Objectivity in Music.

Not gonna do it...sorry...couldn't be bothered...it's pointelss.

Everyone has seen my posts...everyone knows the debate (more or less)...and there's no point continuing on with this piece of the argument.

If you wanna take the philosophical piece of the argument and discuss that, then that would be productive.

Otherwise, there's no point going over the same stuff about Brittney, and the same stuff about informed opinions explaining my argument about crap.

Now, if you consider that defeat...so be it.

I'll ask you a third and final time, fairly to do so.

In the event that your answer is "No", I will go back and quote the post in which you explained your full debate previously, and use that to reply to, since you won't do it now, because you know what'll happen.

Your choice.

-AC

OK...I'll just refer to something I already said...because there's no point saying it again.

This says it all (in regards to your questions).

Read it again...carefully.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
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.

It's a surprise that you don't.

I'll know if I'm on the mark, because I'm quoting your exact post.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
The point being, informed opinion based on determining factors (originality, innovation, emotion, etc...) should be used to look at if music is crap or not. It's not like good music has to have ALL of these, but a crap song usually has little-to-none of these.

Not everyone who listens to the radio has an infromed opinion about whether or not a song is crap.

But there IS such a thing as crap music, crap food, and crap fashion. It exists, regardless of what your taste is regarding it.

It can't necessarily be proven by facts as suggested in the thread description, but it can be recognized by informed opinion...not always, but more often than not.

So, your explanation for what makes a song objectively good is as follows:

A song that contains emotion, originality, innovation...and I believe you said soul, this would be considered objectively good. See your above quote for that. You applied this to Lily Allen's music, to which I can credibly say; No, I don't think she has any soul. She's not genuine, she sings with an annoying, almost monotonous voice, which is lacks any emotion and she isn't doing anything that hasn't been done before.

To that, you cannot prove me wrong, so that would mean your entire argument is bullshit. To which you would say, as evidenced in the quote; "It can't be proven by facts, but it can be recognised by informed opinion.". Not only do you admit it cannot be proven, but you admit that the only weight you have is informed opinion, which is still no close to being true NOR factual, as regular opinion. To further my point, there are many informed opinions that agree with me, there are many informed opinions that agree with your opinion that she makes good music. Point? It's all subjective, there is no objectively good music.

The failsafe of "It can't be proven!" only lasted for a page or two, not even that. It's gone, EPIIIBITES.

In summation, it's entirely down to preference, there is no objectivity there. Yet we can all agree that your predicted reply with be "You don't get it." or something of equal ignorance. I'm not sure how many times you will have to be smacked around in this debate, but it's clearly one too many.

But go ahead, "You don't get it, blind, pointless.".

In fact; Name me some artists or bands you feel are objectively not good. Then we will see if anybody here likes those bands music, and you can tell them how wrong they are too, and see what they say about it. Just to prove that it's not me, which I think you believe it is, as opposed to it being hard fact.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Jimi (It's not Jimmy, to everyone who keeps spelling it wrong.)

his momma named him jimmy, im calling him jimmy

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
"sucking" with regards to his MUSIC, NOT TALENT, is pure opinion. It's not wrong, it may be a less credible opinion, but it's not wrong.

-AC

they are not seperate issues though. while its possible for one with talen to suck (subjectively) its very possible for someone without talent to suck factually in regards to the music they play.

Originally posted by Schecter
they are not seperate issues though. while its possible for one with talen to suck (subjectively) its very possible for someone without talent to suck factually in regards to the music they play.

It's not. You could not factually prove that a Britney Spears fan is wrong to say "She makes good music.". Because chances are, that fan is not speaking for you, she's speaking for herself, her tastes. You, in turn, saying her music sucks, are speaking for your own.

There is no objectivity there.

Conversely, all the talent in the world does not mean you will make good music. There are many bands considerably less instrumentally talented than Dream Theater, but that does not remove from me being able to say "I think Dream Theater make dull, trite music.".

Talent on an instrument doesn't guarantee good tunes, less talent doesn't guarantee bad, but we're not discussing how good someone plays, we're discussing what comes out of it, and whether THAT is good or bad is entirely subjective depending on who is listening.

-AC

i guess i have to exhagerate. lets say i go on stage and fart in the mic. i say that its actually music imho and also imho good music. am i factually incorrect or is my opinion valid?

Originally posted by Schecter
i guess i have to exhagerate. lets say i go on stage and fart in the mic. i say that its actually music imho and also imho good music. am i factually incorrect or is my opinion valid?

A) I think we have to realise you are making an exaggeration of ridiculous proportions, because a fart isn't music. It's a singular sound, not a song that some could consider to be bad.

B) A fart is not music, so it couldn't be considered music. If, however, you said "I think that sounds good.", it would be entirely subjective. Nobody could prove you wrong by saying it sounds bad, because it's not objective.

You know as well as I do what my point is, so I see no need to be a pragmatist, but whatever.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES

And to be precise, I'm not agreeing that truth is proven by fact...I'm saying that truth can can exist apart from facts. There aren't facts that can always prove a truth.

Sometimes there are (ie. a thermometer and the sun)...but sometimes there aren't (as in what the truth is about killing being wrong)

You're talking about evidence. Not the difference between truth and facts.

Precisely.

There wasn't always evidence that could prove that the Earth was round, but the FACT and TRUTH is, it always has been.

Fact and truth are one, and that IS a fact, and that is why your debate is finished, because your debate rests on them not being so.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You applied this to Lily Allen's music, to which I can credibly say; No, I don't think she has any soul. She's not genuine, she sings with an annoying, almost monotonous voice, which is lacks any emotion and she isn't doing anything that hasn't been done before.

And even if you have an informed opinion (which I really don't think you do)...you're the minority in this case (as people with informed opinions might sometimes be).

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
To further my point, there are many informed opinions that agree with me, there are many informed opinions that agree with your opinion that she makes good music. Point? It's all subjective, there is no objectively good music.

That's says A LOT about what I'm claiming is the truth about the topic...regardless if it proves it or not.

You still DO NOT GET IT!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
In summation, it's entirely down to preference

In summation, you just don't GET my argument...and it seems you never will.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
A) I think we have to realise you are making an exaggeration of ridiculous proportions, because a fart isn't music. It's a singular sound, not a song that some could consider to be bad.

first off, as far as the "singular sound" you are wrong. farts are not like car horns, there are many tones and sounds which are produced. the sqeaker for example.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
B) A fart is not music, so it couldn't be considered music. If, however, you said "I think that sounds good.", it would be entirely subjective. Nobody could prove you wrong by saying it sounds bad, because it's not objective.

You know as well as I do what my point is, so I see no need to be a pragmatist, but whatever.

-AC

i know i was being silly, but still ac, its valid. lets say i start a farting quartet and develope a following (with the addition of hired strippers dancing on stage and giving out free lapdances) lets say i just pluck one string over and over and over. lets just say that. then what> thats the entire show...me plucking one string over and over, and i call it music.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Who cares what you think AC.

And even if you have an informed opinion (which I really don't think you do)...you're the minority in this case (as some with informed opinions might often be).

It doesn't matter whether an opinion is informed or not, because neither are any closer to being fact. They are both still opinion.

The uninformed opinion of a Britney fan, or the informed on of a Hendrix fan. Both are still opinion, neither are true, neither are correct nor are they wrong.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Again. Far more informed opinions have said she has made one of the best pop abums in recent years...and very few say that she's crap. That's says A LOT about what I'm claiming is the truth about the topic...regardless if it proves it or not.

That doesn't mean either is true. It means you have seen a lot of praise, I have seen a lot of praise also. I have also seen a lot of negativity toward her, and those too have been informed opinions.

So you see, it really is all opinion, and if opinions are personal and subjective beliefs, what does that say?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You still DO NOT GET IT!

There it is.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
No it's not. Absolutely not.

In summation, you just don't GET my argument. ..and it seems you never will.

Shut up, you're beaten.

-AC

Originally posted by Schecter
i know i was being silly, but still ac, its valid. lets say i start a farting quartet and develope a following (with the addition of hired strippers dancing on stage and giving out free lapdances) lets say i just pluck one string over and over and over. lets just say that. then what> thats the entire show...me plucking one string over and over, and i call it music.

If it sounds good to you, then that's how it goes, it's entirely subjective.

It doesn't matter if you are the only one on stage who thinks the sounds you produce with a musical instrument are good, and everyone in the arena doesn't think it sounds good, you would not be wrong, because it's entirely dependent on the opinion of the listener.

We're not discussing playing talent. Plenty of guitarists with talent can make shit music. Talent does not mean good music.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It doesn't matter whether an opinion is informed or not, because neither are any closer to being fact. They are both still opinion.

You're blocking things out!!

I already showed how an informed opinion POINTS to what I say is the truth about something...it DEMONSTRATES it in an overwhelmingly consensual fashion.

And then what you do is simply point to it not actually PROVING anything...(as if I've EVER argued that it could).

No...you're blocking out the overwhelming reality that people with informed opinions about music tend to more or less agree on the same artists being crap (and the same artists being "not crap"😉.

You've never ONCE tried to explain why that is...because you know you got NOTHING!

I, however, have elaboratly explained why that is. And people who have been patient enough and open-minded enough have understood me.

YOU'RE the one who's beaten I'm afraid to say (and I think you know it in the back of your mind).

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Talent does not mean good music.

-AC

good music requires talent. no talent leads to bad music. imho you cant seperate talent and quality of music like oil and water, like it seems you're attempting

:edit: maybe you're confusing talent with technique and style? 😕

In summation, you just don't GET my argument. ..and it seems you never will.

Let me make the counterargument simple: good vocals + soulful tune + originality and talent does not equal good music. good vocals + soulful tune + originality and talent = good vocals + soulful tune + originality and talent.

In the same way that: music has little-to-no emotion + music has no substance + music lacks depth + music doesn't have any particularly good instrumentation or singing DOES NOT EQUAL good music. It's just non-emotional music, with no substance, etc.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You're doing it again AC!!

You're blocking things out!!

You're the one dodging everything I say.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I already showed how an informed opinion POINTS to what I say is the truth about something...it DEMONSTRATES it in an overwhelmingly consensual fashion.

What YOU say is the truth? Newsflash: You don't get to make up truths, they either exist or they do not, and the one you propose does not.

It does not MATTER if it's overwhelming in a consensus, it's still JUST OPINION. This means it is STILL SUBJECTIVE.

Lots does not mean right.

Originally posted by Schecter
good music required talent. no talent leads to bad music. imho you cant seperate talent and quality of music like oil and water, like it seems you're attempting.

No talent leads to NO music. You have a talent somewhere if you can even make music with instruments to begin with. I don't like Fall Out Boy, they're just famous, they're not massively talented, but they can play musical instruments, obviously. It does not matter what you can or cannot do on your instrument. If you have the base ability to use it, and in using it you make what ANYBODY considers to be good music, even with a voice, then that is their opinion and it is not wrong nor right.

"Good music" is entirely subjective. There is no fact, truth or objectivity in there. Nobody can deny Dave Lombardo's skill as a drummer, but there are people who hate Slayer's songs. They're not wrong.

-AC

Originally posted by Eis
In summation, your argument is that people you think are smart and cool think some particular singers are good and since they are smart and cool it's a universal truth.

How about you read this and get caught up before you start just saying whatever...

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
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.

EPIIIBITES is just posting for the sake of it.

-AC