"My taste in music is better than yours"

From the Oxford Dictionary. Talent...natural aptitude or skill:LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

You're making the very wrong assumption that everyone knows quality.

LJS9502_basic

You're making the assumption that YOU are the sole judge of quality.

With your mindset I don't think you'll accept any proof.LJS9502_basic

But you haven't provided any proof. Proof cannot contain any opinion. Only a statement like "Barack Obama is the 44th President" can be objective. Any judgment of whether something is "good" or "bad" cannot be objective because one might not agree. There is no room or disagreement as to where Obama comes in the sequences of Presidents.

However, Queen made much more complex compositionsLJ

There's no rule saying that complexity=talent. That is merely your standard, which is in turn your opinion.

Mercury DID have a much stronger voice with more range...LJ

You have to prove using only facts that Mercury had a stronger voice. Simply because you say it doesn't make it so.

Also, like I said, the notion that more range=a stronger voice is subjective. The fact that most people agree with the notion doesn't make it any less objective. If you think that it is a fact, prove it is a fact in a scientific manner with no subjective statements.

any vocal coach can tell you that is a more talented vocalist.LJ

But that would still be their subjective judgment.

Just because it comes from the mouth of a vocal coach doesn't make it objective.

However, as I said you are free to enjoy lesser skilled individuals if they present a package you like.LJ

What I enjoy is irrelevant to the matter of the realm of objectivity and the realm of subjectivity.

As far as composition goes....music theory is taught for a reason.LJ

It's taught to make one informed about music. It doesn't make subjectivity objective.

And again....vocal coaches work to develop talent. In addition musicians vary on talent with their instruments. You should if you spend any time studying or even listening to music be able to pick out the differences between a good guitarist, and adequate guitarist, and a bad guitarist. Perhaps you haven't approached music this way? But a musician can point out the differences.

My own experiences don't matter.

"Good", "adequate" and "bad" are value judgments and are thus subjective from a logical standpoint.

The realm of the objective only deals in facts and facts cannot contain value judgments. Period.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

You're making the very wrong assumption that everyone knows quality.

Nibroc420

You're making the assumption that YOU are the sole judge of quality.

If 400 people go "Hey i like Rebecca Black!"

And you go "Hey I like Beiber!"

It's a 400:1 ratio, and you seem to think your opinion outweighs those numbers.

So we look at sales, Who enjoys these artists? Which artist sells more?

You're trying to discount everyone else's oppinion by calling them idiots who dont know music.

Clearly they enjoy the music that is produced, or they wouldn't listen to it. As such the one with the most sales is the most talented performer.

Actually, if you've read my posts, I've assumed no such thing. In fact, what you're accusing me of saying is pretty much contradictory to everything I said in this thread.

When I said that "I like it" doesn't equal "good", I meant it. Which means that the same applies to me. I simply WOULDN'T try to claim that Bieber is better than Black by saying "I like Bieber better", because WHAT I LIKE has absolutely nothing to do with QUALITY.

GreySeal9

What one likes or does not like subjectively has no bearing on the talent of the individual objectively. Now I'm done going around in circles over this.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

You're making the very wrong assumption that everyone knows quality.

MrGeezer

You're making the assumption that YOU are the sole judge of quality.

If 400 people go "Hey i like Rebecca Black!"

And you go "Hey I like Beiber!"

It's a 400:1 ratio, and you seem to think your opinion outweighs those numbers.

So we look at sales, Who enjoys these artists? Which artist sells more?

You're trying to discount everyone else's oppinion by calling them idiots who dont know music.

Clearly they enjoy the music that is produced, or they wouldn't listen to it. As such the one with the most sales is the most talented performer.

Actually, if you've read my posts, I've assumed no such thing. In fact, what you're accusing me of saying is pretty much contradictory to everything I said in this thread.

When I said that "I like it" doesn't equal "good", I meant it. Which means that the same applies to me. I simply WOULDN'T try to claim that Bieber is better than Black by saying "I like Bieber better", because WHAT I LIKE has absolutely nothing to do with QUALITY.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

You're making the assumption that YOU are the sole judge of quality.

If 400 people go "Hey i like Rebecca Black!"

And you go "Hey I like Beiber!"

It's a 400:1 ratio, and you seem to think your opinion outweighs those numbers.

So we look at sales, Who enjoys these artists? Which artist sells more?

You're trying to discount everyone else's oppinion by calling them idiots who dont know music.

Clearly they enjoy the music that is produced, or they wouldn't listen to it. As such the one with the most sales is the most talented performer.

Nibroc420

Actually, if you've read my posts, I've assumed no such thing. In fact, what you're accusing me of saying is pretty much contradictory to everything I said in this thread.

When I said that "I like it" doesn't equal "good", I meant it. Which means that the same applies to me. I simply WOULDN'T try to claim that Bieber is better than Black by saying "I like Bieber better", because WHAT I LIKE has absolutely nothing to do with QUALITY.

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

Actually, if you've read my posts, I've assumed no such thing. In fact, what you're accusing me of saying is pretty much contradictory to everything I said in this thread.

When I said that "I like it" doesn't equal "good", I meant it. Which means that the same applies to me. I simply WOULDN'T try to claim that Bieber is better than Black by saying "I like Bieber better", because WHAT I LIKE has absolutely nothing to do with QUALITY.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] The more talented performer has more fans. Else they wouldn't be fans. /donehereNibroc420

Dude I don't know what to tell you. First you say talent varies and then you claim it can't be objective. Someone who can play quitar without mistakes is more talented on guitar than someone who cannot. Objectively.LJS9502_basic

Being "more talented" hinges on an opinion that the guitarist that makes more mistakes is less talented.

The only fact would be that one guitarist made more mistakes.

Once you judge which one is more talented, it becomes an opinion and opinions are always subjective.

So again: Guitarist A made more mistakes than Guitarist B. That is a fact.

Guitarist A made more mistakes than Guitar B, therefore Guitarist B is more talented. That is an opinion supported by a fact.

Facts can only report what happened or what is, which is that Guitarist A made more mistakes. When you attach a value judgment, like "Guitarist B is more talented", it no longer is a fact, it is an opinion supported by a fact. Objectivity only deals with bare FACTS with no JUDGMENTS.

What one likes or does not like subjectively has no bearing on the talent of the individual objectively.LJ

But you haven't proved talent to be objective. Otherwise, you would be able to tell me why Lady Gaga is less talented than Queen without insert any opinions or any judgments. But you were not able to do that. After all, you inserted your opinion that more complexity=more talent.

Now I'm done going around in circles over this.

LJ

I think you just really can't get around objectivity only equaling facts and nothing else.

yeah #1 reason i don't talk about music on OT, if i say i like Disturbed theres bound to be 20 other people who tell me

A. why they suck

B. Mention some up and coming or Indie band who is apparently better

C. say something about how mainstream music sucks...

so on and so forth

The more talented performer has more fans. Else they wouldn't be fans. /donehereNibroc420

That might be the case if all fans knew talent. But they don't. Most people aren't music majors and aren't doing any kind of serious research about it. Most people are not experts, they simply listen to what they like and don't even particularly know WHY they like it. Once you start topping the charts, you can't do that without a BIG percentage of your fanbase simply not knowing anything about music.

I think you just really can't get around objectivity only equaling facts and nothing else.

GreySeal9

When I said that "I like it" doesn't equal "good", I meant it. Which means that the same applies to me. I simply WOULDN'T try to claim that Bieber is better than Black by saying "I like Bieber better", because WHAT I LIKE has absolutely nothing to do with QUALITY.

MrGeezer

This is not neccesarily true.

One might like a song because they feel that it is a quality product.

One shouldn't use "I like Beiber better" as an argument for it being quality because that wouldn't work, but the quality of something is in many ways connected to one's appreciation of said thing.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]When I said that "I like it" doesn't equal "good", I meant it. Which means that the same applies to me. I simply WOULDN'T try to claim that Bieber is better than Black by saying "I like Bieber better", because WHAT I LIKE has absolutely nothing to do with QUALITY.

GreySeal9

This is not neccesarily true.

One might like a song because they feel that it is a quality product.

One shouldn't use "I like Beiber better" as an argument for it being quality because that wouldn't work, but the quality of something is in many ways connected to one's appreciation of said thing.

The fans are the judges of talent. If people like bad music, and you're talented enough to provide it. Then you're talented.

Nibroc420

And many fans are simply POOR JUDGES.

I don't see how this is so hard to understand.

And many fans are simply POOR JUDGES.MrGeezer

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]And many fans are simply POOR JUDGES.Nibroc420

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I think you just really can't get around objectivity only equaling facts and nothing else.

LJS9502_basic

This is false. When you say that the artist you don't like is "talented", you are still judging that artist's talent, which can only be subjective. Objectivity does not deal in judgments. It only deals in cold hard facts.

Objective statement: Radiohead's third album is OK Computer.

Subective statement: Radiohead is a talented band.

It's not an ideal. It's the truth. Objectivity only deals in facts.

My experiences have nothing do with the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. It is immaterial.

This is a matter of elementary logic, not my experiences or yours.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]And many fans are simply POOR JUDGES.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I think you just really can't get around objectivity only equaling facts and nothing else.

GreySeal9

This is false. When you say that the artist you don't like is "talented", you are still judging that artist's talent, which can only be subjective. Objectivity does not deal in judgments. It only deals in cold hard facts.

Objective statement: Radiohead's third album is OK Computer.

Subective statement: Radiohead is a talented band.

It's not an ideal. It's the truth. Objectivity only deals in facts.

My experiences have nothing do with the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. It is immaterial.

This is a matter of elementary logic, not my experiences or yours.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]When I said that "I like it" doesn't equal "good", I meant it. Which means that the same applies to me. I simply WOULDN'T try to claim that Bieber is better than Black by saying "I like Bieber better", because WHAT I LIKE has absolutely nothing to do with QUALITY.

LJS9502_basic

This is not neccesarily true.

One might like a song because they feel that it is a quality product.

One shouldn't use "I like Beiber better" as an argument for it being quality because that wouldn't work, but the quality of something is in many ways connected to one's appreciation of said thing.

That is incorrect. Objectivity can ony deal in cold hard facts.

Whether something is quality is a "value judgment" and thus can only be subjective.

This is an objective statement:

Justin Beiber is 17 years old.

This is a subjective statement:

Justin Beiber's music is of high quality.

The first statement leaves no room for disagreement, the second one does.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I think it's more based on your personal experiences TBH. I can appreciate that artists I don't like have talent. That is an objective valuation NOT based on subjectivity. You seem to blur the two and it's impossible to come to an understanding on this as long as you hold onto the subjectivity ideal you have.

LJS9502_basic

This is false. When you say that the artist you don't like is "talented", you are still judging that artist's talent, which can only be subjective. Objectivity does not deal in judgments. It only deals in cold hard facts.

Objective statement: Radiohead's third album is OK Computer.

Subective statement: Radiohead is a talented band.

It's not an ideal. It's the truth. Objectivity only deals in facts.

My experiences have nothing do with the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. It is immaterial.

This is a matter of elementary logic, not my experiences or yours.

Whether I'm passionate or not has nothing to do with the realm of objectivity or subjectivity. Whether I am hearing or listening or whatever is immaterial. Objectivity can only deal in facts in the purest form and whether I'm passionate or not has nothing to do with that.

Talent is not objective because it relies on a value judgment. You cannot prove it with only facts alone. At some point, you have to judge whether someone is talented or not. Objectivity does not involve judgment. Logically, it can't or it wouldn't be objectivity.

And you should really stop trying to make this about me. This is about elementary logic. It is not about me.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

This is false. When you say that the artist you don't like is "talented", you are still judging that artist's talent, which can only be subjective. Objectivity does not deal in judgments. It only deals in cold hard facts.

Objective statement: Radiohead's third album is OK Computer.

Subective statement: Radiohead is a talented band.

It's not an ideal. It's the truth. Objectivity only deals in facts.

My experiences have nothing do with the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. It is immaterial.

This is a matter of elementary logic, not my experiences or yours.

GreySeal9

Whether I'm passionate or not has nothing to do with the realm of objectivity or subjectivity. Whether I am hearing or listening or whatever is immatieral. Objectivity can only deal in facts in the purest form and whether I'm passionate or not has nothing to do with that.

Talent is not objective because it relies on a value judgment. You cannot prove it with only facts alone. At some point, you have to judge whether someone is talented or not. Objectivity does not involve judgment. Logically, it can't or it wouldn't be objectivity.

And you should really stop trying to make this about me. This is about elementary logic. It is not about me.

The first statement leaves no room for disagreement, the second one does.

GreySeal9

The fact that the second statement leaves room for disagreement does NOT mean that all those who disagree are equally right.

Again, if I tried to play an Eric Clapton song without knowing how to use any musical instruments, then my version would be objectively worse. Someone could absolutely disagree, and say that my version is better than Clapton's. And they'd simply be WRONG.

One might not know enough about music to PROVE that x is objectively better than y, but that does NOT mean that one is not in fact objectively better.

Technical ability is perhaps objective, however it shouldn't be used as a measure of quality as it rarely has little bearing on why we like or dislike a particular song or band. The ability to convey a message or write a song is a talent distinct from how accomplished a musician may be, and that intangible sense of enjoyment we get from something which may really on the surface be quite kitsch, is something we cannot objectively measure, but it's the measure most people would use (removing of course all notions of social conformity, peer pressure, etc.)

Come on, greyseal... learn to be objective with your music!

[spoiler] :P [/spoiler]

Technical ability is perhaps objective, however it shouldn't be used as a measure of quality as it rarely has little bearing on why we like or dislike a particular song or band. The ability to convey a message or write a song is a talent distinct from how accomplished a musician may be, and that intangible sense of enjoyment we get from something which may really on the surface be quite kitsch, is something we cannot objectively measure, but it's the measure most people would use (removing of course all notions of social conformity, peer pressure, etc.)

poptart

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Wrong again. Talent is objective. Preference is subjective. For someone with a "passion for music" I believe you called it....it doesn't appear IMO that you are listening but hearing.LJS9502_basic

Whether I'm passionate or not has nothing to do with the realm of objectivity or subjectivity. Whether I am hearing or listening or whatever is immatieral. Objectivity can only deal in facts in the purest form and whether I'm passionate or not has nothing to do with that.

Talent is not objective because it relies on a value judgment. You cannot prove it with only facts alone. At some point, you have to judge whether someone is talented or not. Objectivity does not involve judgment. Logically, it can't or it wouldn't be objectivity.

And you should really stop trying to make this about me. This is about elementary logic. It is not about me.

You're still trying to make this about me and my exxperience because you can't argue the logic of it. You're basically scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

Any one person's experience is immaterial to facts and objectivity only deals in facts.

These are facts:

The sun rises in the morning.

President Obama was born in Hawaii.

A violin has strings.

Notice that none of these statements contain value judgments.

Objectivity only deals in facts and facts cannot be influenced by one's lack of experience or one's wealth of experience, so that is irrelevant.

[QUOTE="poptart"]

Technical ability is perhaps objective, however it shouldn't be used as a measure of quality as it rarely has little bearing on why we like or dislike a particular song or band. The ability to convey a message or write a song is a talent distinct from how accomplished a musician may be, and that intangible sense of enjoyment we get from something which may really on the surface be quite kitsch, is something we cannot objectively measure, but it's the measure most people would use (removing of course all notions of social conformity, peer pressure, etc.)

LJS9502_basic

That's not true. One might like a song for the same reasons that they think it to be quality product.

Teenaged wrote:

"Come on, greyseal... learn to be objective with your music!"

:P

I really think it is rather surreal that I'm explaining something so fundamental as objectivity .vs. subjectivity. It makes me think that critical thinking classes should be mandatory in all grade levels.

[QUOTE="poptart"]

Technical ability is perhaps objective, however it shouldn't be used as a measure of quality as it rarely has little bearing on why we like or dislike a particular song or band. The ability to convey a message or write a song is a talent distinct from how accomplished a musician may be, and that intangible sense of enjoyment we get from something which may really on the surface be quite kitsch, is something we cannot objectively measure, but it's the measure most people would use (removing of course all notions of social conformity, peer pressure, etc.)

LJS9502_basic

*looks at record collection *

Well yes that is absolutely true :P

GreySeal9

And I'm not the only person trying to explain that.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="poptart"]

Technical ability is perhaps objective, however it shouldn't be used as a measure of quality as it rarely has little bearing on why we like or dislike a particular song or band. The ability to convey a message or write a song is a talent distinct from how accomplished a musician may be, and that intangible sense of enjoyment we get from something which may really on the surface be quite kitsch, is something we cannot objectively measure, but it's the measure most people would use (removing of course all notions of social conformity, peer pressure, etc.)

GreySeal9

That's not true. One might like a song for the same reasons that they think it to be quality product.

You're still trying to make this about me and my exxperience because you can't argue the logic of it. You're basically scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

Any one person's experience is immaterial to facts and objectivity only deals in facts.

These are facts:

The sun rises in the morning.

President Obama was born in Hawaii.

A violin has strings.

Notice that none of these statements contain value judgments.

Objectivity only deals in facts and facts cannot be influenced by one's lack of experience or one's wealth of experience, so that is irrelevant.

GreySeal9

Experience is highly relevant.

Accurate criticism is not easy just like good musicianship isn't easy. You wouldn't expect an inexperienced musician to create a masterpiece, and it also doesn't make sense to expect an inexperienced critic to be able to effectively criticize the work or otherwise talk about it in any meaningful capacity.

Inexperienced people make for poor judges of talent.

And yeah...you can tell me that a violin has strings, but I might not agree with you if I am so vastly inexperienced that I don't know what a violin is. Objective fact or not, I could still disagree with you and I'd simply be WRONG.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] And why we like a song has no bearing on the quality.:PLJS9502_basic

That's not true. One might like a song for the same reasons that they think it to be quality product.

Wrong again. Quality is a value that is judged by people, making it subjective.

Technical ability is perhaps objective, however it shouldn't be used as a measure of quality as it rarely has little bearing on why we like or dislike a particular song or band. The ability to convey a message or write a song is a talent distinct from how accomplished a musician may be, and that intangible sense of enjoyment we get from something which may really on the surface be quite kitsch, is something we cannot objectively measure, but it's the measure most people would use (removing of course all notions of social conformity, peer pressure, etc.)

poptart

It depends.

Technical ability could only be captured in an objective way if I was stated this way:

Guitar Player A can play more chords than Player B.

But if one tried to talk about how "good" or "talented" the players were, then it would revert back to subjectivity.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

That's not true. One might like a song for the same reasons that they think it to be quality product.

Nibroc420

Wrong again. Quality is a value that is judged by people, making it subjective.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] And why we like a song has no bearing on the quality.:PLJS9502_basic

That's not true. One might like a song for the same reasons that they think it to be quality product.

No it's not.

It relies on value judgment and standards, which are inherently subjective.

[QUOTE="poptart"]

Technical ability is perhaps objective, however it shouldn't be used as a measure of quality as it rarely has little bearing on why we like or dislike a particular song or band. The ability to convey a message or write a song is a talent distinct from how accomplished a musician may be, and that intangible sense of enjoyment we get from something which may really on the surface be quite kitsch, is something we cannot objectively measure, but it's the measure most people would use (removing of course all notions of social conformity, peer pressure, etc.)

GreySeal9

It depends.

Technical ability could only be captured in an objective way if I was stated this way:

Guitar Player A can play more chords than Player B.

But if one tried to talk about how "good" or "talented" the players were, then it would revert back to subjectivity.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

That's not true. One might like a song for the same reasons that they think it to be quality product.

GreySeal9

No it's not.

It relies on value judgment and standards, which are inherently subjective.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Quality is objective.....appreciation is subjective.

LJS9502_basic

Wrong again. Quality is a value that is judged by people, making it subjective.

Again, you're mixing opinions and facts to come to a conclusion.
Lets remove opinion from the picture by putting on our "Lets be Objective" glasses please 8)

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Quality is objective.....appreciation is subjective.

LJS9502_basic

Wrong again. Quality is a value that is judged by people, making it subjective.

It most certainly is a value judgment. Whether one thinks a person is talented or not cannot be proven without only cold hard facts.

Whether something is inferior is a value judgement. If you think that it objective, prove to me that Lady Gaga is inferior to a band you like without stating a single opinion or using a single value judgment.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Quality is objective.....appreciation is subjective.

LJS9502_basic

No it's not.

It relies on value judgment and standards, which are inherently subjective.

But how cooked something is says nothing about its quality, it only speaks to whether it's cooked or not.

It is through our opinion that cooked meals are better than non-cooked meals that we determine "quality".

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

Wrong again. Quality is a value that is judged by people, making it subjective.

Nibroc420

Again, you're mixing opinions and facts to come to a conclusion.
Lets remove opinion from the picture by putting on our "Lets be Objective" glasses please 8)

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

No it's not.

It relies on value judgment and standards, which are inherently subjective.

GreySeal9

But how cooked something is says nothing about its quality, it only speaks to whether it's cooked or not.

It is through our opinion that cooked meals are better than non-cooked meals that we determine "quality".

[QUOTE="poptart"]

Technical ability is perhaps objective, however it shouldn't be used as a measure of quality as it rarely has little bearing on why we like or dislike a particular song or band. The ability to convey a message or write a song is a talent distinct from how accomplished a musician may be, and that intangible sense of enjoyment we get from something which may really on the surface be quite kitsch, is something we cannot objectively measure, but it's the measure most people would use (removing of course all notions of social conformity, peer pressure, etc.)

GreySeal9

It depends.

Technical ability could only be captured in an objective way if I was stated this way:

Guitar Player A can play more chords than Player B.

But if one tried to talk about how "good" or "talented" the players were, then it would revert back to subjectivity.

Versatility, capacity to sight read - there are various measures we can use to adjudge technical ability. If talent is simply the measure of how good a person can potentially be, then yes you're correct that's subjective. But there's a reason why there are different grades we reach when we learn music, each denoting a higher level of playing ability - it's an objective a measure as you can get really..