Is music really subjective?

[EventHorizon]

I was just wondering...
Do you think that all music is subjective or not?(please read the whole OP)
Don't flame me. I fully understand that one person's most hated song could be the next man's favorite but do you think that some music is, put simply, objectively bad regardless of some people's opinions?

EDIT: I really don't like this OP, but since it's unlikely anyone will see it I won't bother changing it... I'll say one thing, though, and that is I think what I was asking is if there is some other standard by which a piece of art (music in this case) that can be judged apart from is someone likes it or not that would make it objectively good or bad.

Oh, and I removed the comment on Rebecca black's friday... It was too...typical. The thread is now more mature, although I'm sure I might've contradicted myself...we're witnessing the beginning of a complex right here...

 

[Zeozen]

Taste in music is highly individual however I think there are some bands and songs that everyone has to agree are great (or bad) even if you don't normally listen to it. Great composers like Beethoven, Vivaldi etc, and historic bands and artists like The Beatles and Jimi Hendrix.

There are tons of more examples tho, but I think you catch my meaning.

 

[standokan]

Yeah like how you take on the taste of your parents, or rebel and take the exact opposite of their taste.

 

[MasterV]

Well, it all depends on viewpoint, really. It may be overused as a phrase but

beauty is in the eye of the beholder

So, even though I may not like something (say, that Friday song you mentioned OP) and may look at it from, what I may see, many viewpoints, I will completely miss the point of view of others who actually like it who will probably find equally as many arguments as to why the song I find bad is actually very very good.

To answer your question then, yes. It IS subjective, no matter how you look at it.

 

[nukethetuna]

It honestly is. Rebecca Black's bubblegum pop may seem ubiquitously horrible to any of us, but there's someone out there who legitimately likes it.
As long as that's the case, it can't really be anything but subjective.

Sure you can say music as an art form, and while yes, some things would be considered bad by what is considered art theory and music theory and aesthetics and all that, it's ultimately subjective to subscribe to that notion of art to begin with.

But I might just be crazy.

 

[Palademon]

Whenever I think of subjectivity questions anymore I just try arguing for representative realism. That way I can avoid the question by claiming that all perceptions are subjective.

Anyway, everything that involves "this is good" or "this is bad", that isn't about morals will be subjective.

Anything going otherwise being a almost universally accepted thing is usually something considered art like Beethoven and therefore good. But people forget that art is subjective and you don't have to agree and therefore you're free to say you don't like it.

 

[PleaseDele]

I always try to keep my perception of quality and perception of enjoyment seperate.

I once had a discussion about Bullet For My Valentine. In my opinion they do what they do and they do it good, however their songwriting is far from anything special. However I still enjoy them because I like predictability once in a while.

This might not be th ebest example I have to offer, but I'm tired so nothign better will come out now.

Anyway:

NO, not all aspects about music are subjective. Some elements can be viewed objectively. The fact is, this does not have to make somethign less enjoyable, thus subjective.

 

[Gilgamesh00]

It's not just music preference that's subjective. Art is subjective as well.

 

[JoJo]

I for one, believe that most music is subjective, and that beauty is in the eye of the beholder etc etc, But there is (and forgive the over-used example which I'm pretty sure you will be sick of by now) no excuse for music like Rebecca Black's Friday.

I actually quite like Friday, it's got a catchy tune and the rap bit always makes me laugh out loud! So yeah, music is subjective.

 

[thylasos]

Yes, it is. Opinion's all you can go on. Clearly that lass herself thought it was decent, otherwise she'd not have put it out.

There's no real argument for technical skill, given the do-it-yourself attitude of punk, for example, and at the pinnacle of technical skill I find Yngwie Malmsteen incredibly tedious.

 

[rokkolpo]

Perhaps.

Still...a lot of people quickly notice when something is good or bad and agree.
So I wouldn't give subjectivity the full 100% on this one.

Preference between good songs will still happen, but the line between good and awful becomes clear very fast.
Like art and modern art. (not saying modern art is awful, just different)

 

[TheIronRuler]

technically speaking, music is objective.
If you look at the basic form of it without all of the bling, you'll learn that it is objective.
The first thing you learn in the subject of harmony is the Intervals that create Chords. These Intervals are divided into two groups - Cossonant and Dissonant. Cossonant are nice to hear while Dissonant usually sounds like two cats trying to kill each other.
If you string them together in the best way humanly possible (with other supporting roles, themes and rythem) you have the greatest music ever created.

 

[zehydra]

Subjective: Whether or not you think the music is good
Objective: the skill required to perform or create said music

Jimi Hendrix was objectively a very very skillful guitar player. Whether or not you think his music was "good" (in this case good, as in you find it enjoyable), is a matter of taste.

 

[Thespian]

There is no music that isn't an art form. All music fits the definition of art, as in the real one - Not the definition that is malleable as putty clay and changes at the behest of the pretentious poseurs who want somethings to qualify as art and others not to.
(Not aimed at you, just clearing it up... Art is anything meant for no practical purpose but to appease the aesthetic sense)

Anywho, even though it means very little and you can still measure music's quality, yes it is almost entirely subjective. I like the worst and most varied music out there - And I don't mean like, I mean love. I will listen to a song a thousand times and I see nothing in a lot of what are called classics.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

This seems like one of those threads where the OP just thought of something REALLY deeply, and thought to make a thread about it.....but once put in words, the "deep" thought just turns out to be obvious. Don't get me wrong, I've done it too. Twice in fact. I just find that funny for some reason.

OT: Yes, Music is Subjective. Fried-egg is an exception. And besides, I'm sure that Pedo rapper in that video, who I understand is the producer (or sth) probably LOVES the song, so....

 

[onewheeled]

I see Mike Patton's work as a perfect example of how subjective music can be.

Spoiler: This is what I mean. It's the kind of music that you will either love or hate.

 

[linwolf]

It must be there a music the I see as a crime against humanity and people still buy it.

It's not just music preference that's subjective. Art is subjective as well.

Sorry but there is something called composition, every master painters who are well known have very strong compositions in their work, and if you put it next to an amateurs piece of work, youll quickly notice how the amateur is lacking in their composition.

And yet there are a lot of master painters that if it wasn't for the price of their work I would throw it out.