Can we listen to music with objective ears?

I've never seen this forum agree on anything like it agrees on the amazing sound quality of the new Beatles mono LPs. That they sound great is as close to an objective fact about music that I can think of.

 

Revolution nr 9 is-imo- a piece of unlistenable, pretentious s-t. Both as avantgarde art or music. Still I would not have it removed from the White album. I am sure that many people really love this work on it s own merits-but I would not be surprised if some people who likes it wouldn t be as enthusiastic if Lennon and the Beatles weren t involved. If they got to hear this piece for the first time with some artists named Norman Smith or whatever . Our preknowledge of a certain piece certainly affect our judgement of it.

 

I don t doubt that they sound great. But suggest that the level of praise of this also has something to do with our parameters. But that s my subjective opinion of course. As well as it is yours naming it an objetive fact is your subjective opinion .

 

If I was going for distance I would have said "miles over the top"! In my subjective world I have varying degrees of over the topness. Of course the standard is actually the top. This is followed by slightly over the top, then way over the top and culminating in f*cking over the top!

 

I think they sound great compared to most other versions that I have heard. But this is far from well-recorded music. Last night after playing one of the mono LPs I put on the new Impex release of Thelonious Monk's Straight No Chaser and it was night-and-day better in sound quality. In my humble opinion!

 

I wasn't being objective. I was being subjective. One could say I was being objectionable but again that would a subjective response.

 

I think-admitedely-without being an audiophile-that the judgement of sound quality also to some extent is personal and subjective. Even though -I don t doubt that for instance-the Beatles monoLp set-sounds great objectively. At least if it s played on a high end system i. But to claim that it s the best sounding Beatles edition ever-must imo be regarded as a subjective opinion. I remember the first time I heard Penny Lane-lying on the beach listening to an old transistor radio 1967. This song have never sounded better for me as this first hearing(on a transistor radio). But objectively it must have sounded like crap. So there you go

 

I would not be surprised if any music was listened to more charitably by some committed fans of the artist. It seems very obvious and natural that this will happen. But 'Revolution #9' was held up as special of evidence for this, in the sense of 'this just shows how far extreme fans can delude themselves into liking something which in fact is terrible'. I neither think 'Revolution #9' is objectively terrible or that Beatles fans liking it is special evidence of subjective bias (it's worth noting this is one track amongst most fans it's "OK" to hate). The more obvious subjective bias is from those who assume because they don't like something there must be some conspiracy or mind trick fooling those that do.

 

Truth and objectivity require congruence with cultural values, symbols, and terms; they do not denote apprehending a world beyond the individual and his culture. Quantum theorists positing there is no truly objective measurement have clearly failed to listen to the right albums with the right fans of those albums.

 

Personally I don t hate Revolution nr 9 - somehowh I don t think it is any good. Only meant that parts of the reaction to this track- positive or negative- has more to do with the Beatles connection that the actual piece

 

They are because they are not describing how much they like it but how meaningful, how important the work is in artistic terms, artistic achievement. If that goes over the top of YOUR head, that does not mean that it is crap.

Same answer as above.

Both were titans within their genres. Neither was better than the other. Comparisons really only work within the genres. I'd say that The Beatles were better than The Merseys for example.

Not really. It must be understood that The Beatles worked on and approved those mono mixes in the studio. George Martin and his engineers made the stereo version for the few people who possessed a stereo system at the time (though the market was continually growing). So the mono mixes present the work how the artist wished it to be heard. The early steroe mixes tended to exagerate the separations in order to "show-off" the stereo. An absurdity! Drums left, Paul right, John right,… The mono mixes however gave the music more direct force, a more direct vision. Better? I think so.

 

To claim that The Beatles were of more cultural importance than the Knickerbockers is- imo- an objective fact. But what the music of these two groups make me feel can t be other than subjektive opinions.
Or is it an objective fact that Help is better than Lies?

 

Objective Ears could be a great brand name for headphones

 

Objective Ears could be a great brand name for headphones

 

But this is no more than a generalized guess that could apply to any piece of music, from One Direction to Frank Zappa to any other Beatles song - some of the attraction is probably to do with the connection to the artist amongst fans. 'Revolution #9' is not a special example, and is only put forward as one by those who mistake their subjective dislike of it as being the objective, unbiased truth.

 

The reason I took Revolution nr 9 as an example. Personally I don t get much pleasure out of that number- something that of course is my subjective opnion. Of coursw- Lots of the attraction- or lack of attraction- has to do with the Beatlesconnection. Something that can be claimed as an argument that we really can t listen to music with objective ears. Imo

 

Right, but 'Revolution #9' is not providing special evidence that fans lack objectivity, regardless of what you think of it. Instead, you're deducing that some 'Revolution #9' fans lack objectivity based on the general principle that all music fans lack objectivity. So you might as well be talking about any piece of music.

 

Of course- i for instance don t get chills out of listening to ohps I did it again with Britney Spears. Hearing Richard Thompson do this number really did it for me. Is that a better example?

 

No. From the moment I started to listen to music and discovered my likes and dislikes in tunes and sounds objectivity left the building. I don't see any problem with that; I'm biased towards the way vinyl colours sound, vocal harmonies, acoustic guitars and Steve Windwood on the Hammond B3.
It's a result of the way I grew up with sounds and songs. I have my dislikes (Zappa, Metal, Techno), but it's great not having to buy or listen to music I dislike. And spend far too much on music I like!

 

I don't think "objective" listening is a particularly worthy goal. I like to think that I listen to music with "educated" ears; my reactions and opinions are based on years of active listening and analysis. I suppose our sensibilities are objective when we're very young; we respond to things we like without baggage. Young people don't get as hung up on originality as I do, but I'm happy that I don't waste my time listening to any old derivative crap.

 

Depends what we're trying to prove!

I doubt you prefer Richard Thompson's version because it's Richard Thompson, but because regardless of that fact it sounds better to you. But in all these cases we're guessing to ascribe reasons or motivations to why other people like things. We're not proving that people like things because of X or Y reason. I would not say the fact that a Richard Thompson fan likes something by Richard Thompson, even if it's apparently uncharacteristic, is evidence of subjective bias.

 

One thing a for certain for your ears and what you love to listen to. I have no problem listening to most music and while I may not like a particular song or even album, I can appreciate it for what it is. Wether it's Jazz, Blues, Classical, 60's, 70's, 80's style of music it's ok. One thing I cannot stand though is Hard Metal. I cannot comprehend how or why anyone can. It's way beyond me and it gives me a headache just thinking about it.

 

Not Trying to prove anything. Just making a point that- imo- musical prefernces are subjective- and to some extent a result of our personalites and preunderstaning. But I have no intention to -even try and prove it .

 

But isn t. a subjective opinion naming something "deivative crap". Even though I agree

 

I think you can objectively prove derivative-ness to some degree. But you cannot prove crap-ness!