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

so it's safe to say that there are factual aspects of music, where "factual" can mean "objective", in this discussion.

 

Yes. I would say so. As mentioned, I can't see how anyone could say a C note isn't an objective note of notation relative to, say, the combined note notation of an A chord. Or how selling a precisely tracked amount of 32,846 albums could possibly be a subjective interpretation.

 

Factual meaning technical elements in the recording. The performance is the subjective part. This forum used to talk a lot more about the technical elements of music.

 

Isn't Vanilla Ice Queen in disguise?

 

I guess it's the difference between being a "fan" and being more, well..."objective." I don't like country music, but I have learned enough about it to realize there is talent in so many different corners of that world. Even if I like hip hop more, Vanilla Ice is not better than Roy Acuff. My only fear is that we cannot have any conversations about music if we give in too much to the subjective argument. If everything is subjective, what's the point of educating ourselves in the history of music? All of this does not mean that we should deny that certain music speaks to us more regardless of popularity. But for god's sake let's not lose our minds!

 

Don't think so if you're talking about quality. As others have said, one can objectively state a song's key, tempo, etc., even influences and cultural context. But can a continuously variable sound pressure pattern be objectively analyzed and deemed to be good or bad art? No, IMO. That's totally a function of the reaction of the individual listener at a certain point in time.

I've often thought there is no good music or bad music, just good and bad musical experiences for an individual. I've listened to the most soulless, calculated bubblegum pap and thoroughly enjoyed it because it was the right song, at the right time, with me in the right state. Conversely I've been bored to tears by "great works of music."

For me, the search for good music has been to keep my ears and mind as open as possible and be available for a peak musical experience, no matter what's playing.

 

Heh...touche

 

So if the concertmaster of the New York Phil retires and they hold auditions to replace him, are there no objective criteria for determining who gets the gig?

 

As I can't read or play a note I would say I can only be subjective.

 

Only as far as things like 'has a degree in music' or 'has experience conducting a large orchestra,' etc.

you can say 'these are the criteria' to whoever is evaluating the audition, but the judgement of the performance of the audition vs. those criteria is not objective.

 

I disagree. There are objective criteria for assessing musicianship, based on the conventions of the various forms. I happen to like Tom Waits, but there are objective criteria for my saying that Placido Domingo was a greater tenor than Tom Waits. Whether you like one singer more than the other is completely subjective, but as I wrote on the previous page, objective criteria exist relative to forms and conventions. Most people would not want an auto mechanic to perform brain surgery on them; similar, according the forms and conventions of classical music, you would not hire an oboe player to be concertmaster.

 

Define "greater" without any subjective value judgement entering into your definition.

 

Domingo is physically larger than Waits?

 

"Greater" is based on the forms and conventions of a given genre. Whether we care about those forms or genres is where the subjectivity comes in.

 

Okay, so what are the objective "forms and conventions" of the tenor "genre"? Does the fact that they are arrived at through some form of societal consensus make them objective somehow?

 

This is why I have always disliked, Good, better , best, greatest......the argument could go on to infinity...a huge bore.

 

Nah, by definition, saying one is "greater" than the other is subjective. You can say, if it's demonstrably true, that one has wider range of pitch -- see what the highest and lowest notes they can hit are. You can say that their voices have different timbral qualities. Those are objective descriptions of facts. You can say that one is a successful, widely praise opera singer and one is a successful, widely praised rock (?) singer songwriter. Those are just facts. But do those characteristics or other make one "greater"? That's a value judgement and that's subjective, based on the values one person or group of people hold. Even to put it into the context of the "conventions of the various forms," which adds a kind of cultural relativity that is inherently subjective to the mix, is just to say "according to this particular aesthetic" which is subjective.

 

A resounding no for me. Oh sure, one can objectively evaluate a musician's skill on an instrument or voice: how fast can they play, can they play in rhythm, sing on pitch, how sophisticated are their note choices, are there unique intangibles that override glaring weaknesses. Most Jazz critique took that that form up until the 1980s.

But what moves a person is completely subjective. It is a uniquely personal emotional truth, even if the artist has glaring deficiencies in knowledge and technique. Ultimately music is an emotional language and must be respected as such.

 

Correct. There would be no objective criteria to determine if the people they are auditioning are inherently "good" or if they inherently "know" music more than anyone else waiting in line to audition. The best you can do is determine who has the observed skills and musical knowledge to hopefully conduct the orchestra in a way that maximizes the learned skills of the performers as they were schooled in terms of that style of music.

The "objectivity" that exists in hiring the new conductor is applied relative to qualities or parameters that had to be put in place in the first place. It would make no sense, for a classical orchestra, to hire someone who might have talents on a harmonica or on an electric guitar that he only plays in a garage band on the weekends. Not because he has objective deficiencies, but because he has objectively determined deficiencies relative to what the orchestra seeks. But there is no "universal objectivity" taking place anywhere.

 

I don't know if you're joking . . . if not, how would you say you discounting someone's opinion just in case they think Bach is horrible has implications for whether aesthetic evaluations are objective?

 

But Vanilla Ice may very well be better than Led Zeppelin in some persons' opinions.

 

I think so. For example, I don't care for Springsteen's music even though I think he's very good.

 

Aside from aesthetic evaluation questions, that seems dubious to me, at least in any fine-grained way that would have any practical application aside from exaggerated hypotheticals (where, for example, someone repeating the exact same phrase over and over would obviously have less variation than someone not doing that). Just what would the quantification procedure be?

And back to aesthetic evalaution questions, it's not an objective fact that something is better or worse if it varies or develops material more or less.

 

In my humble view, that's being open-minded and courteous to talents we can perceive in an artist, even if we don't share or fully understand those things. Which is indeed much more important and commendable, in my view, than someone assuming inherent objectivity in art itself.

I'm like that with Dylan, myself. I don't enjoy him but I appreciate him.

 

My point was that I can have a meaningful conversation about music (that is, a conversation in which I can hope to learn something) with someone whose tastes don't necessarily align with mine. For example, I'm not really into the rapper Nas. Someone who is might have interesting things to say about hip-hop in general, and I might take a tip from that person to investigate an artist I had either never heard before or someone whom I had previously dismissed. Someone who believes certain other things about music displays, to me, a fundamental ignorance about the nature of music, and therefore I wouldn't be inclined to listen to that person's personal feelings about anything musical.