To what extent is the quality of music objective?

[flow2345]

A straightforward question

Most people on this site will have an idea of what is considered "good music" in terms of quality, but to what extent does that apply to the real world?
or is it more like: If I like it, its quality music, if I don't, its not - attitude?

Discuss.

[Troggy]

I believe you can be somewhat objective because music is inherently a creative expression / art form. Each band/artist has varying degrees of natural talent, a particular style, application of certain techniques, progression/originality (or lack thereof), etc. These are the kinds of things that we use to determine good paintings (for example), so it does apply to music as well. The caveat is, there are differences between these mediums of expression, and while liking a certain painting really has no impact on you afterwards (unless you collect prints for your wall or something), music is quite different.

[Broclee]

I believe you can be somewhat objective because music is inherently a creative expression / art form. Each band/artist has varying degrees of natural talent, a particular style, application of certain techniques, progression/originality (or lack thereof), etc. These are the kinds of things that we use to determine good paintings (for example), so it does apply to music as well. The caveat is, there are differences between these mediums of expression, and while liking a certain painting really has no impact on you afterwards (unless you collect prints for your wall or something), music is quite different.
Basically what I came here to say.


Especially on this site, where we're dealing with mostly western pop music, there are some certain general guidelines that give us "good" and "bad," though I dislike using those terms.

[theguy77]

i feel that there are objective components that determine the quality of art, because of the fact that it is possible for some songwriters to simply be more creative than others. i look at it as if it were a tier system of sorts -- as in, there are many levels to creative dexterity, but different songwriters have different attributes and it's impossible to compare two who are on the same "level" and say one is better than another, especially when some appeal and have strengths in different areas, almost as if you're trying to say troy polamalu is a better football player than peyton manning. they're both top tier but they play entirely different positions and specialize in different ways.

but here's the bottom line of that discussion:
1) who are we to judge music objectively? hardly anyone has the prowess of artistic analysis to accurately depict and deliberate what makes specific pieces better than another on a general scale. you can use music theory but then you're only accounting for technical proficiency. you can be very musically cultured and know about a lot of different music forms but then you're only accounting for diversity and possibly innovation (though i'd still say its practically impossible to know if something's been done before or not). music isnt that simple; there are a LOT of factors that play into its quality and i feel you'd have to be a prodigious aesthetic guru of sorts to have the knowledge and perception that it takes to accurately and comprehensively rank one music form over another on a factual basis. otherwise, you're simply ranking one form over another based on the components of music that matter the most to YOU -- for example, say you rank radiohead over the lawrence arms. that does not in anyway mean radiohead is inherently better, you just perceive them to be better because diversity and technical proficiency are very important parts of music for you, while a punk fan probably doesnt value those things anywhere near as much as you do.
2) why does it matter whether one music form is better than another? if you enjoy music that is supposedly "inferior", what's stopping you from listening to it anyway?

[Yellowcard2006]

This is quite a difficult question to answer. Theguy77 did it pretty well. Last year in college my roommate (who was a fan of Frank Zappa, Primus, Radiohead, Mars volta, Jazz and basically anything he found to be "good music") was sure to let me know on several occasions that I have bad taste in music and what I listen to has no artistic value.(check my profile for a good idea of my favorite genre and bands) Obviously even if you felt that way, why even share it? Music is subject to each person, good or bad applies to what ever a single person likes hearing. That's as much as I'll ever try to understand

[thespearkid]

The quality of music most definitely has a few objective standards with which it can be judged. Honestly, if it didn't, you're basically making the claim that it doesn't matter what an artist does or how hard they work on their music, because in the end, if no one enjoys it, it's not good. Now, there's nothing stopping someone from enjoying a certain artist more than another artist. For example, I acknowledge Animal Collective as a talented band who makes good songs. They are certainly better than Manchester Orchestra. However, I enjoy listening to Manchester Orchestra more.

What I think this site needs to understand though, is that just because you like a band more than another band, does not mean they're better. I remember one of my first arguments here with David was about Neutral Milk Hotel, in which him and Rick (oddwithoutsound) tried to argue that Blink-182 were the better band. David, in particular, said that the fact that he's able to connect more with Blink lyrics means he can make the claim that they are the better band, arguing for complete subjectivity in music. Unfortunately, it just doesn't work that way. If you like band A more than band B, then like them, but don't be arrogant enough to assume that your opinion is the end all be all. That goes both ways as well but it's more agregious when kids will argue ridiculous shit like Never Better is the album of the decade when anyone with any musical knowledge knows that's just not true.

[stereokiller]

practically what all of them( aka the heavyweights of AP.net) said

and i don't agree on the If I like it, its quality music, if I don't, its not - attitude. It's kind of hard to talk to people who thinks that their taste is the correct(superior) one. Whenever I see them on forums, i tend to ignore. haha.

Also, even if some bands can't sink into me, I do try to think positively and give them recognition for what they are - hardworking bands. I dislike bashing too.

[Robototron]

There is no objective standard of quality in music.

[Broclee]

practically what all of them( aka the heavyweights of AP.net) said

and i don't agree on the If I like it, its quality music, if I don't, its not - attitude. It's kind of hard to talk to people who thinks that their taste is the correct(superior) one. Whenever I see them on forums, i tend to ignore. haha.

Also, even if some bands can't sink into me, I do try to think positively and give them recognition for what they are - hardworking bands. I dislike bashing too.
I'm going to pretend I'm included in that and enjoy this moment.

[Broclee]

There is no objective standard of quality in music.
Musicianship?

[briewer]

Todd's going to pwn you all.

[thespearkid]

There is no objective standard of quality in music.
I'll go tell every music major they're wasting their time. brb.

[Broclee]

I'll go tell every music major they're wasting their time. brb.
:-(:bluesad::-(

[thespearkid]

:-(:bluesad::-(
Don't give me that look!

[Troggy]

for example, say you rank radiohead over the lawrence arms. that does not in anyway mean radiohead is inherently better, you just perceive them to be better because diversity and technical proficiency are very important parts of music for you, while a punk fan probably doesnt value those things anywhere near as much as you do

No. This part of your theory is subjective. You can't have this discussion with the opinions of 'punk fan A' and 'Ryan the obsessed Radiohead fan B'. The fact that different parts of music matter differently to each person is subjective. Lyrics that speak to certain people are not always universally 'good', but they are subjectively good to a certain audience or person. Radiohead and Lawrence Arms are both examples of bands that excel at their respective crafts. This isn't about greater than and less than for individual bands. This is one band at a time, assessing whether what they do is sufficient justice to the practice and art of music. What this discussion really boils down to is ascertaining the timelessness of music that hasn't been around long enough to be timeless.

[Theseventhson]

Objective vs Subjective. Just because you like it doesn't mean it is "good" and vice versa.

[Fedaykin]

i feel that there are objective components that determine the quality of art

You started out saying this, to which I would want to ask, "Well, what are these components?"

but here's the bottom line of that discussion:
1) who are we to judge music objectively? hardly anyone has the prowess of artistic analysis to accurately depict and deliberate what makes specific pieces better than another on a general scale. you can use music theory but then you're only accounting for technical proficiency.



But then you say that though these components exist, none of us can possibly know what they are.

How then do you know they exist?

[Fedaykin]

Objective vs Subjective. Just because you like it doesn't mean it is "good" and vice versa.

I'd say, if you like it then it makes it "good" for you but not Good with a capital G, as in universally good

[Fedaykin]

The quality of music most definitely has a few objective standards with which it can be judged.

Then I would want to ask, "What are they?"

What I think this site needs to understand though, is that just because you like a band more than another band, does not mean they're better.

Then this seems at odds with the first statement: if I like a band more than another band because the band I like is judged better by those "few objective standards" why doesn't it mean they're better? After all, we're using objective criteria?

[chipdip18]

I'd say, if you like it then it makes it "good" for you but not Good with a capital G, as in universally good
I'd be okay with this if people made that distinction. Too many people have ran into here saying blink is so good and they are the best band ever, and i call them on it and say objectively they aren't then they whine and piss their pants then hunch over in a corner with a tail between their legs calling me a facist bully because they don't understand they're using the term good universally and wrongly. (Looking at you, Mr.Piano63).

[chipdip18]

Then this seems at odds with the first statement: if I like a band more than another band because the band I like is judged better by those "few objective standards" why doesn't it mean they're better? After all, we're using objective criteria?

No. If you like a band better than another band you aren't using those few objective standards, you'd be using your own subjective standards. The rest then becomes irrevelant.

[Fedaykin]

I'd be okay with this if people made that distinction. Too many people have ran into here saying blink is so good and they are the best band ever, and i call them on it and say objectively they aren't then they whine and piss their pants then hunch over in a corner with a tail between their legs calling me a facist bully because they don't understand they're using the term good universally and wrongly. (Looking at you, Mr.Piano63).

But of course, objectively speaking, no one is the "best" at anything, unless "best" denotes greatest in which case we might say that Usain Bolt is the "best" male sprinter ever in so far as he is the fastest in the 100 meter dash

If we don't have a referant which is itself objective (a clock) then we cannot judge any band to be "objectively best" along with any album, food, color, geographic location etc.

[Fedaykin]

No. If you like a band better than another band you aren't using those few objective standards, you'd be using your own subjective standards. The rest then becomes irrevelant.


You keep using this signifier "few objective standards"

If we're to have a clear discussion, please define what they are

And I'll be frank: I don't think you can name them because i don't think they exist

[love_american_style]

seious thread is serious.

[chipdip18]

But of course, objectively speaking, no one is the "best" at anything, unless "best" denotes greatest in which case we might say that Usain Bolt is the "best" male sprinter ever in so far as he is the fastest in the 100 meter dash

If we don't have a referant which is itself objective (a clock) then we cannot judge any band to be "objectively best" along with any album, food, color, geographic location etc.

Is burned toast better than golden brown toast? Is living in Suburbia better than living in Chernobyl? Is Abbey Road better than Take Off Your Pants and Jacket? You got me on color though.

You keep using this signifier "few objective standards"

If we're to have a clear discussion, please define what they are

And I'll be frank: I don't think you can name them because i don't think they exist

It's true, we got to set perameters if we're going to be on the same page as anything, but i don't understand why you can't even belive that any exist.

1.) Some art is objectively better than other art.
2.) Music is art.
3.) If music is art and some art is objectively better than other art, then some music is objectively better than other music.
___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ______
4.) Some music is objectively better than other music.

I don't see any issues logically, do you?

[Broclee]

Don't give me that look!

Random: You're an NC Teaching Fellow, no?

[Fedaykin]

Is burned toast better than golden brown toast? Is living in Suburbia better than living in Chernobyl? Is Abbey Road better than Take Off Your Pants and Jacket?

My parents prefer burned frozen pizzas while I like mine nearly raw: I like my pancakes golden brown but my marshmallows for s'mores caught on fire. So, no to question 1, though it doesn't make the reverse true either.

To question 2, you're making a rather extreme metaphor: sure it's better to live in England in 1943 than in Berlin. But, what about Chicago vs. New York? Is one actually better?

To question 3, I think the answer is yes, but I know people who would disagree.

It's true, we got to set perameters if we're going to be on the same page as anything, but i don't understand why you can't even belive that any exist.

If this is so hard for you to believe, name them!


1.) Some art is objectively better than other art.
2.) Music is art.
3.) If music is art and some art is objectively better than other art, then some music is objectively better than other music.
___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ______
4.) Some music is objectively better than other music.

I don't see any issues logically, do you?

Here you've either intentionally or unintentionally created a straw man of my argument. Before we get to that let's examine your logic:

It's valid, but not sound, because I disagree with Premise 1 as being true; after all that's what the argument is about so I don't see how youcould assume it to be a premise in your argument.

Assume we were arguing about whether cats were objectively better than dogs; you couldn't have your first premise be "Cats are better than dogs" because that is the conclusion we should reach, not where we're starting

No. If you like a band better than another band you aren't using those few objective standards, you'd be using your own subjective standards. The rest then becomes irrevelant.

You see, this is my question, so please don't evade it (which is how I characterize your previous answers): if a few objective standards exist by which we listen to a piece of music and that match it up against objective criteria, name those criteria! An argument that goes

1. a
2. b
3. if a & b then c
4. c

is not what i desire

I want a list of these "few objective standards" which supposedly exist by which we judge music

[thespearkid]

Then I would want to ask, "What are they?"
Lyrical quality (good use of poetic devices), originality, and musicality.

Then this seems at odds with the first statement: if I like a band more than another band because the band I like is judged better by those "few objective standards" why doesn't it mean they're better? After all, we're using objective criteria?
If you like Blink more than the Beatles, it doesn't mean Blink are a better band because the Beatles clearly outshine them in the three areas I mentioned above. Those three things can be measured somewhat objectively. Of course, there will always be really good discussions within those parameters. For instance, if I argued that In the Aeroplane Over the Sea is better than OK Computer, there are many posters here who I could have a really good discussion with in reference to that claim. But if someone says Take Off Your Pants and Jacket is better than Abbey Road, the claim is so ridiculous that it's barely worth discussion.

Random: You're an NC Teaching Fellow, no?
Yes, I am. Why do you ask?

[thespearkid]

My parents prefer burned frozen pizzas while I like mine nearly raw: I like my pancakes golden brown but my marshmallows for s'mores caught on fire. So, no to question 1, though it doesn't make the reverse true either.

To question 2, you're making a rather extreme metaphor: sure it's better to live in England in 1943 than in Berlin. But, what about Chicago vs. New York? Is one actually better?

To question 3, I think the answer is yes, but I know people who would disagree.



If this is so hard for you to believe, name them!



Here you've either intentionally or unintentionally created a straw man of my argument. Before we get to that let's examine your logic:

It's valid, but not sound, because I disagree with Premise 1 as being true; after all that's what the argument is about so I don't see how youcould assume it to be a premise in your argument.

Assume we were arguing about whether cats were objectively better than dogs; you couldn't have your first premise be "Cats are better than dogs" because that is the conclusion we should reach, not where we're starting



You see, this is my question, so please don't evade it (which is how I characterize your previous answers): if a few objective standards exist by which we listen to a piece of music and that match it up against objective criteria, name those criteria! An argument that goes

1. a
2. b
3. if a & b then c
4. c

is not what i desire

I want a list of these "few objective standards" which supposedly exist by which we judge music
So if someone says Chopsticks is better than the Moonlight Sonanta, you consider that a valid claim?

[Fedaykin]

I'm arguing not that any one type of music is better than another, but that in the realm of aesthetics (music included) no objectivity exists.

Lyrical quality (good use of poetic devices), originality, and musicality.

If you like Blink more than the Beatles, it doesn't mean Blink are a better band because the Beatles clearly outshine them in the three areas I mentioned above. Those three things can be measured somewhat objectively. Of course, there will always be really good discussions within those parameters. For instance, if I argued that In the Aeroplane Over the Sea is better than OK Computer, there are many posters here who I could have a really good discussion with in reference to that claim. But if someone says Take Off Your Pants and Jacket is better than Abbey Road, the claim is so ridiculous that it's barely worth discussion.




So if someone says Chopsticks is better than the Moonlight Sonanta, you consider that a valid claim?

I agree that Moonlight Sonata (I assume that's similar to Moonlight Sonanta) and The Beatles are better than Blink. But, you need to define "musicality" and also how you can quantify "originality" - since all objective (as opposed to subjective) concepts can be quantified. Additionally, demonstrate the difference between good and poor use of lyrical quality and then be prepared for someone to disagree that these are the objective qualities by which music should be judged and supplant their own.

Also, I don't even know how to begin comparing Radiohead and Neutral Milk Hotel they are both so brilliant in very different ways.

[thespearkid]

I agree that Moonlight Sonata (I assume that's similar to Moonlight Sonanta) and The Beatles are better than Blink. But, you need to define "musicality" and also how you can quantify "originality" - since all objective (as opposed to subjective) concepts can be quantified. Additionally, demonstrate the difference between good and poor use of lyrical quality and then be prepared for someone to disagree that these are the objective qualities by which music should be judged and supplant their own.

Also, I don't even know how to begin comparing Radiohead and Neutral Milk Hotel they are both so brilliant in very different ways.
If you're asking me to define musicality, we'd be here all day. :-p But as far as examples of good and bad lyrics, let's keep up the Blink-182 example. Tom DeLonge once wrote a song with the "I wanna fuck a dog in the ass". Those lyrics are worse than "Your father made fetuses from flesh licking ladies" (Neutral Milk Hotel) because Neutral Milk Hotel's lyrics are using metaphor, brilliant imagery, and alliteration, where as the Blink lyrics aren't. Some may claim the Blink lyrics are better ONLY because they like them better, which is a point I made in my first post in this thread (just because you like it more, doesn't mean it's actually better).

[Fedaykin]

If you're asking me to define musicality, we'd be here all day. But as far as examples of good and bad lyrics, let's keep up the Blink-182 example. Tom DeLonge once wrote a song with the "I wanna fuck a dog in the ass". Those lyrics are worse than "Your father made fetuses from flesh licking ladies" (Neutral Milk Hotel) because Neutral Milk Hotel's lyrics are using metaphor, brilliant imagery, and alliteration, where as the Blink lyrics aren't. Some may claim the Blink lyrics are better ONLY because they like them better, which is a point I made in my first post in this thread (just because you like it more, doesn't mean it's actually better).

But, "I wanna fuck a dog in the ass" is hilarious & "Oh Comely" isn't. "I wanna fuck a dog in the ass" is also incredibly simple: not just in a simple minded way, but in an almost transcendental sense.

If you're asking me to define musicality, we'd be here all day.

Just because it would take you a long time doesn't mean it isn't worth doing: in fact, that's the very reason it's worth doing! Would you settle for the dictionary's definition? "The quality or condition of being musical" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/musicality That sure doesn't seem like a quantifiable, objective characteristic if I ever heard one.

Let's compare our example to poetry. Some people like the epic lyrics of Homer's Odyssey (incredibly long) while others claim William Carlos Williams is a GENIUS for the following poem.

so much depends
upon

a red wheel
barrow
glazed with rain
water beside the white
chickens.

A GENIUS. Not my opinion, but many hold it to be true. Homer is much like Neutral Milk Hotel: using metaphor, brilliant imagery, and alliteration.

One could say Blink is like William Carlos Williams: simplified down to only the most important details that still say so much

[Broclee]

Yes, I am. Why do you ask?

Saw you mention it once, and I kept meaning to ask you. I am as well, and judging by your age we're more than likely in the same class. Cool.

[briewer]

Is burned toast better than golden brown toast? Is living in Suburbia better than living in Chernobyl? Is Abbey Road better than Take Off Your Pants and Jacket? You got me on color though.



It's true, we got to set perameters if we're going to be on the same page as anything, but i don't understand why you can't even belive that any exist.

1.) Some art is objectively better than other art.
2.) Music is art.
3.) If music is art and some art is objectively better than other art, then some music is objectively better than other music.
___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ______
4.) Some music is objectively better than other music.

I don't see any issues logically, do you?
Yes, there should only be three steps. :-p

[chipdip18]

My parents prefer burned frozen pizzas while I like mine nearly raw: I like my pancakes golden brown but my marshmallows for s'mores caught on fire. So, no to question 1, though it doesn't make the reverse true either.

To question 2, you're making a rather extreme metaphor: sure it's better to live in England in 1943 than in Berlin. But, what about Chicago vs. New York? Is one actually better?

To question 3, I think the answer is yes, but I know people who would disagree.

Touche on one and three. Although i think that geographic location could still possibly be objective. Natural resources, job availability, cleaniness/health factors could all be factors in making one location objectively more suitable or better.



Here you've either intentionally or unintentionally created a straw man of my argument. Before we get to that let's examine your logic:

It's valid, but not sound, because I disagree with Premise 1 as being true; after all that's what the argument is about so I don't see how youcould assume it to be a premise in your argument.

Assume we were arguing about whether cats were objectively better than dogs; you couldn't have your first premise be "Cats are better than dogs" because that is the conclusion we should reach, not where we're starting
The first premise was 'Some art is objectively better than other art' not This specie/class/type of art is better than this specie/class/type of art. In my first premise i thinking a more equal analogy would be 'Some animals are objectively smarter than other animals.


You see, this is my question, so please don't evade it (which is how I characterize your previous answers): if a few objective standards exist by which we listen to a piece of music and that match it up against objective criteria, name those criteria! An argument that goes

1. a
2. b
3. if a & b then c
4. c

is not what i desire

I want a list of these "few objective standards" which supposedly exist by which we judge music

Obviously i wasn't clear, and i apologize for that, i will try to be clear now.

We can't even begin discussing what the standards are what we've been calling "those few objective standards" if you don't even believe that there are any to begin with. It would be useless argument. With the argument i tried to show how some art is objectively better than other art, but since you reject the first premise, i think we have to discuss why art in general cannot be objectively proven before we narrow it down to the standards from which we decide are objective in determining which music art is better than others. I am not evading the question you give, but merely am trying to get us both on the same page.

I'm glad you know logic and stuff though, this makes this discussion so worthwhile and stimulating.

[chipdip18]

Yes, there should only be three steps. :-p

No way, it's still valid haha. And this touches on all the points i think are important.

[briewer]

No way, it's still valid haha. And this touches on all the points i think are important.
Yeah, but 3) and 4) are saying the same thing. You don't need both. It's repetitive but still valid.

[chipdip18]

Yeah, but 3) and 4) are saying the same thing. You don't need both. It's repetitive but still valid.

Well 3) was a conditional and 4) was the conclusion which is the point i wanted to make, that being the latter half of the conditional. I think it was necessary, but then again it has been a while since i was in a straight up logic class so i could very well be wrong.

[briewer]

Well 3) was a conditional and 4) was the conclusion which is the point i wanted to make, that being the latter half of the conditional. I think it was necessary, but then again it has been a while since i was in a straight up logic class so i could very well be wrong.
I was thinking of it as a modus ponens implication:

1) If there is art, then art can be objectively considered
2) Music is art
_________________________
3) Therefore Music can be objectively considered.

It's all good either way.

[Robototron]

I'll go tell every music major they're wasting their time. brb.

I don't understand why people take such offense to the fact that everything related to music, art, etc. is inherently subjective. It's a personal process to create it and it's a personal process to listen to it. It isn't like math where whether or not you're "good" at it depends on reaching the correct answer, I can say the Sex Pistols, who are terrible musicians, are better than Stockhausen, and you know what? It doesn't really matter how you try and argue that they aren't "competent" at their instruments or anything like that, because that isn't the point of their music.

You can become "better" at mastering the standards of your craft, but at the end of the day, even that is subjective. You could be the most technically talented musician in the world and I can still think you're shit, and no amount of "look at how I conform to Anglo standards of guitar-based musicianship" or "critics love me" is going to change my mind.

[Broclee]

I don't understand why people take such offense to the fact that everything related to music, art, etc. is inherently subjective. It's a personal process to create it and it's a personal process to listen to it. It isn't like math where whether or not you're "good" at it depends on reaching the correct answer, I can say the Sex Pistols, who are terrible musicians, are better than Stockhausen, and you know what? It doesn't really matter how you try and argue that they aren't "competent" at their instruments or anything like that, because that isn't the point of their music.

You can become "better" at mastering the standards of your craft, but at the end of the day, even that is subjective. You could be the most technically talented musician in the world and I can still think you're shit, and no amount of "look at how I conform to Anglo standards of guitar-based musicianship" or "critics love me" is going to change my mind.
You're obviously not a music major, otherwise you wouldn't be saying half of what you said in that paragraph.

[Robototron]

You're obviously not a music major, otherwise you wouldn't be saying half of what you said in that paragraph.

Obviously not. I hope you're not about to pull the "you're not a music major so you don't know what you're talking about" card.

I have personal preferences of course, and my own ideas about what is "good" and "bad," but I would never assume that my tastes are the norm or that anyone who disagrees with me is "objectively" wrong.

[Broclee]

Obviously not. I hope you're not about to pull the "you're not a music major so you don't know what you're talking about" card.

I have personal preferences of course, and my own ideas about what is "good" and "bad," but I would never assume that my tastes are the norm or that anyone who disagrees with me is "objectively" wrong.
I wasn't going to, no. What I mean is that if you were being constantly judged and graded and criticized and worked for hours and hours each day to reach a certain level of musicianship and understanding of your instrument or voice, it would change your perspective. I don't agree with a lot of what you said in that paragraph for that reason. It's just a completely different paradigm.

[Robototron]

I wasn't going to, no. What I mean is that if you were being constantly judged and graded and criticized and worked for hours and hours each day to reach a certain level of musicianship and understanding of your instrument or voice, it would change your perspective. I don't agree with a lot of what you said in that paragraph for that reason. It's just a completely different paradigm.

I've been graded based on how "good" my writing is, both fiction and non-fiction, so yes, to an extent I know what it's like (replace a few words in your post and you could be talking about anything that isn't empirical). I still feel the same way about literature and art in general.

[Broclee]

I've been graded based on how "good" my writing is, both fiction and non-fiction, so yes, to an extent I know what it's like (replace a few words in your post and you could be talking about anything that isn't empirical). I still feel the same way about literature and art in general.
Are you (currently or going to be) an English major?

[Robototron]

Are you (currently or going to be) an English major?

Probably not, but I'm planning on minoring in Creative Writing (my school doesn't offer it as a major).

[oddwithoutend]

The quality itself is completely subjective, as it does not exist in reality. However, devices and techniques do exist and therefore can be used as objective evidence to reinforce an educated opinion. Educated opinions are more credible than foundationless ones, which can be demonstrated by comparing a lyricist such as Bill Callahan to one like Mark Hoppus.

In short, there is no magical answer to your question. It's just another case of using objective evidence to support subjective opinions. For example:

"This particular use of an alliteration benefits the flow of the song."

This educated opinion demonstrates that the alliteration exists in reality, but its effect on the quality of the song does not.

[kearn1tm]

Quality not objective in the slightest. Technical proficiency is. It's formalist thought. That's fine. Adhering to the perimeters of music theory is an example of formalism, but some of the most beloved artists and acts were not good musicians and egregious stains on the medium by music theory standards. Quality is entirely comprised of a self-made (or adopted) template of what's "good and bad." Objective formalism can be a component of what you use to gauge quality, but it's subjective in that you choose it to be a facet of quality.

[oddwithoutend]

Quality is not objective at all. Technical proficiency is. It's formalist thought. That's fine. Adhering to the perimeters of music theory is an example of formalism, but some of the most beloved artists and acts were not good musicians and egregious stains on the medium by music theory standards. Quality is entirely comprised of a self-made (or adopted) template of what's "good and bad." Objective formalism can be a component of what you use to gauge quality, but it's subjective in that you choose it to be a facet of quality.

We agree.

[kearn1tm]

i feel that there are objective components that determine the quality of art, because of the fact that it is possible for some songwriters to simply be more creative than others. i look at it as if it were a tier system of sorts -- as in, there are many levels to creative dexterity, but different songwriters have different attributes and it's impossible to compare two who are on the same "level" and say one is better than another, especially when some appeal and have strengths in different areas, almost as if you're trying to say troy polamalu is a better football player than peyton manning. they're both top tier but they play entirely different positions and specialize in different ways.

but here's the bottom line of that discussion:
1) who are we to judge music objectively? hardly anyone has the prowess of artistic analysis to accurately depict and deliberate what makes specific pieces better than another on a general scale. you can use music theory but then you're only accounting for technical proficiency. you can be very musically cultured and know about a lot of different music forms but then you're only accounting for diversity and possibly innovation (though i'd still say its practically impossible to know if something's been done before or not). music isnt that simple; there are a LOT of factors that play into its quality and i feel you'd have to be a prodigious aesthetic guru of sorts to have the knowledge and perception that it takes to accurately and comprehensively rank one music form over another on a factual basis. otherwise, you're simply ranking one form over another based on the components of music that matter the most to YOU -- for example, say you rank radiohead over the lawrence arms. that does not in anyway mean radiohead is inherently better, you just perceive them to be better because diversity and technical proficiency are very important parts of music for you, while a punk fan probably doesnt value those things anywhere near as much as you do.
2) why does it matter whether one music form is better than another? if you enjoy music that is supposedly "inferior", what's stopping you from listening to it anyway?

Not true at all. You can use objective points of technical skill in your reasoning for why something is quality, but it doesn't make it quality in any objective fashion. You subjectively believe technical skill equates to quality. However, you can't prove it. It's not a tangible, provable entity that exists.

[chipdip18]

I was thinking of it as a modus ponens implication:

1) If there is art, then art can be objectively considered
2) Music is art
_________________________
3) Therefore Music can be objectively considered.

It's all good either way.


Oh okay i get what you're saying. Yeah i totally could have cleaned up to that, good catch.

[Broclee]

Probably not, but I'm planning on minoring in Creative Writing (my school doesn't offer it as a major).

Giving this some thought (and reading some other posts), I think we're debating two different things. I was talking more about technicality and the pros of striving for good musicianship and a solid understanding of theory, etc etc, but the thread is about quality, which is a whole different beast. I therefore concede my stance.

[briewer]

Did Dion get banned? Because all of his shit's blank and his name's not bold anymore.

[chipdip18]

Did Dion get banned? Because all of his shit's blank and his name's not bold anymore.


I guess so, i can't imagine why.

[Broclee]

Did Dion get banned? Because all of his shit's blank and his name's not bold anymore.
I was wondering the same thing.

[theguy77]

Not true at all. You can use objective points of technical skill in your reasoning for why something is quality, but it doesn't make it quality in any objective fashion. You subjectively believe technical skill equates to quality. However, you can't prove it. It's not a tangible, provable entity that exists.

uh, if you read my WHOLE post, you would realize that's exactly what i was saying. but thats fine you can just bold the top sentence and make an assumption about the rest of my argument.

[kearn1tm]

uh, if you read my WHOLE post, you would realize that's exactly what i was saying. but thats fine you can just bold the top sentence and make an assumption about the rest of my argument.

You should write economically.

[theguy77]

No. This part of your theory is subjective. You can't have this discussion with the opinions of 'punk fan A' and 'Ryan the obsessed Radiohead fan B'. The fact that different parts of music matter differently to each person is subjective. Lyrics that speak to certain people are not always universally 'good', but they are subjectively good to a certain audience or person. Radiohead and Lawrence Arms are both examples of bands that excel at their respective crafts. This isn't about greater than and less than for individual bands. This is one band at a time, assessing whether what they do is sufficient justice to the practice and art of music. What this discussion really boils down to is ascertaining the timelessness of music that hasn't been around long enough to be timeless.

i think you also missed the point of what i was saying; you, like todd, failed to realize that i actually agree with your counterposts. there needs to be an :overyourhead: smiley.

i specifically stated that you cant say one is better than the other because two bands can be just as artistically proficient in different ways, regardless which one has more technical proficiency or whatever.

i said nothing about lyrics "speaking" to you, im well aware thats entirely subjective and has no bearing on whether something is well-written or not.

[kearn1tm]

Having read the rest of the post, you're all over the place and contradict yourself. Par for the course. Oh, Ryan.

[kearn1tm]

i think you also missed the point of what i was saying; you, like todd, failed to realize that i actually agree with your counterposts. there needs to be an :overyourhead: smiley.

Jesus christ. I don't care what the support for your absurd statements are. You claim there are objective ways to determine quality, which isn't true in at all. If you're trying to say "your subjective template for quality can include objective formalism" then you failed to describe this coherently, which isn't a fault of the reader.

[theguy77]

You started out saying this, to which I would want to ask, "Well, what are these components?"



But then you say that though these components exist, none of us can possibly know what they are.

How then do you know they exist?

well i could give you many examples that point to that conclusion. but the most simple example i can provide: i know my own writing is a lot better than it was 4 years ago, for countless reasons, and it continues to improve. therefore, i am proving to myself that it is possible for the product of one person's creative energy to exceed the objective quality of the product of another person's creative energy, because creativity DOES have levels of proficiency and professionalism. you can get better creatively than you were before, and therefore you can be better creatively than someone else who hasnt reached that "level" yet. its not like a 13 year old who just picked up guitar is automatically just as good at writing music as a classic who's been doing it for 35 years.

my point in the second quote is, hardly anyone has the knowledge to actually judge from the outside whether one man's writing is conclusively better than another's, so when someone says radiohead > TLA, comparing two professional bands who are very good at what they do and simply appeal in different ways, it's probably a subjective statement that they cant substantiate by accounting for EVERY component of the music. therefore, REALISTICALLY music is completely subjective.

[briewer]

I called this shit on the first page.

http://absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=51833872#post51833 872

[theguy77]

Jesus christ. I don't care what the support for your absurd statements are. You claim there are objective ways to determine quality, which isn't true in at all. If you're trying to say "your subjective template for quality can include objective formalism" then you failed to describe this coherently, which isn't a fault of the reader.

otherwise, you're simply ranking one form over another based on the components of music that matter the most to YOU -- for example, say you rank radiohead over the lawrence arms. that does not in anyway mean radiohead is inherently better, you just perceive them to be better because diversity and technical proficiency are very important parts of music for you, while a punk fan probably doesnt value those things anywhere near as much as you do.

i dont know, that looks pretty coherent to me. :shrug:

[briewer]

I guess so, i can't imagine why.

I was wondering the same thing.
I was looking at his Latest Posts, and the last couple were him and Tate getting into it about Say Anything. Uh oh.

[theguy77]

Having read the rest of the post, you're all over the place and contradict yourself. Par for the course. Oh, Ryan.

where do i contradict myself? show me where. i say that there are objective components but they have no bearing on the way people judge the quality of art (and my reasoning is because its pretty much impossible to have the amount of knowledge necessary to account for everything when making that judgment objectively). how is that a contradiction?

[kearn1tm]

i dont know, that looks pretty coherent to me. :shrug:

Then why did you say there is objective ways of determining quality? I guess I'm confused. I mean, as you said, there's objective methodology to creating music that can factor in to what you consider quality.

[Broclee]

I was looking at his Latest Posts, and the last couple were him and Tate getting into it about Say Anything. Uh oh.
Oh shit.

[theguy77]

Then why did you say there is objective ways of determining quality? I guess I'm confused. I mean, as you said, there's objective methodology to creating music that can factor in to what you consider quality.

okay let me put it in a nutshell. some music can be better than other music, but we have no way of knowing whether it is or isn't, so thinking realistically, music quality is subjective.

so basically, music has objective components, but there is no real objective way to determine the quality. we cant determine it through fact.

[kearn1tm]

okay let me put it in a nutshell. some music can be better than other music, but we have no way of knowing whether it is or isn't, so thinking realistically, music quality is subjective.

If we don't know whether music is or isn't better, than how can some music be better than other music? I don't follow that one.

Regardless, some music can be formally better. Quality is in the eye of the beholder (apparently, we agree. Go us).

[theguy77]

If we don't know whether music is or isn't better, than how can some music be better than other music? I don't follow that one.

hmm. do i sense some post-modernism here? it seems to me that you're saying fact is perception based, therefore if we cant perceive the objectivity of something then it doesnt exist (because objectivity is socially constructed?)

[theguy77]

my answer to this thread should have simply been, "to an extent we can't possibly determine." probably would have gotten my point across so much better.

[$eth]

Why is this a thread? Music is a personal preference. It's like the old saying, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." It's true. Quality is just another term for good. Everybody has their own opinion on what good music is. It shouldn't become an argument.

[kearn1tm]

hmm. do i sense some post-modernism here? it seems to me that you're saying fact is perception based, therefore if we cant perceive the objectivity of something then it doesnt exist (because objectivity is socially constructed?)

I don't find any hyper-cognizance or meta awareness in that.

It's a supplementary line of logic: if you don't know whether something is better or not, you can't definitively say something is better than something else.

What you can say is, in relation to art, there is some art that's structurally better than others and there is art that's more influential than other art, but its quality and value is primarily measured by the person observing it. We can not be able to determine universally recognized quality, but we can understand objective formalism because, if it fits the rules, it's good, if it doesn't, it's poor.

[theguy77]

It's a rudementary line of logic: if you don't know whether something is better or not, you can't definitively say something is better than something else.

well yeah. thats basically what im saying. but what im adding to that, is that for example, a person's writing can improve, you CAN become more creatively proficient. this would mean the music you write now is better than the music you wrote before, thus proving that some music can be better than other music. but because people cant REALLY know whether one professional music form is better than another professional music form, its pretty much subjective, there is no way for us to take one piece of art and judge its quality objectively. im saying that while i believe objectivity is there, my judgments about the quality music are purely subjective, as are yours and everyone else's.

What you can say is, in relation to art, there is some art that's structurally better than others and there is art that's more influential than other art, but its quality and value is primarily measured by the person observing it.

i agree.

[theguy77]

We can not be able to determine universally recognized quality, but we can understand objective formalism because, if it fits the rules, it's good, if it doesn't, it's poor.

this is an entirely new argument, and its interesting because it accounts for elective guidelines of high-profile, formal art criticism. i believe that its true but only if you are aware of the fact that these formal guidelines are arbitrary and subjectively chosen, not self-evident.

[kearn1tm]

well yeah. thats basically what im saying. but what im adding to that, is that for example, a person's writing can improve, you CAN become more creatively proficient.

Yeah, but you said there's no way we can determine that some music is better than others, we just know that there is better music than others, but, this is an example of being able to gauge that music being better by the rules of formalism completely separate from quality. So, there is one way we can distinguish between levels of quality in music, and that's how we know some music (by a poststructuralist format) is better than others.



I think we're agreeing, but phrasing it differently.

[theguy77]

Yeah, but you said there's no way we can determine that some music is better than others, we just know that there is better music than others, but, this is an example of being able to gauge that music being better by the rules of formalism completely separate from quality. So, there is one way we can distinguish between levels of quality in music, and that's how we know some music (by a poststructuralist format) is better than others.



I think we're agreeing, but phrasing it differently.

yeah i think its another semantics thing. the way you define quality, is "what people perceive to be good." the way ive been defining quality (and i could very well be wrong), is "what is objectively good."

fuckin' semantics. :-d

[oddwithoutend]

Ryan is claiming that the answer to this question is metaphysical; I disagree. I don't believe "one song is better than the other, we just can't determine it".

[chipdip18]

I was looking at his Latest Posts, and the last couple were him and Tate getting into it about Say Anything. Uh oh.

Mmm that'll do it.

[theguy77]

Ryan is claiming that the answer to this question is metaphysical; I disagree. I don't believe "one song is better than the other, we just can't determine it".

so a 13 year old's first journal entry is automatically just as proficient lyrically as one of bob dylan's classics?

[oddwithoutend]

so a 13 year old's first journal entry is automatically just as proficient lyrically as one of bob dylan's classics?

No, I don't believe that one song is objectively equal to another either, since I maintain that quality does not exist in reality.

[theguy77]

No, I don't believe that one song is objectively equal to another either, since I maintain that quality does not exist in reality.

post-modernism is fun to think yourself into circles with, but it's useless in debate because it undermines the entire purpose of debate and makes everyone's points meaningless. i do believe fact is socially constructed but i never apply that philosophy to this site because its much more fun to argue within the parameters of socially constructed fact in a socially constructed debate.

[nlo13]

The quality of music is objective in terms of composition, both lyrics and instrumentation: English and lit. majors will know that writing is objectifiable. Instrumentation can be objectively analyzed by looking at creativity and complexion of chord progressions (ex.: using diminished, augmented, dissonant, 7th,9th, 11th, chords), and by rhythmical complexity (Time signature changes, odd time signatures, syncopation, polyrhythyms, ability to play consistently to a desired tempo), just to name a few examples. Vocals can also be analyzed objectively for quality in terms of consistency of pitches hit, intonation with the instrumentals, and overall range of the vocalist. After all of those are analyzed, then it just comes down to musical taste.

[Broclee]

so a 13 year old's first journal entry is automatically just as proficient lyrically as one of bob dylan's classics?
http://www.gatesofpraise.co.uk/images/power%20of%20faith.jpg

You gotta believe, man.

[oddwithoutend]

post-modernism is fun to think yourself into circles with, but it's useless in debate because it undermines the entire purpose of debate and makes everyone's points meaningless.

You can't believe that two things are subjective and maintain that they are objectively equal: If they don't exist in reality (which subjectivity implies), than an objective comparison between them cannot exist either. Song A is not better, equal, or worse than Song B: the comparison is not objective.

In other words, just because I don't think Sam Beam is objectively better than Mark Hoppus at writing lyrics doesn't mean I think they are objectively equal.

[theguy77]

You can't believe that two things are subjective and maintain that they are objectively equal: If they don't exist in reality (which subjectivity implies), than an objective comparison between them cannot exist either. Song A is not better, equal, or worse than Song B: the comparison is not objective.

In other words, just because I don't think Sam Beam is objectively better than Mark Hoppus at writing lyrics doesn't mean I think they are objectively equal.

i mean, so you dont think that, with practice, someone's writing can improve objectively?

[oddwithoutend]

i mean, so you dont think that, with practice, someone's writing can improve objectively?

No, it cannot. Call me extremist, but no objectivity in quality means no objectivity in quality. The enhancemant of his quality exists only in people's minds.

[theguy77]

No, it cannot. Call me extremist, but no objectivity in quality means no objectivity in quality. The enhancemant of his quality exists only in people's minds.

i disagree with you fundamentally on the basis that my music was even more shitty before northbrook. hahaha

[Chromefox]

No, it cannot. Call me extremist, but no objectivity in quality means no objectivity in quality. The enhancemant of his quality exists only in people's minds. In reality, objectivity does not exist outside human perception, however, being human, you are stuck with it. Objectivity is blurred when it comes to artwork, but it DOES exist because we perceive it to be so. It's ridiculous to argue to eliminate human perception, because that's what an argument is. You might as well either A) Stop talking or B) Divide by 0.

[Broclee]

No, it cannot. Call me extremist, but no objectivity in quality means no objectivity in quality. The enhancemant of his quality exists only in people's minds.
Do you believe the same about musicians?

(Sorry if this has been addressed, I've barely been following the last page of this thread.

[oddwithoutend]

In reality, objectivity does not exist outside human perception, however, being human, you are stuck with it. Objectivity is blurred when it comes to artwork, but it DOES exist because we perceive it to be so. It's ridiculous to argue to eliminate human perception, because that's what an argument is. You might as well either A) Stop talking or B) Divide by 0.

Not sure really what you're arguing, but regarding the bolded: I don't percieve it to be so.

[Chromefox]

Postmodernism is nothing more than a cop-out of an argument. All it does is deconstruct debate in general, not any one point or claim.

Not sure really what you're arguing, but regarding the bolded: I don't percieve it to be so. That's still a human perception though. The reality OF reality is that we can't know ANYTHING outside of human perception or construct.

[oddwithoutend]

Do you believe the same about musicians?

(Sorry if this has been addressed, I've barely been following the last page of this thread.

I believe this in regards to the creation of art. I do believe that a musician can become objectively better at playing his instrument, but that's not art; it's technical proficiency.

[oddwithoutend]

Postmodernism is nothing more than a cop-out of an argument. All it does is deconstruct debate in general, not any one point or claim.

How is it postmodern to believe that the quality of art is subjective?

That's still a human perception though. The reality OF reality is that we can't know ANYTHING outside of human perception or construct.

Maybe if you're a fundamental idealist. When I say that quality in art is subjective, I'm not saying that my and the universe's existence is subjective. I'm not deconstructing the argument in any way at all.

[Chromefox]

Maybe if you're a fundamental idealist. When I say that quality in art is subjective, I'm not saying that my and the universe's existence is subjective. I'm not deconstructing the argument in any way at all. I believe I misunderstood you when you said that there was no objectivity in "reality", and took it to mean generally rather than simply on the scale of art.

[oddwithoutend]

I believe I misunderstood you when you said that there was no objectivity in "reality", and took it to mean generally rather than simply on the scale of art.

Yeah, that's kind of what I thought was happening. I'm glad we understand each other now.

[Chromefox]

Yeah, that's kind of what I thought was happening. I'm glad we understand each other now. To be frank, I don't know how I feel about objectivity on the scale of art. I have a number of contradicting opinions on the matter. :shrug:

[oddwithoutend]

i disagree with you fundamentally on the basis that my music was even more shitty before northbrook. hahaha

You need more harmonica. :-)

[oddwithoutend]

To be frank, I don't know how I feel about objectivity on the scale of art. I have a number of contradicting opinions on the matter. :shrug:

Well let's go through it: Do we agree that one can never prove one piece of art is better than another?

[Chromefox]

Well let's go through it: Do we agree that one can never prove one piece of art is better than another? Factually, no.

[oddwithoutend]

Factually, no.

Alright, so we're left with two choices: Either you believe that quality in art is metaphysical (existant but inconcievable, like some religious people would apply to omniscience, for example), or you believe it's subjective. I'm not sure it matters which one you choose, really.

We can also agree that even though proof cannot exist, evidence can, and therefore educated opinions can exist.

[Chromefox]

Alright, so we're left with two choices: Either you believe that quality in art is metaphysical (existant but unattainable, like some religious people would apply to omniscience, for example), or you believe it's subjective. I'm not sure it matters which one you choose, really.

We can also agree that even though proof cannot exist, evidence can, and therefore educated opinions can exist. I mean, essentially, I can see either side of the argument and while logically I tend to lean towards art being entirely subjective, I'd be lying if I said I did not think that Radiohead or Arcade Fire are without a doubt, in every facet, factually better artists than, say, All Time Low. The only issue is that I cannot prove it to someone who does not value the same aspects of art that I do.

[oddwithoutend]

I mean, essentially, I can see either side of the argument and while logically I tend to lean towards art being entirely subjective, I'd be lying if I said I did not think that Radiohead or Arcade Fire are without a doubt, in every facet, factually better artists than, say, All Time Low. The only issue is that I cannot prove it to someone who does not value the same aspects of art that I do.

I understand your quandary. I find it best to believe that it's subjective, but keep highly educated opinions. Like how many All Time Low fans are going to win an argument against you saying they're better than Radiohead? haha It sounds funny, but i do maintain that the argument is ultimately contestable.

[theguy77]

Alright, so we're left with two choices: Either you believe that quality in art is metaphysical (existant but inconcievable, like some religious people would apply to omniscience, for example),or you believe it's subjective. I'm not sure it matters which one you choose, really.

We can also agree that even though proof cannot exist, evidence can, and therefore educated opinions can exist.

a massive yes to all of these things.

[theguy77]

I mean, essentially, I can see either side of the argument and while logically I tend to lean towards art being entirely subjective, I'd be lying if I said I did not think that Radiohead or Arcade Fire are without a doubt, in every facet, factually better artists than, say, All Time Low. The only issue is that I cannot prove it to someone who does not value the same aspects of art that I do.

I understand your quandary. I find it best to believe that it's subjective, but keep highly educated opinions. Like how many All Time Low fans are going to win an argument against you saying they're better than Radiohead? haha It sounds funny, but i do maintain that the argument is ultimately contestable.

you guys both rule.

[oddwithoutend]

a massive yes to all of these things.

Yay! I like how every time we go back to this topic we seem to progress toward a slightly more educated conclusion.

[theguy77]

Yay! I like how every time we go back to this topic we seem to progress toward a slightly more educated conclusion.

haha i know right? thats the point of debate as far as im concerned. im not about trying to prove everybody else wrong, im about expanding our views collectively by adding our own perspectives.

[kearn1tm]

yeah i think its another semantics thing. the way you define quality, is "what people perceive to be good." the way ive been defining quality (and i could very well be wrong), is "what is objectively good."

fuckin' semantics. :-d

That's fair, so long as you know that, how you define quailty (formalism) isn't universally right, and that quality isn't predicated on objective standards beyond your own taste.

[The Personist]

Fuck. I missed all the good shit.

[The Personist]

That's fair, so long as you know that, how you define quailty (formalism) isn't universally right, and that quality isn't predicated on objective standards beyond your own taste.

I agree completely.

[oddwithoutend]

I agree completely.

DON'T TRY AND PARTICIPATE THE DISCUSSION IS OVER

x

[The Personist]

DON'T TRY AND PARTICIPATE THE DISCUSSION IS OVER

x

:-(

This is why I need my internet in my apartment.

[Fedaykin]

Let me begin by saying this is one of my fave threads EVER, so ty

i think that geographic location could still possibly be objective. Natural resources, job availability, cleaniness/health

Job availability, I'll grant you that, nice one

We can't even begin discussing what the standards are what we've been calling "those few objective standards" if you don't even believe that there are any to begin with.

"There is nothing quality about this car?" "Yes there is, and we can't begin to enumerate what is quality about this car until you agree there is something quality about this car"

This is how I see the discussion phrased. If you simply said, "This car has A/C, power steering, power locks, power windows etc." It would demonstrate and prove and make me believe the car has quality just as if you would enumerate what "few objective qualities" there are it would make me believe that such standards exist

I'm glad you know logic and stuff though, this makes this discussion so worthwhile and stimulating.

And ty as well its the only thing that makes this discussion worth having

I was thinking of it as a modus ponens implication:

1) If there is art, then art can be objectively considered
2) Music is art
_________________________
3) Therefore Music can be objectively considered.

It's all good either way.

I still see this as valid but unsound because I disagree with premise 1

I don't understand why people take such offense to the fact that everything related to music, art, etc. is inherently subjective.

This

Are you (currently or going to be) an English major?

Yes

Quality not objective in the slightest. Technical proficiency is. It's formalist thought. That's fine. Adhering to the perimeters of music theory is an example of formalism, but some of the most beloved artists and acts were not good musicians and egregious stains on the medium by music theory standards. Quality is entirely comprised of a self-made (or adopted) template of what's "good and bad." Objective formalism can be a component of what you use to gauge quality, but it's subjective in that you choose it to be a facet of quality.

I agree with ther bolded section but I'm not sure if I agree with what follows: according to the OED 'quality' is the "nature [or]...virtue" of something. Some might argue that whether its characteristics are subjective, objective or some other category entirely, the characteristics of quality are inherent and not self made. Just because they are not self eveident doesn't necessarily mean they are self made

You subjectively believe technical skill equates to quality. However, you can't prove it. It's not a tangible, provable entity that exists.

What is a "tangible, provable entity that exists?"

well i could give you many examples that point to that conclusion.

If you could - as you claim - then why don't you, as that is all I am asking for?

the most simple example i can provide: i know my own writing is a lot better than it was 4 years ago, for countless reasons, and it continues to improve. therefore, i am proving to myself that it is possible for the product of one person's creative energy to exceed the objective quality of the product of another person's creative energy, because creativity DOES have levels of proficiency and professionalism. you can get better creatively than you were before, and therefore you can be better creatively than someone else who hasnt reached that "level" yet.

You believe it to be, you don't necessarily know it is because aethetic quality may not be something you can have knowledge of. It continues to improve based on parameters you have set up: a self fulfilling prophecy. This is no proof for the certainty that one's creativity can somehow exceed another; you're adopting the language of quantification without providing an objective system of judgement.

my answer to this thread should have simply been, "to an extent we can't possibly determine." probably would have gotten my point across so much better.

Still means to an extent we can; so how can we?

Quality is just another term for good.

Wrong: something can be of poor quality but cannot be of poor good.

this would mean the music you write now is better than the music you wrote before, thus proving that some music can be better than other music.

No all this proves is that you can make a judgement that you like your present creation better than your past creation. Also, it is illogical to generalize from a limited series to the majority imo.

there is no way for us to take one piece of art and judge its quality objectively.


We can't judge art objectively but it can be judged by objective qualities? I'm confused...

this is an entirely new argument, and its interesting because it accounts for elective guidelines of high-profile, formal art criticism. i believe that its true but only if you are aware of the fact that these formal guidelines are arbitrary and subjectively chosen, not self-evident.

this

yeah i think its another semantics thing. the way you define quality, is "what people perceive to be good." the way ive been defining quality (and i could very well be wrong), is "what is objectively good."

I think if you look up the definition for quality in the OED you'll find its neither of these...

No, it cannot. Call me extremist, but no objectivity in quality means no objectivity in quality. The enhancemant of his quality exists only in people's minds.

this

i mean, so you dont think that, with practice, someone's writing can improve objectively?

objectively by their own subjective standards or a universal set of objective standards?

it DOES exist because we perceive it to be so.

I can't bring something into existence simply by believeing in it, regardless of perception

Postmodernism is nothing more than a cop-out of an argument. All it does is deconstruct debate in general, not any one point or claim. That's still a human perception though. The reality OF reality is that we can't know ANYTHING outside of human perception or construct.

1. you cannot dismiss all of criticism in art, literature, architecture etc. with this one sentence
2. but just because we can't perceive something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist; it means it might as well not

[Fedaykin]

DON'T TRY AND PARTICIPATE THE DISCUSSION IS OVER

x

NO IT ISN'T!

[Broclee]

Yes

Uh...okay? That question wasn't directed at you, haha.

[Fedaykin]

Uh...okay? That question wasn't directed at you, haha.

I know: i was on a multi quoting rampage as you can see

[Gardenhead]

I don't understand why people take such offense to the fact that everything related to music, art, etc. is inherently subjective. It's a personal process to create it and it's a personal process to listen to it. It isn't like math where whether or not you're "good" at it depends on reaching the correct answer, I can say the Sex Pistols, who are terrible musicians, are better than Stockhausen, and you know what? It doesn't really matter how you try and argue that they aren't "competent" at their instruments or anything like that, because that isn't the point of their music.

You can become "better" at mastering the standards of your craft, but at the end of the day, even that is subjective. You could be the most technically talented musician in the world and I can still think you're shit, and no amount of "look at how I conform to Anglo standards of guitar-based musicianship" or "critics love me" is going to change my mind.
That's because ENJOYMENT of music is subjective. Everyone likes different things and looks for different things which makes a song enjoyable to them. For instance, I like blaring the occasional My Chemical Romance song. I prefer listening to them more than I like listening to Regina Spektor. However, I'm not arrogant enough to assume my opinion gives me the right to say MCR is better, because to compare the quality of songwriting between the two makes it clear that Regina Spektor is the better artist.

By your logic, no artist should ever have to work hard on their art, because no matter what they do, enjoyment is up to the listener. What about art that no one sees? Are you claiming it is automatically bad? Of course you are, since quality is subjective. If there's no one to judge the quality, then it has no quality, right? All art can be judged through certain objective standards. Like the guy before said, by your standards, every art major is wasting their time, considering you believe quality is completely subjective.

Also, you're an idiot.

[Robototron]

Also, you're an idiot.

lol @ you calling me an idiot and then making brain dead comments like:

What about art that no one sees? Are you claiming it is automatically bad? Of course you are, since quality is subjective. If there's no one to judge the quality, then it has no quality, right?

Right. And:

However, I'm not arrogant enough to assume my opinion gives me the right to say MCR is better, because to compare the quality of songwriting between the two makes it clear that Regina Spektor is the better artist.

I see you don't actually understand how opinions or criticism work, so I'm just going to ignore you.

[Gardenhead]

lol @ you calling me an idiot and then making brain dead comments like:



Right. And:



I see you don't actually understand how opinions or criticism work, so I'm just going to ignore you.
I often feign intellectual superiority when I'm defeated in an argument as well. Guess we've got a lot in common after all.

[Broclee]

I know: i was on a multi quoting rampage as you can see

I did see. It actually worked quite well. Kudos.

[Robototron]

I often feign intellectual superiority when I'm defeated in an argument as well. Guess we've got a lot in common after all.

Says the guy who ended a post with "you're an idiot."

[theguy77]

You believe it to be, you don't necessarily know it is because aethetic quality may not be something you can have knowledge of. It continues to improve based on parameters you have set up: a self fulfilling prophecy. This is no proof for the certainty that one's creativity can somehow exceed another; you're adopting the language of quantification without providing an objective system of judgement.

because my and anyone else's objective system is set up arbitrarily and based on preferences, but im not arrogant enough to believe that the objective quality of music doesnt exist just because i cant comprehensively quantify it.

Still means to an extent we can; so how can we?

what the fuck? "you can't perceive it." "but that still means you can."
nice job on the blatant contradiction there.

No all this proves is that you can make a judgement that you like your present creation better than your past creation. Also, it is illogical to generalize from a limited series to the majority imo.

i dont buy into your philosophy one bit. a 13 year old who just starts writing music isnt going to automatically be as good a songwriter as he'll ever be and plateau in artistry for the rest of his life. this isnt the same thing as deciding whether one color is better than another; music is created by people, and like anything else, the more experience people have with creating it, the more they learn about it, the more efficient they are at making it, and the better the result of their creation. but i can already tell this discussion isnt going to go anywhere, its just gonna be you and me spewing dogma at each other.

and as for the "generalizing majority by a limited series" argument, the whole point of this example is to explain why i think there's a POSSIBILITY of objectivity in music quality. im not necessarily implying that it applies in every circumstance.

We can't judge art objectively but it can be judged by objective qualities?

exactly. you can judge certain parts of it objectively but not the whole picture. for example, you can very well make a factual argument that one piece is more technically complex than another. however, there's nothing to indicate that the facet of complexity itself holds ANY significance on what makes one piece of music better than another overall, so ultimately the objective judgment you made between the level of complexity of two different pieces hardly implies that one is better than another.

im saying that, because i believe some songwriters are inherently more adept with their creativity than others, and because i believe that you can become better creatively with experience, i believe the end result of one creative process can be better than the end result of another creative process. however, im also saying that in reality it doesnt matter that one piece can be better than another, because a person cant perceive or quantify it objectively as a whole anyway. so, in a nutshell -- we cant judge it, but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist, and i believe it does.

2. but just because we can't perceive something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist; it means it might as well not

this, ironically, is the basis behind my perspective.

[Fedaykin]

We can't judge art objectively but it can be judged by objective qualities?

exactly.


I fear we will have to agree to disagree. In my opinion, you keep evading what has been my central question the entire time: WHAT ARE THESE OBJECTIVE QUALITIES? You have claimed they exist by the tons and yet have said everything except for what they are. I can only assume you are deluded enough to believe that what you have said somehow answers this question.

I see it as: me asking you to read your age from your driver's license; you've given me hair color, organ donation status, address, full name etc. and think that suffices.

I am astounded

[theguy77]

"There is nothing quality about this car?" "Yes there is, and we can't begin to enumerate what is quality about this car until you agree there is something quality about this car"

This is how I see the discussion phrased. If you simply said, "This car has A/C, power steering, power locks, power windows etc." It would demonstrate and prove and make me believe the car has quality just as if you would enumerate what "few objective qualities" there are it would make me believe that such standards exist

see but the thing is anyone can tell you these things, but your counterargument in the context of art would be: "who's to say those things make one car better than another?" if you're going to use this example, either accept that some music is better than others, or accept that these things do nothing to make you believe the car has quality. otherwise your entire argument is undermined by self-contradiction.

[Fedaykin]

see but the thing is anyone can tell you these things, but your counterargument in the context of art would be: "who's to say those things make one car better than another?" if you're going to use this example, either accept that some music is better than others, or accept that these things do nothing to make you believe the car has quality. otherwise your entire argument is undermined by self-contradiction.

yet another attempt to disguise the fact that you REFUSE to answer a simple question:

WHAT ARE THESE QUALITIES?

simply name them

or if you don't
or can't
or won't

Then it is your argument that is undermined...by hypocrisy

[oddwithoutend]

That's because ENJOYMENT of music is subjective. Everyone likes different things and looks for different things which makes a song enjoyable to them. For instance, I like blaring the occasional My Chemical Romance song. I prefer listening to them more than I like listening to Regina Spektor. However, I'm not arrogant enough to assume my opinion gives me the right to say MCR is better, because to compare the quality of songwriting between the two makes it clear that Regina Spektor is the better artist.
No one has made the argument that more enjoyment equals higher quality, though I agree it would be quite an uninformed one. The example you've provided merely demonstrates that there is a difference between what one finds enjoyable and what he finds to be high in quality. If Regina Spector is objectively the better artist, then I'd like to see proof.

...

Now that we agree that an artist can never be proven better than another artist, it can be seen that it is possible to make a valid argument for My Chemical Romance being the better artists. Hence, the argument is contestable; objective facts are not contestable. Therefore, any hierarchy of artists is subjective.
Also, you're an idiot.
No, she isn't.

[theguy77]

We can't judge art objectively but it can be judged by objective qualities?




I fear we will have to agree to disagree. In my opinion, you keep evading what has been my central question the entire time: WHAT ARE THESE OBJECTIVE QUALITIES? You have claimed they exist by the tons and yet have said everything except for what they are. I can only assume you are deluded enough to believe that what you have said somehow answers this question.

I see it as: me asking you to read your age from your driver's license; you've given me hair color, organ donation status, address, full name etc. and think that suffices.

I am astounded

i gave you several examples, you just chose to dismiss them and act like i still havent answered your question. i gave you an example of the qualities we can perceive (complexity -- if you actually read my post), but i also said that we have no way of knowing whether those qualities are significant or not, therefore we cant judge it as a whole.

[Fedaykin]

i gave you several examples, you just chose to dismiss them and act like i still havent answered your question. i gave you an example of the qualities we can perceive (complexity -- if you actually read my post), but i also said that we have no way of knowing whether those qualities are significant or not, therefore we cant judge it as a whole.

Oh, I'm sorry I seem to have missed them (actually I think you're lying and didn't give me any)
But since you "already did" I'm sure you wouldn't mind reiterating them?

[theguy77]

yet another attempt to disguise the fact that you REFUSE to answer a simple question:

WHAT ARE THESE QUALITIES?

simply name them

or if you don't
or can't
or won't

Then it is your argument that is undermined...by hypocrisy

you're fucking stupid.

complexity
diversity
dynamics
tempo

just to name a few.

now go ahead and dismiss the significance of all of those, but know that it does not refute my point because i already explained to you that we have no way of determining whether they matter or not and how much.

[oddwithoutend]

Fedaykin: Ryan believes objective qualities exist but they are inconcievable; You believe they don't exist. I agree with you, but the argument is futile. Philosophers rarely dwell on the difference between the two beliefs because inconcievable things are inherently impossible to discuss.

[Fedaykin]

you're fucking stupid.


Ladies & gentlemen, if all else fails you in an argument, and your opponent is unwilling to simply lie down and quit but instead follows the example of Socrates, just make an ad hominem attack against him to discredit his utterances wholesale

I guess I missed that part of Logic


complexity
diversity
dynamics
tempo


It is an absolute FACT that orchestral symphonies use these objective qualities to an obscene amount more than any other type of music. Therefore, by your own definition, classical music > punk

now go ahead and dismiss the significance of all of those, but know that it does not refute my point



Actually, that's exactly what it would do

because i already explained to you that we have no way of determining whether they matter or not and how much.



So, we know these are the ones to watch for, but we don't know whether they matter...

So why are we watching for these ones? That makes no sense whatsoever

The "few objective qualities" we are searching for are the ones that DO matter, so these can't be them

[Fedaykin]

Fedaykin: Ryan believes objective qualities exist but they are inconcievable; You believe they don't exist. I agree with you, but the argument is futile. Philosophers rarely dwell on the difference between the two beliefs because inconcievable things are inherently impossible to discuss.

If they are "inconceivable" which means they literally cannot be conceived of, how can you identify them?

Furthermore, philosophers often dwell on the difference between two beliefs, even inconeivable ones
Kierkegaard & Hegel for starters

[Theseventhson]

It is an absolute FACT that orchestral symphonies use these objective qualities to an obscene amount more than any other type of music. Therefore, by your own definition, classical music > punk
Classical>>>>>>>>>>Punk. Bach wrote better music than the Ramones, there's no real discussion to have there.

[theguy77]

It is an absolute FACT that orchestral symphonies use these objective qualities to an obscene amount more than any other type of music. Therefore, by your own definition, classical music > punk

its ridiculous how much someone can miss the point of an argument by trying to wave their cock in your face.

no, i specifically said that while classical music has those qualities, that doesnt mean its better than punk.

Actually, that's exactly what it would do
the only thing you proved is that you lack reading comprehension. "another ad hominem attack you suck at arguing lol" its all been done before. stop elevating yourself by acting like you debate more philosophically than anybody else, it's contrived and petty and togepi already does it wayyyyyyyyyy better than you.

So, we know these are the ones to watch for, but we don't know whether they matter...

So why are we watching for these ones? That makes no sense whatsoever

The "few objective qualities" we are searching for are the ones that DO matter, so these can't be them
im not trying to tell you that music is objective. im just trying to explain why i believe it could be. you cant ask for examples of a subjective BELIEF you dont subscribe to; that was the whole point of what chipdip18 was trying to tell you, but you missed that one too.

[Fedaykin]

its ridiculous how much someone can miss the point of an argument by trying to wave their cock in your face.

no, i specifically said that while classical music has those qualities, that doesnt mean its better than punk.



the only thing you proved is that you lack reading comprehension. "another ad hominem attack you suck at arguing lol" its all been done before. stop elevating yourself by acting like you debate more philosophically than anybody else, it's contrived and petty and togepi does it wayyyyyyyyyy better than you.



im not trying to tell you that music is objective. im just trying to explain why i believe it could be. you cant ask for examples of a subjective BELIEF you dont subscribe to; that was the whole point of what chipdip18 was trying to tell you, but you missed that one too.

Yes, I'm sure my BA in Philosophy means much less than your 14K posts on an internet site. I - the college graduate - am the idiot; as I sit here at work in an office building in downtown chicago killing time because my caseload is rather light today; on the other hand, YOU the teenager drug abuser with no degree who - when he cannot win an intellectual battle on even terms resorts to cursing and homophobic put downs - are clearly the more enlightened one

Bravo sir

[oddwithoutend]

If they are "inconceivable" which means they literally cannot be conceived of, how can you identify them?

I'm not sure why one would believe they exist when they cannot be concieved of. That's why I agree with you.

Furthermore, philosophers often dwell on the difference between two beliefs, even inconeivable ones
Kierkegaard & Hegel for starters

Inconcievable things are intrinsically absurd. Philosophers dwell on absurdity in itself, but adding logic to absurd ideals is futile. For example, one can believe that we are being deluded into thinking our logic is logical, but one cannot substantiate this belief in any way. It is simply a possibility whose likelihood cannot be comprehended.

[theguy77]

Yes, I'm sure my BA in Philosophy means much less than your 14K posts on an internet site. I - the college graduate - am the idiot; as I sit here at work in an office building in downtown chicago killing time because my caseload is rather light today; on the other hand, YOU the teenager drug abuser with no degree who - when he cannot win an intellectual battle on even terms resorts to cursing and homophobic put downs - are clearly the more enlightened one

Bravo sir

hahahahaha

i'd love to see anyone validate anything you said against me. i did not:
1) elevate myself above you using post count
2) say anything homophobic
3) curse anymore than i would in a completely cordial setting

and you're sitting here bragging about your college degree and your job. im pretty sure you look like much more of a douchebag than you're desperately trying to make me out to be.

[Gardenhead]

No one has made the argument that more enjoyment equals higher quality, though I agree it would be quite an uninformed one. The example you've provided merely demonstrates that there is a difference between what one finds enjoyable and what he finds to be high in quality. If Regina Spector is objectively the better artist, then I'd like to see proof.

...

Now that we agree that an artist can never be proven better than another artist, it can be seen that it is possible to make a valid argument for My Chemical Romance being the better artists. Hence, the argument is contestable; objective facts are not contestable. Therefore, any hierarchy of artists is subjective.

No, she isn't.
To someone who knows nothing about music, yeah, it's easy to see My Chemical Romance vs. Regina Spektor as contestable.

[oddwithoutend]

To someone who knows nothing about music, yeah, it's easy to see My Chemical Romance vs. Regina Spektor as contestable.

Is this the proof I asked for?

[Fedaykin]

its ridiculous how much someone can miss the point of an argument by trying to wave their cock in your face.

?


the only thing you proved is that you lack reading comprehension.

just because i persist doesn't mean i'm not comprehending; it means that unlike your freshmen year TA for english, I'm not buying the crap you're slinging

"another ad hominem attack you suck at arguing lol" its all been done before. stop elevating yourself by acting like you debate more philosophically than anybody else, it's contrived and petty and togepi already does it wayyyyyyyyyy better than you.

I'm not claiming to be better than anyone, not even you. Don't make yourself the victim when you insulted me. You took time away from the argument to insult me; that's your resentment not mine. And just because i'm late to the party on calling you out on ad hominem attacks doesn't make me stupid; it makes you silly for not learning the first time


im not trying to tell you that music is objective. im just trying to explain why i believe it could be.

your belief: music is objective

you cant ask for examples of a subjective BELIEF you dont subscribe to; that was the whole point of what chipdip18 was trying to tell you, but you missed that one too.

Hell yeah I can! I think religion and politics are subjective too, but I can iterate what the examples of communism and christianity are!

[Gardenhead]

Is this the proof I asked for?
OK, here's the proof.

I'M NOT OKAY!
I'M NOT OKAYAYAYAYAYAY!
I'M NOT OKAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!
YOU WEAR ME OUT!

[oddwithoutend]

OK, here's the proof.

I'M NOT OKAY!
I'M NOT OKAYAYAYAYAYAY!
I'M NOT OKAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!
YOU WEAR ME OUT!

Right. So you agree that proof is non-existant, yet you claim to know the answer. Cool.

[Fedaykin]

hahahahaha

i'd love to see anyone validate anything you said against me. i did not:
1) elevate myself above you using post count
2) say anything homophobic
3) curse anymore than i would in a completely cordial setting

and you're sitting here bragging about your college degree and your job. im pretty sure you look like much more of a douchebag than you're desperately trying to make me out to be.

I literally laughed out loud when I read this

"Waving their cock" Explain the significance of this remark
The fact that you "swear alot in a cordial setting" doesn't mean you didn't sweaq & you know this: that's why you couldn't simply deny it. Also, look up "cordial" in the OED; it's impossible to swear and remain cordial

No, you didn't elevate yourself above me using post count. But I think you are in fact someone who uses drugs (do you deny it) and you are in fact a teenager ; you've got some growing up to do. That's ok. Maybe when Mom & Dad aren't paying room & board anymore you'll understand

[oddwithoutend]

But I think you are in fact someone who uses drugs (do you deny it) and you are in fact a teenager ; you've got some growing up to do. That's ok. Maybe when Mom & Dad aren't paying room & board anymore you'll understand

Nice ad hominem. His age and interests make him ignorant to the subject, eh?

[Fedaykin]

Inconcievable things are intrinsically absurd. Philosophers dwell on absurdity in itself, but adding logic to absurd ideals is futile. It is simply a possibility whose likelihood cannot be comprehended.

Not necessarily:

Thomas Reid tried to argue that it isn't futile

But then question upon question remains (and this ad infinitum) — Have we a power (a will) over such anterior will? — and until this question be definitively answered, which it never can, we must be unable to conceive the possibility of the fact of Liberty. But, though inconceivable, this fact is not therefore false. For there are many contradictories (and, of contradictories one must, and one only can, be true) of which we are equally unable to conceive the possibility of either. The philosophy, therefore, which I profess, annihilates the theoretical problem

On the Active Powers, Essay IV, Chapter I, in The Works of Thomas Reid, William Hamilton, ed., p.599)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Reid

For example, one can believe that we are being deluded into thinking our logic is logical, but one cannot substantiate this belief in any way.

Actually, that's exactly what Hume tried to do

[Fedaykin]

Nice ad hominem. His age and interests make him ignorant to the subject, eh?

If you can't beat em, join em?

[theguy77]

just because i persist doesn't mean i'm not comprehending; it means that unlike your freshmen year TA for english, I'm not buying the crap you're slinging

hahahaha

keep doing it, its hilarious how many times ive seen this exact form of condescension. doesnt help your argument anymore than my ad hominem attacks help mine. difference is you prance around these boards like a second-rate togepi fanboy, who sadly cant do the real thing much justice. i wonder how long youve been lurking and studying him.

I'm not claiming to be better than anyone, not even you. Don't make yourself the victim when you insulted me. You took time away from the argument to insult me; that's your resentment not mine. And just because i'm late to the party on calling you out on ad hominem attacks doesn't make me stupid; it makes you silly for not learning the first time

learning what? not to be honest about what i think of other people?

your belief: music is objective

nope. music COULD BE objective. very significant difference that you missed out on again becuase of your poor reading comprehension. im not even going to entertain this discussion anymore because it's clear that unlike a REAL philosopher who subscribes to your views and general debate style, you're not open to a different perspective, and thus you cant even recognize the very subjectivity you waste so much time defending.

Hell yeah I can! I think religion and politics are subjective too, but I can iterate what the examples of communism and christianity are!

i iterated the examples of objective formalism. what neither of us can iterate is the TRUTH within those constructions. yet you're demanding that i do so. so why dont i ask you: prove that christianity is true. prove that communism is better than any other government organization.

[Gardenhead]

Right. So you agree that proof is non-existant, yet you claim to know the answer. Cool.
The proof exists. Fact of the matter is, whether I enjoy it or not, My Chemical Romance's lyrics lack a mastery of poetic devices, contain no tact or subtlety, and are riddled with cliches and overused imagery. Radiohead lyrics are not. Therefore, Radiohead's lyrics are better, objectively. If someone enjoys My Chemical Romance's lyrics more, that's perfectly alright, but it doesn't mean "My Chemical Romance's lyrics are better than Radiohead's" is a valid claim. The argument would go something like this:

You: My Chemical Romance lyrics are better than Radiohead's.
Me: No they're not. My Chemical Romance's lyrics are very cliche and only appeal to a very small group of people. Radiohead's are much more universal and don't rely on overused images and mother goose rhymes.
You: Yeah, but that's what I like about My Chemical Romance.
Me: Cool. That doesn't mean they're better lyricists though.
You: MUSIC IS SUBJECTIVE YOU ELITIST ASS.

[Fedaykin]

Nice ad hominem. His age and interests make him ignorant to the subject, eh?

On another level I have really found this to be a difference in cognition: those that are self sufficient & those that are dependant. I'm not necessarily saying it isn't a necessary problem to be overcome (i know it was for me) but it does change not only your views on the world (content) but the way you arrive at those views as well (process)

[Fedaykin]

difference is you prance around these boards like a second-rate togepi fanboy, who sadly cant do the real thing much justice. i wonder how long youve been lurking and studying him.



learning what? not to be honest about what i think of other people?



nope. music COULD BE objective. very significant difference that you missed out on again becuase of your poor reading comprehension. im not even going to entertain this discussion anymore because it's clear that unlike a REAL philosopher who subscribes to your views and general debate style, you're not open to a different perspective, and thus you cant even recognize the very subjectivity you waste so much time defending.




i iterated the examples of objective formalism. what neither of us can iterate is the TRUTH within those constructions. yet you're demanding that i do so. so why dont i ask you: prove that christianity is true. prove that communism is better than any other government organization.

I can honestly say I have asbolutely no idea who you are talking about: the condescension is %100 original

Ah yes, this old chestnut: what did you get on the sat? sat II? AP english? Let's see which one of us has the "poor reading comprehension"
A "real" philosopher: like you?

i guess i'm not looking for the truth within thiose constructions so much as examples of how they would purportedly function truthfully, if that distinction makes sense (i'm not entirely sure if it does)

[oddwithoutend]

Not necessarily:

Thomas Reid tried to argue that it isn't futile

But then question upon question remains (and this ad infinitum) — Have we a power (a will) over such anterior will? — and until this question be definitively answered, which it never can, we must be unable to conceive the possibility of the fact of Liberty. But, though inconceivable, this fact is not therefore false. For there are many contradictories (and, of contradictories one must, and one only can, be true) of which we are equally unable to conceive the possibility of either. The philosophy, therefore, which I profess, annihilates the theoretical problem

On the Active Powers, Essay IV, Chapter I, in The Works of Thomas Reid, William Hamilton, ed., p.599)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Reid


Unless I am misunderstanding him, he is simply suggesting that inconcievable things aren't neccessarily false. I agree. Relating to my past example, it is not neccessarily false that we are being deluded into thinking our logic is logical.


Actually, that's exactly what Hume tried to do

One can try to argue anything. Doesn't mean it's not futile.

[Theseventhson]

:popcorn:

[theguy77]

I literally laughed out loud when I read this

good then, we're both entertained. only you're the idiot.

"Waving their cock" Explain the significance of this remark

meandering in haughty self-importance

The fact that you "swear alot in a cordial setting" doesn't mean you didn't sweaq & you know this: that's why you couldn't simply deny it. Also, look up "cordial" in the OED; it's impossible to swear and remain cordial

i swore but i didnt "resort" to swearing because i couldnt "win" an "intellectual" argument.

how about i look up cordial in a regular dictionary: "courteous and gracious; friendly; warm". hmm, thats funny because in my opinion there's nothing about swearing that contradicts this definition, they're just emphatic words to me. but there you go again, failing to recognize subjectivity. before you argue in defense of something it's best to know what it is.

No, you didn't elevate yourself above me using post count. But I think you are in fact someone who uses drugs (do you deny it) and you are in fact a teenager ; you've got some growing up to do. That's ok. Maybe when Mom & Dad aren't paying room & board anymore you'll understand

hahahaha it's also hilarious how you think you're so spot on with all of this.
1) no, i dont do drugs
2) im a junior, not a freshman
3) i pay my own room and board this year

try again. maybe you'll have me pinned next time.

[Broclee]

:popcorn:
What I was | | that close to posting.

[oddwithoutend]

If you can't beat em, join em?

I don't get it. I was merely unbiasedly pointing out your fallacy. Though I must say, this reply is much better than the one where you pretended you didn't use ad hominem.

[Fedaykin]

One can try to argue anything. Doesn't mean it's not futile.

If the end justifys the means it wasnt futile: without hume there is no Kant

[Fedaykin]

:popcorn:
was it as good for you as it was for me?

[Fedaykin]

Unless I am misunderstanding him, he is simply suggesting that inconcievable things aren't neccessarily false. I agree. Relating to my past example, it is not neccessarily false that we are being deluded into thinking our logic is logical.




One can try to argue anything. Doesn't mean it's not futile.If something isn't necessarily false it might be true; something absurd is by definition "obviously untrue"

[Theseventhson]

was it as good for you as it was for me?
Probably not, these things always feel best when you're actually involved.

[oddwithoutend]

If the end justifys the means it wasnt futile: without hume there is no Kant

You're supposed to be showing me that your argument with Ryan (existant but inconcievable vs. non-existant) is not futile. That hasn't happened yet, and neither of you have provided anything to justify either of your sides. At least Ryan understands that you cannot prove him wrong.

[Fedaykin]

You're supposed to be showing me that your argument with Ryan (existant but inconcievable vs. non-existant) is not futile. That hasn't happened yet, and neither of you have provided anything to justify either of your sides. At least Ryan understands that you cannot prove him wrong.

Wisdom, to me, is understanding that you can be proven wrong, even if you think you cannot

I didn't think I was supposed to be doing anything

[Fedaykin]

Probably not, these things always feel best when you're actually involved.

just like anal

[Theseventhson]

just like anal
Exactly!

[oddwithoutend]

If something isn't necessarily false it might be true; something absurd is by definition "obviously untrue"

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the philosophy of absurdism. In context, it does not mean "logically impossible", but rather "humanly impossible".

[oddwithoutend]

Wisdom, to me, is understanding that you can be proven wrong, even if you think you cannot

Then why have you not refuted Ryan's claim in any way, shape or form? You have provided no evidence demonstrating that quality in art is not "existant but inconcievable". Therefore, I believe your argument with him is futile.

[Fedaykin]

Here was what I was arguing about, without regard to "someone else"

Philosophers rarely dwell on the difference between the two beliefs because inconcievable things are inherently impossible to discuss.

Yet here's someone discussing them

Not necessarily:

Thomas Reid tried to argue that it isn't futile

But then question upon question remains (and this ad infinitum) — Have we a power (a will) over such anterior will? — and until this question be definitively answered, which it never can, we must be unable to conceive the possibility of the fact of Liberty. But, though inconceivable, this fact is not therefore false. For there are many contradictories (and, of contradictories one must, and one only can, be true) of which we are equally unable to conceive the possibility of either. The philosophy, therefore, which I profess, annihilates the theoretical problem

On the Active Powers, Essay IV, Chapter I, in The Works of Thomas Reid, William Hamilton, ed., p.599)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Reid


Apparently you are unfamiliar with the philosophy of absurdism. In context, it does not mean "logically impossible", but rather "humanly impossible".

Hardly! Wasn't it I that first brought up Kierkegaard? Let's move beyond a wikipedia dilineation of absurdism's generalities: does music even fit an absurdist philosopher's concepts of objectiv. or subjectiv. to begin with?

[Fedaykin]

Then why have you not refuted Ryan's claim in any way, shape or form? You have provided no evidence demonstrating that quality in art is not "existant but inconcievable". Therefore, I believe your argument with him is futile.

This for me is the problem of debate: a claim of ignorance coupled with a straw man definition of terms

I claim he provides no adequate qualities
He claims he has

He claims he refuted me
I claim he did not

I claim Reid discusses inconceivability; you claim he did not

You claim I did not refute him
I claim I did

We cannot seem to bridge this gap

Additionally,

I never claimed to be arguing "that quality in art is not "existant but inconcievable". You did that for me
This seems to limit the prospects of where the discussion can go as well as "subjectively" claiming where we really started

[oddwithoutend]

Here was what I was arguing about, without regard to "someone else"Yet here's someone discussing them

So here you've proved that I used the word "discuss" incorrectly. Substitute "discuss" for "impossible to apply logic to".
Hardly! Wasn't it I that first brought up Kierkegaard? Let's move beyond a wikipedia dilineation of absurdism's generalities: does music even fit an absurdist philosopher's concepts of objectiv. or subjectiv. to begin with?

Are you pretending that I'm using the word "absurd" incorrectly? We both know that I'm not, and that you were mistaken when you attempted to discredit my previous usage of it.

[Fedaykin]

So here you've proved that I used the word "discuss" incorrectly. Substitute "discuss" for "impossible to apply logic to".

Are you pretending that I'm using the word "absurd" incorrectly? We both know that I'm not, and that you were mistaken when you attempted to discredit my previous usage of it.

I'm not suggesting you were doing anything incorrectly. I'm saying I'm extremely familiar with absurdism, so much so that I brought it up pages ago...Then I attempted to move the discussion in a new direction

Again, it's not all about you or proving you wrong! Reid also "applies logic to" inconceivability; I've learned there's hardly a concept/subject in philosophy that philosophers "don't discuss" as you originally suggested

[oddwithoutend]

I claim Reid discusses inconceivability; you claim he did not

Inconcievability is not inconcievable. Him discussing it does not weaken my argument. According to Ryan's argument, quality in music is inconcievable.

I never claimed to be arguing "that quality in art is not "existant but inconcievable". You did that for me

No, Ryan was arguing that. You were refuting that, unless you didn't understand his argument (which is actually why I initially stepped in; I didn't think you understood what he meant).

[oddwithoutend]

I'm not suggesting you were doing anything incorrectly. I'm saying I'm extremely familiar with absurdism, so much so that I brought it up pages ago...Then I attempted to move the discussion in a new direction

Again, it's not all about you or proving you wrong! Reid also "applies logic to" inconceivability; I've learned there's hardly a concept/subject in philosophy that philosophers "don't discuss" as you originally suggested

Once again, inconcievability is not inconcievable.

[Fedaykin]

I rarely reach this point, but I have reached my point of diminishing marginal utility for this exchange

[oddwithoutend]

I said that you can't apply logic to inconcievable things, and then you showed me someone applying logic to "inconcievability" (something that isn't inconcievable). So you have failed to provide a valid rebuttal to my original point, which is "the argument you were having with Ryan is futile".

[oddwithoutend]

And no, I'm not going to go back and correct every time I misspelled "inconceivable".

[Fedaykin]

I said that you can't apply logic to inconcievable things, and then you showed me someone applying logic to "inconcievability" (something that isn't inconcievable). So you have failed to provide a valid rebuttal to my original point, which is "the argument you were having with Ryan is futile".

I can't very well reprint the man's entire catalog; that's an excerpt from a treatise where he does exactly what you're claiming people don't do

[Fedaykin]

And by the way, I can hardly think of a single word ever put on this website in its existence that - in the long run - isn't futile

[oddwithoutend]

I can't very well reprint the man's entire catalog; that's an excerpt from a treatise where he does exactly what you're claiming people don't do

No, he doesn't. One cannot discuss something that he can't conceive of.

[oddwithoutend]

And by the way, I can hardly think of a single word ever put on this website in its existence that - in the long run - isn't futile

You're talking to the wrong people then.

[Fedaykin]

No, he doesn't. One cannot discuss something that he can't conceive of.

Oh good, you like me have read that essay?

[oddwithoutend]

Oh good, you like me have read that essay?

No, I actually just think a lot. Way too much, actually.

[Fedaykin]

You're talking to the wrong people then.

In the long run...............:behead: :hung: :satan:

[Fedaykin]

No, I actually just think a lot. Way too much, actually.

All intellectuals think that about themselves
Welcome to the fucking club

[oddwithoutend]

All intellectuals think that about themselves
Welcome to the fucking club

You don't understand. Inconceivable things cannot be discussed because it requires conceiving of them. In other words, if Ryan thinks objective qualities in music are inconceivable, he can't discuss those qualities. That's why i didn't understand originally why you were asking him to elaborate on those qualities.

[oddwithoutend]

In the long run...............:behead: :hung: :satan:

I don't operate under the belief that life is meaningless.

[Fedaykin]

I don't operate under the belief that life is meaningless.

Neither do I

But I do think that if you will die in about 60 years the words you typed on some website are fairly futile

[Fedaykin]

You don't understand. Inconceivable things cannot be discussed because it requires conceiving of them. In other words, if Ryan thinks objective qualities in music are inconceivable, he can't discuss those qualities. That's why i didn't understand originally why you were asking him to elaborate on those qualities.

Because it would be letting him off easy; otherwise, anytime I want to argue a point but don't want to have to defend it, i'll just label it "beyond conception" oooooh

[oddwithoutend]

Neither do I

But I do think that if you will die in about 60 years the words you typed on some website are fairly futile

I don't agree with that in the slightest. While on here I'll improve my typing and debating skills; I'll learn and teach; I'll discover and recommend new music, etc. I consider all of these things beneficial to my life.

[theguy77]

see what i was trying to do here is, not give evidence for why my opinion is TRUE, but give reasoning for why i have that opinion. that reasoning was that i believe songwriters can improve their skills with practice, and that some people are inherently more creative and talented at songwriting than others, and i have this reasoning because this is the case with many human creations/skill sets, so what makes art or the creation of art any different? however, i am well aware that this is merely subjective reasoning and not proof of my point. im also well aware that people may not subscribe to or be convinced by my reasoning because they perceive my reasoning to be built upon a fallacy, and that's perfectly valid. therefore, when discussing these things with someone who disagrees with me fundamentally, i admit that my reasoning is useless and does not progress anything -- and i specifically noted that i already knew that the discussion would go nowhere within the first two posts of my altercation with fedaykin. the only reason i kept arguing is because he attacked something that i already accepted was merely my opinion and tried discredit it, to which my response was to argue defensively and say that you cant DISPROVE it, not to attempt to PROVE it becuase i know that's impossible. as rick noted, even though i say i believe some art can be objectively better than others, i also believe that said objectivity is inconceivable, therefore i cannot provide evidence, and REALISTICALLY music is completely subjective in discussion.

[oddwithoutend]

Because it would be letting him off easy; otherwise, anytime I want to argue a point but don't want to have to defend it, i'll just label it "beyond conception" oooooh

Exactly my point. Him saying that it is inconceivable made the argument futile.

[Fedaykin]

see what i was trying to do here is, not give evidence for why my opinion is TRUE, but give reasoning for why i have that opinion. that reasoning was that i believe songwriters can improve their skills with practice, and that some people are inherently more creative and talented at songwriting than others, and i have this reasoning because this is the case with many human creations/skill sets, so what makes art or the creation of art any different? however, i am well aware that this is merely subjective reasoning and not proof of my point. im also well aware that people may not subscribe to or be convinced by my reasoning because they perceive my reasoning to be built upon a fallacy, and that's perfectly valid. therefore, when discussing these things with someone who disagrees with me fundamentally, i admit that my reasoning is useless and does not progress anything -- and i specifically noted that i already knew that the discussion would go nowhere within the first two posts of my altercation with fedaykin. the only reason i kept arguing is because he attacked something that i already accepted was merely my opinion and tried discredit it, to which my response was to argue defensively and say that you cant DISPROVE it, not to attempt to PROVE it becuase i know that's impossible. as rick noted, even though i say i believe some art can be objectively better than others, i also believe that said objectivity is inconceivable, therefore i cannot provide evidence, and REALISTICALLY music is completely subjective in discussion.

i agree with most of what you've said here
but i think the list you gave me (tempo etc) would have saved us all alot of trouble had you just provided it earlier

[Fedaykin]

Exactly my point. Him saying that it is inconceivable made the argument futile.

But that's a total cop out! Just because someone claims its inconceivable you dont just stop there; they have to prove why otherwise they would always end any shitty argument with "x is inconceivable" so now i cant be proven wrong no matter what
its juvenile bullshit

[oddwithoutend]

see what i was trying to do here is, not give evidence for why my opinion is TRUE, but give reasoning for why i have that opinion. that reasoning was that i believe songwriters can improve their skills with practice, and that some people are inherently more creative and talented at songwriting than others, and i have this reasoning because this is the case with many human creations/skill sets, so what makes art or the creation of art any different? however, i am well aware that this is merely subjective reasoning and not proof of my point. im also well aware that people may not subscribe to or be convinced by my reasoning because they perceive my reasoning to be built upon a fallacy, and that's perfectly valid. therefore, when discussing these things with someone who disagrees with me fundamentally, i admit that my reasoning is useless and does not progress anything -- and i specifically noted that i already knew that the discussion would go nowhere within the first two posts of my altercation with fedaykin. the only reason i kept arguing is because he attacked something that i already accepted was merely my opinion and tried discredit it, to which my response was to argue defensively and say that you cant DISPROVE it, not to attempt to PROVE it becuase i know that's impossible. as rick noted, even though i say i believe some art can be objectively better than others, i also believe that said objectivity is inconceivable, therefore i cannot provide evidence, and REALISTICALLY music is completely subjective in discussion.

Well said.

[Fedaykin]

I don't agree with that in the slightest. While on here I'll improve my typing and debating skills; I'll learn and teach; I'll discover and recommend new music, etc. I consider all of these things beneficial to my life.

Eh. It's just MO. I'm not really improving my typing skills and my debating skills are sharpened in the classroom; this is just shooting the shit and I don't think it will matter one bit come tomorrow

[oddwithoutend]

But that's a total cop out! Just because someone claims its inconceivable you dont just stop there; they have to prove why otherwise they would always end any shitty argument with "x is inconceivable" so now i cant be proven wrong no matter what
its juvenile bullshit

It's equally juvenile to ask him to name qualities that he believes are inconceivable, and that's why I stepped in. I could see you asking him why he believes that it's inconceivable, but that's not what i saw happening. Regardless, I think the three of us all understand each other now. I'm getting a beer (because I'm not at work and I live with my parents and don't have to pay for it ;-) ).

[oddwithoutend]

Eh. It's just MO. I'm not really improving my typing skills and my debating skills are sharpened in the classroom; this is just shooting the shit and I don't think it will matter one bit come tomorrow

Yeah, that's cool; when I'm your age I doubt I'll be placing much value on my conversations here.

[Fedaykin]

It's equally juvenile to ask him to name qualities that he believes are inconceivable, and that's why I stepped in. I could see you asking him why he believes that it's inconceivable, but that's not what i saw happening. Regardless, I think the three of us all understand each other now. I'm getting a beer (because I'm not at work and I live with my parents and don't have to pay for it ;-) ).
Enjoy that
I'm going to an A.A. meeting in 20 minutes

[Fedaykin]

I think the three of us all understand each other now.

this

[oddwithoutend]

You're kidding? I wouldn't have said that had I known.

[theguy77]

i agree with most of what you've said here

word. its just me speaking in theory though, i couldnt tell you just what it is that makes some music better than others.

but i think the list you gave me (tempo etc) would have saved us all alot of trouble had you just provided it earlier
well this was a separate argument entirely. when you were asking "what are these objective components", i thought you were indicating that there is nothing objective about music. those things i listed are all objective, but the difference is they have nothing to do with whether one form of music is better than another. (or, they might, but we have no way of knowing whether they do or not).

[Fedaykin]

word. its just me speaking in theory though, i couldnt tell you just what it is that makes some music better than others.


well this was a separate argument entirely. when you were asking "what are these objective components", i thought you were indicating that there is nothing objective about music. those things i listed are all objective, but the difference is they have nothing to do with whether one form of music is better than another. (or, they might, but we have no way of knowing whether they do or not).

holy fing balls LOL
god dang do i wish i had known this is what you were trying to say

[oddwithoutend]

Oh, what would I have done for the past hour if it weren't for that misunderstanding...

Edit: Well now that that's settled, I think i'm going to listen to White Winter Hymnal by Fleet Foxes.

[Fedaykin]

Oh, what would I have done for the past hour if it weren't for that misunderstanding...

Mind you I've been at WORK this entire time
Where you know, my job is not to argue on absolute
so ditto

[Fedaykin]

Oh, what would I have done for the past hour if it weren't for that misunderstanding...

Edit: Well now that that's settled, I think i'm going to listen to White Winter Hymnal by Fleet Foxes.

good suggestion; i may just listen to that album now on the train

[oddwithoutend]

Mind you I've been at WORK this entire time
Where you know, my job is not to argue on absolute
so ditto

My job today is to shoot archery, shop for clothes, argue about absurdism, hit the bars, sleep. It's my day off from bartending.

Also: I love you, Ryan.

[briewer]

This discussion= ))<>((

So glad we've got a college graduate muddling philosophy here. You're giving people working towards that degree (like me) a bad name.

[oddwithoutend]

Briewer: I love you, too.

[theguy77]

holy fing balls LOL
god dang do i wish i had known this is what you were trying to say

hahaha its amazing how badly a misunderstanding can fuck up a discussion.

My job today is to shoot archery, shop for clothes, argue about absurdism, hit the bars, sleep. It's my day off from bartending.

that sounds fucking awesome.

Also: I love you, Ryan.

very stoic of you rick.

i love you too

[kearn1tm]

so a 13 year old's first journal entry is automatically just as proficient lyrically as one of bob dylan's classics?

On a technical level? No, that journal entry most likely isn't as strong as Dylan's lyrics. Dylan has a much stronger grasp on the fluid nature of putting a word and another together. However, neither is objectively better. It's all in what you find more entertaining. There is no objective way to determine it's quality beyond a subjectively derived set of things a person finds to be quality.

Also, they're written for two vastly different purposes and readers. It's silly to compare them. A 13 year old or a 23 year old isn't going to write anything particularly profound in something as intimate and meant for personal catharsis as a diary. It's not formal in the slightest. It's not written for public consumption. It's not subjected to rigorous syntax or grammatical structure. Conversely lyrics are written to convey something to a wider audience exterior to the individual person and generally written to be pleasing when paired with music and following a template.

[AlexEnglish]

Enjoy that
I'm going to an A.A. meeting in 20 minutes


im fucking coming out of nowhere with this, but good for you. it did wonders for some people in my family.

[kearn1tm]

I agree with ther bolded section but I'm not sure if I agree with what follows: according to the OED 'quality' is the "nature [or]...virtue" of something. Some might argue that whether its characteristics are subjective, objective or some other category entirely, the characteristics of quality are inherent and not self made. Just because they are not self eveident doesn't necessarily mean they are self made

I don't think you can apply literal definitions of works into a malleable discussion of art criticism and philosophy. Regardless, the quality of art, beyond it's technical makeup, is entirely predicated on the consumer of said art. The Modern Lovers, for instance, are one of the most renowned Protopunk bands of the mid '70s. Their instrumentation is rudimentary (simplistic chord progressions, regurgitated drum parts, etc.). Their lyrics aren't arresting or complex, nor do they ever provide sociopolitical commentary or wax poetic on topics exterior to the personal politics of principle songwriter Jonathan Richman. In fact, they're "peasant lyrics," entirely comprised of the romantic follies and youthful disillusionment of the average white 20something.

When applying that very formalism something like Music Theory is representative of, they're pedestrian. However, they became indicative of a subversive, counter-culture music expression that, within a few years was known as Punk, and the quality of The Modern Lovers, a band hailed by underground critics and enthusiasts, was found in the charm and minimalist pop sheen paired with everyman meloncholoy and love-lorn licks and punk hooks that became one of the templates many other bands followed in the first wave of Punk. For such sloppy music, the "quality," as determined was high to many, because formalism - insofar as objective standards to write intricately sound and "correct" music - isn't the only facet of what many listeners viewed as "quality," in fact, for this band and many others, formalism wasn't integral at all in what they deemed "quality."

[briewer]

Briewer: I love you, too.
:blush:

[chipdip18]

Let me begin by saying this is one of my fave threads EVER, so ty
Thank you! haha.


Job availability, I'll grant you that, nice one
Thank you.


"There is nothing quality about this car?" "Yes there is, and we can't begin to enumerate what is quality about this car until you agree there is something quality about this car"

This is how I see the discussion phrased. If you simply said, "This car has A/C, power steering, power locks, power windows etc." It would demonstrate and prove and make me believe the car has quality just as if you would enumerate what "few objective qualities" there are it would make me believe that such standards exist
Ah okay, so we really are on the same page.

Technique, knowledge of music theory, good meaningful lyrics(a whole other ballpark), musicianship would all be objective standards that i would use to rate music.


And ty as well its the only thing that makes this discussion worth having

I totally agree.

[Gardenhead]

On a technical level? No, that journal entry most likely isn't as strong as Dylan's lyrics. Dylan has a much stronger grasp on the fluid nature of putting a word and another together. However, neither is objectively better. It's all in what you find more entertaining. There is no objective way to determine it's quality beyond a subjectively derived set of things a person finds to be quality.

Also, they're written for two vastly different purposes and readers. It's silly to compare them. A 13 year old or a 23 year old isn't going to write anything particularly profound in something as intimate and meant for personal catharsis as a diary. It's not formal in the slightest. It's not written for public consumption. It's not subjected to rigorous syntax or grammatical structure. Conversely lyrics are written to convey something to a wider audience exterior to the individual person and generally written to be pleasing when paired with music and following a template.
And there's your issue. Being objectively better and being more entertaining to an individual are two different things.

[kearn1tm]

And there's your issue. Being objectively better and being more entertaining to an individual are two different things.

Quality isn't a measurement of objectivity, either. Quality is a reflection of what the individual listener perceives to be both important and (in most cases) pleasing.

[Gardenhead]

Quality isn't a measurement of objectivity, either. Quality is a reflection of what the individual listener perceives to be both important and (in most cases) pleasing.
Nope. That, again, would be filed under enjoyment.

[kearn1tm]

Nope. That, again, would be filed under enjoyment.

Quality, in a non-formalist sense, is "enjoyment." The unfortunate thing is that many, like you, delude themselves into thinking that, because they enjoy technically-sound art, that complexity is a universal gauge for quality, when it's purely relative. I don't subscribe to your perspective in this instance.

[bradsonemanband]

if you like it, you like it.
if you don't, you don't.