Is it possible to objectively judge music?
 

That is, the quality of the music. Is there any way to ascertain that Revolver is better than Blonde On Blonde (or not)?


I tend to think not. Apart from popularity (sales, polls, etc) and influence, I don't think there's any inherent "quality" to music. Even though you'd have to be crazy to prefer Cut The Crap to The Clash, there's no way to prove you "wrong" should you hold that particular opinion.

No, and the reason is everyone has thier own hero's

yes, but not until you're mentally mature

Hard to tell ... I mean everyone is at least a little partial to a particular genre, and it's hard to sit and listen to the quality of something you hate. It's possible though ... You'd have to take a step back and just listen to every instrument and then the song as a whole. It'd be possible, but It'd be hard.

Yes you can but you have to define the criteria you're using when judging an artist objectively. It's quite clear the band Yes are better musicians than the Sex Pistols but people may be looking at power, raw energy, attitude, rebelliousness and a host of other sets of criteria when judging these two bands against each other.

it's impossible to objectively judge anything.

you wreak of deconstructionism.

All you would need to do is set up criteria first one what would be up for judgment and how those scales would look. Its why academic papers generally start off with definitions of things, so as to allow the reader to know what your basing judgments on. So long as the criteria that serves as the basis for the judgment is standardized, there ought to be no problem with being able to judge things objectively.

ive wondered about this 2

i generally turn on the 'now playing' option on windows media player and i have the 'music colors' -- 'colors in motion' visualization selected

ive wondered if i could tell if i would like a song just by the way the patterns of that visualization flowed

i was admittedly high at the time

i agree with Blackbird -- i cant do screammo or noise so my judgement of that type of music would be quite shallow as its damn near impossible to listen to something while trying not to hear any of it

and anticipation -- not because im into deconstructionism but because its awful hard to get everyone on the same page even as far as what the basic definitions are since everything is up for interpretation

the short answer = Nah

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.

I don't buy this Objective stuff at least when it comes to music anyway.

It's all personal opinion however you dress it up. It's just that some peoples personal opinion has more influence than others. I don't pretend to speak for anybody else when I forward an opinion and to do anything else but that to me smacks of arrogance & egotism.

I mean what is Objectively anyway?

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.

Unfortunately this is what many critics and major magazines do. Now if someone has a particularly persuasive line in opinion, I will listen to an album but music is an art form no matter how you dress it up and people have many differing opinions. none of them are right.

Is this Art:

http://www.channel4.com/culture/micr...mien-Hirst.jpg


It's only opinions in regard to it's asthetic beauty. No right or wrong.

Ah, you got to love Damien Hirst.

And thats why I don't read them anymore :D

I don't :D

I think most of us who genuinely love music take those narrow minded blinkered fools as a joke anyhow.

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.

They're still obviously brilliant for getting into music and all the big artists, i mean if there was no NME i doubt i would be into The Smiths, but there comes i time when you should just follow your own tastes and not be spoonfed whatever is being hyped.

I understand what you are saying and on your musical journey, they can help but when you delve into music deeper you realise that most (not all) of them are actually stifling you.

*reek

wouldn't the definitions in themselves be subjective of those who define them? the standardization of someone's subjective opinion on what criteria to include and what to omit would not remove the fact that a living person made choices based on some sort of belief, whether knowingly or not.

B-b-but you have to.

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.

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?

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.


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.



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).

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

yes, but which criteria you decide to set up is ultimately completely subjective so you're not much further along, are you?

you can play around with the criteria and definitions you use until you can prove any proposition, even "backstreet boy's christmas album is better than pet sounds"

its a paradox

it can and cant be objectively judged

subjectively
we can all agree that a concert pianist is playing better music than an 8 year old on a toy piano

but objectively
we all also agree that both are playing music

any judgements would have to be some of both

True, but I said in my original post that we're talking about pure "quality" here, not in terms of technical prowess or other such details.


I see what you're getting at (and I don't think you're being egotistical), and I think experience/broad taste can certainly help you in reccomending music to other people ("You like artist A and artist B? Then you'll love artist C"), but that's not the same as objective judgment.

I think most people will agree that they refine their ideas of what is "good" as they hear more music, but I think that's just another way to support the idea that music can never be objectively judged in terms of its aesthetic quality. :)

It depends on which one is closer to you in taste. If you feel that the "obvious" answer is the 30 year old, that just suggests that you identify more closely with that person. It's not a question of the 30 year old having a more objectively excellent opinion, it's a question of who's taste is more likely to be predictive of yours.

Speaking to popularity, I felt the whole Pepsi "taste test" ads were fairly stupid. If I like Coke better (hypothetically), what relevance does it have if every other human on Earth thinks Pepsi tastes better? When it comes to opinion, popularity is really quite irrelevant.

Exactly! We tend to value someone's opinions more if we can relate to that person; it has nothing to do with popularity or objective value.

i like to think that i can listen to music and recognise it as wehter it would be good or not within its genre....if thats what you mean...

The other thing to consider is: If music really is completely subjective, why then on this forum are groups frequently referred to as inferior/bad. For example, if everyone truly believed it was all subjective, would those two new grunge kids get any crap? Maybe some, but any musical discussion would be, "Well, I guess its just a matter of taste if you think Mudhoney is far superior to Dinosaur Jr.", instead of, "Are you fucking serious?!?!"

Its another big point Im trying to make, in a discussion like this its much easier to argue that no music is really better, its all a matter of taste-but this is rarely practiced by anyone, here, or anywhere.

Objectively judging music sounds really boring.

^^ true dat

boring and hard since it doesnt seem possible

i could never do it

i dont listen to music i dont like
theres 2 much other music i DO like out there