>tfw someone acts like some music is objectively better

Musical quality is objective. Art is an objective form, and those who opposes the objectivity of art are those who don't have the intelligence to understand it. An example of this is food, or the culinary arts. Certain food taste shit, while other types of food tastes really delicious. One person can easily tell the difference between a poorly made dish and a very excellently made dish, as the poorly made dish occupies a disgusting, revolting aesthetic with also a taste that, instead of providing a desirable taste, produces a taste that degrades the tongue with its very poor quality; the well made dish to a person has a very beautiful aesthetic, whilst also having a very desirable taste to the tongue. This spectrum of shit and good is evident in music quality, as shit music (pop, rap) and good music (classical, rock) has a great difference in quality; shit music has little to no structure and musical complexity and aesthetic while good music has the properties of beautiful sonic aesthetic and masterfully made song structure. Music is objective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP0wuwJBdMI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANA8SI_KvqI

>>68588870
I almost thought you were being serious before you posted this dude.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN9iJCZ5Il8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM-repTizGk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbzi1BQSuks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1bH_P5aSp4

>>68588938
Try to think before discarding facts for trash, idiot.

File: 1466739098942.gif (2MB, 250x220px)

2MB, 250x220px

>>68588822
>arguing for objectivity by using an analogy of an obviously subjective thing

What you're describing with taste is literally the definition of subjective. What humans perceive as tasting "good" is just our brain reacting to detecting certain compounds on our tongues and releasing dopamine in response (to simplify the process). If someone's brain were wired differently, they could think dirt tastes great. There's no objective property of "goodness" in the food, there's just different chemical compounds and our brain deciding what to think is "good".

How people can argue that something that's literally a function of your particular mind (the very definition of subjectivity) is objective is fucking beyond me.

>>68589068
As human beings, we are only capable of interfacing with the world around us through our brain. Does that mean that nothing is truly objective? Everything we experience is a function of our "particular mind"; we can't claim to truly experience anything beyond the purveys of what we personally can experience. Because of this, our definition of objectivity is less about "objective, ultimate truth" and more about "having qualities which we can judge by a "solid" criteria". In this way, we can say that food and music do have objective qualities, as at some level we can all agree that there is "objectively" good and "objectively" bad food/music.

I have your objective quality right here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFjwbKMlmF4

>>68590518
Fucking rekt

>>68588946
holy shit mu is basically the latter of "modern art" drones

how else does nmh and the velvet underground get acclaimed? How else can poptimists, kpop threads and the like flourish? Art isn't relative and the effort and skill of the artist usually will shine through in the end. It isn't art just because we say it is or because it's shocking and contrarian

>>68590712
>>68590518
You're conflating the problem of solipsism with subjectivity/objectivity. The fact that we can't directly know the world external to our mind doesn't mean nothing is truly objective, it just means that knowledge is a tricky problem (which is why there's an entire branch of philosophy dedicated to its study).

Objective = this sound vibrates at 440hz
Subjective = this sound is good

The fact that we can only know the first fact through our senses doesn't mean it's subjective nor does it make it conceptually equivalent to the second. The point is that the first statement makes a claim about something which is a function of physical reality. It could be false, it could be that we can never really know what reality is, but the grounding of the claim is in a physical fact about the external world.

However, the second fact is simply a function of a persons mind. It's not grounded in any fact about the physical world other than the human mind. There's a conceptual distinction here.

We can easily show this with a thought experiment. What if there was an intelligent alien race with different brain structures designed to interpret sound differently, and thus favored completely different types of music? Are they objectively wrong for not liking radiohead?

If you say we can judge by a solid "criteria" one can easily just ask why you would choose that criteria. Any such criteria would be arbitrary. I guess you could say it would be objective with respect to the criteria but what difference does it make if the criteria themselves are subjective? Doesn't fundamentally change anything.

>>68590748
>he doesn't like nmh or tvu
Fuck off you stupid djent fan

>>68590996
Also I should say that music being subjective doesn't mean that everyone's opinion is equally valid. If I have to listen to a review of an album by some rando on the street who doesn't know much about music vs. the opinion of someone who's musically trained, is familiar with the artist, familiar with the genre and style, has listened to and critiqued lots of different kinds of music, you know which one I'm going to pick.

Saying music taste is subjective isn't the end of the story.

Music.

Effort + skill +inspiration // creativity = semi objective result
In the same way, using proper tools such as good recording quality, careful production and quality instruments can improve a craft.

In the same way knowledge of music theory improves both the artistic result of a musician's works AND improves a listener's ability to appreciate their efforts and knowledge.

Sweet Trip creates lush electronic soundscapes. Their HONED CRAFT is vastly superior to anything I could personally do with 10 minutes in garageband. My effort and skill are less, my electronic song would be objectively worse.

>>68588484
objectivity doesn't exist pleb

>>68591449
http://vocaroo.com/i/s1QRWgn1xxzj
itt: relativists

>>68588484
>I'll pretend my music isn't shit by saying music can't be bad or good

Music has a vibration
Vibration installs a feeling
Therefor music at it's core is a feeling.
Feelings are subjective, and within you're own human experience that's the only thing that truly matters, and that is "correct".
Correct/Right/Objective truth doesn't exist simply because life is subjective


There is you're answer folks

>>68588822
Could have copypasta potential

>>68588484
in the end of the day, mad losers are still mad losers and blame fun entertainment for their mental and real life problems

>>68588484
relativism is garbage and if you had any critical thinking skills you would renounce your nihilistic sense of the world, but you won't because you're too much of an angst-ridden teenager to think on your own.

>>68591189
Your second post does not follow the philosophy outlined in the first.

File: 1404251700418.jpg (140KB, 850x716px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 850x716px

>>68591605
>implying music is the same vibration because music has vibration
>implying vibration is the same as feelings because vibration evokes feelings
>implying feelings are subjective

objectively ur a dumbass

>>68592525
so? eat a dick

>>68592573
wow p rude desu senpai i thought u were enlightened but i guess not??

File: cringe.png (32KB, 1518x147px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 1518x147px

>>68592403
that QWERTY namefag is like that, everything he/she posts is copypasta potential.