I consider by large portions music to be subjective in its nature, but I often come across fellows on the internet to be extremely persistant in calling music "Objective". Most of the time, I get pointed to music theory (My knowledge in theory is rather limited, I'll admit. The most I know is that you have whole/half/quarter notes and I know what time signatures/scales/modes are, even though I've never really learned them considering I don't have an instrument to learn them on), and that whatever follows theory the closest is regarded as being "Objectively better" than what doesn't.
Now, something like this makes me rage on the inside.Because it suggests there is an objectivity to art as a whole (Since music is without a doubt, art), and it presents a case where if one does not agree to liking what is considered "Objectively" better to be regarded as having "Inferior" taste in art (Music specifically, just talk to hipsters and you'll see what I mean!). I consider this to be disgusting elitism, but the only result I get is little more than "Only someone with bad taste would say that", and only end up raging. Basically it boils down to this: Is music (and art as well) truly objective? And if one's preferences for art don't meet this "Objective" standard does it mean you automatically have bad taste in music, and only music that meets this standars should be liked (as many neckbearded hipsters will likely suggest.)?
Music is both.
The short version:
Music is necessarily performed objectively, although the accuracy of the replication can be accidentally or deliberately flawed.
Music is necessarily listened to, generated and appreciated subjectively.
The long(er) version:
Music can be reduced to a series of absolute mathematical phenomenae and patterns. This sequence of patterns can be replicated with the same skill and tools to produce the same music. It can also be deliberately adjusted into a different set of patterns by being performed with different tools or employing different skills. The performance of the piece is objectively replicating or generating a series of patterns at the whim of the performer.
Fundamentally however, creating and listening to music require the use of supplied and irreplaceable organic translation equipment: the human brain and the human ear. These are not standardised and do not translate the same information identically (i.e. they are more or less sensitive to sound at different frequencies, sometimes unable to hear frequencies that others can hear, etc.). Whether this is due to damage or the initial configuration of the systems depends on the individual, yet in either case as a consequence, no two people translate the mathematically absolute waveforms into the perceived sound in the same way, and so the same piece of music performed according to mathematical absolutes is made relative by the listener.
The human brain chooses to construct musical patterns based on previous personal experience with musical patterns derived from the aforementioned sound translation system and experimenting with the work via the same equipment as well as other physical tools suitable for sound generation. Necessarily the specifics of the individual translation system influence the user, creating their personal taste in music and the patterns they most frequently employ in their own creations. This experience is necessarily subjective on all levels except when the sound itself is generated objectively as previously mentioned.
^That's what I thought, albeit in more simplistic terms. I realize there is a sense of objectivity to music and art, I guess I get trolled too easily by hipsters who think everything is objective (And by that, what they like is better than what you like, fact, not opinion). Or you could put it to "You can like what you want, but you just have awful taste in music, fact."
But whatever, I get trolled really easily as I said before lol >.>
It just seems like I try to make sense of their point of view (Because I'm that pretentious) and it comes off nothing more than silly elitism to me but I keep getting the same response "Only people with good taste in music recognize that all music is objective. Only losers with awful taste think its subjective." I think I care too much v_v
Metal is my favorite type of music, and I enjoy simply because there is something compelling about amazing riffage to me. And I like raw productions as well, so that helps as well, just a certain aesthetic about it intrigues me. I don't put too much stock into lyrics, although I do appreciate artists with "good" lyrics (Personally, if it fits the music its good in my eyes). But whatever, I listen to metal so I automatically have bad taste in music 😛
I'm not sure how objective the performance of music is. As a musician, although I appreciate the requirement to follow the written score - especially when performing as part of an ensemble - I still find there is a lot of room for subjective interpretation of the notes as written when performing. You essentially experience the original composer's creation through the filter of the performer's interpretation - for example, see the various different cover versions of popular songs, and ask which one is "objectively" correct. Or, to use a different medium, an audio book will often seem different to someone compared to reading the original for themselves, because someone else is interpreting the text for you, and potentially in a different way than you would interpret it.
Music theory can provide indications of what will be aesthetically pleasing for listeners, and so provide guidelines for improvisations or compositions. But I would challenge whether this "objectively" defines what is good music - just as following all the rules for painting does not "objectively" define a good painting. Knowing the rules is still important for appreciating an artwork as the "establishment" would view it, just as it is important to know the rules of the game when watching a sporting contest in order to understand what is going on - although it is conceivable that, without knowing the rules, someone could still enjoy watching the contest.
The problem with the thought of objectivity and subjectivity in music is that music, as theory and as a work of art is a beautiful, complex beast. That beast is kind of being strangled by the business that music has become, and to argue that music is not a business right now is to simply ignore that music theory even exists.
During your talk with my wife, Hukos, she was implying that simple music was inherently flawed by it's nature. I will take her stance, but from my own perspective. I do not believe simple music is inherently flawed.
I know it is purposefully flawed. It is simple, repeatitive, easily replicated and hides it's "depth" in vague lyrics which much like a horrorscope, people can easily apply themselves into. This is not because it's easier, because it's lazy or because it's the common trend. It's because it's most profitable. Pop music by it's very definition is designed to advertize and nothing more. It advertizes the singer. It's easy enough for anyone to sing along (advertize) the song, it's recognizable and droning enough to be stuck in your head.
You say you "rage" when the music you love is called crap because it seems like it's 3 chords repeating for 5 minutes, how would you feel if all of your hard work and studying of grand compositions, time signitures, key changes and such were more or less abolished in the popular stage because the entire art of music has been taken over by an advertizing company. It'd be how you felt if a band who made say Enter the Sandman could not make it out of the garage because all anyone wants to hear is the NBC advertizing jingle.
Bit extreme on the difference, but hey, most times I write these chunks of text, I'm a devil's advocate.
I'm married to a musician, I understand and appreciate theory, I listen to Stephen Sondheim and Eric Whiticare in the same iPod I keep my stash of Daft Punk and techno. So yeah...
Nice point, Craig. The need for artistic endeavours to be profitable does somewhat compromise some of the more innovative or experimental efforts for the sake of banking with the safe - albeit geenrally competent - approach. Although, as you allude to, without innovation within the field, the industry effectively runs out of fuel - especially as it refines its formula to the most profitable forms...
The problem with the thought of objectivity and subjectivity in music is that music, as theory and as a work of art is a beautiful, complex beast. That beast is kind of being strangled by the business that music has become, and to argue that music is not a business right now is to simply ignore that music theory even exists.
During your talk with my wife, Hukos, she was implying that simple music was inherently flawed by it's nature. I will take her stance, but from my own perspective. I do not believe simple music is inherently flawed.
I know it is purposefully flawed. It is simple, repeatitive, easily replicated and hides it's "depth" in vague lyrics which much like a horrorscope, people can easily apply themselves into. This is not because it's easier, because it's lazy or because it's the common trend. It's because it's most profitable. Pop music by it's very definition is designed to advertize and nothing more. It advertizes the singer. It's easy enough for anyone to sing along (advertize) the song, it's recognizable and droning enough to be stuck in your head.
You say you "rage" when the music you love is called crap because it seems like it's 3 chords repeating for 5 minutes, how would you feel if all of your hard work and studying of grand compositions, time signitures, key changes and such were more or less abolished in the popular stage because the entire art of music has been taken over by an advertizing company. It'd be how you felt if a band who made say Enter the Sandman could not make it out of the garage because all anyone wants to hear is the NBC advertizing jingle.
Bit extreme on the difference, but hey, most times I write these chunks of text, I'm a devil's advocate.
I'm married to a musician, I understand and appreciate theory, I listen to Stephen Sondheim and Eric Whiticare in the same iPod I keep my stash of Daft Punk and techno. So yeah...
Sometimes its not the sheer technicality that matters, just to me is how it sounds. And I think you're taking certain things away, like certain atmosphere that a song may have.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEoN5Nx4u0w
That song's main riff is a mere 3 notes. Yet the doomy atmosphere that's created there is what really intrigues me.
And besides, popularity means nothing to me. I have plenty of obscure albums/artists on my computer, and I listen to popular bands as well. I suppose what I care about in the end is how it sounds, and that raw, simplistic asthetic appeals to me (That's not to say I don't appreciate technical skill, I do listen to Rush after all, and there are a number of metal bands that are noted for their technical prowess that I listen to).
However, I do agree about the part being the only person matters being the singer really does piss me off. But a lot of the bands I listen to generally focus on all intstruments, not just vocals. After all, my favorite band is Iron Maiden and the face of Iron Maiden is their bassist more than anything else. I do get the point though, a song can be more "interesting" if its more complex. Still, there's a charm to be had in simplicity, right?
Also, they may not be big or anything, but I know a band out from California that is making music without resorting to any kind of record label, and even self-released their own album, Metazoa, last fall. So not all music is being corrupted by the music industry, but bands that opt out of that path are likely doomed to be underground forever. Still, if you care about the music you make more than anything else, then you still have your integrity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obik_DA9Edc
Yes I just totally decided to pimp out some obscure band in this thread 😛 I have a lot of respect for these guys for foregoing a record label and sticking to what they want to do, instead of letting some suits tell them what to make. But going back before, I can see where you're coming from Craig. This thread was more of a rant towards hipsters that claim their opinion to be fact anyway >.>
Everyone's brain interprets music differently, so if the mathematics of it really matters, you should pay attention
TO YOUR OWN TASTES
.
Music is subjective to a listener's likes and dislikes, but objective in the sense that it is in fact 'music'. Saying that something is a 'bad' song is wrong when what you're really saying is that you don't like it. You can't say that something isn't 'real music', but you can hate it all you want.
But then again some bands are terrible in an objective stense, and if you like them you're wrong and stupid. Bands like Brokencyde (look up their song 'Freaxxx' on Youtube if you don't believe me. Be warned, though, it has foul language and it is also an abomination).*
*this paragraph was meant in jest (except for Brokencyde being awful; that I believe deep down in my heart)
"but objective in the sense that it is in fact 'music'. Saying that something is a 'bad' song is wrong when what you're really saying is that you don't like it. You can't say that something isn't 'real music', but you can hate it all you want"
hmm.... i think its okay to say something is bad when you feel it is. and its also alright to call something "not art" even if it was meant to be. its like baking a cake sometimes you do it right and it becomes a masterpiece other times you mess it up and it ends in the trash bin.
as for iron maiden, i love it too hukos. it really gets to me, the singer doesnt sound like a bird singing as most musical art is described but its still art and i find his voice enjoyable. its like the scream portrait, its unusal but surely art.
"The need for artistic endeavours to be profitable does somewhat compromise some of the more innovative or experimental efforts for the sake of banking with the safe - albeit geenrally competent - approach."
that's why i like listening to the old songs more, they had more of a spirit and a uniqueness to their music. its true now you can even notice the routien in new songs and get bored easily.... i thought i was the only one who noticed that actually. but its true, songs now have a repeating method in their song, but the old songs take one of frankie's songs the lyrics hardly ever repeat and every word is enjoyable and adds to the song. the written is well thought of.
you know now music is so easy to write, i can tell what's the next line gonna be, you have no idea how many times i hear the same words in different new songs. it gets annoying.
although thankfully there's lots of good singers and bands out there that dont go to such weak lengths.
Wow... I've been a classical pianist for 17 years and I don't think I can add much that hasn't been said already. The short of it is that music is both subjective and objective. On one hand, you have the mathematical properties, and on the other, you have emotional response. Both can be said to be equally important. Or are they?
In super short, music, because it is art, cannot be defined.
I'm listening to the immensely satisfying clattering of keys as I type. I could call it music. Of course it isn't the same as Chopin's work, but who really has the authority to say this? Anyone who claims that something audible "isn't music" is just covering up for his or her own tastes.
I'm not talking about being judged on a performance or composition, because that's a different situation entirely, in which there are set standards and rules. =O What I'm trying to get at is the general definition of music.
