Do you think music is subjective?

My friend just told me that music is subjective, but I feel that people who say this lack the knowledge or the will to analyze the music.


Thoughts?

of course it's subjective

everything is subjective

Originally Posted by Captain Yesterday

My friend just told me that music is subjective, but I feel that people who say this lack the knowledge or the will to analyze the music.

you could also have said "have a soul".

Originally Posted by jase

of course it's subjective

everything is subjective

this

[/thread]

this thread should elicit some amazingly pretentious douchebaggery.

My thought is... duh.

does this even need to be debated, of course it's subjective. Even if you listened to every genre there is no guarantee you will like every genre of music.

Too lazy to fight my battles so I just found a link of some other brighter posters.

CHECK IT OWWWT

i think some parts are subjective, but not all. For example, if someone is a good drummer or has a trained voice and is able to master even difficult vocals without the need to break up, is objective for me, but if i like the music they are playing or if the sound of the voice something is i like, is subjective for me.

art's subjective

what kind of stupid ass fucking question is this?

and you were retarded enough to be on the side that it's not subjective?

kill yourself.

Of course music is subjective unless you like LCD Soundsystem. Fucking horrid. Fact.

well then i suppose it's also fact that this:

Favorite Musical Artist / Band(s)
Foo Fighters, Nirvana, Incubus, Queens of the Stone Age, Rage Against the Machine, Soundgarden, etc.

is the most boring music taste ever conceived by man.

lcd soundsystem was probably the worst example he could have used

i mean it's like saying spoon or tv on the radio or something. even if you're not into 'indie' (as much as i hate overusage of that stigma) stuff you'd have to be insane to really think any of them are that bad

Originally Posted by Captain Yesterday

My friend just told me that music is subjective, but I feel that people who say this lack the knowledge or the will to analyze the music.

based on what you are saying here, i don't know that you are using "subjective" and "objective" properly. how is the notion that all music is left open to interpretation related to not being knowledgeable enough to analyze? the very fact that people analyze it means that there will be varying opinions.

edit: in retrospect, i don't even know why i bothered posting.

Music is the most subjective thing I can think of...you can only be critical of whether the music is "inspired" or not (whether or not it's musical is all relative).

I dont know... Music enjoyment of course is subjective. But can the quality or artistic integrity of music be quantified? I think so, I mean I will say that Bob Dylan is better then Avril Lavigne as a fact, not just an opinion.

Well it depends on what's being specifically asked but for the most part it kinda goes without saying.

Post not available.

and that's [/thread]!

Music is first and foremost relative.
Right after that, itīs subjective. After all, everything what we are hearing is actually inside of us.

Originally Posted by Captain Yesterday

Too lazy to fight my battles so I just found a link of some other brighter posters.

CHECK IT OWWWT

and I thought this thread was stupid

Originally Posted by Dead Nigga Storage

well then i suppose it's also fact that this:

Favorite Musical Artist / Band(s)
Foo Fighters, Nirvana, Incubus, Queens of the Stone Age, Rage Against the Machine, Soundgarden, etc.

is the most boring music taste ever conceived by man.

True and not subjective.


If someone would enjoy, say Celine Dion's music, just the fact that they like them does not prove that that musical artist is good. Haven't you noticed that everyone that likes shitty music does not take it seriously? If everyone says that music is subjective that will only encourage more shitty musical artists.

Originally Posted by Captain Yesterday

If everyone says that music is subjective that will only encourage more shitty musical artists.

what the fuck

EDIT: accidentally voted no on the poll. goddamn

seriously

Originally Posted by mohammed jafar

- avril lavigne is a better singer than bob dylan
- avril sings about contemporary issues, whilst in 2008 bob is still singing about hoppin freights and going down to the river (how come noone is ever actually AT the river)
- bob usually relies on tired verse-verse-verse-repeat-ad-infinitum structure, avril uses such structures as verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus, structures which bob generally makes a bit of an arse of when he tries to use them
- avril is closer to the cutting edge of pop music than bob. come on bobby, wheres your overt m.i.a. influence?

bobby is admittedly sexier ("...ya cant make luueehhve all by yo'seeeeeehhhlfff...") but i dont believe that matters because its all about the music, maaaaan

What the fuck.

Originally Posted by Captain Yesterday

If everyone says that music is subjective that will only encourage more shitty musical artists.

Hmm...is this a form of Eugenics you're suggesting here? Perhaps we can weed out the weaklings and breed a race of individuals with supreme musical tastes.

I wish, but I'm not sure that genetics has anything to do with musical taste unfortunately.

If someone says the Beatles suck, their opinion is wrong. Therefore music quality can be quantified.

so basically you're an elitist piece of shit who thinks it's entirely impossible to enjoy quote "bad music" if you're truly well educated and informed on the world of music?

yeah, no. you're a fucking moron.