Re: Objectivity in Music.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Just for the sake of this being academic.EPIIIBITES proposes that regardless of whether you like music or not, regardless of what your taste is, there is such a thing as factually good music and factually bad music. NOTHING to do with anything other than the music that is produced, not the musicians, not anything. He proposes there is a universal truth, fact, beyond all deniability, that there is factually good music, or factually bad, outside of personal taste.
I propose the opposite; There is no factually good or bad, there is only opinion. Informed opinions or not, it's still opinion on what is good music or bad music. No matter how obvious something is, eg: The Hendrix Vs Spears argument, it's still not a fact that one makes better music, it's all preference. That is my side.
So, for the sake of argument. Vote.
I'd prefer the following: If you're going to vote, make sure you post your view too. If you're going to be sad enough to sock just to get votes, then you're ruining it and you are sad.
-AC
Maybe its not so black & white as your poll suggests. I think maybe theres a gray area. Like the whole Hendrix V Spears thing. If I were to listen to "Voodoo Child" and then "One More Time" I would definately say Hendrix is better. In fact "obvious" would be the word I would use. And Im not even the biggest fan of Hendrix. I think he's a good guitarist who's really overblown and everyone feels like they need to say they like him, but still telented. However, there'd be no doubt in my mind that Hendrix makes factuallly better music.
EPIIIBITES said in one of his old music threads that the same names consistently appear on "The Greatest" lists. I dont know.....maybe there's something to that.
Re: Re: Objectivity in Music.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
However, there'd be no doubt in my mind that Hendrix makes factuallly better music.
But instead of saying Hendrix makes "factually" better music, I would just argue that he makes "truly" better music. Facts are hard to come by.
And I don't think the two words are interchangeable, becasue I think truth can exist apart from facts.
I think truth isn't always proven by facts (which is a fair philosophical statement to make...ex. arguing that "killing is wrong" is a universal truth, even though it can't be proven)...and I state that there can be music that is "truly" bad. Again, can't prove it though with facts...so I wouldn't say "factually", I'd say "truly"...which I argue is different, for the reasons above.
Apart from that, all you can do is break a song down using determining factors...(does it have substance, originality, innovation, etc...)
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
EPIIIBITES said in one of his old music threads that the same names consistently appear on "The Greatest" lists. I dont know.....maybe there's something to that.
I think it's fair to give AC a chance to reply...
Re: Re: Objectivity in Music.
Stop telling people they don't understand just because you have an idiotic point of view.
I understand perfectly what you are saying, as I have proven. It's just bullshit.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Like the whole Hendrix V Spears thing. If I were to listen to "Voodoo Child" and then "One More Time" I would definately say Hendrix is better. In fact "obvious" would be the word I would use. And Im not even the biggest fan of Hendrix. I think he's a good guitarist who's really overblown and everyone feels like they need to say they like him, but still telented. However, there'd be no doubt in my mind that Hendrix makes factuallly better music.
He doesn't make factually better music though, it's not a fact. You are saying that because Britney Spears is a stupid pop idiot and Jimi Hendrix is...well...Jimi Hendrix. That does not make his music better by fact, and you agreed with me in the other thread when I broke it down for you last time.
He doesn't make factually better music. It's as close to fact as you can get, but it's not actually a fact, it's still just opinion. His talent does not afford him the luxury of making factually better music, just being the factually better MUSICIAN.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
EPIIIBITES said in one of his old music threads that the same names consistently appear on "The Greatest" lists. I dont know.....maybe there's something to that.
I'll quote you: " everyone feels like they need to say they like him.". While Hendrix deserves every bit of credit he gets, a lot of the legends get on there because people feel they need to say it.
Hendrix does not make factually better music than Britney Spears.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
But instead of saying Hendrix makes "factually" better music, I would just argue that he makes "truly" better music. Facts are hard to come by.
They aren't hard to come by, here's one: Hendrix doesn't make factually better music. Nobody makes factually better music than anybody. He makes music that is just ACCEPTED as better by many with informed OPINIONS, it's not FACTUALLY better.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
And I don't think the two words are interchangeable, becasue I think truth can exist apart from facts.
But what YOU THINK doesn't matter, because you are trying to apply a NON-EXISTENT universal truth that they are different.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I think truth isn't always proven by facts (which is a fair philosophical statement to make...ex. arguing that "killing is wrong" is a universal truth, even though it can't be proven)..
Killing being wrong is not a universal truth, is entirely subjective. You cannot prove it, so therefore, it's entirely subjective, but rather than concede that point, you try to grip on by saying "But (for some reason) I BELIEVE THERE IS A WAY TO PROVE IT.".
You fail to understand that it does not matter what you "think", because you are wrong. There is no factually better music.
-AC
Just for the record, here is what Quiero Mota said before, as an analogy which he intended to help YOU with:
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That's accurate: Not only are Chevys cooler, better looking and far more masculine (subjective), they are mechanically more rebliable and efficient vehicles that last longer and are more durable (objective).
To which I replied;
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Precisely.That's like saying not only are Zeppelin better at making music that's good (Subjective), but they are technically superior players (Objective).
So, effectively, you've just proved EP wrong also. Funny.
And oh so hilariously, his final reply:
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I wasn't even trying to, ey.I just decided to play his little comparison game. That's funny; I inadvertently destroyed his dumb-ass argument.
*takes a celebratory shot of Sauza*
This from a man who previously said someone made factually better music than someone else, and then destroyed your argument, as did we all, without trying.
So you see, EPIIIBITES, even when somebody isn't trying to beat you, they beat you.
-AC
That might be the most embarrassing tactic I've ever seen anyone use in the history of these boards. Why do you feel the need to stoop to such levels?
You feel you're losing the argument so bad, that you're bumping threads, picking and choosing your favorite quotes from the past, and using mass-posting strategies to prove me wrong.
...shameful if you ask me.
The argument isn't even up for debate. We're not debating whether music is objective or not, because it isn't, that's a fact.
What's happening is I'm, perhaps foolishly, attempting to bury you under so much overwhelming proof and evidence that one day you'll either stop this act, or drop the genuine curtain of idiocy that you hold up, and see that you are factually incorrect.
"Give it up.". What's shameful is you, your constant bumping threads with references to marriage, requesting me to give it up and then starting again cos you get lonely.
So I will ask you one last time; Either debate on topic, or don't debate.
-AC
And you know what?
That's actually more disrespectful to Quiero Mota than it is to me, to rummage through his old posts so you can make it seem that what he's saying now is different from he said in the past...just becasue you're afraid he might now be agreeing with a point of mine.
What...you're speaking for people now?
I think it’s problematic to use the words “good” and “bad” in this case. In what sense are we using the words “good” and “bad”? Are we describing the talent of the artist, or the aesthetic value of the artist?
I think it’s safe to say that acknowledging a musician’s level of skill in comparison to another doesn’t equate to “liking” that particular musician. One can appreciate the talent of a certain musician and still not enjoy listening to his/her music.
In order to compare two artists and attempt to prove that one is “better” than the other, I think there should be a set of criterion by which to follow in order to determine which one is “better”. “Better” in this case would be referring to the talent of the artist.
Let’s take the Jimi Hendrix vs. Britney Spears argument. If we’re talking about talent, I think it would be accurate to state that Jimi Hendrix is the better guitar player, given that Spears doesn’t play guitar (not to my knowledge, anyway). If we’re talking about actual singing voice, we could discuss issues relating to their singing (pitch, key, range, etc), but there is a certain aesthetic element to the music itself (whether it be guitar playing, vocals, what have you) which is entirely subjective and can only be determined by individual taste.
It ultimately comes down to whether you enjoy listening to the music or not. It can be a catchy tune, an acquired gem, or an old favorite (perhaps evoking nostalgia), but what it comes down to is your own preferences towards the music you hear (your own taste). You can argue all day about which band is more talented, because even then you have to take certain aspects of their music into account, such as how well they play their instruments. Some people might prefer several guitar layers because it has an aesthetically pleasing sound on the record, but others might despise overproduction and prefer a more stripped-down style, which is of course a subjective issue. I think it’s safe to say that everyone has a general idea of what kind of music they “like”, despite how talented a certain band might be in comparison to another, by whatever criterion you are using.
I know there are plenty of bands that I didn’t like when I first heard them, but as I heard more I began to pick up on little subtleties in the music and began to better appreciate it. There are a number of things one needs to take into account, but it’s really all a matter of taste.
As far as a universal truth and an ultimate "good" in regard to music, there is none. You can compare two guitarists, or two drummers, or two singers, and argue which one has more talent. But even then there are different elements, or tactics if you will, that musician might be utilizing that one person might think sounds terrible while another person loves it. Take thrash-metal vs. classical as an example: there are many different types of talent at work in both cases, and which talents one prefers is entirely subjective, based on whatever guidelines are being used. Jimi Hendrix and Britney Spears have far too many differences to even be compared to one another, and even if you have a certain set of criterion by which you are basing this off of, there are certain elements of the music that one person values over the other person, and that comes back to the individual taste. So in the end, it’s impossible to compare the two. Musical objectiveness is not a reality.
This all might be reiteration of what has previously been said, but that’s my whole take on it.
Originally posted by SmasandianI dunno. What do I know about food?
So what's your definition of crap food?I'm really interested?
As I said though...
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
More realistically, you'd have to turn to a fine dining chef, have him explore the determinng factors of what makes good fine dining food, and trust his informed opinion over simply going off of your taste.
Still...it can't be factually proven. But I maintain that there "truly" is bad music...otherwise it wouldn't be so widely obvious with people who have informed opinions about music.
It's not simply one's taste that determines what's good and what's not...with music, or with food. You get fine-dining chefs together (who naturally have informed opinions about cooking)...and more often than not they'll point to the same foods they think are utter rubbish.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I dunno. What do I know about food?As I said though...
The same with music...and it's no surprise that people with informed opinions about music will more or less point to the same artists or songs as being crap...and they do this by considering determining factors (originality, innovation, emotion, etc...).
Still...it can't be factually proven. But I maintain that there "truly" is bad music...otherwise it wouldn't be so widely obvious with people who have informed opinions about music.
It's not simply one's taste that determines what's good and what's not...with music, or with food. You get fine-dining chefs together (who naturally have informed opinions about cooking)...and more often than not they'll point to the same foods they think are utter rubbish.
There's something wrong with this argument.
Do you think all fine chefs, if they are well-informed in their field of expertise, are all going to like the same things? I’m no chef, but I’m sure that each of them have their own preferences.
And, while being an expert certainly makes your opinion more valid when it comes to argument, it doesn’t put you in a position to call some food total garbage and make it a truth, because it’s still based on your arbitrary opinion. It’s still an opinion, and the level of sophistication and expertise does not put them in a position to completely condemn something to be ultimately bad in all respects.
It's entirely possible that you could give a man all the training and expertise it takes to be a world-class chef, and he could still enjoy eating a burger and fries from McDonalds.
Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
In order to compare two artists and attempt to prove that one is “better” than the other, I think there should be a set of criterion by which to follow in order to determine which one is “better”.
But all my argument ever was is that some music is crap. I've always said it's difficult to suggest something like "The Beatles are better than The Rolling Stones".
But Brittney Spears is an example of what I say is crap music. And the set of criterion I've used to try and determine this is...
Her music is unoriginal...and even her own songs sound the same as each other.
Her music is forcefully marketed, as it contains contemporary sounds and rhythms strictly to sell a product (and in the process, hindering musical creativity).
Her music is contrived.
Her music has little-to-no emotion.
Her music has no substance.
She uses sex and an image to sell her music.
Her music lacks depth.
Her music doesn't have any particularly good instrumentation or singing.
Her music is not innovative.
Her lyrics aren't particularly clever, interesting, or insightful.
Her music doesn't have any soul.
Her music is disposable and easily forgettable (and that's different form being catchy).
Her voice doesn’t have emotion and isn't expressive.
Now, even though I'd say that NONE of those apply to Jimi Hendrix, lets just stick to Brittney for now.
So you say that even criteria comes down to opinion.
I argue that people who have informed opinions about music and use such criteria (although they probably don't do it as consciously) will more or less tend to agree with each other that Brittney is crap.
And this is because they've heard and they know what music is considered to be innovative...to have substance...to have soul...to have good instrumentation. Their opinions are informed. For example, they listened to a Jimi Hendrix album...thought it was innovative, had soul, etc...and those thoughts were re-affirmed by their other informed peers. And this happened again with other music...and again...until they started to realize that music experts are often agreeing on the same stuff being good music (and the same stuff being crap).
So I don't think you can just say "it depends on what someone's taste is" when it comes to determining if music is bad or not.
And really, it's becasue there truly is music that is "bad", and truly is music that is "not bad". It's obvious.
Who cares if you can't prove it with facts. It's a reality.