Discuss

jungle is massive

>>68654258
relevance 0

File: reddit the bacon narwhal.jpg (80KB, 621x553px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 621x553px

Sorry guys posted the wrong pic lol

>>68654459
2dank4me

>>68654258
This

File: file.png (335KB, 600x480px)

335KB, 600x480px

>6 / 2 / 4 / 5

This discussion that always sparks a million replies, why doesn't it work now?

Dance music:
>You can dance to it
>Makes girls grind on your dick
>Good for running

Classical music:
>You can't dance to it
>Makes girls think you're weird
>Not good for running

there was a big thread about this shit like a few hours ago

because I enjoy seeing the shitty bullshit threads that always plague /mu/ I will answer that I personally think that ultimately the cultural value of a piece of music that is heavily influenced by subjective factors is more important than any objective description or rating of it's qualities

>>68655085
cause your image is inarguably correct and not inflammatory enough

>>68655161
wtf i hate classical now

>>68655462
If it was unarguably correct, how can people constantly discuss for both sides of this so vehemently?

>>68655626
because they're retarded. that and if you redefine "good" to mean a social consensus rather than a private quality judgement then music becomes objective. which is basically what the image said thus exhaustively covering all of useful arguments.

>>68655700
Hm, fair point, although I didn't intend for it to be interpreted as good to mean social consensus but rather that you can through qualitative methods come to objective(ish) conclusions.

>>68654241
>this tempo is 140 instead of 120
>it's objectively shit

lol. quantitative measurements are useless and subjective. damn you're retarded.

>>68656026
Individually, yes, but some would argue that music as a phenomenon can be broken down into these quantitative pieces and be assessed from there. It's a very reductionist argument.

>>68656124
music is not liked for it's quantitative pieces but rather how it makes one feel or the ideas it can bring about. nothing to do with quantitative measurements. i think music is objective but i also think it's subjective whether someone likes it or not.

>>68656210
Good, you have an opinion! But then you realise the discussion isn't whether you like it or not, but if there's a further good or bad that is independent of your individual liking.

>>68656316
yea i already said it. i think it's objective whether music is good or not but not based on quantitative measurements. i already said based on feelings and ideas it brings about but there are probably other reasons as well. whether music brings the same feelings in others is subjective because of different life experiences. point is if it's good, it's good. whether other people agree is entirely subjective.

>>68656443
So basically what you're actually saying is music quality is subjective and individual.

>>68655700
>implying values and preferences aren't socially constructed

out

Twinkle Twinkle Little Star

Objectively the best song, ever.

Simple, catchy, no complexity yet known by people everywhere, soothed tens of thousands of babies to sleep the world over for decades, every cunt with a recorder learns how to play it, world famous and catchy.

Prove me wrong.

>>68657019
>Prove me wrong.
You are absolutely correct.

>>68656475
no. here's what leads me to music being objective. there are some albums i did not like when i first heard them but after a while i enjoy them. was it my subjective opinion changing that made an album good. no. it was always good but for whatever reason i did not enjoy it.

your subjective taste is completely meaningless when looking at whether an album is good. also good and bad are subjective terms and you should look at music a different way. i don't care enough about this topic to go into more detail.

>>68657277
>was it my subjective opinion changing that made an album good
Actually yes, most likely. Perception changes based on previous experiences, which included having heard it before on the second or latter listens.