Objectivity in Music.

Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
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.

Enjoying something has nothing to do with whether it's actually good or not.

We can't help what we enjoy. Whethter it's food, music, or what clothes we like.

Thing is though, it's quite possible (and that's what people have a problem with) that the food or song you like might actually be crap.

And I never said all fine-dining chefs will like the same things...I said they'll more or less end up agreeing on stuff that's crap.

It also happens in the music world, and it also happens in the fashion world.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Who cares if you can't prove it with facts. It's a reality.

I believe I do understand what you’re saying, but I think the words you are choosing aren’t the best way to describe it. Let’s think about what the word objective means.

Here’s what the dictionary states:

1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence -- used chiefly in medieval philosophy b : of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries...are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world -- Marvin Reznikoff> -- compare SUBJECTIVE 3a c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual -- compare SUBJECTIVE 4c d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects , conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>

2 : relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs

3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment> b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum

The objective world exists independently of personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

Therefore, in the objective world, music is just a set of sounds, and objective reality does not prefer one set of sounds to another. It does not make the distinction between a good sound and a bad sound. It's up to humans to interpret them and decide what makes them good or bad based on their own criterion. Maybe a word other than objective would be better suited for your argument.

Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
I believe I do understand what you’re saying, but I think the words you are choosing aren’t the best way to describe it.

Maybe objective might not be the best word.

I like to use the word "truth" personally...if I started this thread I would would've said something like "truthfully bad music" or something.

Still, my critics suggest that truth is essentially fact.

I maintain that there are truths that can't necessarily be proven by facts ("killing being wrong" is one of them). I don't think that comes down to opinion...I say it's a truth that exists regardless of opinion.

Some people don't think in those terms...and that's ultimately where the conflict lies.

Whether truth equates to fact is something of a subjective question as far as I’m concerned, but most would argue that truth and fact are essentially one and the same.

Saying Jimi Hendrix is better than Britney Spears might be logical, but it is not factual, i.e. not truth

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
We're a couple AC...c'mon.

Had a feeling that's what all this was about.

'I'd love to see your wardrobe!'

I-I call it a closet.

'I call it a big box!'

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES

And I don't think the two words are interchangeable, becasue I think truth can exist apart from facts.

It can't, though.

I think you probably mean truth can exist despite a lack of available and accessible evidence. If it's true, it's also factual.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES

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.

I've explained how this works many times, yet people still argue over the words objective, subjective, facts and opinions.

The problem is actually the word 'better'. It has no clear, formal meaning. If we define the criteria by which we are determining which music is better, then it is actually possible to make a factual determination.

Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
Saying Jimi Hendrix is better than Britney Spears might be logical, but it is not factual, i.e. not truth

Cue EPIIIBITES skipping over the fact that, despite you saying you might understand what he's saying (As do I.), you disagree with him, as anyone should, because he's wrong.

Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
Some people don't think in those terms...and that's ultimately where the conflict lies.

The conflict comes from you thinking truth and fact are not intrinsic. They are, as told to you by anyone here.

-AC

poor survey imho since its absolute on both sides.

imho there is a threshold between music (concieved by able musicians) and crap (complete lack of any musical ability). however this threshold has little or nothing to do with what one's opinion is. you have to acknowledge that its possible to completely suck at playing, and thus factually suck. i know its nitpicky of me to point out, but imho proof that there is a small degree of objectivity (posessing/not posessing basic abilities).

anyway i can think of plenty of succesful 'music' which is factually bad. how you can tell: nobody over the age of 13 wants to listen to it and everyone who listens to it (under 13) eventually grows sick of it and realises it was crap all along.

Originally posted by Schecter
anyway i can think of plenty of succesful 'music' which is factually bad. how you can tell: nobody over the age of 13 wants to listen to it and everyone who listens to it (under 13) eventually grows sick of it and realises it was crap all along.

This is the key point that AC won't accept...and it speaks volumes of truth.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
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).

Great...it's not fact...but it's still true that this happens.

And ya know why it happens?

'Cause there is "truly" bad music and "truly" god music. That's why. It can't be pinpointed down by facts...but it's there...in reality.

Again...I think there can be truths without facts backing it up. Most people don't. But there is NOTHING you could point to that proves you're right and I'm wrong about that...especially not a dictionary definition of "truth".

P.S. Quiero Mota was smart enough to see there's truth in what I'm talking about...

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.

Clever stuff from AC.

Originally posted by Schecter
poor survey imho since its absolute on both sides.

imho there is a threshold between music (concieved by able musicians) and crap (complete lack of any musical ability). however this threshold has little or nothing to do with what one's opinion is. you have to acknowledge that its possible to completely suck at playing, and thus factually suck. i know its nitpicky of me to point out, but imho proof that there is a small degree of objectivity (posessing/not posessing basic abilities).

anyway i can think of plenty of succesful 'music' which is factually bad. how you can tell: nobody over the age of 13 wants to listen to it and everyone who listens to it (under 13) eventually grows sick of it and realises it was crap all along.

We're not talking about instrumental talent, Schect. That is factually measurable. Eg: Hendrix is factually more talented as a MUSICIAN than Spears.

What we're discussing is the SOUND, how it SOUNDS. There is no factually good or bad SOUNDING music, it really is all opinion.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
The only argument he can come up with is "it's still opinion...it's not fact."

Great...it's not fact...but it's still true that this happens.

And ya know why it happens?

'Cause there is "truly" bad music and "truly" god music. That's why. It can't be pinpointed down by facts...but it's there...in reality.

It's NOT there. You are just saying it is because that's what you would need to be victorious in this debate. The fact that it ISN'T is what's causing you to look like an idiot.

Informed opinion is still opinion, do you not agree with that? It's not fact, you've agreed. Fact IS truth, as many people, even the ones who aren't totally siding with me, have told you, so that AGAIN proves you wrong.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Again...I think there can be truths without facts backing it up. Most people don't. But there is NOTHING you could point to that proves you're right and I'm wrong about that...especially not a dictionary definition of "truth".

It does not matter what you THINK because you are WRONG.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
P.S. Quiero Mota was smart enough to see there's truth in what I'm talking about...

...which prompted AC to desperately try and skew this latest opinion by posting one of the guys' older quotes on the topic from months back which contradicts what the last quote says.

Clever stuff from AC.

Precisely.

Why say "He agrees." then say "But AC proved he disagreed."? He obviously doesn't agree then. Once I laid it out, he realised.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What we're discussing is the SOUND, how it SOUNDS. There is no factually good or bad SOUNDING music, it really is all opinion.

We're talking about music that is truly bad...you're talking about how it might SOUND to you.

You don't see the difference.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It does not matter what you THINK because you are WRONG.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why say "He agrees." then say "But AC proved he disagreed."? He obviously doesn't agree then. Once I laid it out, he realised.

I never said "AC proved he disagreed"...I said you tried to skew his opinion.

And how do you know what he's realized. Are you Quiero Mota?

There goes AC speaking for people again. It seems you can never put it past him to do stuff like this.

Another classic example of wanting to block things out to serve your purposes. Where do you find the nerve...really?

Hmmm...

I think I heard someone mention once that AC might be the least accomodating, understanding person on these boards.

Curious why someone would say something like that...

Can you quit the multiple posting? If you're going to edit posts, as you always do, make one post.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
No we're not...even after all this discussion, you still don't know what the debate is.

Yes, because everyone is misunderstanding you just because you hold an idiotic belief. It's not "out there", it's not "left", it's stupid.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
We're talking about music that is truly bad...you're talking about how it might SOUND to you.

That's all there is, though. Are we discussing talent on instruments, as in, ability? Technical ability? No. In that case, everything is subjective.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You don't see the difference.

I do. YOU don't see the difference between fact, truth, opinion and informed opinion.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
That's the argument you've resorted to time and again...even after people have explained to you that you can't just make a statement like that.

I can, I did, so does anyone.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I never said "AC proved he disagreed"...I said you tried to skew his opinion.

I didn't, those quotes I posted were direct, one after the other. I edited nothing out, go check if you don't believe me.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
And how do you know what he's realized. Are you Quiero Mota?

I quoted him laughing at you and saying you had a dumb-ass argument after, trying to help you, he proved you wrong.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
There goes AC speaking for people again. It seems you can never put it past him to do stuff like this.

I quoted words from the man himself.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Another classic example of wanting to block things out to serve your purposes.

What, like denying the factual truth that there is no good or bad music outside of determining instrumental talent?

-AC

BTW

The Poll is:

Me - 3

You -6 (and one of them is probably you)

I guarantee you're just steaming over that...that people aren't overhwelmingly favouring your opinion.

And the things is...it makes sense that those are the numbers.

This is a very new concept that most people might have difficulty understanding at first. Still...it turns out some people do understand where I'm coming from.

Guess I'm not the biggest idiot in the world as you say I am.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
We're not talking about instrumental talent, Schect. That is factually measurable. Eg: Hendrix is factually more talented as a MUSICIAN than Spears.

What we're discussing is the SOUND, how it SOUNDS. There is no factually good or bad SOUNDING music, it really is all opinion.

im not sure i understand, since talent and sound tend to be directly related,
unless someone really talented, yet is too cheap/broke to buy decent gear.
anyway, im not trying to blow the doors off your topic, in fact i think you're correct. however i feel that although the majority of music exists in the gray area, there is imho a definitive black and white at the end of each scale.

for instance: stevie ray vaughn, completely owned blues. fact. not disputable. 😛

He's confused Schecter...we're not talking about sound at all.

We're talking about whether music can be truly bad...this has nothing to do with how it simply sounds (meaning how pleasing it is to one's ear).

Your taste in music (how things sound to you) is arbitrary...as is your taste in food.

Now whether it's good or not is a truth that exists apart from how you feel about it (what your taste is regarding it)...and to get an idea of that truth, people with informed opinions can use determining factors (that have proven well in the past in consensus) to see whether or not something is crap or not crap. It can't be proven factually...but it's most often agreed on by informed opinion.

Anything else AC will say about the subject will just confuse you.

Edit: Double post, comp crashed.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
BTW

The Poll is:

Me - 3

You -6 (and one of them is probably you)

I guarantee you're just steaming over that...that people aren't overhwelmingly favouring your opinion.

And the things is...it makes sense that those are the numbers.

This is a very new concept that most people might have difficulty understanding at first. Still...it turns out some people do understand where I'm coming from.

Guess I'm not the biggest idiot in the world as you say I am.

I do not need people to agree with me, the fact that I am on the correct side of the debate, outside of opinion, does not require agreement, it commands it, because it's fact. If we debated "Is the Sun hot?", and people voted against me, it wouldn't make your side any more true.

Originally posted by Schecter
im not sure i understand, since talent and sound tend to be directly related,
unless someone really talented, yet is too cheap/broke to buy decent gear.
anyway, im not trying to blow the doors off your topic, in fact i think you're correct. however i feel that although the majority of music exists in the gray area, there is imho a definitive black and white at the end of each scale.

for instance: stevie ray vaughn, completely owned blues. fact. not disputable. 😛

It's like this:

Nobody can deny that Hendrix was a factually talented guitarist, that is the factual area; talent. However, that doesn't make Voodoo Chile a factually good song, does it? No. Someone could say "I think it's crap.", and regardless of anyone saying "That's dumb.", it's still not right or wrong.

It's entirely opinion. We can sit here and rant about how lame Britney Spears' music is, but we cannot say someone is wrong for liking it, it's not factually crap. She's a factually crap musician, she doesn't make FACTUALLY crap music. EPIIBITES then says "factually" isn't the word he's using, he's using "Truthfully", which is the same. A truth = a fact.

EPIIBITES is saying (And I'll paste this.): "I maintain that there are truths that can't necessarily be proven by facts ("killing being wrong" is one of them). I don't think that comes down to opinion...I say it's a truth that exists regardless of opinion.".

He is saying Britney Spears makes truthfully bad music (He is saying truth is separate from fact.) despite what someone thinks of it. He is saying there is a universal standard of good or bad music, regardless of instrumental talent, and regardless of taste.

There isn't.

-AC

Again...AC is going on about stuff not being fact (which I've agreed with), stuff simply being opinion (which I've agreed with...although partially...because opinion is far different from informed opinion), and he won't accept that it is informed opinion (which has proven well time and again by consensus in the past) iwhich points to there being a truth about all of this.

It doesn't prove it...but it demonstrtates it (to people who are open-minded I guess)