Can we listen to music with objective ears?

Oh - I get what you have been saying - but I always wish people would add "In my opinion" when they say "this is trash" instead of trying to be objective - because I just don't think you can be. There are some styles of music I don't like and no matter how hard I try to be objective about them I just don't think they amount to much.

I spent a few years writing DVD reviews for a local internet site and was always careful to write about how I experienced the film - not how some mythical 'objective person' would feel about the film. All good art generates an emotional response in us - I'm not sure how I could be objective in that situation.

Nice topic to think about and discuss though

 

For sure some discussions would be more fun and fruitful if the participants made it clear that their statements are their opinions-not facts. Would also be swell if -even more-people respected other opinions. Music -for me is serious but maybe-serious fun. If I don t like a particular artist, album or song I don t wan t to spend energy telling this to the rest of the world. I feel more comfortable writing/discussing things that I like. Guess people differ in that area.
Personally I enjoy-to some extent -most genres of music. With some exceptions of course. Heavy metal and most progbands does t do much for me. But Im well aware of the passion amomg those who enjoy it and would t dream of claiming they are wrong. Actually-in real life-I just like the rest-must do things that we enjoy less than other things. But to spend any time listening or writing or arguing about music I don t like seems-for me-a terrible waste of time

 

Somebody who posts are as large as mine. Oh no! We must be carefull my kinsman cause if we have the propensity to write so much others will feel we have nothing to say. Take care, John M.

 

Sure you can.

Objective: "Jimi Hendrix plays guitar on Hey Joe on his debut album."
Subjective: "Electric guitars are noisy and stupid and ugly."

 

Little worry about that, I think. More a matter of being too long-winded for anyone to bother to read the posts! (I speak only about myself, of course).

L.

 

But to claim that Jimi was a great and innovative electric guitarist. Is that a fact or not?

 

It is not a fact because "Great" is pure subjective. Like "good" or "bad."

The reason I used my examples is because I disagree with the subjective one (i.e., I personally very much enjoy electric guitar playing by some musicians).

"Innovative" may be objective but you have to prove it and be specific. That word means Hendrix did at least one thing- or a combination of things- that no one else did. And yes he certainly- his sound was unique, the way he used effects like wah-wah etc, the context of fronting a rock band, and all that (stuff we've all read about a million times I don't have to repeat it).

So innovative, yeah. Great- objectively that is impossible, IMO- subjectively- sure, hell yes. But "great AND innovative" as fact? Certainly not, because "great" isn't a fact.

 

These would be accepted as a facts in certain contexts (maybe subject to just a little debate and qualification--at least after the people having the discussion come to an understand about what is meant by "great" and "innovative"), but it wouldn't be accepted as fact necessarily in others.

L.

 

Ok Guess you are to some point right. Bu I guess if one said" Hendrix is by many people regardefdas a great and innovative guitarist" might be more objective
On the other hand - if I claim that Mozart composed great music. Ok - the word great is subjective but,,, I guess it s a fact that he composed great music, Just as I consider it a fact that Shakespeare wrote great dramas

 

I agree that "greatness" is not an objective quality, but it's not necessarily purely subjective either. The "greatness" of something can be a more or less widely accepted "fact" in certain contexts, as long as the meaning of the term is clear and everyone in the context is operating according to more or less the same set of assumptions about the nature of the artform in question (its history, its conventions, generic boundaries, purposes and value, etc.).

L.

 

I have argued that preferences when it comes to music always are-to some point personal and therefore not objective. But I am not sure one has to claim that everything that uses word like great must be considered all subjective. Some examples
Mozart was a great composer
Arthur Rubenstein was a great interprator of Chopin
Frank Sinatra was a singer with a great sense of timing and phrasing
Pavarotti and Jussi Björling were a great tenors
The few recordings of Robert Johnson was a great influence for many musicians within the field of blues and rock
Louis Armstrong and Miles Davis different ways of playing trumpet has had a great influence within jazz music

Personally I don t find the statements above comletely objective but definitively not completely subjective either. They are -imo-just stating at least near facts. Or?
But If I claimed for instance that Mozart is the greatest of all composer then we are moving into a more subjective area

 

This is right. All of the above statements would be accepted as facts in certain contexts.

The reason that the statement "Mozart is the greatest of all composers" is more tricky isn't because it's more subjective (althought it might be). It's tricker because it entails making a value judgement across different contexts, whose assumptions and values, etc., do not necessarily line up.

L.

 

Once you start putting the word in quotation marks or following it with "in certain contexts," you are changing what the word means.

A fact is something true- objectively true. It's not objectively true that Mozart was a "great" composer. Why does it have to be? Mozart is held in highest regard amongst classic music practitioners, scholars, historians, etc. Many consider him "great." Why the need to classify it is "fact" in any context? The only FACT about Mozart as a composer is that he was a composer.

We have plenty of words to use for everything, we don't have to use them all for the same things.

 

I sincerely don t agree with you here. I think it s a fact that Mozart was a great composer, It s not just a subjective opnion it s a fact. Noone who makes such a statement will have to defend it or argue. Because most everyone knows it true. It s not an objective fact but still it s true

 

Dude... seriously? I mean... just read that one out loud.

 

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the late Glenn Gould thought Mozart's music was garbage. I think it's great. So neither can be a fact unless one of us can be proven incorrect.

 

Yes. It's not objectively true. But that doesn't make it subjective. This is why I don't think the words (and what they denote) are very useful in these sorts of discussions.

We've been using the terms, a little informally, in their usual philosophical senses. Here are the relevant definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary:

Subjective: "Relating to the thinking subject (see subject n. 9), proceeding from or taking place within the individual consciousness or perception; having its source in the mind; belonging to the conscious life. Frequently opposed to objective adj. 3b."

Objective: "adj. 3b," "That is or belongs to what is presented to consciousness, as opposed to the consciousness itself; that is the object of perception or thought, as distinct from the subject; (hence) (more widely) external to or independent of the mind."

With these two others mixed in:

Subjective: "Of, relating to, or proceeding from an individual's thoughts, views, etc.; derived from or expressing a person's individuality or idiosyncrasy; not impartial or literal; personal, individual."

Objective: "Of a person or his or her judgement: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts; impartial, detached. Also (formerly) (now rare): dealing with or laying stress upon that which is external to the mind; concerned with outward things or events rather than inward thoughts or feelings."

I used quotation marks and qualifications not to change the meanings of these words, but to suggest that they are not all that helpful in disussions like this and require qualification if they're going to be used at all.

So, to put it simply, the statement, "Mozart was a great composer" is neither objectively true nor purely subjective.

L.

 

Then it would follow that the thread title question is itself illogical, no?

 

Just not the best way to put the question or start a discussion.

L.

 

So any suggestions on rewording? How about "can music be objectively classified according to its artistic merit?"

 

Same problem. The answer to that question is simple: it's "no."

How about:

"Since judgments about music are never really either wholly objective or subjective, what's really going on when we talk about what we love or what we think is great or important?"

L.

 

But that's just it. The answer isn't simply "no" for everyone. That's why there has been 9 pages of discussion.

 

But on what grounds do you argue that artistic merit is an objective matter? Or a wholly subjective one? Just because people make arguments or assertions doesn't make them true. And some things can be argued or proven, at least in the sense that we can come up with "a best explanation" of what we observe, one that stands up to testing (or at least whatever tests people have so far thought up). Artistic merit just isn't one of those things. And as I argued a while back, while wholly subjective responses do play a part in arguments about artistic merit, it's a small part.

Note that subjective responses don't need arguments for merit. People just like some things and not others. Arguments about merit only have a function when people want--as they often do--to share their subjective responses, or when they get curious about the responses of others. At that point things come into play that are neither wholly subjective nor objective. It's those things that are worth talking about if you want to discuss the matter of artistic merit.

L.

 

Only the most arrogant can claim to be objective. And we have no shortage of arrogance in this neighborhood.

 

I think it s a mixture between objectivity and scientifically proven fact. I am sure we can find people who claim the music of Mozart is garbage. I still consider it a fact to claim he was a great composer. Just like- we might find people who don t like Shakespeare I still think it s a fact he was a great writer of drama
If we only - without being subjective-can call sometjing great that is liked by everyone - then nothing can be called great., Guess I don t agree here