Why do people think music's subjective?

Originally posted by manorastroman
man am i sick of over-sensitivity to subjectivity. music has a defined set of aesthetic perimeters. therefore, to a certain extent, it CAN be treated as objective.

for instance, saying "pet sounds" is better than some shitty puddle of mudd album is "fact". though many might prefer puddle of mudd, there ways of measuring music aside from enjoyment.

Thank you

I expected that before I started this thread, 9 out of 10 people would disagree with me...then along would come someone who gets it.

...and there'll be another after about 20 people have posted.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You are unbelievably stupid.

People who admit they like music they think is "bad" are dumb, because they obviously don't think it's bad if they like it.

That statement clearly shows me you're not getting my drift...

...and you don't have to be mean.

Originally posted by The Core
Simply put, music is subjective because people's perceptions and interpretations all differ.

I admit I like a couple Backstreet Boys songs from the 90s...no real reason why...just do...the same reason I like blondes over brunettes. But I can also admit that these songs are utter crap...

...they lack soul, they're contrived, they're shallow, purposely marketed, overly-polished, unoriginal, unsubstantial, and I gurantee you they will not stand the test of time.

So what if I like them...I'm not worried that just because I like them and they suck that it says anything about me. I'm afraid others in here don't get that, and as a result will say everything is subjective to ensure that what they like couldn't possibly be crap.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
There's that argument again...enjoyment/taste=quality.

I admit I like a couple Backstreet Boys songs from the 90s...no real reason why...just do...the same reason I like blondes over brunettes. But I can also admit that these songs are utter crap...

...they lack soul, they're contrived, they're shallow, purposely marketed, overly-polished, unoriginal, unsubstantial, and I gurantee you they will not stand the test of time.

So what if I like them...I'm not worried that just because I like them and they suck that it says anything about me. I'm afraid others in here don't get that, and as a result will say everything is subjective to ensure that what they like couldn't possibly be crap.

Possibly the least sensible comment in all of recorded history.

Of course.

You are putting across the idea that it's a fact that some music is better than others by fact, and that's simply not true. It's not.

You are suggesting that there's a way to prove one piece of music to be factually better than another...but we just don't know what it is. No, there isn't a way. Or if there is, it's not a fact until anybody can prove it.

So either way, you're wrong.

I'm not saying everything is subjective out of fear, anyone here will tell you that the one thing I don't have is lacking self-esteem in my music taste. I say everything is subjective in terms of TASTE because it factually is.

You cannot prove that one album is factually better than another, can you? You can't. It's not a matter of "I just don't know how, but there's a way". No, you just can't, because nobody on Earth can.

You are saying The Backstreet Boys are utter crap in hopes that we all don't look down on you, but you've already said you like them. So you're either admitting you like shit music, or admitting you think certain music is good, where any sensible music fan would disagree with your opinion (Which would, funnily enough, prove my point about subjectivity, that is a fact).

You think that by saying they are crap, you are illustrating they are factually crap. That's not the case, they're obviously crap, not factually.

-AC

That's right...nobody on earth can...doesn't mean it's not possible though. And yes, I am admitting I like shit music...and guess what, I guarantee you like shit music too. I don't think however, you could admit that...a)because it doesn't make sense to you (where it should), and b) because maybe you don't have the guts.

Whatever man...great you're right. You essentially maintain that STP is just as good as Nirvana who are just as good as Nickleback...and that you can't argue otherwise.

And I think you're even saying that Brittney is just as good as Nirvana. If that's so wrong friends, then why do we all KNOW that's just not true...it's my whole rose and peice of S#%* theory. You and others just can't fess up to it making sense because you're afraid that you might like something that's as s#%* as Brittney.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
There's that argument again...enjoyment/taste=quality.

I admit I like a couple Backstreet Boys songs from the 90s...no real reason why...just do...the same reason I like blondes over brunettes. But I can also admit that these songs are utter crap...

...they lack soul, they're contrived, they're shallow, purposely marketed, overly-polished, unoriginal, unsubstantial, and I gurantee you they will not stand the test of time.

So what if I like them...I'm not worried that just because I like them and they suck that it says anything about me. I'm afraid others in here don't get that, and as a result, will say everything is subjective to ensure that what they like couldn't possibly be crap.

What are you on about? I didn't say anything about fan's taste or how much they enjoy the music determining a bands overall worth or quality.

I SAID, in Layman's terms, people's perception, or singular opinion complete with a personal basis and interpretation, or what life the words and actual notes take on for a fan makes music subjective. Subjectivity is how you percieve the music. It may be musical allegory, irony in the lyrics, double entendres, or as simple as how you can relate to what the song is about, what emotions the song evokes..whatever the case.

Music can be, but isn't always, subjective. It can be OBJECTIVE too. Tastes, however, cannot be. By that, I don't mean they focus on objects, I mean that it's devoid of personal opinion, focusing on what everyone already knows. Musicans, true musicians, make music because it's what they love and their work is inherently subjective. If it isn't, their heart isn't in it.

We say some music is subjective, because like I've said 1,000 times over; if it's open to interpretation, like true art should be, it's subjective. Backstreet Boys' music is subjective to a degree because it may deal with relationships, and personal experiences are put into context. But, under the pretense in which the music is made, it's still objective.

Like whatever you want without fear. There's one great lesson I've learned from AC and that's that there should be no such thing as a guilty pleasure. Like it, admit it, and other people's opinion shouldn't sway your fandom.

You essentially maintain that STP is just as good as Nirvana who are also just as good as Nickleback...and that you can't argue otherwise. Sounds good to me!!

It's all in one's opinion. That said, and for a totally different night, both STP and Nirvana had a much larger impact, factually, on the music scene than Nickelback, which still doesn't even begin to play into the quality of their music. I could go and bang on piece of cardboard with a chicken bone and make music history. That doesn't necessarily mean the "music" I made was good.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
That's right...nobody on earth can...doesn't mean it's not possible though. And yes, I am admitting I like shit music...and guess what, I guarantee you like shit music too. I don't think however, you could admit that...a)because it doesn't make sense to you (where it should), and b) because maybe you don't have the guts.

I don't admit it because I don't think any of the music I listen to is shit. Why? Because it doesn't make sense to listen to music you think is shit, when in actuality, you're listening to music you think is good, but think you should say "This is shit", in hopes of saving face.

You would obviously think some of the music I like is shit, but I don't, because I only like good music. If I decided I liked The Backstreet Boys, I'd not come out and say "But I do think they're shit.", because why the hell should I care what anybody else thinks? Or you?

Someone here said they liked the new Justin Timberlake song, and were ashamed. Why? Do I think he's incredibly shit? Yes. Do I think that person has a shit opinion? Yes. Are they wrong for liking his music? No.

I have no such things as guilty pleasures.

This is only proving my point. It's not about guts.

Music taste is factually subjective. This isn't a debate about having the guts to stand up and say "No, that music is shit.". I do that all the time. I'm just not ignorant enough to think an opinion is fact.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I'm saying Marvin Gaye rules and K-Fed sucks.

I think anyone in their right mind would say that that's a fact.

Marvin Gaye Jr. was a musical genius. K-fed is a nobody pinche baboso who is just riding his ex-wife's coattails. That crazy gringo can't even rap, ey.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think anyone in their right mind would say that that's a fact.

Marvin Gaye Jr. was a musical genius. K-fed is a nobody pinche baboso who is just riding his ex-wife's coattails. That crazy gringo can't even rap, ey.

No, it's the opposite. Anyone in their right mind would agree with the statement, anybody who's a stupid idiot would say it's a fact.

It's not a fact.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, it's the opposite. Anyone in their right mind would agree with the statement

Which is basically saying the same thing, minus using the word "fact".

Que no?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I have no such things as guilty pleasures.

Everyone does...

Originally posted by The Core
What are you on about? I didn't say anything about fan's taste or how much they enjoy the music determining a bands overall worth or quality.

I thought by perceptions you meant taste.

I agree with almost everything you said here...good stuff...and it seems you actually agree with most of what I'm saying in terms of objectivity.

But I still mainitain people can't get over the hump of admitting music isn't subjective becasue of what it might say about their taste.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Which is basically saying the same thing, minus using the word "fact".

Que no?

precisely. forget the semantics of the word "fact".

Originally posted by manorastroman
precisely. forget the semantics of the word "fact".

👆

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't admit it because I don't think any of the music I listen to is shit. Why? Because it doesn't make sense to listen to music you think is shit, when in actuality, you're listening to music you think is good, but think you should say "This is shit", in hopes of saving face.

I'm not coming from the angle of saving face, I'm just saying it DOES makes sense to listen to music you think is shit...becasue we have as much choice over what music we like as we do over what girls (or guys) we find attractive.

Except with music, even though some of it is beautiful to you, it really can be just CRAP. Some people don't have the capacity to make that distinction though, and that's where the confusion lies.

manorastroman and Quiero Mota know what's up...

People fail to make the distinction between good music and bad music in our opinion. To them, they're listening to good music, to us...it's shit.

It's not fact, it's opinion. A fact is an undeniable, proveable truth. Music taste does not coincide with this.

It's as close to BEING a fact as you can get without being one. Why? Because it literally is not a fact. It's not. The only fact here, is that.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
But I still mainitain people can't get over the hump of admitting music isn't subjective becasue of what it might say about their taste.

Music taste is entirely subjective. People not admitting it doesn't mean it's objective, it means they are chicken shit idiots who don't have faith to admit what their own taste is, to admit what they think is good. You should never be afraid to say what you like, no matter how shit everyone may think it is, because the most they can do is say "That's shit.". They can't prove it, because it's not factual.

The only objective area of music is instrumental talent and ability, where you can prove why and how people are better. You can't do that with the music that is made, and using the pathetic rationale of "There's a way, we just can't do it, nobody can. Doesn't mean there isn't.".

That's like saying because we haven't found a way for humans to fly via the gift of flatulence, doesn't mean it can't happen.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Everyone does...

Why, because you do? I'll speak for me, you speak for you. Good?

-AC

It really is amazing how long you people can argue over such a stupid topic, knowing nothing will come of it. Go listen to the music you like, let others listen to what they like, and don't worry about if you think its crap or not. Im a big Nickelback fan, but do I think they are crap? No. But I'm sure you do. Everyone has their own opinions, just get over it and don't bother to continue this stupid argument for the next ten pages.

Ok, Arctic, you can prove my point.

I personally think Arctic has arguably the worst taste on these boards, but I challenge this new Star Wars guy to prove him wrong when he says Nickleback are a great band that make great music.

Go.

And no, "You're wrong. They're shit, they're useless, they're soulless." isn't proving him wrong.

-AC