Is it possible to objectively judge music? (rock, favorite bands, genre)

Fruitonica · 09-27-2008, 01:43 AM

You can't really judge any art objectively, because there are no criteria for judging something purely aesthetic. You can objectively judge the technical skill involved in the music but that is the least part of what makes music great.
I would say that some people have more knowledgeable opinions, but in the end it still all subjective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaraki Kenpachi

Actually I think it is very possible. The factor that plays into this the most, in my opinion of course, is whether you actually like multiple genres of music. If you do that means your pallet is more mature, IMO, and you can find the good/bad in many more diff types of music.

Like I myself listen to everything from Johnny Cash to DMX, and everything inbetween. I'd say I can gauge the rock, country, rap, and r&b from my era very well.

From my short time on this board it seems that people dont branch out too much and judge music that they havent even heard. Which is just ignorant, but hey if it makes you feel bigger than you are go for it. Meanwhile I'm rocking out to everything under the sun.

Really? I would say that most of the members are quite open to new musical styles.

And if you say you can objectively judge music, what makes your opinion superior to those who disagree with you?

WaspStar · 09-27-2008, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

I don't think anyone has ever looked at an album like Blonde on Blonde or Revolver or Pet Sounds in an objective way.

They're albums that struck a chord with people at the right time in the right place both musically & socially ,and are fondly remembered for doing so , that's why they are regarded so highly. They're not regarded highly because someone looked at them and decided they were the finest example of music ever made and then decreeing it to everybody.

I can see where you're coming from, that an artist's or album's influence at a certain time certainly biases its reputation (Elvis Presley, anyone?), but one could make an argument that, since the Beatles and Bob Dylan consistantly capture the imagination of multiple generations, their music has some sort of inherent staying power. (I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I'm really interested in responses to this).

Still, like jackjammer said, the problem is that some critics do seem to judge from a detached base, which ruins the purpose of music. No one listens to an album because it's "good"; we listen to music because we can relate to it.

If it is possible to objectively judge music (and I don't think it is), that exercise has no purpose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

I think there's a lot to be said for music journalism when it comes to articles & interviews. I've just never had any time for reviews.

If I write one I use it as a platform to say why I like it or dislike it. Looking at it in an objective way is not something I have ever even given any thought to. I mean why would I?
To do that i'd have to approach it from a distance and thats not why I listen to music. I want to share how a piece of music has affected me , not to break it down into little components and lecture people.

The only music reviews worth reading are ones that focus on the author's personal experience, imo (parts of Greil Marcus' "Stranded," this book called "This Is Uncool" by Gary Mulholland, etc). The reviews that try to place music in a social context and analyze its political effects (Dave Marsh, Jon Landau, etc) annoy me to no end.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fruitonica

I would say that some people have more credible opinions, but in the end it still all subjective.

How do some people have more credible opinions (and how do you tell?)? Perhaps experience (i.e., listening to lots of music), but as you said, it's still subjective (and listening to a lot of music would only tend to further bias one's opinions, I would think).

Fruitonica · 09-27-2008, 07:11 AM

Indeed, I should say that their opinions are only more credible to me personally.

Brad Stengel · 09-27-2008, 09:02 AM

Theres a few things about this, that as much as everyone wants to argue logically, comes up as issues:

1. I think we can all agree that Revolver is better than The Backstreet Boys' Christmas Album. This opinion is so unanimous that there must be some inherent quality in one, that is the opposite of the other. What is it?

2. Furthermore, about certain people having better opinions: I really think it's a combination of exposure and open-mindedness. For example, if you asked me to name my 10 favorite bands now, we could all agree its much more eclectic than it would have been 5 years ago (90% Classic Rock) and also of much higher quality 10 years ago (Mainstream radio 1998-Korn, Limp Bizkit, Soundgarden, etc.)

So clearly something changed in those 10 years to make my musical tastes change to something more accepted (widely assumed among people into music as 'better quality'). The only things I can think of are the two I mentioned.

It's NOT just a matter of opinion-everything is/everything isn't. People who prefer McDonald's to a really nice restaurant can have that opinion...but nobody takes it seriously...why? Its the same deal with music.

Brad Stengel · 09-27-2008, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

lolol.

Anyway, no, it's not possible to judge anything objectively. You'd have to be a pretty egotistical ****hole to think you can.

Lets cut out the second half of my statement to make it say something entirely different!

Brad Stengel · 09-27-2008, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

I cut the second half off because it isn't relevant. You can't invalidate other people's opinions just because they're generally not taken that seriously.

In theory, yes, but the point I was trying to make is that I feel most people do it anyway.

Lets put it this way: A 13 year old girl who's favorite artist is Miley Cyrus gives you an opinion on an album you dont know if you'd like or not, versus someone in his 30's that owns thousands of albums, and has very informed opinions on music, even if he doesnt have the exact same taste as you. Whos opinion would you take more seriously? In theory it wouldnt make a difference, but I think in practice, it almost ALWAYS does.

Brad Stengel · 09-27-2008, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

There are no "informed" opinions on music. You either like it or you don't and that's where it ends. Again, you're an egotistical ****ing twat if you think your opinion is more valid than anybody else's simply because you listen to more music than the average person does. There's just as much a chance of you liking the album the 13 year-old girl recommended as there is a chance of you liking the album the 30 year-old guy recommended, assuming you haven't told them anything about what you're into beforehand.

How am I egotistical? I'm just bringing up an idea. Settle the fuck down. Ignorance of music does factor into liking it or not, its not a black and white world. You're just being naive for the sake of your argument.

WaspStar · 09-27-2008, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Stengel

In theory, yes, but the point I was trying to make is that I feel most people do it anyway.

Lets put it this way: A 13 year old girl who's favorite artist is Miley Cyrus gives you an opinion on an album you dont know if you'd like or not, versus someone in his 30's that owns thousands of albums, and has very informed opinions on music, even if he doesnt have the exact same taste as you. Whos opinion would you take more seriously? In theory it wouldnt make a difference, but I think in practice, it almost ALWAYS does.

But that's not objective. If you happen to be a teenager who's into teeny pop, whose opinion will you respect more? In this instance, it's subjective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Stengel

1. I think we can all agree that Revolver is better than The Backstreet Boys' Christmas Album. This opinion is so unanimous that there must be some inherent quality in one, that is the opposite of the other. What is it?

2. Furthermore, about certain people having better opinions: I really think it's a combination of exposure and open-mindedness. For example, if you asked me to name my 10 favorite bands now, we could all agree its much more eclectic than it would have been 5 years ago (90% Classic Rock) and also of much higher quality 10 years ago (Mainstream radio 1998-Korn, Limp Bizkit, Soundgarden, etc.)

So clearly something changed in those 10 years to make my musical tastes change to something more accepted (widely assumed among people into music as 'better quality'). The only things I can think of are the two I mentioned.

It's NOT just a matter of opinion-everything is/everything isn't. People who prefer McDonald's to a really nice restaurant can have that opinion...but nobody takes it seriously...why? Its the same deal with music.

1. I'm pretty sure there are people who will disagree. Similarly, I'm pretty sure that most people in the world would prefer "No Jacket Required" to "Psychocandy." Still, would you rather have the Phil Collins album?

2. But exposure and open-mindedness is still a subjective trait; it ties into your personal listening experience. Why is that opinion more objectively valid than your opinion 10 years ago?

Just because nobody takes an opinion seriously doesn't mean that the opinion can be completely disregarded, nor does it mean that the entire field (whether it be music or fine dining) must, therefore, be open to objective analysis. What universal, independent law states that a fancy restaurant serves "better" food than your generic fast food chain?

Brad Stengel · 09-27-2008, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaspStar

But that's not objective. If you happen to be a teenager who's into teeny pop, whose opinion will you respect more? In this instance, it's subjective.

1. I'm pretty sure there are people who will disagree. Similarly, I'm pretty sure that most people in the world would prefer "No Jacket Required" to "Psychocandy." Still, would you rather have the Phil Collins album?

2. But exposure and open-mindedness is still a subjective trait; it ties into your personal listening experience. Why is that opinion more objectively valid than your opinion 10 years ago?

Just because nobody takes an opinion seriously doesn't mean that the opinion can be completely disregarded, nor does it mean that the entire field (whether it be music or fine dining) must, therefore, be open to objective analysis. What universal, independent law states that a fancy restaurant serves "better" food than your generic fast food chain?

1. Excellent point, and made without assuming Im egotistical as well.

2. The difference is how much music one is exposed to. I essentially have the same tastes, however, the amount of music Ive been exposed to changed it. Im not saying its BETTER than anyone elses-to me it is because my exposure has led to me discovering music thats better IMO. The point Im trying to make is that the amount of music people are exposed to tends to broaden their tastes, thus having a more informed opinion, thus having a larger influence over other tastes/more compatibility, which is viewed as "good taste" (again, Im NOT being egotistical-Im simply raising the point that those exposed to more music tend to be compatible with more music listeners)
Might I also add that In no way do I consider my tastes broad, Im simply trying to play devils advocate.

Brad Stengel · 09-27-2008, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Ah, no, I didn't mean YOU you. Sorry 'bout that. Should've worded it differently.

Oh, okay, no problem, Im just trying to play devils advocate, so any insults percieved can be frustrating.

09-27-2008, 09:02 AM	#24 (permalink)
Brad Stengel This Space for Rent Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 815	Theres a few things about this, that as much as everyone wants to argue logically, comes up as issues: 1. I think we can all agree that Revolver is better than The Backstreet Boys' Christmas Album. This opinion is so unanimous that there must be some inherent quality in one, that is the opposite of the other. What is it? 2. Furthermore, about certain people having better opinions: I really think it's a combination of exposure and open-mindedness. For example, if you asked me to name my 10 favorite bands now, we could all agree its much more eclectic than it would have been 5 years ago (90% Classic Rock) and also of much higher quality 10 years ago (Mainstream radio 1998-Korn, Limp Bizkit, Soundgarden, etc.) So clearly something changed in those 10 years to make my musical tastes change to something more accepted (widely assumed among people into music as 'better quality'). The only things I can think of are the two I mentioned. It's NOT just a matter of opinion-everything is/everything isn't. People who prefer McDonald's to a really nice restaurant can have that opinion...but nobody takes it seriously...why? Its the same deal with music. __________________ These is the musics I own: http://rateyourmusic.com/collection/BradStengel/oo

09-27-2008, 07:11 AM	#23 (permalink)
Fruitonica Pale and Wan Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Aus Posts: 917	Indeed, I should say that their opinions are only more credible to me personally.