Is calling music subjective a defensive respond for 14 year olds

>giving a shit about what people think
kys

File: Grace.jpg (242KB, 1024x1265px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1024x1265px

>>71106261

Now this I find interesting.

In short... it's valid, though I do agree it's a fuck wad way to appear intellectual, and people who are quick to bring this up are too fragile for differing opinions... but lets break this down. Is it possible... now stay with me... that there is an objective universal truth, some unwavering mindset that prooves the best way a human can live and be of most value to the human race. If there is... this may prove the measuring too from which we may be able to judge everything, including individual works of art.

Maybe there are too many variables in play NOW... but maybe one day, the truth of everything will be known.

Is calling music objective a defensive respond for trigglypuffs who want safe spaces for their shit taste?

It's quality that is subjective. And no, not at all.

File: rita5.jpg (228KB, 1000x1210px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1000x1210px

>>71106341

This is valid too. How would you respond to someone who dished you smarm after sharing an obvious IMO with a group. Genuine.

>>71106324
but aren't you giving a shit about giving a shit?

check and mate

>>71106338
Even allowing the idea that there could be some universal objective truth about the quality of art, why the fuck would you WANT there to be one? That's incredibly boring. Half the appeal of art is that it can appeal to different things in different people, it can be interpreted in so many different ways, in the same way that people interpret life and choose to live it in so many different ways. Why would you want everyone to be a brainless homogenous drone following a checklist for being a "perfect person"? That would be awful.

who gets more out of music? you, who worries about liking "the right music", or this other person who just likes music without buying into elitism?

File: grace9.jpg (2KB, 158x94px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 158x94px

>>71106415

I understand this critique, and I certainly would not wish for the scenario you described... but what if this "perfect person scenario, was Utopic? What if our ultimate evolution was an all knowing all loving state? Not brainlessness, but our peek potential? Not a drone conformity but a unity in achievement?

>>71106261
Can you give a solid reason for any objectivist stance on art? Or is this the classic "STAHP LIKING THINGS I DONT LIKE"?

Not really. "Music tastes and the quality of the music are subjective" is an objectively true statement.

Now if they're just saying "DAS JUS UR OPUNON MAN" every time you say an artist, song, album, etc., is shit, especially when you give a constructive critique of it, then your description is fitting.

>>71106579
>Now if they're just saying "DAS JUS UR OPUNON MAN" every time you say an artist, song, album, etc., is shit, especially when you give a constructive critique of it, then your description is fitting.

Those people aren't wrong either because nothing will ever be objectively shit to everyone. You can give the best and most constructive critique of why something is bad, if I like it then it will inherently never be shit to me because of how that particular thing makes me feel on a personal level (whether it is badly MADE or not, on the other hand, is a different thing where I'd actually agree with OP).

Saying "that's just your opinion" is simply a bad way of saying "I don't care if it's objectively bad because I personally enjoy it".

But you know that's just, like, my opinion man.

>>71106338
>objective universal truth
ayn rand fuck off

>>71106931
it's basic theology bruv

>>71106261
Calling music subjective is a truth, it's an art form, not a fucking test.

File: Jesus_does_not_come_into_play_Ps_q3.jpg (48KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 480x640px

>>71106948

File: rita8.jpg (402KB, 1261x1600px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 1261x1600px

>>71106931

Hahaha, gross. You got me wrong homie.

>>71107008
yes

File: tumblr_ol86e1CieA1rc5j9ao1_400.jpg (26KB, 375x375px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 375x375px

>>71107008

>>71106338
Pretty sure the quality of art is relative to time. So No. Unless you're judging timeless pieces. But what about the rest?