"My taste in music is better than yours"

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

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.

MrGeezer

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.

You would be wrong because it is fact that a violin has six strings. The violin will still have six strings regardless of either of our experience.

I never said that an inexperience person is an accurate critic. Where are you getting that from? I simply said that quality is not objective, which is isn't because it contains value judgments. To judge quality, one must opine. Period.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Right. Because a well prepared meal is equal to an undercooked, dry meal.LJS9502_basic

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="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Right. Because a well prepared meal is equal to an undercooked, dry meal.LJS9502_basic

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".

I never said undercooked meals are quality. Why do you keep putting words into my mouth?

What I said is that the reason we think cooked meals are quality is because of a collective opinion.

After all, we are making a judgment about cooked meals. The only fact is that the meal is not cooked. Whether it's quality or not comes down to our collective opinion about what constitutes a "quality" meal.

Facts cannot contain judgements and objectivity only deals in facts.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

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.

You would be wrong because it is fact that a violin has six strings. The violin will still have six strings regardless of either of our experience.

I never said that an inexperience person is an accurate critic. Where are you getting that from? I simply said that quality is not objective, which is isn't because it contains value judgments. To judge quality, one must opine. Period.

uh you'd be wrong, violins have 4 strings

I have to get up for work in less than five hours so I'm calling it a night. I will say that the more experience one has with music the more objective one is about it. Otherwise all that one has is subjective opinion without knowing what makes music good. The two are not the same. Happy listening....LJS9502_basic

What makes something good=opinion.

Objectivity only deals in facts. It can't deal in value judgments. "Good" is a value judgment.

What in the world is so difficult to understand about that?

You would be wrong because it is fact that a violin has six strings. The violin will still have six strings regardless of either of our experience.

I never said that an inexperience person is an accurate critic. Where are you getting that from? I simply said that quality is not objective, which is isn't because it contains value judgments. To judge quality, one must opine. Period.

GreySeal9

And the better band can still be the better band regardless of either person's experience. One's experience merely helps them to recognize how good or bad the band is.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

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.

z4twenny

You would be wrong because it is fact that a violin has six strings. The violin will still have six strings regardless of either of our experience.

I never said that an inexperience person is an accurate critic. Where are you getting that from? I simply said that quality is not objective, which is isn't because it contains value judgments. To judge quality, one must opine. Period.

uh you'd be wrong, violins have 4 strings

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

You would be wrong because it is fact that a violin has six strings. The violin will still have six strings regardless of either of our experience.

I never said that an inexperience person is an accurate critic. Where are you getting that from? I simply said that quality is not objective, which is isn't because it contains value judgments. To judge quality, one must opine. Period.

MrGeezer

And the better band can still be the better band regardless of either person's experience. One's experience merely helps them to recognize how good or bad the band is.

Which band is "better" is a subjective judgment. If you disagree, prove to me that one band is better than other without inserting your opinion whatsoever.

[QUOTE="z4twenny"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

You would be wrong because it is fact that a violin has six strings. The violin will still have six strings regardless of either of our experience.

I never said that an inexperience person is an accurate critic. Where are you getting that from? I simply said that quality is not objective, which is isn't because it contains value judgments. To judge quality, one must opine. Period.

Nibroc420

uh you'd be wrong, violins have 4 strings

sure they could have 16 if they really really wanted to, but generally speaking they have 4

and for what its worth the 8 strings just have doubles of the 4 notes to make a thicker sound.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="z4twenny"]

uh you'd be wrong, violins have 4 strings

z4twenny

sure they could have 16 if they really really wanted to, but generally speaking they have 4

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

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.

z4twenny

You would be wrong because it is fact that a violin has six strings. The violin will still have six strings regardless of either of our experience.

I never said that an inexperience person is an accurate critic. Where are you getting that from? I simply said that quality is not objective, which is isn't because it contains value judgments. To judge quality, one must opine. Period.

uh you'd be wrong, violins have 4 strings

Violins can have six strings, but you can amend my statement to:

You would be wrong because it is fact that it has four strings. The violin will have four strings regardless of our experience.

My point is that facts simply are and cannot change based on experience.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="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".

Nibroc420

That's a good example that shows how laugjably wrong LJ is.

[QUOTE="z4twenny"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] They CAN have 6. They can even have 8 :|Nibroc420

sure they could have 16 if they really really wanted to, but generally speaking they have 4

concert violinists

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="z4twenny"]

sure they could have 16 if they really really wanted to, but generally speaking they have 4

z4twenny

concert violinists

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[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.)

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.

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..

It's still not much of an objective measure because it involves standards, which have inherent subjectiveness.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[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.)

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.

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..

Of course thats not necessarily the case.

Not that its done to confuse the person we are talking to and to give our position momentum, but subconsciously "subjective" is perceived mostly negatively and I think that attests to what I said.

Violins can have six strings, but you can amend my statement to:

You would be wrong because it is fact that it has four strings. The violin will have four strings regardless of our experience.

My point is that facts simply are and cannot change based on experience.

GreySeal9

And the band's skill/talent/quality doesn't change based on experience either. All that changes is the listener's perception of what is there.

But the music is the exact same.

If one person listens to the new Radiohead album and loves it, and then another person listens to the same album and hates it, then the quality of the album did not change. It's the exact same material (and for the sake of argument, assume that it was heard in the exact same location using the exact same equipment with the exact same settings).

One's experience with music DOESN'T change the quality of the music. What experience changes is the listener's ability to DETECT the quality of the music. But the artist is still gonna have the same talent and the same skill. Someone doesn't automatically become a less-skilled guitarist as soon as someone tells him that he sucks.

[QUOTE="poptart"]

[QUOTE="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.

Teenaged

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..

Of course thats not necessarily the case.

Not that its done to confuse the person we are talking to and to give our position momentum, but subconsciously "subjective" is perceived mostly negatively and I think that attests to what I said.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="poptart"]

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..

Nibroc420

Of course thats not necessarily the case.

Not that its done to confuse the person we are talking to and to give our position momentum, but subconsciously "subjective" is perceived mostly negatively and I think that attests to what I said.

And the band's skill/talent/quality doesn't change based on experience either. All that changes is the listener's perception of what is there.

But the music is the exact same.

If one person listens to the new Radiohead album and loves it, and then another person listens to the same album and hates it, then the quality of the album did not change. It's the exact same material (and for the sake of argument, assume that it was heard in the exact same location using the exact same equipment with the exact same settings).

One's experience with music DOESN'T change the quality of the music. What experience changes is the listener's ability to DETECT the quality of the music. But the artist is still gonna have the same talent and the same skill. Someone doesn't automatically become a less-skilled guitarist as soon as someone tells him that he sucks.

MrGeezer

Quality is not set is stone because it is not a concrete object. What I think constitutes quality, you might think does not constitute quality. Quality can only take form when one thinks something is quality. Outside of that, quality does not exist.

Skill and talent is based on standards, which have inherent subjectivity in them.

Again, objectivity can only deal in the cold and hard fact.

Like I told LJ, it is a fact that Radiohead's third album is called OK Computer. It is an opinion that their music is quality because I have to judge whether their music is quality. However, I don't judge whether their 3rd album is OK Computer. It is simply is.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Subjective means that the statement is not just fact, but opinion too. Opinions change from person to person. So subjective statements are not facts.markop2003

This is not always true. It depends on the person you're arguing with.

[QUOTE="markop2003"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Subjective means that the statement is not just fact, but opinion too. Opinions change from person to person. So subjective statements are not facts.Nibroc420

You'd be right about that.

A subjective vs. objective argument? I love these. LZ71

Personally, they depress me because it shouldn't be an argument.

A subjective vs. objective argument? I love these. LZ71

[QUOTE="LZ71"]A subjective vs. objective argument? I love these. GreySeal9

Personally, they depress me.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LZ71"]A subjective vs. objective argument? I love these. Nibroc420

Personally, they depress me.

:lol:

They're both frustrating and depressing.

how so?GazaAli

[QUOTE="LZ71"]A subjective vs. objective argument? I love these. GreySeal9

Personally, they depress me because it shouldn't be an argument.

If there's one thing I've learned in OT, it's that everything can and will be argued, no matter if it should be or not.

'cause I listen to talented musicians that the simple cannot dream to comprahend. I pity them. But I'll let them rot listening whatever bullcrap they might enjoy

Quality is not set is stone because it is not a concrete object. What I think constitutes quality, you might think does not constitute quality. Quality can only take form when one thinks something is quality. Outside of that, quality does not exist.

Skill and talent is based on standards, which have inherent subjectivity in them.

Again, objectivity can only deal in the cold and hard fact.

Like I told LJ, it is a fact that Radiohead's third album is called OK Computer. It is an opinion that their music is quality because I have to judge whether their music is quality. However, I don't judge whether their 3rd album is OK Computer. It is simply is.

GreySeal9

So basically, you are saying that a work of art CHANGES (in a non-quantum sense) depending on who is listening to it or looking at it? Is that what you are saying?

[QUOTE="z4twenny"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Depends who you ask i suppose.Nibroc420

concert violinists

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Quality is not set is stone because it is not a concrete object. What I think constitutes quality, you might think does not constitute quality. Quality can only take form when one thinks something is quality. Outside of that, quality does not exist.

Skill and talent is based on standards, which have inherent subjectivity in them.

Again, objectivity can only deal in the cold and hard fact.

Like I told LJ, it is a fact that Radiohead's third album is called OK Computer. It is an opinion that their music is quality because I have to judge whether their music is quality. However, I don't judge whether their 3rd album is OK Computer. It is simply is.

MrGeezer

So basically, you are saying that a work of art CHANGES (in a non-quantum sense) depending on who is listening to it or looking at it? Is that what you are saying?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Quality is not set is stone because it is not a concrete object. What I think constitutes quality, you might think does not constitute quality. Quality can only take form when one thinks something is quality. Outside of that, quality does not exist.

Skill and talent is based on standards, which have inherent subjectivity in them.

Again, objectivity can only deal in the cold and hard fact.

Like I told LJ, it is a fact that Radiohead's third album is called OK Computer. It is an opinion that their music is quality because I have to judge whether their music is quality. However, I don't judge whether their 3rd album is OK Computer. It is simply is.

MrGeezer

So basically, you are saying that a work of art CHANGES (in a non-quantum sense) depending on who is listening to it or looking at it? Is that what you are saying?

The work of art itself? No. That is a concrete object.

But the quality of the work of art is not a concrete object. The notion of quality only exists because one thinks something is quality. It is a judgment.

For instance, if you say that Justin Beiber makes quality music and I disagree, how you could prove me wrong without stating your opinion?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Quality is not set is stone because it is not a concrete object. What I think constitutes quality, you might think does not constitute quality. Quality can only take form when one thinks something is quality. Outside of that, quality does not exist.

Skill and talent is based on standards, which have inherent subjectivity in them.

Again, objectivity can only deal in the cold and hard fact.

Like I told LJ, it is a fact that Radiohead's third album is called OK Computer. It is an opinion that their music is quality because I have to judge whether their music is quality. However, I don't judge whether their 3rd album is OK Computer. It is simply is.

MrGeezer

So basically, you are saying that a work of art CHANGES (in a non-quantum sense) depending on who is listening to it or looking at it? Is that what you are saying?

You cannot argue subjective statements though "Justin Bieber has more talent than Queen" Is my opinion (it really isn't) and in that sense, the statement is true. However you may think the opposite. As Greyseal has pointed out, Quality is subjective. I believe Talent is as well.Nibroc420

So what you're saying is that literally NOTHING is "bad", and that literally NOTHING is "good".

I'd like you to spell that out for me very clearly. Because it seems to me that that's a necessary consequence of the idea that all subjective opinions carry equal weight.

If there's one thing I've learned in OT, it's that everything can and will be argued, no matter if it should be or not.

LZ71

*gets more depressed*

'cause I listen to talented musicians that the simple cannot dream to comprahend. I pity them. But I'll let them rot listening whatever bullcrap they might enjoy

DmadFearmonger

Wow. :lol:

Music is not that serious man.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] You cannot argue subjective statements though "Justin Bieber has more talent than Queen" Is my opinion (it really isn't) and in that sense, the statement is true. However you may think the opposite. As Greyseal has pointed out, Quality is subjective. I believe Talent is as well.MrGeezer

I'm sorry mate, I'm sorry. But quality is not ALWAYS sunjective and there IS bad music

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] You cannot argue subjective statements though "Justin Bieber has more talent than Queen" Is my opinion (it really isn't) and in that sense, the statement is true. However you may think the opposite. As Greyseal has pointed out, Quality is subjective. I believe Talent is as well.MrGeezer

So what you're saying is that literally NOTHING is "bad", and that literally NOTHING is "good".

I'd like you to spell that out for me very clearly. Because it seems to me that that's a necessary consequence of the idea that all subjective opinions carry equal weight.

It's not that nothing is "bad" and that nothing is "good."

It's just that people have differing ideas of what's "good" and "bad".

If you think that something can be objectively good, you have to be able to prove it using only cold hard facts and no value judgments. Do you think you could do that?

I guess that means this song's actually good then.

I'm sorry mate, I'm sorry. But quality is not ALWAYS sunjective and there IS bad musicDmadFearmonger

But it is bad music in your opinion, making it subjective.

If someone did like that song, can you prove to them that it is bad using only facts?

If you can't, then the song can't be objectively bad.

[QUOTE="DmadFearmonger"]

'cause I listen to talented musicians that the simple cannot dream to comprahend. I pity them. But I'll let them rot listening whatever bullcrap they might enjoy

GreySeal9

Wow. :lol:

Music is not that serious man.

[QUOTE="DmadFearmonger"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] You cannot argue subjective statements though "Justin Bieber has more talent than Queen" Is my opinion (it really isn't) and in that sense, the statement is true. However you may think the opposite. As Greyseal has pointed out, Quality is subjective. I believe Talent is as well.GreySeal9

I'm sorry mate, I'm sorry. But quality is not ALWAYS sunjective and there IS bad music

But it is bad music in your opinion, making it subjective.

If someone did like that song, can you prove to them that it is bad using only facts?

If you can't, then the song can't be objectively bad.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="DmadFearmonger"]

'cause I listen to talented musicians that the simple cannot dream to comprahend. I pity them. But I'll let them rot listening whatever bullcrap they might enjoy

DmadFearmonger

Wow. :lol:

Music is not that serious man.

I bet you have. :lol: