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

This is a philosophical issue, though. It's one of the core issues in aesthetics.

Whether the moon exists apart from our judgment is a philosophical issue, too, by the way.

We can not. "Better" is necessarily about tastes/preferences.

 

There are always trends in critical assessment. If there's a thread on Top Ten albums it's not hard to predict the likely contenders.

 

And while this is neither here nor there, I for one am grateful music isn't objective! Or something that can be universally agreed upon in terms of what makes it desired or loved.

Differences in interpretation, or talent, or most anything, is what enriches (respectful) discussion and makes the world go round. I learn far more from knowledgable differences of opinion or taste when a music lover is open to treating the art in a flexible or undefined light (which it is), rather than trying to learn from someone who thinks an artist or song is clearly "right or wrong" or "good or bad". Or, more precisely, that such things can actually be determined.

In other words, I'm much more un-trusting and confused by someone who claims that they can look at any art in a completely un-biased way or who use terms such as "I see an artist for how they are", than someone who is upfront about being biased or influenced and can admit that not everyone's interpretations of what "an artist is" is going to be the same. Neither mindset is "right", but at least the subjective view is open and not anchored to absolutes or concrete assumptions.

 

No.

 

As one member said in an earlier post, the first thing that needs to be clarified is what we mean by "objective" and "objectivity".

I was thinking more in terms of "neutrality". That's why I asked you whether there could be an objective assessment on whether Perlman plays the violin "better" than a person who never actually grabbed a violin in his/her life. When you said "no" I confirmed my earlier suspicion that we were not actually "on the same page."

I appreciate your knowledge but I prefer to leave this kind of discussion to other members that will surely enjoy it more than I do.

 

Yeah, that's true, but I thought, for the purposes of this thread, we were talking about the subjective opinions of music. I already know that these days, we are not going to get the in-depth analysis of the recordings as we do on Top40MusicOnCD. We used to, but not these days.

 

No, that's still subjective. There is always going to be someone out there who will disagree with what you just wrote. So, if even one person in the world disagrees, it can't be an objective statement.

 

Heck, even I disagree with it. But there are factors beyond me and other (outlier) fans that can help to determine an artist's high point.

Believe me, I get what you're saying.

 

The masses can be wrong sometimes.

 

Subjective or objective, it really boils down to "I like what I like, and not what I don't". If that make sense?

 

Indeed. Even if one were able to concede that music could be objective, it still would be a bit like conceding that the cap on a bottle of soda is red when I was attempting to say it was yellow - it really ends up having nothing to do with the purpose of why the bottle was given to you - to savor the soda!

If you aren't going to consume and enjoy the soda, then the darn cap could be red, green, blue, white, invisible, anything you objectively prove it to be. But caps are still just caps. You aren't consuming caps. Their function, whether red, green, plastic or metal, is simply to provide the functional means by which you get at the "art" or enjoyment. The liquid provides the chemicals and craft. It is the subject of study and enjoyment. Or it isn't (if you dislike the soda).

Okay, so now I'm not making any sense either...

 

You can certainly be objective about composition, thematic development, devices, reinforcing conventions vs. challenging conventions, etc. It happens in academia all the time.

Whether the finished results appeal to you aesthetically or not is a different matter, but you can be objective about the piece on its own terms.

 

Not on the internet.

 

It certainly seems that way sometimes...and not just on this forum.

Absolutely agree here. I've harped on and on about "objectivity" -or the lack thereof- in a few discussions here. For example, when folks look at a certain artist and think that every note and word that spewed from their brain was gold, I'm sorry, that's not being objective at all IMO. Even heavy hitters like Shakespeare or Picasso produced some crap on occasion. It is important to look at an artist's work, IMO, within the context of when it was produced. It is easy to look back on something in retrospect, but how was the work received at the time? Sometimes it seems like some people neglect to take that aspect into consideration.

In the interest of full disclosure, I too am an artist and I would be the first to admit that not everything I've done is great. As an imperfect human being, I think I know better than that

 

But those statements -- "Even heavy hitters like Shakespeare or Picasso produced some crap on occasion." -- are 100 percent subjective. Any discussion of good or bad, better or best, is opinion, not fact. And opinion is subjective, always.

 

It's the arts. No matter how popular anything is, there always seems to be an equal mass that hates it.

 

Well, that was certainly persuasive.

 

Yes it is possible. Very. But the ability to be objective is rare. Also very rare.

 

It's possible to listen deeply, dispassionately, critically, casually and many other adverbs, but objectively? I just don't think that's possible. I'm not sure we human's can do ANYTHING objectively. It's part of our charm.

 

Good with all your opinions. Now we can scrap all music schools, cause there is absolutely nothing to learn here... It' s all about personal taste...

 

The only way there is such a thing as being objective when it comes to anything is for 'objective' to come to mean something other than it is usually taken to mean.

But then that's not objective at all, is it?

 

I guess it some what depends on the meaning of objective...Of course it depends some what on personal tastes. To think other wise would be dishonest. Speaking of my self only. I love all types of music genres....soul. talent and passion..it lives in all genres. as an example, this morning I have listened to all the following: Gershwin, steely dan, roy clark, and Gerry rafferty....now there is diversity. Love it all. I have 14 cd's coming from Amazon....New Wilson Chicago 2 is one of them..The up coming Blue Cheer is also one of them.....great music is great regardless of genre, or artist. I think I am objective....I am retired, so I have plenty of time to dig into many things....oh, 4 of the cds coming from Amazon are Mozart SACDs....And I love Sabbath...it's all good.

 

Sure it is. Just about everything has both subjective qualities and objective qualities.

Objective: The song "Baker Street" has a saxophone solo.
Subjective: The song "Baker Street" has the best saxophone solo in music history.

The objective statement is not an opinion. It is fact that can be proven (correct) or disproven (incorrect).

 

It was talked about earlier in the thread, people here are talking about a few different levels of meaning for 'objective' - the way you and several others on this thread are using it is a different application than the dictionary definition and the technical term used in philosophy.

In philosophy there's a very potent strain of thought that holds that true objectivity is not even possible, and arguments for its existence typically cite intersubjective agreement - consensus opinions - as one marker of the existence of objective truth.

The OP specifically mentioned the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity which opened up all the philosophical debate. (It's a rabbit hole that once fallen down few climb out of.)

 

Doesn't Dynamic Range fall into this category? It's objective, but doesn't always tell the whole story.