Music: Subjective or Objective?

I mean discounting the pitch, key and timing of which it is measured by, Is music objective, or is it subjective?
My friend and I argued this tonight. It is my contention that it is subjective and here is why: You can have the greatest player of all time of classical music (In other words, they are in key, on pitch, and timing is perfectly flawless) but if you play it for someone who really doesn't like Classical Music, they will not like it, they will not really care about the logistics of it, it will bore them.
So what do you guys think?
I am not sure if this is the right section. I would have put it in the psychology section. It's okay if it gets moved.

reply to post by ldyserenity

I think is impossible to listen to perfect music and not like it, because if you come from this universe, then you should be born with the aid of sacred geometry and mathematic sequences, intervals, so you should like it, even if it's not your style.

reply to post by ldyserenity

Is music objective, or is it subjective?

Would you clarify the question? What are you asking?

If you're asking whether questions like "is rap music" are valid, I would say yes. "Music" is a word. It has a meaning. You can look up that meaning, and you will see that most rap is not music because it does not possess melody. That some people like it doesn't make it music. You can enjoy the sound of a waterfall, and that doesn't make it music either. Music posesses both melody and harmony. Rap (generally) posseses rythem but no melody. It is therefore not music. Similarly, a solo drummer producing a beat is not making music. He is making a beat. It is a component of music, not music.

But if you're asking whether the enjoyment of music is objective or subjective, that's a more complicated question. One must include the listener as part of the equation. The union of a particular music and a particular person listening to that music may possess harmony or discordance, just like a pairing of individual notes.

have the greatest player of all time of classical music

play it for someone who really doesn't like Classical Music, they will not like it, they will not really care about the logistics of it, it will bore them.

Whether someone likes or dislikes a particular piece doesn't make it music or not music. Again, music is a specific thing. Not liking apples doesn't make them not fruit. Liking rocks doesn't make them fruit. Music is music.

But in terms of liking something, music or otherwise, the observer is part of the equation. A particular person might or might not resonate with a particular piece just like a particular note might or might not produce harmony when paired with another note.

Well this is right up my ally! A Musical thread ! How wonderful and about time.

My Thoughts and response to your concern.

1 Music/Art is a form of expression. To the artist , it matters not what the conclusion is.
An artist must create or the artists life becomes meaningless.

2 An artist is regenerated by creation.

3 Therefore the artist thrives on this cycle.

4 The objective or subjective summary is not important to the artist.

5 The recipient of this type of productive energy is always free to absorb or not absorb.

6 To critique this experience is completely a selfish response via the recipient
who lacks all qualifications necessary to be considered an artist.

Beauty is in the "Eye of the Beholder" Regards

reply to post by LordBucket


Okay to clarify I am talking about music that can be measured by pitch key harmonics timeing which infers it is real music, what I am asking is that the liking a certain band/performer, etc, classical as opposed to rock and roll, is that subjective or objective.

For instance many may say that Steven Vai is the best guitarist ever known to man, and although he could play flawlessly, and every single time there would be others who simply don't like the genre or the arrangement of his music. That is what I mean.
In this respect I don't think it matters how Technically good they are there would still be certain people who just don't like it at all. Period. To me that makes it subjective.


I thought I was clarifying enough in the OP by stating that it was music that could be measured, so technically, it would be music not Rap or a waterfall or a pile of sticks for that matter.
But, sorry if it wasn't clear enough to you.

reply to post by Wildmanimal


So it is still subjective in that the artist will create what they think is good. Whether or not it matters what the audience thinks the artist must think it is good to even bother finishing it. Am I wrong?

I believe you are talking more about aesthetics more so than the objectivity of music. What makes music beautiful is sorta the questions you are asking. As in who has better tastes and does that opinion have any grounds to a sound premise.

As to is music itself objective, are you asking something along these lines...

Can sounds such as the randomness of a crowd or someone tapping a pencil in a beat on a table be considered music as the same as an classical orchestra?

My opinion on the matter would be similar to Aristotle's forms and the 4 causes of existence, if the examples are similar to say something you could know is music (classical orchestra) then I guess it could also be considered music.

Yet that still doesn't really build an objective case for music though...hmm

reply to post by ldyserenity


You are not wrong, and could never be wrong as there are no "right or wrong" answers or questions regarding this.
The artist does not "feel" in terms of right or wrong. To the artist, it just "is" .

It appears that you are concerned with market ability or general acceptance.

As far as that goes, there are a multitude of layers that, upon further focus, all become subjective.

Please explain to me your definition of "Objectivism" in terms that are meaningful to you, as this

concept could easily delve into the greater depths of our current philosophies and become quite complicated.

I'm sure you agree........no?

reply to post by Wildmanimal

To critique this experience is completely a selfish response
via the recipient who lacks all qualifications necessary
to be considered an artist.

Ok. But in my own experience, it's not usually the unqualified dismissing personal artistic expression...so much as the unqualified vehemently embracing that "music is their life" but when queried, reveal that they don't sing, don't play, and listen exclusively to either auto-tuned singers accompanied by a guy on a keyboard, or rap artists chanting in monotone to a drumbeat roughly as complicated as what I could generate by frantically banging my head against a desk...and then telling me that classical music sucks.

If Ice T shows up on my doorstep and tells me that his music comes from his depths of his heart, I'm unlikely to question that.

But when it comes to the audience, then yes...I agree completely with your assessment that they often lack the necessary qualifications.

reply to post by ldyserenity


But of Course! It is all Subjective. You either like it or you don't.

Just because someone else tells you how musically complicated it is and then begins to refer to the

mathematical concepts achieved in that music, it matters not.

It is all about personal choice now isn't it? That is what makes us interesting as human beings ...no?

Check it out...www.youtube.com...

Enjoy!

reply to post by ldyserenity

what I am asking is that the liking a certain band/performer, etc,
classical as opposed to rock and roll, is that subjective or objective.

To that, I'll paraphrase what i said earlier: it may be possible the objectify the "liking" of music, but you would need to include the observer as part of the experience.

To quote myself from a totally unrelated thread:

"If you play an A and a C note together, they will make a chord. If you take that chord and add an F, you will still have a chord. But if instead, you take that A and C and add a B note, you will have discordance."

Looking at this you can't say that "F is objectively a harmonic note" or that "B is objectively a discordant note."

"If you take the F that you previously combined with A and C, and combine it with the B instead, you will also have a chord."

Think of these notes as people and songs. You can't look at B or F and say that one or the other is "objectively" likable music. But you can look at combinations of notes and say objectively whether the pairing is harmonic. Music must resonate with the listener. In that sense, you could say that it's "subjective." But I think if you knew a person well enough, you could know what music would resonate with them, just like you can know which notes resonate with each other.

I don't think it matters how Technically good they are there would still be certain
people who just don't like it at all. Period. To me that makes it subjective.

We might be saying the same thing. I agree that quality of composition and performance don't have a direct cause and effect relationship on how much they're liked. The listener/observer is part of the equation. If you want to say that makes it subjective, I won't disagree.

But I'd say that it applies to probably just about everything in life. Not just music.

Originally posted by Wildmanimal
reply to post by ldyserenity

 

You are not wrong, and could never be wrong as there are no "right or wrong" answers or questions regarding this.
The artist does not "feel" in terms of right or wrong. To the artist, it just "is" .

It appears that you are concerned with market ability or general acceptance.

As far as that goes, there are a multitude of layers that, upon further focus, all become subjective.

Please explain to me your definition of "Objectivism" in terms that are meaningful to you, as this

concept could easily delve into the greater depths of our current philosophies and become quite complicated.

I'm sure you agree........no?

Well my friend thinks that Zappa is a musical genius, I understand his message and agree with it, but I find his music most awfully atrocious along the lines of nails down a chalkboard. She says it's fact he is a musical genius... that I told her was subjective, it depends on the listener, in technique he may be spot on, but still not be a "Genius" in someone else's eyes, er ears whatever.

reply to post by LordBucket

But I'd say that it applies to probably just about everything in life. Not just music.

Well that is so true. Good point, that is what it all boils down to, everything is subjective, but in cases of Einstien and Tesla reknowned geniuses, that is widely accepted as fact correct? So that would remain objective, so in the scientific field it is a little different, no?

reply to post by LordBucket


So that we do not misunderstand each other, I will say this....I was classically trained on piano for several years.

So I learned how to perform "someone else music" perfectly. That was the standard rule. Until I could perform

that piece perfectly, I could not move on to the next one. It was highly technical. Time Signatures, Key Signatures,
Point/Counterpoint, Scales, Augmented, Diminished, Minor,Major,Technique, Etc. I wouldn't trade that learning
experience for anything. But that stuff doesn't really matter today, as MTV is now 'Image" TV. It doesn't really
matter how true of a musician you are any more. It is what you look like.

The industry can electronically create all the "talent" you will ever need.

Real talent is only allowed "Through" if it currently benefits the programmers.

We all know that is changing now. The programmers with intelligence and foresight will not only nurture this

change, but help handle the artist properly and fairly. This old but new style will not only rebuild the industry,

but create positive profits for both the artists and their handlers.

I cant wait.

reply to post by ldyserenity


Zappa was musically brilliant. One of the best in our era. But he was definitely commercially viable to

a limited audience. This should not retract from his musical ability or genius. If you are a musician and you

practice all the techniques and methods(just like an athlete would) you quickly see how complicated it is

and the amount of dedication required.

But that does not mean you have to like another athlete or musician in the next court just because their

masters at what they do. I would put forth that the word "Respect" comes into play here.

reply to post by ldyserenity

She says it's fact he is a musical genius... that I told her
was subjective, it depends on the listener

...I would say that it's subjective, but its subjectivity isn't so much about the perspective of the listeneer...as what is she talking about in the first place??

"Musical genius" seems awfully vague to me.

Again to work with a metaphor, I can say about someone that they're a "martial arts master." But that means something specific. In many schools, "master" is title attached either to a rank and/or the function of teaching. You can look at someone and say whether they're a master because there's a specific qualification for it. Do they meet the qualification? Yes? Ok, they're a master. No? Ok, they're not.

I don't see how you can do that with an expression like "musical genius."

but in cases of Einstien and Tesla reknowned
geniuses, that is widely accepted as fact correct?

...well, I notice that Einstein appears on the wiki page for genius, but I don't think "genius" is a specific enough concept to be able to clearly say whether someone is one or not. If we want to look at a straight definition:

"genius is something or someone embodying exceptional intellectual ability, creativity, or originality"

So...if you want to say that Frank Zappa is "exceptional" then yes he would be a genius...and if you look at his history, I think you could make a strong case for it. He's done things that not many people in the world have done. That qualifies him as exceptional: "Deviating widely from the norm."

So...I wouldn't disagree with her...but her choice of phrasing seems peculiar. But at the same time, suggesting that he's not "exceptional" simply because you don't like his music seems a bit off-base. Even someone who had never heard his music might look at his accomplishments and conclude that he was a musical genius. He's a historically significant force in the development of modern music. But "it's a fact that he's a musical genius" still seems like an odd way of phrasing it.

In any case, I suggest greater clarity of communication between the two of you. Ask what she means.

Hello ATS. I had to create an account after reading this.

I have been an active musician for several years. I have had formal training and I am proficient in several styles/genres. I have composed my own material and performed live for hundreds of people, but I don't believe that makes me any more qualified to talk about this than anybody else. It's subjective. It really is. ....Really.

My two cents, anyways:

Music is a collection of atmospheric vibrations generated by a person using any means necessary and consciously arranged to produce a desired response in themselves or a listener.

This response can be emotional, intellectual, or physical.

That means Polka is music. That means a solo free-form jazz drummer is music. That means land-line dial tones recorded and played backwards over layers of white noise and farm sounds is music.

For anybody that really has the stones to sit here and say "Rap isn't music": Go to a packed out arena for a Rap show. Get front row center. Now try to convince 20,000 screaming and dancing fans that they aren't listening to music. Guess what. They won't hear you.

reply to post by ldyserenity


I agree with you. You can play the same piece of music, and one person will love it and the other person will hate it. For instance, rap and hiphop to me sound like pure crap and make me want to kill myself, or at least rip my ears out! However, there are those who (incomprehensibly, to me) love that sort of music.

There is a certain degree of objectivity as well, I suppose, in that one person might play a particular very poorly and another person might play it extremely well, even when they are reading the same notes and words and everything. (not talking about remakes here, but both using exactly the same song)

reply to post by PzaNgr

For anybody that really has the stones to sit here and say "Rap isn't music": Go to a packed out arena for a Rap show. Get front row center. Now try to convince 20,000 screaming and dancing fans that they aren't listening to music

So by that logic, nascar and boxing are music too?

Just because somebody likes something, doesn't mean it's music. You can't have one guy on violin and call that an orchestra. That's not what an orchestra is. And you can't have rhythm and call that music. That's not what music is. If I pick up a pencil and tap a steady beat with it on my table, it may possess rhythm, but rhythm alone is not music any more than a single man on violin is an orchestra.

Here's a rap song. Listen to it. It's a guy talking to a steady beat, alongside what sounds to me like someone playing scales on a keyboard. It's basically what you would have if I took a pencil and tapped it on my desk...while talking.

That's not music. It's rhythm, plus talking. Not music.

Definition of music:
"1.The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre."

Rap has rhythm, and it has timbre. It doesn't have melody or harmony. If you can produce a rap song that has all four of those elements, I'll agree that it is music. But it won't be rap.

What is rap?
"Rapping refers to "spoken or chanted rhyming lyrics".

it is separated into “content”, “flow” (rhythm and rhyme), and “delivery”

Rap etymologically means "fast read" or "spoke fast"."


Rap is not music. Is is talking to rhythm.

Anything created by humanity has the capacity to be both objective and subjective. It was subjectivity that compelled humanity to fly, it was objectivity that allowed it to happen. When a pilot "pushes the edges of the envelope" in their aircraft, they are responding to their own subjective desires, testing the limits of objectivity. The same applies to music. A composer works with the limits of objectivity, but relies upon their own subjectivity to test those limits, or to use those limits in ways that describe their own subjectivity.