Siren Charms

[Pitiless Wanderer]

Lol what are you talking about, what irony? I'm telling you FACTUALLY that there is no objectivity to what music is good or not.

There is, though. Objectivity simply means that something is true regardless of bias or personal taste or feeling. Something is X independent of all other factors. In music if you remove external factors like feeling and emotion and bias, what you're left with is simply raw skill, both technical and compositional, found in instrumentation, composition and vocal prowess. Something can be said to be true by an objective sense if it's true regardless of the above external factors. Measuring technical ability is perhaps the best and only way to compare and conclude about different types of music, X and Y. Jeff Loomis is a better guitar player, objectively speaking, than you (or I). He writes better music, objectively speaking, than less talented guitar players. I am making the argument that you can still call something "better" than something else regardless of how people feel about it. That is what I am doing.

Whether something is harder to play than something else however, there are objectivity since you can measure the technical aspects of how the music is played/created.

Yes and that makes it better like I explained above. Glad you agree. I think you're confused here with the definition of "better" or how we come to it. I am saying that to be measured as better, you have to remove the external factors like emotion, feeling and bias. It doesn't matter how you feel about the music. All that matters, if we are to index the music, is skill and ability.

Maybe for you, technicality and instrumental skill translates to music being good.

Not good. "Good" in this case means that people like it while I am saying it is "better" than certain other types of music.

Both you and me could probably agree that mainstream music being played on the radio sucks incredibly hard, but that is just our opinions, there is no objectivity whatsoever about it

You're again telling me that, objectively speaking, there is no objectivity when it comes to music being good or bad. So let me ask, how do you come to the objective conclusion that there is no objectivity in music if objectivity in music does not exist? If there is "no objectivity whatsoever", then both types of music are equal. This is still an objective statement. How do you come to it? Or are you implying that somehow objectivity in music does not exist, but making objective statements about it is valid? How? By what measurement do you arrive at that conclusion? (honestly).

You can't measure quality because it is biased. You can never reach objectivity when you're talking about taste. It's not about being elitist, we're talking about facts.

Remove the bias and you can definitely measure quality in terms of technical ability.

Some people like more simple, easy going music. There is nothing wrong with that. Some people like extremely technical music with lots of changing patterns throughout the songs. Your opinion that Siren Charms ''by any standard of music judgement'' is worse than their earlier records is also just an opinion.

No, there is nothing wrong with that and I never said there was. My statement that you quoted above is an objective statement based on all the examples provided above. It doesn't matter how many people like something when measuring skill. "Best" and "favorite" are not synonymous.

If In Flames would release a dubstep album it would be your OPINION that it sucks. You're basically defining what good music means to you, and then masking it as an objective fact.

No. I like lots of "good music" that is objectively worse than other types of music.

You don't seem to know the definition of the word objectivity, sadly.

No, I am well aware of objectivity. You seem to be lost to the fact that you're saying it doesn't exist yet using it to try and counter every one of my examples. At least I'm providing a logical pathway for my conclusion (remove bias, feeling, emotion) to arrive at raw skill for measurement.

Our difference is simply philosophical. You seem to think that feelings and interpretation somehow exclude one to make statements about objectivity while I do not.

 

[eochaid]

SC is objictevily a bad album if you talk about the instrumental part.

 

[DE4life]

i like colony lol

 

[krofius]

Uneasy I literally can not make it easier to understand, are you seriously stupid?

OBJECTIVELY, some music can be technically better than other music.
SUBJECTIVELY, some music sounds better than other music based on personal taste and preferences.

You can't measure taste, you can measure technicality and instrumental skill. Technicality and skill is not a way to measure whether a sound songs good or not, it's all about how the person listening to the song think the song is good or not, based on his opinion.

Music is art. Art is subjective. Simple as that.

Painter X spent 5hours splashing random colours on his painting
Painter C spent 80 hours just on the details on his painting

Which painting is the better one? C? X?

Apples and Oranges, which one tastes best?

You're not the first one trying to argue that musical taste is objective, there's forum threads all over google with great lengthy discussions about the matter, you should read them.
This is a tiring subject to discuss with you so I most likely won't reply back on the subject any more.

 

[Clay-Man]

What if I told you that Come Clarity songs are harder to play on guitar than Jester Race, Whoracle, Colony, and Clayman songs?

 

[DE4life]

No one except Krofius and Uneasy_Conscience would care.

 

[krofius]

What if I told you that Come Clarity songs are harder to play on guitar than Jester Race, Whoracle, Colony, and Clayman songs?

Are you asking me or Uneasy?
Regardless, that would mean that those songs are more technical, and that's pretty much it. What matters is how good the songs are, and that is up to every individual person to decide.

 

[eochaid]

Sorry but no. Be it that you like it or not, you can say that Mozart is objectively better than, for example, Paradise Lost. So objectivity can be aplied to music, though not to tastes.

 

[krofius]

Sorry but no. Be it that you like it or not, you can say that Mozart is objectively better than, for example, Paradise Lost. So objectivity can be aplied to music, though not to tastes.

Have you missed what we have been talking about all along dude?
Mozart was probably a more skilled musician yes, but musical skills has nothing to do with music taste.

You can objectively say that Mozart was a better and skilled musician than Paradise Lost.
You can ONLY subjectively say that Mozarts MUSIC is better than Paradise Lost's, because again, it depends on the individual persons music taste.

Instrumental skill = Objective
Different ways people perceive songs when listening to them = Subjective

 

[eochaid]

Have you missed what we have been talking about all along dude?
Mozart was probably a more skilled musician yes, but musical skills has nothing to do with music taste.

You can objectively say that Mozart was a better and skilled musician than Paradise Lost.
You can ONLY subjectively say that Mozarts MUSIC is better than Paradise Lost's, because again, it depends on the individual persons music taste.

Instrumental skill = Objective
Different ways people perceive songs when listening to them = Subjective

I think you're wrong. Any good music critic, and I'm not talking about a guy writing his own blog but real experts, can evaluate music leaving aside his own personal tastes. And anyone can see that Mozart is better than Paradise Lost or IF, I don't like Mozart but I can clearly see it, because I don't have in mind my own tastes when rating (or evaluating) something.

 

[krofius]

I think you're wrong. Any good music critic, and I'm not talking about a guy writing his own blog but real experts, can evaluate music leaving aside his own personal tastes. And anyone can see that Mozart is better than Paradise Lost or IF, I don't like Mozart but I can clearly see it, because I don't have in mind my own tastes when rating (or evaluating) something.

You think I am wrong? Music taste is not subjective? That is what you're saying?
I've never seen a music critic say ''I don't personally like this, but this is really good music!''
Kind of a contradiction. Like I've already say you can evaluate music from a technical standpoint, but further than that, no. No one can say that some music is better than some other music, other than to his own ears. It's like I said with food as well, some people like pizza some don't. Doesn't make it objectively bad or good.

 

[Pitiless Wanderer]

Uneasy I literally can not make it easier to understand, are you seriously stupid?

OBJECTIVELY, some music can be technically better than other music.
SUBJECTIVELY, some music sounds better than other music based on personal taste and preferences.

You can't measure taste, you can measure technicality and instrumental skill. Technicality and skill is not a way to measure whether a sound songs good or not, it's all about how the person listening to the song think the song is good or not, based on his opinion.

Music is art. Art is subjective. Simple as that.

Painter X spent 5hours splashing random colours on his painting
Painter C spent 80 hours just on the details on his painting

Which painting is the better one? C? X?

Apples and Oranges, which one tastes best?

You're not the first one trying to argue that musical taste is objective, there's forum threads all over google with great lengthy discussions about the matter, you should read them.
This is a tiring subject to discuss with you so I most likely won't reply back on the subject any more.

You're not paying close enough attention to what I am saying, so yea, don't reply if you don't want to. I'll clarify so maybe you can follow me, in case you are interested.

Subjectivity by your definition, what someone likes, it's just a personal recognition of excellence or quality. If we can have a definition of excellence or quality (what I stated earlier about skill, composition and all of the things that make up music) then we can simply look at what people like (taste) and compare it to said quality and make a judgement using that basis. Thus we arrive at the conclusion that musical tastes can be better than others. The only counter argument to this is that excellence and/or quality in music is subjective, but it is not, as you've recognized yourself.

 

[Pitiless Wanderer]

You think I am wrong? Music taste is not subjective? That is what you're saying?
I've never seen a music critic say ''I don't personally like this, but this is really good music!''
Kind of a contradiction. Like I've already say you can evaluate music from a technical standpoint, but further than that, no. No one can say that some music is better than some other music, other than to his own ears. It's like I said with food as well, some people like pizza some don't. Doesn't make it objectively bad or good.

Then you're not reading enough reviews, or you're reading the wrong kind of reviews. Plenty of reviewers make claims like that and not just in music, but in literature too, and most other forms of art. You've really never read a book review where the writer says something like "the prose is extremely well written but the plot is boring"? I mean just take a look at most Dream Theater reviews for an example in music.

 

[eochaid]

You think I am wrong? Music taste is not subjective? That is what you're saying?
I've never seen a music critic say ''I don't personally like this, but this is really good music!''
Kind of a contradiction. Like I've already say you can evaluate music from a technical standpoint, but further than that, no. No one can say that some music is better than some other music, other than to his own ears. It's like I said with food as well, some people like pizza some don't. Doesn't make it objectively bad or good.

No, I'm saying that music taste is subjective, but you can evaluate all music objectively. A real music critic will never say that he likes the music he is evaluating, because it's not his job to like it. The problem is that we are used to those critics that continously talk about their own tastes, and this is stupid. Talking about pizza, a professional jury will never say I like the taste, rather he will talk about the mix of ingredients, flavour and a long etc. For music is the same.

 

[DE4life]

Asking Krofius to be objective about In Flames is like asking a fat kid not to eat the cupcake on the table when you walk out of the room ain't happening.

 

[krofius]

Sigh...We're not talking about In Flames, at least I am not, I'm talking about music in general. But whatever

 

[DE4life]

Well, this thread is about Siren Charms so take your general music objective/subjective nonsense to a new thread please