What do you think Is music taste Subjective or Objective???
An example would be Yngwie Malmsteen VS Panic at the Disco.
Some would say that technical proficiency does not come into a conversation about music and either band is the correct choice (Subjective)
Others would argue - Yngwie Malmsteen is better simply because he is more skilled and can solo far better. people who think panic at the disco are better are wrong! (Objective)
Idk. Interesting question......hmmm well I think every piece of music can be enjoyed by someone but you can't deny where some music is just better than others. Like compare Lupe Fiasco and Lil Wayne. Many people enjoy both of their music but Lupe is much better with metaphors and flowing and his music actually has meaning to it. Wayne is a one liner kind of rapper.
So I'm saying both pretty much. Subjective and Objective.
Like, there is some true technical stuff that makes any music good whether its the classical stuff or just the background track of hip hop stuff. That is objective. Any music that has some music theory behind the beats and rythem is objectively better music than say random notes being played all at the same time like kids banging on drums.
But then its also subjective since I can appreciate and acknowledge that the Bands like the Beatles and Michael Jackson are good artists and play good music, but I rather be listening to small time bands that never made it big autolux since I feel a more personal connection with them then the highly whored out songs of the more famous bands.
It's hard to define it in terms of subjectivity and objectivity. I believe that no person is "right" or "wrong" in their opinions and for every piece of music out there, there has to be at least someone who is going to like it although certain pieces of music are likely to have more fans than other pieces of music. I'd say the same rules apply for the appreciation of pretty much any creative art.
@SamFo: But I'm pretty sure there are songs that people universally can say "sucks". Some songs are bad, some songs are good. It's the same with games, some are good, some are bad.
Malmsteen vs Panic! is such a weird comparison to try and make.
Yes, Malmsteen can play guitar better but Panic! can harmonize better. The types of music are just so insanely different that using that as a comparison is a bit absurd. You may as well be asking, who's better -- Black Sabbath or the Beattles?
It absolutely comes down to the taste of the individual. While the breadth of one's vocal range or the speed and accuracy at which they can play an instrument can be objectively measured, the quality of the music they choose to play is measured subjectively. One may enjoy the blazing pace of Malmsteen's speed metal while another would say it's a cacophony of noise, prefering something of a much slower tempo such as Panic!, and either of those are a subjective choice.
Also this --
@EternalInfinity0 said:
" I think you answered your own question by using the word "taste". "
I guess at some point you have to believe that consensus subjective opinion is close enough to objective to treat it as objective. If you say "dog shit smells bad", you'll still get some idiot saying "yo dats only yur opinyun!".
@Symphony: the comparison was intended to be pretty odd, but I perhaps should have been more clear. And focused on one thing - e.g. the guitar parts. No one would argue that Yngwie can play more complex and faster guitar parts, but many out there would argue that they prefer PATD's even though they are so simple by comparison.
Subjective for humans. Context is too important for us to objectively analyse media. For instance, I hate all Beatles covers. All of them. They sound horrible, tacky, and pathetic to me.
There is probably is some alien species that can objectively analyze music: Ones who have no need for context.
That said, very few things are better than geeking-out about new music.
All forms of art and, by association, entertainment, are subjective. It is their nature. It's only when we behave pretentiously that art and entertainment become objective. @JSUMAN: Wait, even the Joe Cocker covers? With a Little Help from my Friends?! Come Together?!
I've always seen it as a mix of both. People are entitled to listen to whatever they want, but they should ideally be aware whether it's 'good or not'? though it's never that binary. I don't know. It just annoys me when people end up liking superficial music for entirely shallow reasons without acknowledging that. If it's 'good' then why do you refuse to listen to it six months down the line when it's 'old'. At least that's the kind of thing that i've experienced.
For me, 'good' isn't about technical proficiency. It's just an artist/band with a vision or at least an authenticity about them. I'll respect an artist even if i'm not into that particular music. With Malmsteen, and granted I haven't heard him in years, but while he's got skill, his stuff has never inspired anything in me, so I don't listen. It's boring and soulless to me.
But then you get into realm of guilty pleasures. I enjoy the hell out of Perfume, a damn cutesy all girl electro-pop unit from Japan. They're never not autotuned it seems, so they might sound crap otherwise but it fits along with the music. The secret sauce is the behind-the-scenes producer who masterminds it all, crafting ridiculousy catchy beats. The music is nothing deep, but it pleases the ear. The eyes too; their image is clearly a big factor in their success. But i'll listen to it, bop my head along and really enjoy it, even knowing it's shallow.
I wouldn't say anyone has bad taste as long as they have valid justification as to why they enjoy it and are knowledgable or aware about other music too.
After three years of advanced philosophical study I have concluded that nothing in the universe is really objective, and that for anything to be so requires you to be separate from the universe itself (which is impossible). Therefore, taste in music is purely subjective, but we can make inferences based upon popular opinion about what types of music are more popular.
To everybody saying that they think music is both subjective and objective, c'mon now. Either you think there is some clearly defined standard by which artists can be compared, or you don't.
I think musical taste is completely subjective. There's a lot of music that I don't like, and sometimes I have trouble understanding why it appeals to others even, but there's nothing that I can point to that definitively makes their music "bad" and mine "good." What makes music good? How clear it is? How well it incorporates the artist's knowledge of music theory? How many sandwiches the people who made the music had before making it?
Objective : not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion. It is not possible for one to appreciate music objectively. I'm of the opinion that you didn't fully understand the definition of the word objective.
Just because you don't like a genre doesn't mean its bad. I listen to everything from hip hop to death metal and while there was a time I would laugh at metal it was because I was ignorant to metal that I liked...same with rap.
Some music is certainly more challenging and some people might find that more interesting but there is someone out there for everything. Videogames are the same way. I think Deadly Premonition is a garbage game...but it doesn't stop several of you from loving it...and thats great.
" Idk. Interesting question......hmmm well I think every piece of music can be enjoyed by someone but you can't deny where some music is just better than others. Like compare Lupe Fiasco and Lil Wayne. Many people enjoy both of their music but Lupe is much better with metaphors and flowing and his music actually has meaning to it. Wayne is a one liner kind of rapper. So I'm saying both pretty much. Subjective and Objective. "
Of course music is subjective. Appreciating technicality and skill is something completely different. That's admiring the musician and not the music. All arts is about the emotions it evokes and that's nothing but personal.
This is a silly question. Obviously music is subjective. If you talk about proficiency (skills with guitar, metaphors, etc.) sure, that can be judged on a objective basis. But just because someone is better doesn't mean you will like that music more.
The answer is that everyone likes different things, but if you want to get into a discussion of actual talent, there can be some objectivity. Some artists have more talent than others.
Everyone can appreciate everything, problem is people don't think they can or won't and in doing that narrow their visions and actually become as dumb as portrayed.
Log in to comment