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

It's always interesting when the rebuttals come back and a persons honest feelings and opinions get skewered, by someone they've never met, and don't know. It's also very kind of someone to explain to me what I meant to say...Maybe we need to ask Webster what the definition of sarcasm is.

 

I suspect that some of the respondents are not able to differentiate between the empirical components of of a piece of music and the subjective response that the piece of music elicits.

 

Only if the music itself is objective.

 

Well, anything that depends on personal taste by definition is subjective not objective. Objective means "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice" and "based on facts." Once you're in the realm of personal taste, emotions, feelings, you're out of the realm of the objective.

 

Does a music degree in voice and Piano from a nationally known music school make one able to differentiate between " the empirical components of a piece of music and the subjective response that the piece of music elicits"?

 

Why would you think that just in case aesthetic evaluations aren't objective, there's nothing to learn at music school? Are you thinking that all you learn at music school are (supposedly) objective assessments?

 

Based on some fellow students I encountered, I wouldn't say that a degree even necessarily confers the ability to distinguish one's ass from a hole in the ground. Of course, that doesn't mean that you can't tell the difference, but I don't think it's clear that possessing a degree implies anything universally aside from the fact that either one was a good source of regular income for the school, one had some important connections, one perhaps had some potential blackmail materials, or one had at least the minimum smarts + discipline/persistence to grind it out to the end. (And I say this as someone who has multiple degrees (that you shouldn't take to imply anything except the above).)

 

This is a conversation too complex to have in this type of forum, I believe, but number me among those who say that there is both an objective and subjective component to music. If you think that Bach is terrible, I'm sorry but you don't know anything about music. Whether or not you are moved by his music or not is another issue entirely.

I also don't believe that people's reaction to music must be inherently emotional. It can be, obviously, but it doesn't have to be.

 

Robert Schumann said that Chopin's works were not music.
Just because someone says Bach is terrible, does not provide evidence they know nothing about music. I know a few folks that know quite a bit about music and listen to a lot of classical and are not big fans of Bach. They think a lot of his music is overly mechanical sounding. There is no objective standard when it comes to any composer or artist.

 

I studied Mozart for a few years.....Not every piece moves me, but no one can doubt his talent, legacy, or contribution to history....I'm sure there are those that can be found who says he's not very good. I happen to think he's damn good. To each their own. My son, who is a fabulous guitarist is a very big Chopin fan....he also likes Nirvana..again, to each their own.

 

If an engineer says the first generation master was used instead of a copy, that itself is objective. What the final product 'sounds like' is going to be subjective.

Someone will cry about the mastering, another about the mix, another says its too revealing......

 

That's what I was trying to get at with the second part of my post. If someone doesn't like Bach, or isn't moved by him, or isn't a fan, fine. I can't relate to that opinion, but whatever. De gustibus etc. etc. If someone says that Bach is a terrible composer, I will discount anything that person says about music.

I understand that this is somewhat of a controversial position, and I'm not trying to start any fights, but that's how I feel.

 

I know a few folks who know quite a bit about music and listen to a lot of pop/rock music and are not big fans of The Beatles...

 

That's certainly understandable, but it doesn't imply that anything about aesthetic evaluations is objective.

 

To me it does.

 

In rare cases, yes. I'm reminded of the blind tests on these very forums where the participants are forced to be objective. Though when their opinions are rendered one could say that part of the process is very subjective based on a different set of parameters.

That's a long winded was of saying that - yes its possible, but most of the time it simply doesn't happen. But that's ok. Music is art. Its supposed to be in the eye of the beholder, so to speak.

 

I think it would give someone a leg up, but depending on their particular concentration, not necessarily. Conversely, I think there are those without music degrees who, through self study, careful listening, and independent analysis, can appreciate certain music intrinsically without necessarily being drawn to it stylistically.

 

and yes, it's possible.

 

If everything were subjective, then Vanilla Ice may be better than Led Zeppelin. It's an extreme case, but one worth keeping in mind when someone wants to debunk all talk of objectivity.

 

sadly, there are those out there that think ice is better than zep....like one person told me Brittany spears is more talented than the Beatles....In that case mental illness may be a factor, more so than an honest stab at objectivity.

 

Indeed.

 

Objective assessments of music can be accomplished independent of taste or aesthetics. They are based on content and technique and how they are handled by the artist relative to the form in question. The degree of theme, variation, and development in a classical piece can be mapped and measured. Similarly, the degree to which a jazz soloist varies the phrasing within a solo can be quantified. Those are examples of objective music assessment relative to the forms in question. Whether you like that classical piece or that jazz soloist - or even whether you conceptually like jazz improvisation or theme and variation - is subjective.

 

I actually don't know of anyone who would argue that music doesn't have objective components in terms of things like sheet music, precisely recorded sales, or tubas versus pianos. Of course there are objective qualities to anything, especially in regards to physical items or things that can be scientifically measured or proven. Music is no exception. I would never go up to someone and say that a C note on a piece of sheet music is an A chord, or that the tuba in the corner is a piano and not a tuba. Or that Led Zeppelin IV hasn't sold such and such during the soundscan era but instead has sold a "subjective amount". No one I know of would dispute such things.

Yet all that seems irrelevant to the typical debates between "objective and subjective". Many, if even indirectly, often like to imply that objective musical facts equate to something that can be "proven" as brilliant, or good, or reflective of talent. I've even seen it mentioned right here. I'm sorry, but there is nothing universal, scientific, or objective about such factors. If there were, we wouldn't be humans and we would all interpret, play, and agree on those "objective" factors the same way. Yet we do not.

So, yes, we can all agree a flute is a flute. That is not subjective. How to "best" play a flute, how to "best" compose on it, who is most "talented" on it, will never be objective. Which is the only issue that matters as far as I'm concerned. I don't love music because I worry a flute isn't a flute. I love it because of my subjective reactions to the way it moves or interests me.

 

That's just it though, Vanilla Ice indeed has every right to be better than Led Zeppelin (to someone who genuinely feels so, wherever that one soul may be).

But in all sincerity, this comes from someone who puts Zeppelin as their second favorite band and can't even fathom getting into Vanilla Ice. Yet we must always remember that our subjective preferences should never be imposed upon someone else as objective. This is the whole crux of the problem in my eyes.

Saying Led Zeppelin has sold such and such amount of records and Vanilla Ice has sold such and such amount would be objective observations though (at least as far as having been documented for everyone to equally view as numbers that everyone would see as the same numbers).

 

But, you seem to ignore the people out there why seriously think Vanilla Ice is better than Led Zeppelin. Again, not everyone is a rock fan.