Is there such a thing as being "objective" when it comes to music?

That someone is better than someone else in terms of technique is subjective. That people have different capabilities is objective.

 

I think music is entirely subjective, lyrics on the other hand are heard objectively (by me at least.)
Was it a true rhyme? Did the author rely on cliches? Were the syllables counted? Were Oohs and La Las used in place of words? Did the phrasing rely too heavily on mellisma? All of this can be measured by an average English teacher. Music on the other hand, is so ephemeral and its effect on the listener too mercurial to be able to assess if it is good or not.

 

The subjective stuff arrives with "Is it better to use true rhymes?" "Is it better to avoid cliches?" Etc.

 

Absolutely. You can only measure, say, the capability to play a rapid string of notes or a fast picking pattern...

 

Since no two people interpret or process sound/music in the exact same way, there is NO objectivity in music. It is 100% subjective.

 

I agree with you on this. I should have said "most" instead of "all." Even "widespread appeal" probably can be objectively quantified. You are no longer being objective, though, if you are using the data to "judge" the music, as was stated in the first part of his sentence.

 

I can respect those observations and I have them myself. Indeed, I'm one of those who doesn't particularly gravitate to or "get" Dylan yet I always list him at the front of artists I respect and appreciate. The thing is, I'd still argue that I'm not making any objective statement in that regard. In other words, it just means that the talents or influence of someone like Dylan is something I can simply admire or acknowledge, but I'd still say that my judgments of even those things is still largely a subjective or culturally-influenced one.

In short, I can still respect an artist or respect the general joy they have given to millions but it doesn't mean I'm being "objective" as much as just being courteous and open-minded to the talents I perceive in them. Those talents I may perceive in Dylan doesn't mean he has them per se. Not in the sense that we can run his talents through a "computer" and determine his objective "worth". It just means I am courteous or informed enough to agree with millions that he has some kind of widely agreed upon talent or craft that is beloved and studied and appreciated by millions.

I'm also like you, though, in that I get easily turned off by the "that sucks" or "that's just pure crap" judgment of songs or artists, since it rudely exudes a close-minded or objective judgment (rather than a respectful opinion) about an artist or song. I've even had to remove myself from threads and topics I love simply because I got tired of trying to discuss positive (or at least respectful) aspects of an artist in an often mean-spirited, glass half empty, or "objectively-stated" environment.

 

Right. And even with that, it's not actually the case that any two people are going to play something exactly the same. There are going to be tonal (timbral) differences due to all sorts of minute details (those even arise from simple physical differences--one person's fingers aren't going to be exactly the same as another's), minute rhythmic differences--for example, exactly where each note falls in terms of millisecond differences, say, and so on.

 

Youtube is full of the worlds fastest guitar pickers etc. as timed by a stopwatch. They usually sound like crap. The question of who's the fastest good picker is back in the subjective realm again.

 

I agree except for the melisma part. That has been argued many times on the forum.
Melisma deals with note choice and melodic contour among other things. Totally subjective.

 

No, who's the fastest picker isn't subjective. It may sound like total crap and has little to do with music but it's the fastest. Who's the fastest good picker is highly subjective.

 

I can be very objective, it's everyone else who is subjective.

 

Well said! It can even be equally valid to say a player that expertly performs three chords can be viewed as a "greater player" than a technically nimble and well-schooled virtuoso. After all, performing is merely a technical skill, not necessarily a lone component of "art creation" or "connection to an audience". As Keith Richards (I believe) once said, "It's what you don't play that counts".

This is all a subjective support of a quote on my part though. I'd be the last to propose that we look to Keith Richards for objective truths on anything.

 

There's no objectivity in music opinion. There's plenty of quantifiable, objective things in music. You could say that this forum focuses on mainly the subjective nature of music while Top40MusicOnCD.com focuses mainly on objective factual data (run time, catalog number, edit points, mix differences, which CDs has a song appeared on, etc.).

 

He did? Maybe he objectively stole it from Miles Davis, who used to say that.

 

He very well could have. The rock n rollers indeed stole most everything!

 

Another simple observation that shows how music can never be objective, inherently, is to note how two artists wouldn't garner the same success or reputation even if they played exactly the same song or had the same general level of "perceived skills". If music were objective, you should be able to determine that playing song sheet "X" with a skill level of "Y" will produce a result or popularity level of "Z". But obviously there is no magic formula. Artists of all varying degrees of schooling, technical ability, marketing ability, or studio ability have enjoyed varying degrees of acclaim or popularity.

Films are like that as well. You may be able to trace general patterns and successes that point you towards the realization that you would be more prone to have a successful and loved picture by shooting a romance with soft lighting or lingering shots rather than using quick cuts or using "car chase scenes". Yet, you could have 100 different directors shoot that same script and scene to their personal liking, and there would likely be no way to know how any of those 100 films would be viewed by audiences from an artistic worth standpoint. One director may have indeed shot the romance with quick cuts, but several viewers found it the "most gifted" of the 100 versions because they liked the way he or she used the unorthodox cutting to highlight the frantic passion during the bed scene. Or another might have used overhead shots rather than more traditional and successful techniques such as close-ups or wide shots to capture the lust in a unique way and several viewers found that to be the "right" way to capture such a film.

In short, there are no scientific formulas for such arts. Only solid tallies of what may have sold the most or has been most cited by people.

 

Not subjective, but irrelevant if it doesn't sound good.

 

There is a scene in the latest Star Trek movie where they are playing the Beastie Boys Sabotage to destroy the enemy w and McCoy asks Spock "is that classical music"?

I thought to myself with the passage of enough time all this stuff could potentially be lumped together with much of it sounding the same.

 

1. "Argumentum ad populum": As far as I know, you are right on that point. I found that the opinion of experts is also regarded within the sphere of what's described as "argumentum ad populum" which I previously didn't know.

2. My intention however is to exchange opinions and debate whether "there is such a thing as being objective when it comes to music" rather than argue on "Argumentum Ad Populum" -- even though I was informed of what "my task here was", my interest happens not to be there.

3. You say that "no one is objectively better than anyone else" and that it is impossible to objectively establish that Perlman is a better violin player than an amateur, a novice or someone who has unwillingly stepped upon a violin lying on the floor because is a "judgment we make as people". You are making a purely philosophical point there. It's not the kind of thing I'm interested in discussing about.

On the other hand, Perlman's ability to make a violin vibrate at a certain frequency and produce a La 440 sound exists apart from our judgment, as much as the Moon exists apart from our judgment.

So based on this kind of basic facts, is it possible for music lovers or Forum members to agree "in the judgements that we make as people" on some basic parameters allowing us to establish if Perlman is a better violin player than John Q Public taking his first lesson? Can we provide an answer to this without focusing on personal taste or musical preferences?

 

If it's all subjective, is there such thing as less and more subjective? I can ask the same question with the other word, but no one says it's all objective because it sounds bad. I do think it's mostly subjective while you can just get closer to being objective. There are so many people that admit to not liking something because it doesn't match the image of how they're used to seeing themselves. It's likely that some don't admit it at all. These people are proof of being more subjective & less objective. Yes to the thread question.

 

(SUBJECTIVE) Me, who actually believes this - "I think The Division Bell is Pink Floyd’s greatest work."

(SUBJECTIVE) The guy across from me - "No way - Piper is the best. Syd rules!"

(SUBJECTIVE) His friend - "You’re both wrong. The best thing they ever did was 'Several Species…'"

(OBJECTIVE) Pink Floyd’s best work consisted of the five non-soundtrack albums from 1971-1979: Meddle, The Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals, and The Wall.

 

The word "best" always leads to a subjective observation.

 

Yes, but not when you are a huge fan of a band.

 

I mostly agree. But every artist has their obvious high points. The rest depends on who's listening. (Paraphrased from Springsteen comp liner notes written by Bruce.)