Music is subjective....or is it?

[Joeshie]

The title is rather self-explanatory. Is music a subjective experience, objective experience, or perhaps a little bit of both? Is there any unbiased way to judge the quality of music?

For those of you who haven't thought about the issue, if music is objective, that means that all music has parts of it that we can identify as universally good or universally bad. On the other hand, if music is subjective, then that means that good and bad vary based upon the listener. In essence, there is no universal right and wrong in subjectivity.

As a engineer, I'm always tempted to label music, at it's most basic form, as wholly subjective. Music is a human created concept and thus, is bound to the whims and wishes of society. Good music to one society may be terrible music to another.

HOWEVER, if certain guidelines are ASSUMED to be criteria for good and bad music, then music can be somewhat viewed objectively. Of course, what these guidelines are can vary from person to person, but a few guidelines tend to be accepted by a large majority of humanity. Only then can music be viewed somewhat objectively.

 

[mathbymsv]

Personally, I have always believed that music is subjective, however, your question gives me pause. It seems EVERYONE (at least in my own experience) does enjoy some form of music. This has me leaning toward your idea of "perhaps a little bit of both" which is something I never really considered before... I don't feel like I answered your question at all, but thanks for giving me something to think about!

 

[Joeshie]

Music, in and of itself, meaning the concept alone, is objective.

Is the definition/concept really objective?

Think about this. Metal and other forms of music have often been called noise rather than music. Many others have called into question if rap is music or not. What music is to one generation is sometimes considered non-music to another generation or culture.

Is the distinction between music and non-music is made by cultures and societies, rather than a universal rule?

 

[mathbymsv]

Music, in and of itself, meaning the concept alone, is objective.

Is the definition/concept really objective?

Think about this. Metal and other forms of music have often been called noise rather than music. Many others have called into question if rap is music or not. What music is to one generation is sometimes considered non-music to another generation or culture.

Is the distinction between music and non-music is made by cultures and societies, rather than a universal rule?

I think cultures, societies and generations all try to have the last word on what is and is not music, however, if we look at the definition of music (here are a couple from the web: http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=define%3A+music&btnG=Google+Search), there seems to be a common theme that music is defined as some form of "organized sound." That definition, if we buy into it, is quite an objective concept don't you think?

 

[Nugoo]

I think you can judge the technical skill of musicians objectively, but that's a relatively minor element of music, so I'm going to say almost entirely subjective.

 

[AlbeyAmakiir]

I'd have to say both equally, yet also completely objective. Music is mathematical in that there are patterns in it. All music is like this, otherwise... well, it isn't music. Thus, any music that poorly puts patterns together (pitch, size, volume or location being off) or that has patterns that can't be followed will not be enjoyed. By anyone (except perhaps the artist and the occasional very rare person). Thus it is objective. (Even breaking patterns can be done to a pattern, but that's complicated.)

But then come styles, and people's taste in music. That is definitely subjective.

On the other hand, you can judge a piece of music as being of high quality, even if you don't like it yourself (a mark of a good critic). From that point of view, it is completely objective.

 

[stompy]

I'm gonna have to say subjective, for the reasons outlined by TheNecroswanson.

 

[Cephalic]

Music is a human created concept and thus, is bound to the whims and wishes of society.

I do not agree with you Joseshieji about this point that you make here. It might be tough for some (humans) to believe, but music is older than Homo Sapiens. Humans have just taken it to an another level altogether. You see, music found a place in the mating calls of some birds and beasts even before humans were created. If that seems preprogrammed mechanical sounds to attract attention to you, then you can also pay a bit of attention to some Whale music. Whales sing for leisure like we humans do. Their sounds are random, but still rule bound in the way that each of their line (series of sounds) ends in a rhyming sound. There are complex rules that govern their music just like Indian classical music does or European classical music does. It's just that we recognise human music far better than that of the other animals. So guys, next time you think that humans created music, think again.


I believe that music is more objective than the objectivity that we normally attribute to it. It is just that the rules are too fundamental for us to get so soon as this. Music is a mix of objective rules and subjective liking. Even if it is true that not everyone likes all kinds of music, it is noteworthy that the best music in every form finds a niche in the heart of humans all over the world, although in varying proportions. It will require a lot of research and intelligent reasoning. One day, the rules of music will be rewritten by the modern science is what I believe.

 

[Joeshie]

I do not agree with you Joseshieji about this point that you make here. It might be tough for some (humans) to believe, but music is older than Homo Sapiens. Humans have just taken it to an another level altogether. You see, music found a place in the mating calls of some birds and beasts even before humans were created. If that seems preprogrammed mechanical sounds to attract attention to you, then you can also pay a bit of attention to some Whale music. Whales sing for leisure like we humans do. Their sounds are random, but still rule bound in the way that each of their line (series of sounds) ends in a rhyming sound. There are complex rules that govern their music just like Indian classical music does or European classical music does. It's just that we recognise human music far better than that of the other animals. So guys, next time you think that humans created music, think again.

Point taken. However, I would simply expand my explanation to say that music is not only bound to the whims and wishes of society, but also bound to the particular animal as well.

Even if it is true that not everyone likes all kinds of music, it is noteworthy that the best music in every form finds a niche in the heart of humans all over the world, although in varying proportions.

This is true, but I think many could also argue that poor quality music (assuming that there is such a thing) can also find a niche on the heart of humans all over the world.

I'm not a huge fans of arguments that use popularity as an indicator of quality music because so many other factors affect the popularity of a piece of music than just the quality.

Thus, any music that poorly puts patterns together (pitch, size, volume or location being off) or that has patterns that can't be followed will not be enjoyed. By anyone (except perhaps the artist and the occasional very rare person).

Now that you mention it, followable patterns pretty much a requirement of any sort of music that humans have ever come up with. I suppose it's not really surprising, considering that pattern based recognition is the way that humans think and learn.

However, what determines good and poor patterns?

 

[zen5887]

God.. Somtimes this place is just TOO smart

=(

 

[BonsaiK]

Sound doesn't have to be "organised" for it to be music. All that's required for sound to be music is for someone to perceive it as music.

Person a walks through a factory and hears a bunch of random machine noise.

Person b walks through a factory and hears a bunch of random machine noise and likes the rhythmic sounds of the noise. Person b may tap his foot or hum along to it. Person b is perceiving the sounds in a musical context. Person a probably think person b is insane, but person b just has a very musical ear and a well-developed sense of rhythm. Neither point of view is right or wrong.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

I think you can judge the technical skill of musicians objectively, but that's a relatively minor element of music, so I'm going to say almost entirely subjective.

not always on the technical side, cause you could have a great technical player, that is playing a crappy song

one example is ween, they love to fuck around but they are very talented and can play several styles of music. i remember watching them on letterman one night and they were playing badly but i noticed they were doing it on purpose

but other than that music is both subjective and objective. there are a few chord sequences that no matter what will trigger a response with ppl, the song black sabbath is one of note that does that as well as some motown or beatles songs

but there are songs that most ppl will say "omg that horrible" and a few ppl will go "omg that's awesome" (and truly think it)

i'm one of those weerd freaks that actually listens to a bit of everything from almost every genre of music (can't stand country, i've tried well cept some johnny cash and the gambler). i go to a variety of concerts and enjoy finding new bands, i've bought cds based on how cool the cover looked cause i wanted to try something new, i've bought cds cause my friend said "chick out the chick on the cover, you gotta get this cd" and i've gotten cds cause someone has said it was good.

my mom's fiance is the same way with music, he likes a bit of everything. he's more of a jazz and blues guy, i like the more avant-garde stuff (industrial and experimental) but we both have cds we both like and have introduced one another to bands, i got him hooked on juno reactor he got me listening to stanley clarke, funnily enough we both don't like the music from the 80s, not all but a large chunk of it

i think it really matters if the person hears the music or listens to it. most ppl just listen to the music, they don't hear it

 

[cleverlymadeup]

I would have to go with Subjective. I know a lot of people, on this forum mainly, that hate rap music and love their grunge and death metal. I love rap and can't stand the other two. I also don't care for Queen, and 99% of people that hear me say that think I am insane...

i don't mind some grunge, not big on death metal or at least singers who sound like they're trying to crap barbed wire and are constipated

as for rap, i don't like most post 93/94 stuff but love the older stuff like public enemy, nwa, bdp, ice-t and stuff like that when it had some meaning to it instead of about the bitches and guns and mad duckets

as for the queen thing, you ARE insane my friend, queen has some really good songs, some bad songs too

ppl think i'm crazy for liking genesis, tho i really prefer the peter gabriel genesis way more than the phil collins genesis but they also have vastly different sounds

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

I enjoy hair/heavy/prog metal and classic rock. My personal favorite band is Iron Maiden. However, I cannot stand rap. At all. Or "bum country" i.e. "All my Exes Live in Texas" style country. Everything else I will listen to, and like certain other genres.

 

[Sib]

@Thread - I suppose it's objective, because we can all appreciate musicians/bands that play things really well, even if we subjectively dislike thar type of music.

@Sub-topic - I have quite a narrow interest in music I suppose, although I detest rap and most of those "ballads" that people like James Blunt sing, I am generally fond of all metal, but techno, drum and bass and jazz I'm just not very fond of, but differences make life worth living I guess.

 

[AlbeyAmakiir]

However, what determines good and poor patterns?

What I meant was that if it *doesn't* follow a pattern, then it sounds off. Like when someone is out of tune with everyone else or is playing some notes just a little too late. They try to follow the pattern (and any pattern can make a song, as long as it can be perceived (not necessarily consciously) without too much effort) and fail. That makes it bad.

Sound doesn't have to be "organised" for it to be music. All that's required for sound to be music is for someone to perceive it as music.
...
Person b walks through a factory and hears a bunch of random machine noise and likes the rhythmic sounds of the noise.

Ah, see? Where you said "rhythmic"? That means it's organized. It doesn't matter that it was an accident. There was a rhythm. All that's required is for someone to see it as music, but it must also have some kind of basic beat or rhythm for that to happen ("music to my ears" is just an expression). And factory's tend to have a repeating sound, anyway.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Ah, see? Where you said "rhythmic"? That means it's organized. It doesn't matter that it was an accident. There was a rhythm. All that's required is for someone to see it as music, but it must also have some kind of basic beat or rhythm for that to happen ("music to my ears" is just an expression). And factory's tend to have a repeating sound, anyway.

facotries are where the genre of industrial music got it's start, listen to old kraftwerk and to some extent throbbing gristle and other such pioneers of the genre, they used real industrial sounds

but look at bands like merzbow or fantomas, they don't have a lot of rhythm, well fantomas have more rhythm to their music than merzbow. zoviet france or coil are others who don't tend to be overly rhythmic. there are a few others that are kinda out there on the musical spectrum for what is actual music