Best Ever Albums

Re: Is music objective or subjective?

RFNAPLES — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 23:10:49 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/01/2013 04:10

Yeah, thanks for catching those spelling errors. Damn grammar/spelling checkers just don't work well enough!

Re: Is music objective or subjective?

Defago — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:57:14 GMT

Author: Defago

Posted: 03/01/2013 03:57

RFNAPLES wrote:

O, De Fag don't worry about it. Often when one looses a debate they tend to get depressed instead of enlightened.

Loses*, and it's Defago, all together and with an O at the end, not at the start.

Edit: I should know better than to answer to your trolling. I'm gonna lurk this thread from now on.

Re: Is music objective or subjective?

RFNAPLES — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:24:42 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/01/2013 03:24

I am glad, that is the way it should be.

Re: Is music objective or subjective?

Anonymous — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:23:21 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/01/2013 03:23

RFNAPLES wrote:

O, De Fag don't worry about it. Often when one looses a debate they tend to get depressed instead of enlightened.

I lost a debate (or at least what I consider losing) and I'm perfectly fine.

Re: Is music objective or subjective?

RFNAPLES — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:22:17 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/01/2013 03:22

Defago wrote:

I'm sorry, Mrs. LaFave, I'm sure you're a great person and I shouldn't have called you a douche.

O, De Fag don't worry about it. Often when one looses a debate they tend to get depressed instead of enlightened.

Re: Is music objective or subjective?

Anonymous — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:17:52 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/01/2013 03:17

Defago wrote:

I'm gonna leave it at that, seeing as Happymeal also did and it's almost impossible to have a pleasant debate with you. Thanks, Happy, for an interesting discussion.

No problem dude. Obviously, when I first posted I really wasn't thinking abut the other side and what interesting arguments they could put up, I'm glad you posted, you shed a whole different light (for me) on this argument. Even though I still think that music is subjective, it gave me more to contemplate about it. I must thank you as well though because I did learn quite a bit about this and how complicated this argument truly is.

Re: Is music objective or subjective?

Defago — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:15:10 GMT

Author: Defago

Posted: 03/01/2013 03:15

RFNAPLES wrote:

Too bad you had to resort to name calling.

I'm sorry, Mrs. LaFave, I'm sure you're a great person and I shouldn't have called you a douche.

Re: Is music objective or subjective?

RFNAPLES — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:12:02 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/01/2013 03:12

sound frequencies are in themselves not music. Too bad you had to resort to name calling.

Re: Is music objective or subjective?

Defago — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:09:57 GMT

Author: Defago

Posted: 03/01/2013 03:09

RFNAPLES wrote:

Music is subjective. Always was, is now, and always will be. Amen

Nothing more to see here, Naples has spoken.

Don't know if you actually read the link you posted, because it actually argues against "modern subjectivists" and even goes as far to suggest there is objectivity to tastes. I found her pretentious and closed-minded.

Sandra LaFave wrote:

(...) whether or not something is art is a "subjective" matter. Philosophers cringe.

Hmm... I think we both can disagree with her: You because you think music AND music tastes are 100% subjective, and me because I think whereas sound frequencies (music) is objective, music tastes are 100% subjective.

Besides, anyone who puts "Philosophers" on a pedestal above the common man is a douche in my book.

I'm gonna leave it at that, seeing as Happymeal also did and it's almost impossible to have a pleasant debate with you. Thanks, Happy, for an interesting discussion.

Re: Is music objective or subjective?

RFNAPLES — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:59:35 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/01/2013 02:59

While I might agree that there can be objective measurements, that does not make music objective. Music is subjective. Always was, is now, and always will be. Amen

Re: Is music objective or subjective?

Anonymous — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:59:19 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/01/2013 02:59

Defago wrote:

Found a couple, more adequate definitions of objective.

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

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

Without trying to sound pretentious, I find your arguments to be based on wordplay and not really challenging my main ideas.

Edit: That's not directed to your last post, Naples, which I'm reading atm, but to the previous posts.

Fair enough, well, I doubt this argument will ever be resolved, but in the end, you put up really great arguments so I give the victory to you. I can't think of any new arguments and can't add anything new to the discussion so I think my time is done here.

Re: Is music objective or subjective?

Defago — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:53:40 GMT

Author: Defago

Posted: 03/01/2013 02:53

Found a couple, more adequate definitions of objective.

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

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

Without trying to sound pretentious, I find your arguments to be based on wordplay and not really challenging my main ideas.

Edit: That's not directed to your last post, Naples, which I'm reading atm, but to the previous posts.

Re: Is music objective or subjective?

RFNAPLES — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:52:56 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/01/2013 02:52

This is more than most want to know: Thinking Critically About the "Subjective"/"Objective" Distinction

Edit: Thanks to our new URL truncation the URL title should have read Thinking Critically About the "Subjective"/"Objective" Distinction

Re: Is music objective or subjective?

RFNAPLES — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:46:51 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/01/2013 02:46

Defago wrote:

The original post compares objective and subjective. As subjective is an adjective antonymous to objective-adjective, whereas objective-noun has nothing to do with subjective, it's kind of obvious which meaning is being discussed.

Objective is the opposite of subjective.

Re: Is music objective or subjective?

Anonymous — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:44:39 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/01/2013 02:44

Happymeal wrote:

According to the adjective of "objective" it says: (of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Sound can't be objective (adjective form) because it is neither a person or a person's judgement

Perhaps it'll fit into the noun version (A thing aimed at or sought; a goal), but then it wouldn't fit into this specific argument.

And NAPLES is also right about tempo and etc. It can't be objective because it is neither a person or their judgement, making music not objective....

EDIT: That's not to say it's subjective either....

Re: Is music objective or subjective?

Defago — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:43:59 GMT

Author: Defago

Posted: 03/01/2013 02:43

RFNAPLES wrote:

I am sorry, I was referring to the noun as shown in the original post topic. I think you attempted to make it an adjective when you used the term objective music.

Happymeal wrote:

What word would you use to describe something which isn't affected in any way by what people think about it? I usually use "objective", but I may be wrong, seeing as English isn't my first language. The words in bold are the definition I use for "objective".[/quote]

Re: Is music objective or subjective?

Anonymous — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:40:29 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/01/2013 02:40

Defago wrote:

Good point. I was using a concept of music which includes all sound, regardless of everything. Everything that can be listened to is "music", even silence. It's up to us to subjectively find enjoyment or not in what we're listening to.

So when my mom claims "those weird sounds you play aren't music", she's evaluating the sounds coming out of my speakers, which are objective frequencies, and defining them as not Art. She's taking the objective qualities of the sounds being listened and subjectively disliking them, whereas I listen to the same string of objective sound frequencies and say "aw yiss Merzbow", because I subjectively interpret the exact same vibrations in the air in a different way.

Re: Is music objective or subjective?

RFNAPLES — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:37:08 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/01/2013 02:37

I am sorry, I was referring to the noun as shown in the original post topic. I think you attempted to make it an adjective when you used the term objective music.

Re: Is music objective or subjective?

Defago — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:30:23 GMT

Author: Defago

Posted: 03/01/2013 02:30

Happymeal wrote:

Anyways, I can't argue that tempo and etc. aren't objective qualities because I haven't thought it true, but music in itself is not objective. You brought out the definition of music which is a series of sounds and etc. The problem I have with that is that in the end, interpreting the definition is very subjective. for ex., hearing a group of animals "singing" might be considered as music to some, but you could argue it not being music, and let's assume that my argument here is weak and wrong in general, isn't a definition in itself subjective. Do you think the people creating the definition of music didn't have any prejudice while doing so? The definitions of objectivity is judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

I'm fairly sure if neither of us had ever seen the definition of music before, and we were asked to write our own definition, they'd be two different things and probably right because you can't really argue against a definition unless it's so off that you know it's crazy. That's what I call subjective, take x number of people, ask them to write an answer to a question, and if a majority of them write a different answer and are all right, then that's subjectivity, in my opinion. Of course subjectivity's definition is
judgment based on individual personal impressions and feelings and opinions rather than external facts. Of course, interpreting that is subjective in itself, what counts as subjective? It's up to the person to decide because the definition is not specific enough, just like music.

I'll note this, I have no way of arguing that tempo, chords, and etc. are subjective outside of the way people feel about them. You could argue that which tempos, chords, scales, and etc. and how they play it is subjectivity, but that's a fairly weak argument.

Re: Is music objective or subjective?

Anonymous — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:25:44 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/01/2013 02:25

Defago wrote:

Music is objective. It's a series of sounds and noises being played in a specific way through a period of time. That's about it. Tempo is objective, time signature is objective, scales are objective; rhythms, chords, notes, sound frequencies are all objective. Music sales are also objective: nothing more than numbers, easily found.

Influences in music are also objective. The fact that there's no possible way to pinpoint who specifically influenced who doesn't mean it's subjective. Say Band A made their album inspired by Band B. We can all make theories and we could all be wrong, and even if nobody ever knows for certain whether Band B inspired Band A or not, it's still an objective fact, albeit one that's impossible to know for certain.

Now, tastes in music are a completely different story. Tastes are simply a combination of our appreciation for all the objective characteristics in a certain piece of music, and that's 100% subjective. If someone says "Band B was the best band ever because they influenced Band C, they changed keys frequently and they were the first to do what they did" they really mean, unknowingly, "I subjectively like that they were influential, they changed keys and they were the first to do it". Someone else might hate the same objective characteristics, thus creating two different opinions on the same set of sounds, neither of which is more correct than the other.

So, yeah. This band sold X albums, they are played constantly on the radio and the lyrics are awesome are NOT valid reasons to demonstrate a band's objective quality, just to demonstrate why you subjectively like them.

tl;dr: Music itself is defined by a series of objective characteristics, but tastes are subjective because of our personal appreciation of said characteristics.

Anyways, I can't argue that tempo and etc. aren't objective qualities because I haven't thought it true, but music in itself is not objective. You brought out the definition of music which is a series of sounds and etc. The problem I have with that is that in the end, interpreting the definition is very subjective. for ex., hearing a group of animals "singing" might be considered as music to some, but you could argue it not being music, and let's assume that my argument here is weak and wrong in general, isn't a definition in itself subjective. Do you think the people creating the definition of music didn't have any prejudice while doing so? The definitions of objectivity is judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

I'm fairly sure if neither of us had ever seen the definition of music before, and we were asked to write our own definition, they'd be two different things and probably right because you can't really argue against a definition unless it's so off that you know it's crazy. That's what I call an example of subjective, take x number of people, ask them to write an answer to a question, and if a majority of them write a different answer and are all right, then that's subjectivity, in my opinion. Of course subjectivity's definition is
judgment based on individual personal impressions and feelings and opinions rather than external facts. Of course, interpreting that is subjective in itself, what counts as subjective? It's up to the person to decide because the definition is not specific enough, just like music.

I'll note this, I have no way of arguing that tempo, chords, and etc. are subjective outside of the way people feel about them. You could argue that which tempos, chords, scales, and etc. and how they play it is subjectivity, but that's a fairly weak argument.