Jan 28, 2021·edited·1 reply@MeezyMestizo You compared you're health (eating and drinking diet coke) which is necessary to survive vs listening to music which is a leisure and something we choose to indulge in. We have to eat something and fruits that grow in nature which have nutrients and vitamins but we don't need to listen to music and we create it ourselves from our minds, apples to oranges.
Food has nutritional benefit but music is abstract and only has meaning we give to it
Jan 28, 2021·1 replyWe Didnt Like That· edited@MeezyMestizo You compared you're health (eating and drinking diet coke) which is necessary to survive vs listening to music which is a leisure and something we choose to indulge in. We have to eat something and fruits that grow in nature which have nutrients and vitamins but we don't need to listen to music and we create it ourselves from our minds, apples to oranges.
Food has nutritional benefit but music is abstract and only has meaning we give to it
Funny, it's almost like i addressed that in my actual post
But I think there's a nugget of truth here in OP's original statement, in that OBJECTIVE judgements are not a substitute for, or necessarily, greater than subjective judgements when it comes to something which is consumed for enjoyment like music
- Jan 28, 2021·1 replyKOL Meezy Mestizo
Funny, it's almost like i addressed that in my actual post
But I think there's a nugget of truth here in OP's original statement, in that OBJECTIVE judgements are not a substitute for, or necessarily, greater than subjective judgements when it comes to something which is consumed for enjoyment like music
Yeah but explain that, where are the vitamins in music? That's a short response at the end
- Jan 28, 2021·1 replyWe Didnt Like That
Yeah but explain that, where are the vitamins in music? That's a short response at the end
When are people going to get that the purpose of a comparison is not to equate two things, but rather demonstrate a line of reasoning in a different context. My point is, if the whole crux of your argument is "but what if I LIKE this x thing that common metrics say are inferior" then it defeats the entire purpose of objectivity and is a pointless discussion to have.
Jan 28, 2021Yeah there is I have objectively better taste than you OP cause I’m an objectively better human being and I can confidently say that without even knowing anything about you OP. There just isn’t any way you can possibly be even in the same stratosphere compared to how I am.
Jan 28, 2021·1 replyKOL Meezy Mestizo@RVI @Biginthegame @thenewjimmorrison @02Shaq
Okay, for the purposes of clarity, lets define our terms.
OBJECTIVE: concerning the properties of an object in itself (this apple weights 1 newton)
SUBJECTIVE: concerning how an object is perceived by an individual. (red delicious apples are disgusting)
There are properties of songs that can be quantified, as I have previously stated, like audio quality, etc.
Then there are properties that cannot be quantified, ie, listener enjoyment, "vibe", genre (to a degree)
Concerning the quantifiable aspects of a song, we CAN say that songs are OBJECTIVELY better using commonplace metrics, ie. Kanye West - Good Morning is better than Blockboy JB freestyle because the vocal recordings aren't clipped to the high heavens and thereby accurately transmit the input data and do not contain frequencies which typically cause pain to human ears in loud enough volumes.
BuT MEEzYmesTiZO, wuT iF pEOpLe LIkE MUsIc WiTH loUD OuCHiE FreQuEnCIES.
Great, they exist, and that's fine, but that's a SUBJECTIVE judgement regarding perception and not qualities.
BUT HAH, you say, YOU JUST PROVED YOURSELF WRONG.
Nope. I think we could all agree that it is objectively better for my health if I get eight hours of sleep and don't chug eight litres of diet coke as I sit on the couch all day, as it will help me in common metrics like my cardiovascular performance. BUT KTT2, I LIKE BEING FAT AND MISERABLE.
See? If we resort to "but what if i like" then it defeats the entire purpose of using objective metrics in the first place and just devolves into lunacy. So while common metrics may be subverted by taste, that can be the case for any objective measure, rendering the entire line of enquiry pointless.
But I think there's a nugget of truth here in OP's original statement, in that OBJECTIVE judgements are not a substitute for, or necessarily, greater than subjective judgements when it comes to something which is consumed for enjoyment like music. We can't just whack people over the head with objective metrics of music as proof of quality. BUT that simultaneously does not mean we cannot say there is not objectively better music nor that we can't quantify aspects of music and assign value to them.
If you took everyone in the world to space and asked them whats the shape of the earth everyone will tell you its round. Its objective, because you can see that its that way. Even if someone refused to say its round they'd be wrong because the scientific quantifiable empirical evidence is there
If you took everyone in the world and made them listen to a kanye west song, many would like it, many wouldnt. It is not subjective, because there's no scientific quantifiable empirical evidence thats irrefutable.
So, art is not objective. Its a product of our mind after all, its not something that inherently exists and follows some universal laws, at least its quality does not follow these laws. So no, you cant objectively say a song is better than another- Jan 28, 2021·1 replyStardust
If you took everyone in the world to space and asked them whats the shape of the earth everyone will tell you its round. Its objective, because you can see that its that way. Even if someone refused to say its round they'd be wrong because the scientific quantifiable empirical evidence is there
If you took everyone in the world and made them listen to a kanye west song, many would like it, many wouldnt. It is not subjective, because there's no scientific quantifiable empirical evidence thats irrefutable.
So, art is not objective. Its a product of our mind after all, its not something that inherently exists and follows some universal laws, at least its quality does not follow these laws. So no, you cant objectively say a song is better than anotherYou completely missed the point of my post, mate. And yes , there are quantifiable aspects to any kind of art
Jan 28, 2021KOL Meezy MestizoWhen are people going to get that the purpose of a comparison is not to equate two things, but rather demonstrate a line of reasoning in a different context. My point is, if the whole crux of your argument is "but what if I LIKE this x thing that common metrics say are inferior" then it defeats the entire purpose of objectivity and is a pointless discussion to have.
i think you’re kinda missing the point a bit. we’re not saying that there is no objectivity at all because people have opinions, but you can’t make these kind of objective judgements with art.
your comparison doesn’t really work cause that line of thinking can’t be applied to music. people with bad health are in an objectively worse position cause of a greater risk of dying, pain, and suffering. there’s a clear reason to avoid that regardless if you like mcdonald’s or something. there’s no equivalent to this in judging art.
audio quality may seem like an objective part of music but you gotta stop and think about it a little bit. lofi is hugely popular rn and a lot of it is because of the poor audio quality. is it objectively inferior to all other kinds of music? is all non remastered music from the past century or two objectively inferior to everything coming out this century? the audio quality may be worse but that doesn’t make the music worse by any means. that’s the whole point
Jan 28, 2021·1 replyDisagree
- Jan 28, 2021
Thanks for the notice, genius
- Jan 28, 2021·1 replyOoo
Disagree
How come?
- Jan 28, 2021·1 reply
I disagree. If I go bang pots and pans and yodel like a maniac I just made music. And everyone on planet earth can safely say that the music I just made is complete trash and definitely isn't better than Thriller
When theres a massive gap in quality the objectivity of music is clear as day. But when the gap in quality isn't as large, if we're comparing Thriller to 1999, that's when it becomes more difficult to see whats objectively better.
One of the two is still objectively better. Just takes a highly trained ear to break it down
- Jan 28, 2021SHAQUILLE
How come?
I think art is objective but of course taste is subjective
Jan 28, 2021·1 replySHAQUILLEShe might be more technically sound but that doesn’t make her better. It’s all opinion based.
In this case objectively means technically sound and subjective is simply what you prefer. One form of music can be objectively better made and crafted with more skill put into it but it still doesn’t have to be better to you
- Jan 28, 2021·1 replyKOL Meezy Mestizo
You completely missed the point of my post, mate. And yes , there are quantifiable aspects to any kind of art
No there arent. If there were everyone would agree with eachother on what piece of art is good and what isnt
- Jan 28, 2021
GooIt's a mix of objectiveness and subjectiveness lbr
- Jan 28, 2021NiceLikeChrist
I disagree. If I go bang pots and pans and yodel like a maniac I just made music. And everyone on planet earth can safely say that the music I just made is complete trash and definitely isn't better than Thriller
When theres a massive gap in quality the objectivity of music is clear as day. But when the gap in quality isn't as large, if we're comparing Thriller to 1999, that's when it becomes more difficult to see whats objectively better.
One of the two is still objectively better. Just takes a highly trained ear to break it down
Nah. That’s a terrible way to look at art
- Jan 28, 2021·1 reply925Andrew
In this case objectively means technically sound and subjective is simply what you prefer. One form of music can be objectively better made and crafted with more skill put into it but it still doesn’t have to be better to you
More technically sound doesn’t mean objectively better made tho. It’s means just that. more technically sound
- Jan 28, 2021·1 replyStardust
No there arent. If there were everyone would agree with eachother on what piece of art is good and what isnt
Yes there are. Dimensions, weight, composition, or specifically for audio, LUFS, length, dynamic range. etc. All these properties exist independently of human observation and are as a result objective.
Not going to respond anymore because y'all keep misinterpreting what I'm saying
- Jan 28, 2021·2 replies
If art was objective pieces like these wouldnt exist
- Jan 28, 2021Stardust
If art was objective pieces like these wouldnt exist
Thank you
- Jan 28, 2021·1 replySHAQUILLE
More technically sound doesn’t mean objectively better made tho. It’s means just that. more technically sound
what im saying is, if youre a formally trained musician youre making objectively better music than someone just messing around on fl studio. Regardless of how good it actually sounds or how you feel about it. Because you can like something thats trash and also recognize that something is incredibly good without actually enjoying it. Classical music is amazing but i hate listening to it on the regular
- Jan 28, 2021·1 replyStardust
If art was objective pieces like these wouldnt exist
these pieces are objectively good though?
- Jan 28, 2021·1 reply925Andrew
what im saying is, if youre a formally trained musician youre making objectively better music than someone just messing around on fl studio. Regardless of how good it actually sounds or how you feel about it. Because you can like something thats trash and also recognize that something is incredibly good without actually enjoying it. Classical music is amazing but i hate listening to it on the regular
I don’t think that makes it objectively better