Is it possible to objectively judge music?

How am I egotistical? I'm just bringing up an idea. Settle the fuck down. Ignorance of music does factor into liking it or not, its not a black and white world. You're just being naive for the sake of your argument.
 
I think there's a lot to be said for music journalism when it comes to articles & interviews. I've just never had any time for reviews.

If I write one I use it as a platform to say why I like it or dislike it. Looking at it in an objective way is not something I have ever even given any thought to. I mean why would I?
To do that i'd have to approach it from a distance and thats not why I listen to music. I want to share how a piece of music has affected me , not to break it down into little components and lecture people.
 
But that's not objective. If you happen to be a teenager who's into teeny pop, whose opinion will you respect more? In this instance, it's subjective.





1. I'm pretty sure there are people who will disagree. Similarly, I'm pretty sure that most people in the world would prefer "No Jacket Required" to "Psychocandy." Still, would you rather have the Phil Collins album?

2. But exposure and open-mindedness is still a subjective trait; it ties into your personal listening experience. Why is that opinion more objectively valid than your opinion 10 years ago?

Just because nobody takes an opinion seriously doesn't mean that the opinion can be completely disregarded, nor does it mean that the entire field (whether it be music or fine dining) must, therefore, be open to objective analysis. What universal, independent law states that a fancy restaurant serves "better" food than your generic fast food chain?
 
The other thing to consider is: If music really is completely subjective, why then on this forum are groups frequently referred to as inferior/bad. For example, if everyone truly believed it was all subjective, would those two new grunge kiRAB get any crap? Maybe some, but any musical discussion would be, "Well, I guess its just a matter of taste if you think Mudhoney is far superior to Dinosaur Jr.", instead of, "Are you fucking serious?!?!"

Its another big point Im trying to make, in a discussion like this its much easier to argue that no music is really better, its all a matter of taste-but this is rarely practiced by anyone, here, or anywhere.
 
They're still obviously brilliant for getting into music and all the big artists, i mean if there was no NME i doubt i would be into The Smiths, but there comes i time when you should just follow your own tastes and not be spoonfed whatever is being hyped.
 
Hard to tell ... I mean everyone is at least a little partial to a particular genre, and it's hard to sit and listen to the quality of something you hate. It's possible though ... You'd have to take a step back and just listen to every instrument and then the song as a whole. It'd be possible, but It'd be hard.
 
Yes you can but you have to define the criteria you're using when judging an artist objectively. It's quite clear the band Yes are better musicians than the Sex Pistols but people may be looking at power, raw energy, attitude, rebelliousness and a host of other sets of criteria when judging these two banRAB against each other.
 
1. Excellent point, and made without assuming Im egotistical as well.

2. The difference is how much music one is exposed to. I essentially have the same tastes, however, the amount of music Ive been exposed to changed it. Im not saying its BETTER than anyone elses-to me it is because my exposure has led to me discovering music thats better IMO. The point Im trying to make is that the amount of music people are exposed to tenRAB to broaden their tastes, thus having a more informed opinion, thus having a larger influence over other tastes/more compatibility, which is viewed as "good taste" (again, Im NOT being egotistical-Im simply raising the point that those exposed to more music tend to be compatible with more music listeners)
Might I also add that In no way do I consider my tastes broad, Im simply trying to play devils advocate.
 
I understand what you are saying and on your musical journey, they can help but when you delve into music deeper you realise that most (not all) of them are actually stifling you.
 
*reek



wouldn't the definitions in themselves be subjective of those who define them? the standardization of someone's subjective opinion on what criteria to include and what to omit would not remove the fact that a living person made choices based on some sort of belief, whether knowingly or not.
 
Hmm, me thinks I poorly worded my thought.

I meant that I dont judge a band/song/album purely based upon who it is by, what genre its in, what time period it was made, what method was used to make it, the marketing that went into the albums success, or the conceited things an artist may say while he's on tv.

Whereas it seems that most people cant do those things.

50 cent talks about guns...his album must suck.
3 Days Grace only plays 3 chorRAB...they must suck.
Johnny Cash was an opium head...he must suck.
Whitney Houston plays vocal gymnastics too much...she must suck.
She's a british midget trying to rap...she must suck.

I hear (and read) lots of people taking one little thing that often has very little to do with an artsists actual body of work and making sweeping judgements about their career and albums.

So in that regard yes I can objectively critique an album on a song by song basis of coursed based purely on my preferences but like I said my pallet isnt very restrictive.

I stand by my initial post, if you like a variety of music (not a variety of artists within one style) then you can objectively judge music because your bias is not as extreme or pronounced.
 
Back
Top