>music
>good

pick one

when tf he mention good? u on some weird shit

there is music that is objectively good.

there is no music that is objectively bad.

Is this the part where someone links Friday and starts picking on an oblivious 14 year old child?

https://youtu.be/9FISHEO3gsM

This statement does not hold water. If there is music which is objectively good, then automatically, any of the remaining music which isn't categorized as being such automatically becomes objectively bad music.

https://youtu.be/RtPv8XuQ_10

this is objectively bad.

12tone made a video a while back talking about if a song can be objectively bad or not. Kind of related to this topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dfi0cRcpb4

music is way more subjective than film in my opinion

Good morning all (for us Britons up at 3 am like a prim and proper man) - the question of "is music objective or subjective?" relies on the answer to a very important question - is Nihilism legitimate? To answer this, we must first define nihilism (the nihilism I am referencing):

"a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths" - Merriam-Webster

The form of nihilism I will be talking about is "Active Nihilism" - Active nihilism is symptomatic of an increased power of the spirit. The will is strengthened and rebellious. This is the form of nihilism that does not stop at judgement, but goes on in action to be destructive towards the remaining vestiges of empty value systems. The strength of the will is tested by whether or not it can recognise all value systems as empty and meaningless, yet admit that these lies arise out of us and serve a purpose. This denial of a truthful world, Nietzsche says, may be a “divine way of thinking”. The active nihilist recognises that simplification and lies are necessary for life. The value of values becomes their emptiness. Where rationality and reason have clearly failed, the nihilist embraces irrationality and freedom from logic. The will now has an opportunity to assert its strength and power to deny all authority and deny goals and faith– to deny the constraints of existence. Nietzsche describes this state as both destructive and ironic.

Active nihilism obviously is not an end, however. It merely opens the stage for the beginning of a revaluation of values. It opens the stage for the will to take power and assert itself. Nihilism is the precursor to revaluation, it does not replace values, it only tears them away. It functions as an essential transition, and must be understood as a means and not an end. When people ask how you can be a nihilist and still be striving for something other than self-pleasure, remember this: nihilism means denial of inherent value. It does not mean denial of functionality, or loss of a desire for our actions to be constructive and produce aesthetic beauty in life. Nihilism simply states that there is no inherent morality, or in other words no morality of method, so we must be willing to do immoral things for moral ends.

When Plato wrote his metaphor of the cave, he was talking primarily about instance/essence confusions. (While most scholars prefer to think he is speaking of a dualistic world where perfect archetypes exist, his point is actually the opposite -- no such world exists, because essence is defined not by duplicating instances in a purer form, but by being the attributes in common between all instances.)

In the Platonic view, most people are looking at instances (outcomes) and believing they see a pure essence (meaning), when really what they see is specific to their participation in the event -- and therefore, like morality, is easily gamed into a "I demand freedom so you cannot force me to change, even as I force you to change to avoid inconveniencing me wherever I go," which he identifies as the decay of a civilization.

When we are children, the difference between instance and essence is clearer to us. We have recently learned words like "chair," and know that not all chairs are alike. We even draw the distinction "all chairs are like my chair" without assuming that all chairs spring from that one chair. But as time goes on, through a sleight of hand, we are convinced to build up an idealized, socially-driven version of more complex ideas that conflates to "all things like this are like the version I have most closely experienced." For example, in morality we conclude that our deaths would be an injustice, therefore all killing is wrong -- but how easily we are lured into paradox when it comes to killing those we perceive as threats.

The principle of active nihilism is one of ultimate reality: we are real, in a physical world that is real, with real consequences for any given action. There are no inherent goals, so we must pick one. If we like life, that goal is survival. If we want to maximize survival, we pick a systematic method (the scientific method) for discovering truth, or mental constructs that correspond to constructs existing in the physical world. After all, the one inherent thing to life is physical reality outside of us; everything else is up for grabs or ambiguous.

To conclude, music is always subjective, as is truth. Though a granny smith apple might appear green to you, a colourblind person might see it as a different color. A rorschach test fields different answers, but the different answers might not be inherently wrong. High level mathematics results in multiple different answers for problems in areas such as calculus. Reality is nihilism.

Best,
InternetIntellectual
clintonfoundation@nuke.africa

i wouldnt call this music. just because its played on a piano and hes reading notes, i would still say that theres no apparent rhythm, tempo or key that makes this musical in any way. might as well just play a bunch of white noise and say "look this music sucks".

jazz is objectively bad, for starters

what's funny? you think a good jazz fusion drummer couldnt walk into a studio and lay down a track for whatever shitty pop or rap song they need?

jazz/fusion/classical musicians (anyone who isnt scared to color chords with flat/sharp 7/11/13ths and venture outside of 4/4 really) are by far at the top of the game mentally/dexterously and if you disagree you literally have no fucking idea what you're talking about

What is / What counts as music? is another great music-related-philosophical thread idea but let's focus on the objectivity or lack-thereof of music for this one.

InternetIntellectual has a very interesting answer but I would still like to see what everybody else has to say

vladVlad whilst I agree with what you say, I'm 99% sure crabf was kidding and there's no need to get so toxic. There was another music related thread last week were you also went a bit off the handle about roughly the same thing. Just keep it civil my dude :)

Edit: Strikethroughd the part where I was mistaken

i've been playing music for over 10 years and i can say with confidence that certain genres are inherently more difficult to play/require more knowledge than others - of course you could write a really avant-garde pop song that is tough to play but you should be able to understand the correlation between genre and difficulty :)

to add to the argument that jazz musicians are great at sessioning is their generally great ability to improvise which is vital in the studio if you really want to make something sound nice and original

try reading that thread again friend, i think you are mistaken

I am mistaken

music objectively exists yeah. hope this helps.

Subjective, although there is research implying some music is objective (can be derived empirically from psychology research):
http://mp.ucpress.edu/content/19/1/1

Also, people tend listen to music not for its quality, rather to achieve some mental state or help with a task they are doing, even achieving flow states :o https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2d22/e31f8ada5ba5eb02458e94a5019cdf191314.pdf

Sorry for the nerd out! My masters research is in this direction amongst other things, so I thought I'd share what I've read so far :)

8bit seether remixes
no music is objectively bad

this reads exactly like a copypasta

All music is objective but some music is more objective than other

https://youtu.be/r9lpLm7jwQY

music can be objectively poorly or well composed, but further than that I don't think so

music is music and theres a bit of music in everything but your feelings towards it sure are subjective

I will construct the scientific method to empirically prove why your tastes are shit

I mean what sounds sound good to an individual is subjective,
But clearly there's technique and a craft involved to making music and objectively you can be better than someone else at making music.
Like what makes you laugh is subjective, but some people are better comedians than others