[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] ericoneillmusic [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I agree with a few points here but overall have to disagree.

1) The problem I have isn't that amateurs are recording and releasing music, the problem I have is that these amateurs demand their work be considered subjectively equal to the masters. Imagine going to a restaurant and ordering the chef's special filet mignonette. However, the chef is on holiday so his sou chef brings you his special... Fish Sticks. Are these meals subjectively equal or objectively unequal? Obviously we can say that the filet mignonette is of a much higher level of craftsmanship, artistry, and skill.

The same theory applies to music. To say that Fetty Wop is of subjectively equal quality as Mozart is fish sticks to filet mignonette. Its not that too many musicians are out there, its not that people are too dumb, its that we have been told again and again that our opinions are worth more than measurable skill. The point of this article is to point out how backwards this is.

I'm not saying that you can't listen to or even like songs by Fetty Wop if you are so inclined, however if you choose to, do not claim that it is of any level of quality close to that of the masters. Its not about how much you like something, its about the skill shown by the artist.

2) The topic in the video actually is going to be somewhat unrelated to this article. The article focus on weather or not music can be objectively good. My opinion on what makes music objectively good is a similar yet different topic in my mind.

Sure, the point of writing the blog is to bring people to my YouTube but the two focus on different ideas. If the article is too long, people stop reading. Rather than adding yet another paragraph, I make a video. If you don't want to watch it, I'm not forcing you to.

3) Again, I'm not talking about how much someone likes something. I'm talking about a level of craftsmanship. We don't need to measure dopamine in the brain to see that the Taj Mahal is a higher level of craftsmanship than my shed.

4) You want OC but not self promotion. Self promotion is as OC as it gets. I dont spam the subs, I don't upvote my own stuff, if people don't like what I make, they don't upvote it. If you want real OC and not things you can find elsewhere, you need self promotion. I don't believe in this catch 22 and therefore will not be searching google for articles to post that will clutter up Voat. If you want to see them, google them.

All that said, thanks for the response! I appreciate anyone who can disagree in a well thought out and respectful way!

0
1

[–] Fournote 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I don't think quality of composition matters when deciding what you think is good or not. I don't know who Fetty Wop is, but I'm sure someone out there likes him/them/whatever more than Mozart not because they think Wop's music is more complex, but because they just like the sound of it more. As a fan of rock music, I'm told I should like the Beatles and the Stones because they pretty much invented modern rock, but really I don't. It wasn't until bands like Yes and King Crimson that I started to care about rock, yet the latter two bands aren't held in nearly as high regard as the former two. Does that mean my opinion doesn't matter as much?

1
0

[–] HowAboutShutUp_ 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

It's pretty clear that music CAN be objectively good otherwise we would like EVERY kind of music equally. The fact that some music becomes more popular than others is a testament to this fact.

2
0

[–] HowAboutShutUp_ 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

It's pretty clear that music CAN be objectively good otherwise we would like EVERY kind of music equally. The fact that some music becomes more popular than others is a testament to this fact.

0
2

[–] ericoneillmusic [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Hm, I think this is close but off by just a hair. I think that some music SURVIVES more than others is the testament to its quality. Theres a reason we're talking about Mozart and not NSync. While during their hay day, people would have argued that they were subjectively good, they have not stood the test of time.

0
2

[–] rationalinquisition 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

We have not proven that anything can be objective, even reality itself.

0
2

[–] ericoneillmusic [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

No sense discussing anything than is there?

0
1

[–] rationalinquisition 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Just because it is impossible to discuss something objectively doesn't mean you can't discuss things subjectively. I think the article is poorly written, besides the fact that the premise itself doesn't doesn't address the solipsistic elephant in the room.. For example:

Many people would meet this question with much opposition. They would be called prudent, stuffy, and strident. But let’s take a look at what high standards create in comparison to no standards.

In the first two sentences, the author has made an ad hominem attack and created a straw man article by comparing musicians who stood the test of time to cherry picked artists the author is presenting as being of low quality. The author then proceeds to assume the aforementioned difference in quality throughout the article without ever providing the so-called objective standards he is using, and rather assuming agreement on the part of the reader.

1
1

[–] Spacehuman 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago  (edited ago)

There are some well thought out responses already so I'm going to keep it simple. Yes. Music can be objectively good. For example, Jimmi Hendrix and Mozart created objectively good music. Yoko Ono created objectively bad music. I'm sure science could tell the difference.

0
0

[–] ericoneillmusic [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Yes. We are on the same page my friend.

1
-1

[–] rationalinquisition 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

That isn't objective, it is subjective. In order for something to be objectively good, the opinions people have about music would have to be irrelevant, i.e. even if everyone in the world thought a piece of objectively bad music was good, it would still be objectively bad. The problem is, the belief that something is "good" is itself subjective. No matter how many objective criteria you apply to evaluating something, if it is subjective by nature the objective evaluations do not make it become objective.

0
0

[–] dannyduchamp 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

A friend of mine once had an interesting point about the art vs science debate.

He said if unfathomably advanced aliens came down and told us all our science was wrong, we would say "oh is it? Damn."

Whereas if those same aliens tell us all our music is crap we would say "Fuck you. You're wrong"

It's interesting observation that in some ways, the subjective is more objective than the objective.

0
0

[–] Spacehuman 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Your phrasing confuses your question. If you take it out the reference point of the ear and brain, good and bad becomes meaningless, like a koan.

While a sound can not be objectively good bad it can be 'objectively good or bad music to animal ears'. I theorize that science can objectively describe difference between 'good' and 'bad' music mathematically in terms of harmonic relationships between notes and such and how those interact with the human capability for hearing and our mind. If you take it out of that context the question becomes meaningless, like a koan.

0
0

[–] dannyduchamp 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That's kind of a meaningless question. To answer it, you'd need to define "good", and you could define that word in such a way as to make it pretty much as objective or subjective as you like.

0
0

[–] FishWithAMustache 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I completely disagree with this guy. He seems like just another classic rock "stuck in the old days" elitist who thinks that older music is inherently better. The short answer to the question is no, because people have different opinions. If you like to listen to a monkey taking a dump on a piano, and you think its good, that's it. No amount of elitism and objectivity can change somebody's honest opinion. This guy thinks Bach, Led Zeppelin, and the Beatles are all the epitome of what music should be. Well, what if I think Lil' Wayne, Insane Clown Posse and Limp Bizkit are the holy grail's of music? The guy has some huge delusion of grandeur and thinks his opinions can make something completely subjective factual.

0
1

[–] ericoneillmusic [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

No. Thats not at all what I'm saying. Theres a museum in Los Angeles that has purchased a giant boulder for 10 million dollars, placed it out front, and calls it art. Michangelo's statue of David was carved with a chisel and hammer from a rock. We can objectively say that there is a much higher level of artistic craftsmanship in David than this rock. In Ice Skating, we have a pannel of judges who grade how well the artist performs his routine. In food we have gourmet and microwave meals, but for some reason we seem to think there are no higher levels of quality in music. That is ridiculous.

Like I've said in every other comment here. This has nothing to do with how much you do or do not like something. I may love fish sticks, but they are still never going to be as good as filet mignonette. Regardless of my feelings toward filet mignonette. You may think that Lil Wayne is the holy grail of music, but when we are talking about artistic craftsmanship you are simply wrong. Anyone can provide a sound and valid argument as to why Bach is of a higher artistic quality than Clown Posse. Nobody can do the opposite. This is objective "goodness".

0
1

[–] FishWithAMustache 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

You know, you actually have a point there that I didn't pick up in the other article. While I still don't think I completely agree with you, you did change my opinion so I can see where you are coming from on some things and can agree with some points, so upvoat for you. Judging what music is bad or good would be nearly impossible though. People like music for different reasons, and so they have different ideas of what is good and bad.

0
0

[–] CMOT_Dibbler 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

0
0

[–] ericoneillmusic [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Lol. If you look at my other comments, I'm talking about artistic craftsmanship, not pleasure generated from the music.

0
0

[–] Chompchompers 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Humans are naturally attracted to certain patterns in music. If a song plays the patterns humans are naturally attracted to it is a good song. Although you could be pedantic about it and say "Well that's still from human perspective" well, this may be as "objective" of a "good song" as can get as far as humans are concerned.

Here is a good song for cats.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/03/a-symphony-for-cats/386737/

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] rationalinquisition 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Even if we were to all agree, that wouldn't make it objective. If something were to be objectively good, it would have to be good even if everybody agreed that it was bad, or vise versa.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] ericoneillmusic [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

For the sake of this discussion I'm using good as "showing a certain level of craftsmanship and skill".

I believe I made a mistake in my title and clarity of definition. My apologies for creating a question that needed to be asked.