"My taste in music is better than yours"

Also, LJ, I see that you have been desperately gloming onto Ace's posts. But you realize that he doesn't agree with you, right?

Check it out:

I don't understand people who have such difficulty accepting that some people can shut off their emotional connections to things and simply follow a simple guideline. I actually have much more faith in my bias judgements than any unbiased judgement passed on by an outline of rules. I frankly hate simple ruledom and have in fact been arguing against my own personal views this entire topic. Art to me is completely subjectiveand people can enjoy whatever they want for all I care. Doesn't stop the rules form being right sometimes though. Just because we're bound by rules doesn't mean I can't dislike them.Ace

Really, people who argue that their subjective judgments are objective simply want to force others to accept their opinion that something is "inferior" (when it's simply inferior in their opinion), so they try to falsely expand what can be "objective" and make themselves look like they haven't ever attended a critical thinking/logic class in the process.

Again,

Objectivity:

It cannot mind-dependent. It is based on only facts without any sort of judgments, such as "this music is quality", "this music is good," "this band is more talented". If one decides on how good or bad something is or evaluates something on any level other than quantifying it, they're not being objective because notions of "good" and "bad" are mind-dependent. They cannot exist outside of one's own viewpoint. They cannot be verified scientifically. Things are only quality or good or bad because we think they are good or bad based on our own standards. In this way,"good" or "bad" or "quality" are not concrete objects that can't be changed by anybody's own viewpoints and standards and experiences. They are literally formed by own viewpoints, standards and experiences.

I dont listen to music... I listen to poems.

Mine is better than yours and i can prove it by listing 30 bands ( with album cover art images inserted into the post ) that have at best a cult following and a catalogue of music that anyone other than a hipster college student has never heard of.

No, it comes from recognizing the difference betwen objectivity and subjectivity on a logical level. It has nothing to do with music experience. You're simply trying to marginalize my opinion without arguing the logic of it, which is deep intellectually dishonest and cheap, but not surprising.

Yes, some opinions can be more informed and more well-supported than others, but they are still opinions because the realm of objectivity is limited to facts on their purest level. It cannot deal with any sort of judgment because judgments cannot be objective.

This is true for anything, not just music, so one's music knowledge really doesn't matter. Music knowledge only equips them to make a more informed ror educated opinion. It doesn't make opinions any more objective than they've ever been.

What exacctly don't you understand about this? Seriously, what part of it are you having difficulty with?

Also, in which what does my logic say you're correct? And please, actually explain, using actual quotes (because I know how you like to totally turn ones quotes into something else entirely) and don't just skip over parts you can't explain like you usually do.

GreySeal9

Competence, talent, skill.....all of these are objective. You can continue to tell everyone that is not the case but that will not make it so.

Also, LJ, I see that you have been desperately gloming onto Ace's posts. But you realize that he doesn't agree with you, right?

GreySeal9

I think mine is better because I don't listen to whatever just comes out on the radio.

From an undergraduate school of music.......quote... Great musicians know a lot about their own instruments and literature, but they are knowledgeable in other areas of music as well. We encourage you to begin a CD collection of the very best models of players/singers/ensembles in your chosen field as well as exemplars of musical achievement outside of your specific area of interest. Frequent attendance at classical music performances is also strongly encouraged./quote

Looks like they didn't get the memo that there are no best models in music....

Ok let me use this to explain... lets make music "Chocolate". Now there are people who are happy eating bargain brand chocolate, they don't see anything special about looking into other chocolate. There are people who take a heavier interest in "Chocolate", they like to try various types, take an interest in researching and looking at brands that aren't available in commercial circles... they like to try tastes that the average consumer find to bitter or too rich or not sweet enough straight away.

People who take an interest in looking, researching and participating in various forms have a better taste. It doesn't necessarily stem to certain genres, I just find people who are appreciative of various forms have better taste than the average joe who like the top 40 radio songs or thenarrow minded person who is into a genre specific section of music and nothing else.

My taste in entertainment in general is in the top tier of quality.
Favorite superhero: Batman.
Favorite rapper: Eminem
Favorite anime: Cowboy Bebop
etc.

The general fan population of these mediums would agree that my picks are among the best there is, so how can my tastes NOT be superior to some people's, hmm?

This probably sounds pompous, but I can only really talk about music with other musicians without involuntarily cringing, to be completely honest.

Most people just don't think about music nearly as much as I have or as other musicians have, so it's basically the equivalent of me discussing quantum phyisics with an actual scientist. The only difference is that with art there's this "it's all opinion, man" attitude, which is a load of garbage.

Yes, the quality of a piece of art is completely subjective, but if someone hasn't actually taken the time to really explore and think about art, or in other words they don't actually care about it very much, why on Earth would their opinion about it hold any value?

This probably sounds pompous, but I can only really talk about music with other musicians without involuntarily cringing, to be completely honest.

Most people just don't think about music nearly as much as I have or as other musicians have, so it's basically the equivalent of me discussing quantum phyisics with an actual scientist. The only difference is that with art there's this "it's all opinion, man" attitude, which is a load of garbage.

Yes, the quality of a piece of art is completely subjective, but if someone hasn't actually taken the time to really explore and think about art, or in other words they don't actually care about it very much, why on Earth would their opinion about it hold any value?

superfluidity

The same could be said about any topic.

"Obama should have done X,Y,Z"
"Yeah, well you're not Obama, so you're clearly an idiot"

Yeah, thats the best way to start an intelectual discussion :roll:

The same could be said about any topic.

"Obama should have done X,Y,Z"
"Yeah, well you're not Obama, so you're clearly an idiot"

Yeah, thats the best way to start an intelectual discussion :roll:

Nibroc420

Your example situation is not analogous to what I said.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

The same could be said about any topic.

"Obama should have done X,Y,Z"
"Yeah, well you're not Obama, so you're clearly an idiot"

Yeah, thats the best way to start an intelectual discussion :roll:

superfluidity

Your example situation is not analogous to what I said.

You're suggesting that because someone may not be as educated about music, that their opinion somehow loses value.

However the same can be said for any topic, and it seems like an excuse to ignore someone else's opinion. Simply because you dont agree.

Nibroc420

What I've suggested is that the same logic that people routinely apply to every other discipline in the real world should also be applied to art. Individuals should acknowledge their own level of understanding of art when expressing opinions about it. Anything else is simply arrogant.

Dude...you have to have knowledge about something to know how it's supposed to work . Your arguemtn is that because one has an opinion on what they like to hear....there is only subjectivity within music. That's flat our wrong. There is a vast difference between a talented musician and an untalented musician and to say they are all the same is a disservice to the discipline...to the performers...and to those who study to perfect their art.LJS9502_basic

Competence, talent, skill.....all of these are objective. You can continue to tell everyone that is not the case but that will not make it so.

You have to judge competence, talent and skill so they can't be objective. Objectivity doesn't deal with judgments, only facts. This is a logic rule and there is no way around it.

The bolded not my argument, so stop putting words into my mouth. It is dishonst. I said that vaue judgments on music are subjective because the realm of objectivity only contains facts. I didn't say anything abut what people like to hear. Is there any reason why you keep getting my arguments wrong?

I never said there was no difference between performers. I said that individuals judge the differences, which is why it is subjective. Objectivity can only deal with cold hard facts and NOTHING ELSE. Any kind of judgment or evaluation falls outside of that.

You are in no position to comment on what is "so." You don't even understand the definition of objectivity and if you don't know the definition, then you have no business lecturing others about it.

Also, stop putting words into my mouth because that is cheap and dishonest. And if you need help understanding my posts, just ask for assistance. Don't get them wrong and try to pretend that you are getting them right.

From an undergraduate school of music.......quote... Great musicians know a lot about their own instruments and literature, but they are knowledgeable in other areas of music as well. We encourage you to begin a CD collection of the very best models of players/singers/ensembles in your chosen field as well as exemplars of musical achievement outside of your specific area of interest. Frequent attendance at classical music performances is also strongly encouraged./quote

Looks like they didn't get the memo that there are no best models in music....

LJS9502_basic

There are best models, but individuals decide what are the best models based on their own standards.

If you think that there are best models objectively, prove it without making a single value judgment.

If you can't, there's no obectivity. Objectivity only contains facts, no judgments. There's no way around it.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

You're suggesting that because someone may not be as educated about music, that their opinion somehow loses value.

However the same can be said for any topic, and it seems like an excuse to ignore someone else's opinion. Simply because you dont agree.

superfluidity

What I've suggested is that the same logic that people routinely apply to every other discipline in the real world should also be applied to art. Individuals should acknowledge their own level of understanding of art when expressing opinions about it. Anything else is simply arrogant.

You don't have to know anything about music to enjoy it - the same goes for art, films - whatever. It doesn't need a deeper level of analysis to be appreciated, and frankly my dear to suggest a person should acknowledge their own level of understanding when expressing an opinion is a little conceited..

You don't have to know anything about music to enjoy it - the same goes for art, films - whatever. It doesn't need a deeper level of analysis to be appreciated, and frankly my dear to suggest a person should acknowledge their own level of understanding when expressing an opinion is a little conceited..

poptart

On the contrary, I would say that it is extremely arrogant for someone with only a casual appreciation of art to claim that their opinion holds as much weight as someone who has devoted a great deal or most of their time to it. It's arrogant and actually devalues the work of artists.

Seeing 500 pieces of art and forming an opinion clearly isn't equal to seeing 100,000 pieces of art and forming an opinion. There's nothing wrong with only seeing 500 pices of art, but there is something wrong with claiming these two scenarios are the same.

[QUOTE="poptart"]

You don't have to know anything about music to enjoy it - the same goes for art, films - whatever. It doesn't need a deeper level of analysis to be appreciated, and frankly my dear to suggest a person should acknowledge their own level of understanding when expressing an opinion is a little conceited..

superfluidity

On the contrary, I would say that it is extremely arrogant for someone with only a casual appreciation of art to claim that their opinion holds as much weight as someone who has devoted a great deal or most of their time to it. It's arrogant and actually devalues the work of artists.

Seeing 500 pieces of art and forming an opinion clearly isn't equal to seeing 100,000 pieces of art and forming an opinion. There's nothing wrong with only seeing 500 pices of art, but there is something wrong with claiming these two scenarios are the same.

If they explain their opinion with a valid argument based on more than just "liking it", there absolutely no reason that it can't hold as much weight.

That "devalues the work of artist" line is really just emotional nonsense.

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

You're suggesting that because someone may not be as educated about music, that their opinion somehow loses value.

However the same can be said for any topic, and it seems like an excuse to ignore someone else's opinion. Simply because you dont agree.

poptart

What I've suggested is that the same logic that people routinely apply to every other discipline in the real world should also be applied to art. Individuals should acknowledge their own level of understanding of art when expressing opinions about it. Anything else is simply arrogant.

You don't have to know anything about music to enjoy it - the same goes for art, films - whatever. It doesn't need a deeper level of analysis to be appreciated, and frankly my dear to suggest a person should acknowledge their own level of understanding when expressing an opinion is a little conceited..

Not only it is conceited, it s downright fallicious.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

You're suggesting that because someone may not be as educated about music, that their opinion somehow loses value.

However the same can be said for any topic, and it seems like an excuse to ignore someone else's opinion. Simply because you dont agree.

superfluidity

What I've suggested is that the same logic that people routinely apply to every other discipline in the real world should also be applied to art. Individuals should acknowledge their own level of understanding of art when expressing opinions about it. Anything else is simply arrogant.

That's absurd.

If one explains their opinion about quality, talent, whatever, and makes a good argument about it, there is absolutely reason why they need to say anything about themselves. Whether they are knowledgable or not will be apparent in their argument.

If you try to put conditions of other people's opinions, you have no business throwing around the word arrogant.

[QUOTE="poptart"]

You don't have to know anything about music to enjoy it - the same goes for art, films - whatever. It doesn't need a deeper level of analysis to be appreciated, and frankly my dear to suggest a person should acknowledge their own level of understanding when expressing an opinion is a little conceited..

superfluidity

On the contrary, I would say that it is extremely arrogant for someone with only a casual appreciation of art to claim that their opinion holds as much weight as someone who has devoted a great deal or most of their time to it. It's arrogant and actually devalues the work of artists.

Seeing 500 pieces of art and forming an opinion clearly isn't equal to seeing 100,000 pieces of art and forming an opinion. There's nothing wrong with only seeing 500 pices of art, but there is something wrong with claiming these two scenarios are the same.

One person can dismantle a piece of music to the nth degree and critique in a different manner than one who appreciates music on face value, but this appreciation of music on differing levels doesn't devalue the opinion of the latter.

If an artist can only appreciate a high-brow analysis of their work and ignore appreciation solely on the basis of some an intangible 'feel-good' factor, then it sounds to me a typical case of an artist disappearing up their own arse.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

From an undergraduate school of music.......quote... Great musicians know a lot about their own instruments and literature, but they are knowledgeable in other areas of music as well. We encourage you to begin a CD collection of the very best models of players/singers/ensembles in your chosen field as well as exemplars of musical achievement outside of your specific area of interest. Frequent attendance at classical music performances is also strongly encouraged./quote

Looks like they didn't get the memo that there are no best models in music....

GreySeal9

There are best models, but individuals decide what are the best models based on their own standards.

If you think that there are best models objectively, prove it without making a single value judgment.

If you can't, there's no obectivity. Objectivity only contains facts, no judgments. There's no way around it.

I think the song Friday iscatchy. I guess everyone else's taste is better.

One person can dismantle a piece of music to the nth degree and critique in a different manner than one who appreciates music on face value, but this appreciation of music on differing levels doesn't devalue the opinion of the latter.

If an artist can only appreciate a high-brow analysis of their work and ignore appreciation solely on the basis of some an intangible 'feel-good' factor, then it sounds to me a typical case of an artist disappearing up their own arse.

poptart

This is truly an anti-intellectual argument. If all opinions about art are equal, you would have to believe that it's an artist's job to communicate clearly to everyone rather than every individual's job to try and reach a greater level of understanding. That's completely backwards in my view and again devalues the work of artists and turns them into mere entertainers.

People who don't really care about art (in terms of how much time and effort they put into experiencing it and learning about it) can have an opinion, and it holds value, but it is (clearly to me) of a lesser value than someone who cares more about art.

If you try to put conditions of other people's opinions, you have no business throwing around the word arrogant.

GreySeal9

Apply this logic to brain surgery.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

From an undergraduate school of music.......quote... Great musicians know a lot about their own instruments and literature, but they are knowledgeable in other areas of music as well. We encourage you to begin a CD collection of the very best models of players/singers/ensembles in your chosen field as well as exemplars of musical achievement outside of your specific area of interest. Frequent attendance at classical music performances is also strongly encouraged./quote

Looks like they didn't get the memo that there are no best models in music....

LJS9502_basic

There are best models, but individuals decide what are the best models based on their own standards.

If you think that there are best models objectively, prove it without making a single value judgment.

If you can't, there's no obectivity. Objectivity only contains facts, no judgments. There's no way around it.

1. Music theory has little to do with actual composition. Music theory is a study of how music has been written in the past and not rules that must be followed. Jazz breaks a lot of rules that classical composers 300-500 years ago considered mandatory in order for a piece to be well composed. Nowadays jazz music has its own theory and conventions that were followed by musicians back when jazz was born, but had musicians not "broken the rules" it wouldn't have come to that. Even blues music where jazz originates broke several rules. You can't consider jazz music a bad genre just because it doesn't follow conventional classical music theory.

2. Simply people with opinions like everyone else. Being learned in music doesn't make your opinion more important.

Not correct. As far as objectivity goes in music...there exists music theory...LJS9502_basic

Music theory contains facts, but it cannot make a value judgment objective.

There IS proper technique.LJ

Yes, there is, but it relies on standards, which are inherently subjective.

The fact that a University mentions better models of music plain points out the major flaw in your argument.LJ

Who is mentioning what is irrelevant to objectivity. Objectivity only deals in cold hard facts.

There does exist objectivity when dealing with music. THAT is fact.LJ

One can make objective statements about music, but one can never make objective judgments about music. It is impossible to make an objective judgment about anything because objectivity only deals with facts. Judgments are outside of it's scrope.

Fast...singing off key is NOT good singing technique. Singing in key is.LJ

What constitutes good singing technique relies on subjective judgment. Objectivity only deals in cold hard facts.

Thus...there is an objective way to decide which singer is better than the other.LJ

That is a subjective way because it is a judgement. Objectivity cannot deal in judgments.

Subjectivity is merely one's own music taste...ie band A over band B.LJ

Any kind of judgment is subjective.

You keep projecting how you determine good music onto everyone else when they are talking talking talent and competence.LJ

I never said how I determine good music, so you have no grounds for this comment.

Two things that are objective.LJ

They aren't. Objectivity only deals in cold hard facts and nothing else. Those two things are judgments. Therefore, it is impossible for them to be objective.

Queen is boring uninteresting music. My subjective opinion on the band.Queen is talented. An objective critique of the band.LJ

Nope. That is a judgment and thus cannot be objective.

There ARE not the same thing. Fact is not only reciting album names and numbers. You cannot quantify objectivity in an art form by reciting data.LJ

So t's not objective. Objectivity only deals with measurable facts.

There IS objectively good music and objectively bad musicLJ

Good and bad are value judgments. They cannot be objective. Objectivity only deals in cold hard facts.

Good and bad are opinions. Nothing more. To say otherwise is to be ignorant of both logic and language.

Your stance is opinion not born up by the fact that talent varies....music requires proper technique....study...and oh....it can be critiqued based on merit.LJ

Critique can be based on knowledge and experience and what not and that does lead to a strong well-reasoned. But it is not objectivity.

You should really look up the definition of objectivity because it's clear you don't understand it.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

If you try to put conditions of other people's opinions, you have no business throwing around the word arrogant.

superfluidity

Apply this logic to brain surgery.

Brain surgery does not have inherent subjectivity as do opinions on music, so it's a false analogy.

There IS objectively good music and objectively bad music.LJ

If you believe this to be true, prove scientifically with no value judgments or no subjectivity why one peice of music is better than another.

For instance, take one piece of music you think is bad, and one you think is good, and prove it without a single value judgement or subjective statement and without invoking your own standards or something else's standards, just with PURE facts.

If you can't do that, you argument has no basis (not that it ever did).

Being learned in music doesn't make your opinion more important.

ex-mortis

GreySeal9

It is days like this that I miss pianist here....

. It's about being able to tell the good from the bad objectively...and yes such a thing exists.LJS9502_basic

No it doesn't. Good and bad are value judgments and value judgments fall outside the scope of objectivity.

This objectivity:

It cannot mind-dependent. It is based on only facts without any sort of judgments, such as "this music is quality", "this music is good," "this band is more talented". If one decides on how good or bad something is or evaluates something on any level other than quantifying it, they're not being objective because notions of "good" and "bad" are mind-dependent. They cannot exist outside of one's own viewpoint. They cannot be verified scientifically. Things are only quality or good or bad becausewe think they are good or badbased on our own standards.In this way,"good" or "bad" or "quality" arenotconcrete objects that can't be changed by anybody's own viewpoints and standards and experiences. They are literallyformedby own viewpoints, standards and experiences.GreySeal9

If it falls outside of those criteria, it is not objective.

I clearly gave an example with Queen as to the difference between the two.LJ

You did not give a shred of objective proof. Your resorted to value judgments, which are invalid in the realm of objectivity.

It's incredibly bizarre to say all music is equal.LJ

Nobody said that. Stop making stuff up. It is dishonest.

Has anyone in thisdebate actually looked at what they're saying. You guys are going way too far into this argument.

Has anyone in thisdebate actually looked at what they're saying. You guys are going way too far into this argument.

ROFLCOPTER603

Basically the basis of your argument is that you cannot objectively look at a piece of work and find the merit or lack of siad merit within....and thus you find all statements about music to be subjective.LJS9502_basic

My viewpoint is that any judgment about music is in the realm of the subjective because the realm of the subjective contains only facts. That applys for anything.

My argument is not based on what I want to be true about music, but rather what I know to be true about the limits of objectivity in general.

And as such it's pointless to continue this discussion.LJ

It is pointless because you cannot get around basic logic and language. You are trying to shoehorn subjectivity into the objective realm.

You are closed to the idea that not all music is created equal and that one's opinion is not all that matters in regard to an objective overview of music. I cannot tell on what basis you decide you like something but it appears that talent is not a determinent for you.LJ

I never said talent was not a determinent. Stop making stuff up.

What I said is that perceptions of talent differs.

Who you think is talented, I might not find to be particularly talented. I find every artist that I like to be talented and that's one of the reasons I like their music.

Why do you keep getting my arguments wrong? Are you aiming to be Snipes 2.0 or something? :?

[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]

Has anyone in thisdebate actually looked at what they're saying. You guys are going way too far into this argument.

LJS9502_basic

Judgments cannot be objective. Period.

It has nothing to do with my opinion. It has to do with logical rules concerning objectivity and subjectivity.

Has anyone in thisdebate actually looked at what they're saying. You guys are going way too far into this argument.

ROFLCOPTER603

I'm simply stating what can fall under the umbrella of objectivity and what cannot.

[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]

Has anyone in thisdebate actually looked at what they're saying. You guys are going way too far into this argument.

LJS9502_basic

People have opinions on everything, including what is opinion and what is fact. You can never change that, especially on the internet,so why bother? On something like art or music it is almost impossible to change someone's opinion.

[quote="LJ"]There IS objectively good music and objectively bad music.GreySeal9

If you believe this to be true, prove scientifically with no value judgments or no subjectivity why one peice of music is better than another.

For instance, take one piece of music you think is bad, and one you think is good, and prove it without a single value judgement or subjective statement and without invoking your own standards or something else's standards, just with PURE facts.

If you can't do that, you argument has no basis (not that it ever did).

LJ, if there is objectivity bad music and good music, you should be able to meet this challenge. That you can't or won't speaks volumes.

[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]

Has anyone in thisdebate actually looked at what they're saying. You guys are going way too far into this argument.

GreySeal9

I'm simply stating what can fall under the umbrella of objectivity and what cannot.

And I'm simply stating that this argument is pointless. TC even said so in another post.

[QUOTE="poptart"]

One person can dismantle a piece of music to the nth degree and critique in a different manner than one who appreciates music on face value, but this appreciation of music on differing levels doesn't devalue the opinion of the latter.

If an artist can only appreciate a high-brow analysis of their work and ignore appreciation solely on the basis of some an intangible 'feel-good' factor, then it sounds to me a typical case of an artist disappearing up their own arse.

superfluidity

This is truly an anti-intellectual argument. If all opinions about art are equal, you would have to believe that it's an artist's job to communicate clearly to everyone rather than every individual's job to try and reach a greater level of understanding. That's completely backwards in my view and again devalues the work of artists and turns them into mere entertainers.

People who don't really care about art (in terms of how much time and effort they put into experiencing it and learning about it) can have an opinion, and it holds value, but it is (clearly to me) of a lesser value than someone who cares more about art.

I think you're the one intellectualising music as if it's some kind of conceptual art. That's not to say some musicians may attempt to intellectualise their own work and thus expect to garner the kind of critique you so enjoy doing, but really music generally isn't like Tracey Emmett's soiled bed. Do you really thinking music demands a higher level of understanding to be appreciated? Do you think an artist hearing that a person is their greatest fan because all they want to do is get up and dance whenever they hear their music? I doubt it – I think if they can connect on a soulful rather than artistic level then a goal may well have been achieved – it certainly isn't of lesser value because some notion of anti-intellectual superficiality which you seem to think.

The problem with intellectualising and over-analysis is pretty transparent when looking at the variance you see in music reviews. The same goes for art in general. Aphex Twin might be standing behind the decks spinning some sand paper in jest, only for the high-brow audience to turn around and say 'hey man – that was great'. Sure apply whatever depth of analysis you enjoy, but don't be one of those guys that hang around the decks over-intellectualising the latest micro-niche NBT that'll be lucky to shift 500 copies. Don't fight it – just feel it baby :P

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]

Has anyone in thisdebate actually looked at what they're saying. You guys are going way too far into this argument.

ROFLCOPTER603

People have opinions on everything, including what is opinion and what is fact. You can never change that, especially on the internet,so why bother? On something like art or music it is almost impossible to change someone's opinion.

But this not about opinion. It is a fact that objectivity is limited to facts and not judgments.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]

Has anyone in thisdebate actually looked at what they're saying. You guys are going way too far into this argument.

ROFLCOPTER603

People have opinions on everything, including what is opinion and what is fact. You can never change that, especially on the internet,so why bother? On something like art or music it is almost impossible to change someone's opinion.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]

Has anyone in thisdebate actually looked at what they're saying. You guys are going way too far into this argument.

ROFLCOPTER603

I'm simply stating what can fall under the umbrella of objectivity and what cannot.

And I'm simply stating that this argument is pointless. TC even said so in another post.

Debating on GS OT is pointless in general.

[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I simply state that there is both an objective and subjective basis for deciding what music is "good" for lack of a better word. Though it appears there are some individuals that cannot distance their subjective opinion to look at a work dispassionately and objectively.LJS9502_basic

People have opinions on everything, including what is opinion and what is fact. You can never change that, especially on the internet,so why bother? On something like art or music it is almost impossible to change someone's opinion.

Objectivity can exist, but only in the form of facts and not judgments. So, to say something is "good" or "bad" cannot be objectivity because whether something is good or bad is inherently a statement of opinion.