Is music really subjective?

[Der Kommissar]

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.

I find this is heading to the right direction. These days I dare to venture to say music is not only objective but empirical as well.

 

[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.

Well that just makes you unappreciate of everything the great painters put into their work.

Yes of course I don't appreciate something if I find it boring, bland, ugly and useless.

 

[bob1052]

There are many ways to view music.

You can objectively look at a songs mechanics or you can look at what you like.

I recognize that Jay Z is an incredible lyricist, but I don't now, nor plan to listen to any of his music.

 

[0mn1p0t3ntg6y]

It's art. Art is supposed to be beautiful. And, since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, music is therefore subjective.

 

[DustyDrB]

Yes. That's part of the beauty of it.

 

[meticadpa]

It's art. Of course it's completely subjective.

 

[The Wykydtron]

[HEADING=2]Objection![/HEADING]


This is my proof Your Honour! All art is subjective and music is a form of art!

Don't ask me why my Objection! Decided to be blue instead of red, some Blue Truth at work here perhaps?

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

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.

This, while there are certain musicians where you have to concede that they are skilled, that doesn't necessarily mean you'll like their compositions. In other words yes, in my subjective opinion I believe music to be subjective.

 

[Angerwing]

Enjoyment is subjective.

But technical skill, and the theory behind it is very objective.

For example:


is a very technically impressive piece of music. That doesn't mean many will enjoy it. I happen to, but that's just me. I can understand people not appreciating it.

 

[warprincenataku]

Of course it is subjective. Metal sucks! You may like it, but I don't. That's subjective.

 

[A Weary Exile]

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.

I'm seeing more and more Mike Patton fans lately, makes me a happy camper. ;D

Music is absolutely subjective. I really don't have much to say other than that. :l

 

[badgersprite]

A child banging on a piano with no sense of what notes even are might be considered objectively bad music, but that child probably likes the sound they're making, so who's really to say?

 

[Furious Styles]

There are some bands/songs/artists that are undisputably great, such as The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan and The Beatles. Mostly, however, it is subjective.

 

[IBlackKiteI]

It is hugely subjective, but theres still music and bands that are definitively good (Pearl Jam, Rolling Stones, The Beatles etc) and theres still music and bands that are definitively bad (Most forms of pop/rap/whatever and almost every band formed in the 20th century)

 

[Astoria]

I believe there's a difference between liking something and acknowledging that it's good. I can't stand music like Beyonce and Ke$ha but I can see why people do and so I can say they are good at what they do. With Friday however that is either a very delusioned girl or a prime example of a record label exploiting someone. There's music...and then there's just noise.

 

[Nouw]

Music is subjective[sub]that is if it can be technically called music. Refer to melody, harmony, tempo, rhythm and etc[/sub]for there will never be a 'good' or 'bad' song. It is art and art can never be judged by anyone. Your opinion is just as valid as a critic or reviewer.

Having said that, art can be technically judged. A book that is grammatically perfect with a plot that has rarely been used in the history of literature can be technically better than a book with grammatical errors in every paragraph and a cliched plot.

I could still enjoy the latter book even if it is technically terrible.

 

[loodmoney]

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.

Not entirely right. Notice that your analysis still involves essentially subjective terms: "Cossonant are nice"; "string them together in the best way humanly possible". Until you can describe what makes one chord good and another chord bad in a way that does not use subjective terms like good or bad you haven't shown that musical taste is objective.

Not to mention that what we consider consonant would be considered dissonant by the standards of a contemporary of Mozart; other musical traditions do not categorise sounds as we do (e.g. systems where 1/8th tone changes are counted as different notes would sound off-tune to us).

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.
discuss.

Even if everybody in the world agreed that a song was good or bad, that does not prove that it is objectively good or bad. All it shows is that everyone has the same subjective view.

 

[BonsaiK]

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?

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.

Remember I'm talking about music as an ART FORM here.

discuss.

What is it about morbid picking on 13 year old girls that you Escapists seem to enjoy so much?

All music is art.

All art is subjective.

I'm qualified to tell you this.

That is all.

 

[EventHorizon]

-bump...?

updated the OP, I was tired when I posted this and didn't really know what I meant... the original OP was a bit stupid... and the first half of it still is.

 

[Nerfherder17]

Something like serialism or any kind of atonal music is (on the whole), not typically enjoyed by most people, compared to a tonal or "normal" song. Yes the intervals exist for a reason.

Also agree with Angerwing