Can music be objectively good? "X is better than Y." Surely not!

A lot of threads compare albums, or even groups, with posters sometimes claiming one is "better" than another. Doesn't that just indicate a preference?

 

Everything I like is objectively better than everything I don’t like. That’s a fact. Just ask me, The Grand Authority.

 

I think it's all down to preference. It's not as if there's actual scientific proof that certain music is better than other music.

 

Scientifically and technically, it's all personal preference. Society has shaped us to have expectations of what constitutes "good" music, and no more than that. That's why different cultures, or people with different upbringings, identify good music in different ways.

 

Depends what you mean by objectively good. Things are only "good" because of a given reason.

 

Except for The Beatles, of course.

 

I refuse to accept that Vanilla Ice is equal to Mozart simply because someone thinks so. Just as I refuse to accept that an artist that cans his feces and calls it art is equal to the Mona Lisa.

 

Music is just personal taste. It depends entirely on the listener, but convention, consensus and culture help to frame our preferences.

 

I might stick my neck out and say that

And take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my mind
Down the foggy ruins of time
Far past the frozen leaves
The haunted frightened trees
Out to the windy beach
Far from the twisted reach of crazy sorrow

are better lyrics than

Lucky that my lips not only mumble
They spill kisses like a fountain
Lucky that my breasts are small and humble
So you don't confuse them with mountains

 

It's personal preference. It's what makes the first Danzig album sound better than everything I own, while I'm listening to it. It's what makes an Allman Brothers album better than anything else, while I'm listening to it. This works for everything I own and I own some Beatles, who don't rate at all when Red Headed Stranger is playing and visa versa.

If you're listening to something and picking out how it sounds like something else or how something else is so much better, so you can't like it .... then, by default, I enjoy far more music than you.

 

I don't like either of those lyrics. That's my objective take on that.

 

Can't vote here as your poll is too simplistic for me. Some things in music are objective and can be measured, some things cannot. Things that can be measured include pitch (are the musicians in tune), timing, complexity, to some extent technique. Even things like emotional impact can be measured to some extent, eg you can analyse human reponses in various ways. However you can never separate music from the wider culture of the times or the individual's life experience (eg this is the song that played when we first dated, etc).

We also have difficulty when the same piece of music sounds great to person A and not to person B. It's nobody's fault, in fact it's a good thing because the diversity of music is good. But if we want to make an objective statement about that music's quality, does the fact that some dislike it count against it? That would be something you would have to make a decision about if you wanted to find ways to measure quality.

So the answer is some and some

Tim

 

I voted yes.

 

First, just to clarify, subjective refers to something only occurring mentally. Objective refers to something occurring outside of mentality. Subjective things are basically things that we do. Objective things exist independently of us. Re us being right or wrong about something, that has to do with whether our statements match what the mind-independent world is like (unless we're simply making a statement about what someone's mind is like).

So, not only musical valuations (a valuation being something like "This is good," "This is worthwhile," etc.), but any valuations are subjective. There is no value independent of us. It's how we feel about things, how much we care about them, that makes anything valued or not.

 

While I will say modern art is more of a minefield than maybe you suggest I do agree with you. I don't know how you quantify that though. There is no way to measure Mozart against Vanilla Ice. Who do you rely on, a panel of experts?

I mean there are many people here who dismiss bands as 'crap' like Public Enemy or Kraftwerk, both of who are brilliant yet we can't agree about that, let alone Mozart vs Vanilla Ice.

 

Why do you feel that there would be an obligation to accept someone else's valuation?

Some people prefer to live right in the heart of a city. Others prefer to live in a rural area. Do you feel a need to accept either of those preferences just because those people have them?

 

Then you're out of luck, be cause there is no such thing.

 

The first lyrics could easily be deemed a bit emo, and the second set are actually quite clever and fun. I don't think you can objectively compare them. After all, we're essentially conditioned to deem that first set as nice language and the second set as bad language, and the second set of music to be throwaway, which is exactly why some people - who do not have that same conditioning or the same experiences - would vastly prefer to listen to Shakira.

The only reason Shaddup Your Face by Joe Dolce is considered a poorer song than Vienna by Ultravox, to compare two songs from the same moment in time, is because of societal conditioning and cultural norms and values.

 

I'm surprised that there are a number of value objectivists here, because as objectivists, they should realize that it's an objective fact that there are no objective values.

 

I voted no, there is only a collective, general standard. But this completely changes over time. The same as beauty is only in the eye of the beholder. Just look at female models of the early 1900s who, unfortunately, would never get much work today.

You could say that some music is more technically advanced perhaps but that's about it. Imho

 

Obviously it wasn't considered a poorer song at the time or "Vienna" would have been No. 1 and "Shaddup Your Face" would have been stuck at No. 2 for weeks on end.

 

So "poop in can" =\> Mona Lisa, and it's only a matter of perspective. Is that what you think?

 

Some people might prefer 'poop in can'. The Mona Lisa is overrated.

 

see Thread on new Mike Love Single

 

I haven't seen 'poop in can' or the Mona Lisa in real life though, I hear that can change your perspective on things