENT is still present in both cases. The person does x as a means of achieving y.

You might hire a painter, and you might not WANT the coats to be even. Having uneven coats might be the single and ONLY thing you demand out of the paint job.

Now...who's the better painter. The one who only does uneven coats because that's all he can do, or the one who only does uneven coats because that's specifically what you hired him to do?

In both cases, the work is the same. You wanted a bad paint job, both painters gave you exactly what you wanted. If one is "better" than the other simply because they were doing a "job" instead of "art", then which one is the better painter? And furthermore, how can you state that he is the better painter when they BOTH did the same exact job?

If i take a car to a mechanic, and say "hey bro, replace my brake pads" it's clearly stated what i want, and he'll quote me a price, and then proceed to do his job. If he were to not replace my brakes, thats him not doing his job. If he were to replace my brakes with already worn brakes he took off someone else's car, he'd simply be taking advantage of me, despite me not specifying that i wanted new brake pads, and not just having them replaced with old un-usable ones.

Artists create something, be it a painting, or a song, or a sculpture. Their "Art" usually has a meaning behind it, or they might just feel it looks really pretty. No matter how YOU interpret the art, so long as the Artist feels his/her art conveys the emotions they intended, their art is "good". This does not necessarily mean anyone else has to like it, it just means that they've created their art in a way that reflects the emotions they put into it.

this thread is still going on? Wow...it seems to be stuck in an infinite loop, someone needs to make a loop counter. :P

:roll: I'm not sure you're even being serious at this point.

If i take a car to a mechanic, and say "hey bro, replace my brake pads" it's clearly stated what i want, and he'll quote me a price, and then proceed to do his job. If he were to not replace my brakes, thats him not doing his job. If he were to replace my brakes with already worn brakes he took off someone else's car, he'd simply be taking advantage of me, despite me not specifying that i wanted new brake pads, and not just having them replaced with old un-usable ones.

Artists create something, be it a painting, or a song, or a sculpture. Their "Art" usually has a meaning behind it, or they might just feel it looks really pretty. No matter how YOU interpret the art, so long as the Artist feels his/her art conveys the emotions they intended, their art is "good". This does not necessarily mean anyone else has to like it, it just means that they've created their art in a way that reflects the emotions they put into it.

Nibroc420

Gotta disagree with you in a big way here.

Art is WORTHLESS to anyone but the artist unless it is providing something desireable to someone other than the artist. They can make paintings and put them in a box, never to be seen again. If they DON'T do that, and choose to make it available to a larger audience, then it ceases to depend solely on the standards of the artist, and becomes subject to the standards of society.

I could call my freaking diary "art" if I want to. If I treat it like just any old personal diary and never show it to anyone, then the question of how good or bad it is becomes completely irrelevant. However, if I decide to call it "art" and stick it up on display for everyone to see, then that's the precise moment when it becomes subject to society's standards.

And that's the thing...when people show their "art" to a larger audience, it is almost ALWAYS a deliberate decision for thenm to gain an audience. If at that point the "art" doesn't conform to society's standards for what art should be, then it's bad art. Same way that a car mechanic does bad repair work when he gets a job and screws up your transmission. He could've spent his entire life ruining cars in private just for the hell of it, and good/bad never would have been an issue since he was isolated from society's standards.

this thread is still going on? Wow...it seems to be stuck in an infinite loop, someone needs to make a loop counter. :P

iloverikku11

a good old fashoned lock would suffice... this thread stopped being funny 15 pages ago...

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] :roll: I'm not sure you're even being serious at this point.

If i take a car to a mechanic, and say "hey bro, replace my brake pads" it's clearly stated what i want, and he'll quote me a price, and then proceed to do his job. If he were to not replace my brakes, thats him not doing his job. If he were to replace my brakes with already worn brakes he took off someone else's car, he'd simply be taking advantage of me, despite me not specifying that i wanted new brake pads, and not just having them replaced with old un-usable ones.

Artists create something, be it a painting, or a song, or a sculpture. Their "Art" usually has a meaning behind it, or they might just feel it looks really pretty. No matter how YOU interpret the art, so long as the Artist feels his/her art conveys the emotions they intended, their art is "good". This does not necessarily mean anyone else has to like it, it just means that they've created their art in a way that reflects the emotions they put into it.

MrGeezer

Gotta disagree with you in a big way here.

Art is WORTHLESS to anyone but the artist unless it is providing something desireable to someone other than the artist. They can make paintings and put them in a box, never to be seen again. If they DON'T do that, and choose to make it available to a larger audience, then it ceases to depend solely on the standards of the artist, and becomes subject to the standards of society.

I could call my freaking diary "art" if I want to. If I treat it like just any old personal diary and never show it to anyone, then the question of how good or bad it is becomes completely irrelevant. However, if I decide to call it "art" and stick it up on display for everyone to see, then that's the precise moment when it becomes subject to society's standards.

And that's the thing...when people show their "art" to a larger audience, it is almost ALWAYS a deliberate decision for thenm to gain an audience. If at that point the "art" doesn't conform to society's standards for what art should be, then it's bad art. Same way that a car mechanic does bad repair work when he gets a job and screws up your transmission. He could've spent his entire life ruining cars in private just for the hell of it, and good/bad never would have been an issue since he was isolated from society's standards.

As such no-one can objectively say "This song is good", and "This song is bad" because "Good" and "Bad" are Subjective, they're reflective of that one person's opinion and no-one else's.

Sure, someone might agree or disagree, but that doesn't matter when we're talking about one person's opinion. Which is why i said that popularity is a great way to judge if a song is "good" or "bad". If a lot of people like the music, then it will be a popular song and the amount of fans will reflect that.

However that doesn't make one person's opinion on a song moot, because everyone likes different genres and songs for different reasons. As such, for one person to try and go "what are you talking about? This is a great song! You must just have terrible taste" is silly.

The problem is that everyone has a different opinion on what song is good and what song isn't. Everyone has differing opinions on what is good, and why it's good, and so on and so forth.

As such no-one can objectively say "This song is good", and "This song is bad" because "Good" and "Bad" are Subjective, they're reflective of that one person's opinion and no-one else's.

Sure, someone might agree or disagree, but that doesn't matter when we're talking about one person's opinion. Which is why i said that popularity is a great way to judge if a song is "good" or "bad". If a lot of people like the music, then it will be a popular song and the amount of fans will reflect that.

However that doesn't make one person's opinion on a song moot, because everyone likes different genres and songs for different reasons. As such, for one person to try and go "what are you talking about? This is a great song! You must just have terrible taste" is silly.

Nibroc420

Again, no.

The problem with what you're saying is that people are largely IGNORANT.

Most people don't know about art just like most people don't know how to repair their cars. The difference here is that with art, being ignorant very rarely has any consequences. The consequences of acting like all art is equal is that someone might call you uncultured or pretentious. So what? Whereas the consequences of thinking that all repair work is equal is that you might pay thopusands of dollars and end up with someone destroying your car.

It's a lot easier to take refuge in ignorance has virtually no real world consequences whatsoever.

What this means is that everyone and their friends think that their "opinions" are all that matters when it comes down to the quality of art.

this thread is still going on? Wow...it seems to be stuck in an infinite loop, someone needs to make a loop counter. :P

iloverikku11

just thought this would be the most fitting picture for this thread.

I hate people that say that.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] :roll: I'm not sure you're even being serious at this point.

If i take a car to a mechanic, and say "hey bro, replace my brake pads" it's clearly stated what i want, and he'll quote me a price, and then proceed to do his job. If he were to not replace my brakes, thats him not doing his job. If he were to replace my brakes with already worn brakes he took off someone else's car, he'd simply be taking advantage of me, despite me not specifying that i wanted new brake pads, and not just having them replaced with old un-usable ones.

Artists create something, be it a painting, or a song, or a sculpture. Their "Art" usually has a meaning behind it, or they might just feel it looks really pretty. No matter how YOU interpret the art, so long as the Artist feels his/her art conveys the emotions they intended, their art is "good". This does not necessarily mean anyone else has to like it, it just means that they've created their art in a way that reflects the emotions they put into it.

Nibroc420

Gotta disagree with you in a big way here.

Art is WORTHLESS to anyone but the artist unless it is providing something desireable to someone other than the artist. They can make paintings and put them in a box, never to be seen again. If they DON'T do that, and choose to make it available to a larger audience, then it ceases to depend solely on the standards of the artist, and becomes subject to the standards of society.

I could call my freaking diary "art" if I want to. If I treat it like just any old personal diary and never show it to anyone, then the question of how good or bad it is becomes completely irrelevant. However, if I decide to call it "art" and stick it up on display for everyone to see, then that's the precise moment when it becomes subject to society's standards.

And that's the thing...when people show their "art" to a larger audience, it is almost ALWAYS a deliberate decision for thenm to gain an audience. If at that point the "art" doesn't conform to society's standards for what art should be, then it's bad art. Same way that a car mechanic does bad repair work when he gets a job and screws up your transmission. He could've spent his entire life ruining cars in private just for the hell of it, and good/bad never would have been an issue since he was isolated from society's standards.

As such no-one can objectively say "This song is good", and "This song is bad" because "Good" and "Bad" are Subjective, they're reflective of that one person's opinion and no-one else's.

Sure, someone might agree or disagree, but that doesn't matter when we're talking about one person's opinion. Which is why i said that popularity is a great way to judge if a song is "good" or "bad". If a lot of people like the music, then it will be a popular song and the amount of fans will reflect that.

However that doesn't make one person's opinion on a song moot, because everyone likes different genres and songs for different reasons. As such, for one person to try and go "what are you talking about? This is a great song! You must just have terrible taste" is silly.

Music, to me, is all in the eye of the beholder. Everyone perceives everything differently. Why do you think some people might like broccoli, yet some may not? It doesn't make it a bad food, it just makes the perception of another person different. Music is a wonderful thing in a sense that there is something out there to please everyone.

And I also think arguements about opinions of music are the most idiotic things to grace this earth. Search a song on youtube. If you don't see "Justin Bieber" in the comments section, I would be baffled.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Gotta disagree with you in a big way here.

Art is WORTHLESS to anyone but the artist unless it is providing something desireable to someone other than the artist. They can make paintings and put them in a box, never to be seen again. If they DON'T do that, and choose to make it available to a larger audience, then it ceases to depend solely on the standards of the artist, and becomes subject to the standards of society.

I could call my freaking diary "art" if I want to. If I treat it like just any old personal diary and never show it to anyone, then the question of how good or bad it is becomes completely irrelevant. However, if I decide to call it "art" and stick it up on display for everyone to see, then that's the precise moment when it becomes subject to society's standards.

And that's the thing...when people show their "art" to a larger audience, it is almost ALWAYS a deliberate decision for thenm to gain an audience. If at that point the "art" doesn't conform to society's standards for what art should be, then it's bad art. Same way that a car mechanic does bad repair work when he gets a job and screws up your transmission. He could've spent his entire life ruining cars in private just for the hell of it, and good/bad never would have been an issue since he was isolated from society's standards.

LJS9502_basic

As such no-one can objectively say "This song is good", and "This song is bad" because "Good" and "Bad" are Subjective, they're reflective of that one person's opinion and no-one else's.

Sure, someone might agree or disagree, but that doesn't matter when we're talking about one person's opinion. Which is why i said that popularity is a great way to judge if a song is "good" or "bad". If a lot of people like the music, then it will be a popular song and the amount of fans will reflect that.

However that doesn't make one person's opinion on a song moot, because everyone likes different genres and songs for different reasons. As such, for one person to try and go "what are you talking about? This is a great song! You must just have terrible taste" is silly.

Oh never mind, I don't want to start this again :P

Their enjoyment in no way diminishes nor enhances the product.

LJS9502_basic

There's really no such thing considering how music is nowadays.

i don't get why people think that. i once had someone who was a tool fundamentalist quite literally try to force me to like them. and i still don't care for them at all. your taste in music doesn't make you better than someone else. it makes you a different person with different interests.

But whether or not music is "quality" is subjective.

Oh never mind, I don't want to start this again :P

chrisPperson

I think we've moved a bit beyond that, and established that quality of at least SOME things can for all intents and purposes be considered objective.

A surgeon who accidentally removes your stomach instead of your appendix is indeed a bad doctor. An architect who designs a building that is inherently unstable is a bad architect. A mechanic is a bad mechanic if he can't tell the difference between your brake pads and your starter motor.

The only real question now is why/how MUSIC quality is more subjective than quality in other areas.

I just feel like the music I listen to is REAL music. But that's just an opinion. It's all just an opinion.