Originally posted by jaden101
Depends entirely on the thing being measured. Objectivity can be measured. A building can be built to a high standard using top grade materials and have top quality workmanship...This is objective...You might think it's an ugly as sin monstrosity and thus think the building is s**t...This is a subjective opinion.An example of that, for me, is the Scottish Parliament building at Hollyrood...I personally think the building is horrible to look at but I know that the materials used were top drawer and the workmanship, for the most part, was as well.
Music can be the same...It can be excellent on a technical level in terms of how many skilled techniques the musician uses and how difficult it is to do...But if you don't like the genre or the song then you're going to think it's subjectively shit regardless of how skilled the musician is...An example of that for me is Yngwie Malmsteen. I know he ridiculously skilled on guitar but I hate his music.
You see those kinds of arguments especially when related to guitarists on youtube all the time...Most of the people utterly miss the point that music is about enjoyment and emotion more than it is about technical ability.
I'm sorry for such a late reply but I believe that this is an excellent explanation. For the most part, however, I believe that people don't WANT quality to be objective because of what they like and appreciate. Taste is subjective but quality is objective.
People seem to have such difficulty differentiating between taste and quality because they believe that, just because they like something, it's good, well-built, technically amazing, etc.
People should just like what they want, accept that quality is objective and shut the hell up. If I like something and it's awful, how can anyone really argue with my tastes? They're my damn tastes! I'm free to like what I want.
I just don't appreciate the type of people who argue that "quality is subjective" because they want everything they like to be "great."