How subjective is music, really?

Yes music is subjective, its art. Most modern pop music is made at 72 BPM. the earths resonance, stars, and the universal magnetic pulse is also at 72 BPM. its no wonder why people like pop music so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Born To Stone

Well... best selling bands of all time

There's a lot of bands there that gained mass appeal that I like: The Beatles, Michael Jackson('s music lol), ACDC, Bob Marley, Led Zep, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones etc. I'm sure you'll find music you like that gained mass appeal. Maybe you are just frustrated at the bands who gain mass appeal in the present, although a lot of old bands still tour and make albums, though infrequently.

The idea of 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' is important, it obviously plays a part in music choice because it is subjective opinion. However, if this was the only factor then would there be the same consensus for certain bands? I can't help but think that advertisement plays a large role. Obviously for some people it is more influential than others but exposure to the music causes familiarity and liking for many. Whilst others either dislike the music in the first place or get sick of it through over exposure. Also this is reinforced because friends and family influence you and they are exposed to the same advertisement. Is it still beauty if you are persuaded something is beautiful? I guess it is a question of how much each persons' own opinion guided their choice, but there is no doubt I have met people who like music just because their friends like it.

---

Yeah, I was talking more about the stuff around nowadays....50 Cent and the Jonas Brothers and all that. If something's widely liked, it could be due to bad taste or media manipulation, as with those, or it could be because of a band's genuine talent and power, i.e. Led Zeppelin. I think peoples' taste is fading because of this very attitude of nonjudgmental subjectivity, which I find problematic....I read an essay once about how high art is dying because in our modern society we're indoctrinated to respect all forms of expression, no matter how soulless or cheap they may be. So to hell with that attitude, I say a resounding "fuck you" to the modern phenomenon of low art.

Technical proficiency with an instrument is much less based on opinion than whether music is "good" or not.

But that's just an aspect of a musician.

Yeah, I think the criteria for quality is as follows:

1. Feeling
Is this music an expression of the auteur's soul? Or was it created in an assembly line fashion for a quick buck?

2. Technical proficiency
In a band, are the musicians virtuosos or two-chord hacks?

3. Versatility/innovation
Do they cover new ground or are they just a concrete imitation? If you listen to one of their albums, is there a range of song types or do they all sound the same?

If ALL someone's looking for is a beat to dance to, their musical opinions are worth nothing, just as a gourmet's opinion on food is worth a lot more than someone who just wants something, ANYTHING, to fill their stomach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt

Yeah, I think the criteria for quality is as follows:

1. Feeling
Is this music an expression of the auteur's soul? Or was it created in an assembly line fashion for a quick buck?

2. Technical proficiency
In a band, are the musicians virtuosos or two-chord hacks?

3. Versatility/innovation
Do they cover new ground or are they just a concrete imitation? If you listen to one of their albums, is there a range of song types or do they all sound the same?

If ALL someone's looking for is a beat to dance to, their musical opinions are worth nothing, just as a gourmet's opinion on food is worth a lot more than someone who just wants something, ANYTHING, to fill their stomach.

---

And yet they both get satisfaction from thier own fulfilled requirements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

And yet they both get satisfaction from thier own fulfilled requirements.

---

Wow, the value of high art in the public consciousness really is all but dead. I don't think either of us will ever be able to alter the other's perspective--we just have different aesthetic philosophies. Nice debating with you, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

And yet they both get satisfaction from thier own fulfilled requirements.

---

His stomach may be full, but did he have to resist vomiting because of the horrid taste? Is it even going to satisfy his nutritional needs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt

Wow, the value of high art in the public consciousness really is all but dead. I don't think either of us will ever be able to alter the other's perspective--we just have different aesthetic philosophies. Nice debating with you, though.

---

Likewise my friend. :thumbsup: :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt

People always say everything's a matter of taste, and that's true for what people should listen to/read, etc....as far as actual quality, though, you can't really say it doesn't matter if you prefer Shakespeare or Danielle Steele. Same as music, I think...can everyone's tastes really be respected if some prefer MTV trash to the works of, say, Hendrix or Bob Dylan? Just a thought.

---

there is a line. i call it is timeless music v forgettable, just like literature, really anything else. from there it is a matter of preference. there is a world of timeless music, i don't like a lot of it, but i respect it. there is a world of forgettable music, i don't like or respect it and don't like it being compared to real music. and yes, timeless and forgettable are just other words for shakespeare and danielle steele. i don't like shakespeare, i know he is a great writer. i don't like danielle steele, i know she knows how to write easily digestible garbage that will make a quick buck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt

Yeah, I was talking more about the stuff around nowadays....50 Cent and the Jonas Brothers and all that. If something's widely liked, it could be due to bad taste or media manipulation, as with those, or it could be because of a band's genuine talent and power, i.e. Led Zeppelin. I think peoples' taste is fading because of this very attitude of nonjudgmental subjectivity, which I find problematic....I read an essay once about how high art is dying because in our modern society we're indoctrinated to respect all forms of expression, no matter how soulless or cheap they may be. So to hell with that attitude, I say a resounding "fuck you" to the modern phenomenon of low art.

---

But what about the stuff nowadays? They're amazing stuff being produced nowaday although you have to realize the model in music is changing. Everyone has more access to cheaper equipment, so more people are able to produce music. The pool of talent is diluted and wider. It's not like the 60s where in order to have a band, you gotta be really good technically so someone can front you a PA and sign you to a record deal.

But let's address a musician that could fit your criteria. What about someone like Eminem? Jay-Z? Nas? Korn? Blink 182? They all fit the criteria of something that could be in bad taste, media manipulation. However, even though I don't like any of them at all, I have listened to most of their albums and they are quite good in different ways. Like that, I'm sure their music will be heard years later. You could far back as Dire Straits (and they milked the hell out of MTV) to find MTV-influenced bands that seem to have this label as being shit music, but in reality, their music is timeless.

In reality, preference and taste are huge factors in how one determines what music they like. They are bands who are innovative groundbreakers that never get recognized until much later, like The Velvet Underground and Brian Eno and they are many a band that fail to live to the hype they generate and are long forgotten. It doesn't mean that low art is the phenomenon of the day. It's simply evolving with artists being more free from the rein of record companies.