What if music really is objective?

>>70611675
Define ''better''

Biebers aims are met for what he makes.

>What if music really is objective?

what if question really is ask

Well i don't listen to wagner nor bieber so I can't compare to two.

>>70611675
I wouldn't because my aesthetic sensibilities favors the sweeping grandiosity of Wagner over the catchy pop of Bieber. Believe it or not, there are some people who DON'T want to listen to 4 hours of an opera to hear one chord resolve.

A better question to ask is, if the overwhelming majority believe that statement X is true, is it objective fact?

>>70611837
yeah amazing question dude what a brain teaser

>>70611845
well is it?

>>70611855
no

>>70611894
it is, faggot, it's how things in art are judged

when majority of critics claim an album to be very good, it becomes objectively very good

if you still deny that, then you let idiots who listen exclusively to top 40 dictate our lives

>>70611675
you just have to be creative with your reasoning
but you couldn't do that
dumb frogposter

>>70613524
where do you see a frog on the picture? dumb shithead

>>70613480
Wait what
>If the overwhelming majority believe that statement X is true, is it objective fact?

You can't say this is true and then slander people for listening to the top 40, because isn't that pr. definition the stuff most people deem to be good?

Your presumption is that some peoples voices matter more than others on specific topic
>When majority of CRITICS clain an album....

But you don't at all argue fir why this is true.
Please learn how to construct a proper argument before you call other people faggots and idiots :))

>>70611675
>Wagner
literally who

>>70613480
you're really dumb lol

Well he's better at making pop music.

>>70611675
>implying aesthetics aren't objective

Anyone who denies objective beauty is drinking the kool-aid. Some are blind, some can see. Stop buying into the subjective hype, and buy some shares of true elite tastes hype.

If you need objective facts, maybe study math or something.

>>70614148
Anon's right, anon(?).

File: 148160607619.jpg (36KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 600x600px

>>70611675
I wouldn't.
But I would say, for example, that Brian Ferneyhough is better than Ludwig van Beethoven.
Or that Greg Kelley is better than Miles Davis.
Or that Dietrich Buxtehude is better than Johann Sebastian Bach.
Or that Luke Jordan is better than Robert Johnson.
And so on.

>>70611675
Music is filled with biases.
Everything has a bias towards something else.
No one will ever have the same exact opinion on something.
There will always be at least one difference.

Along with this, there cannot be a "perfect" song, because the idea of perfection cannot be imagined, therefore it cannot exist. Along with this, since perfection also is a concept based around favoritism, it means that there is no exceptionally good song. So by extension, Bieber and Wagner are both trash.

checkmate faggot

>>70611675
>anything objective about what vibrations cause your brain to release the chemicals which lead to you feeling pleasure

>>70616872
>Buxtehude better than Bach

Now you're just trying too hard.

Also, i'd consider influence on other music as one indicator of objective musical quality and as far as that goes, all of those examples are wrong.

>>70611744
kek

>>70616972
>i'd consider influence on other music as one indicator of objective musical quality
Influence has nothing to do with the music itself, but with other musicians.