music Is music subjective?

[Odyssey 5,716]

I've seen in many circles here and there talk about the quality of music. It has always struck me as a fascinating topic to listen to because of how many musical pieces have been produced over many centuries. Yet at the same time, I also hear from people that they don't like certain songs because the singing is off-key/the instruments aren't powerful enough/the pacing is poor/etc.. Whenever I hear this sort of stuff in topics, it usually makes me wonder if there are only a small amount of songs that are loved by many people, whether they be critics, musicians or just fans.

 

Now to be honest, I can't give much of an opinion because I don't know a single thing about music and how it's produced, but I would love to hear from you people. Would you say that bands could do better with their work, or should people like whatever they want?

[Lisa 5,553]

Yes, there's a reason why such a variety of genres exist after all; people like different sounds.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Holiday

[Unikitty 1,212]

Music is an art and art is purely subjective. We can imagine up a facade of objectivity through collective similarities in preference, but this is only an illusion created by our need to rank things through social averages. There's no such thing as good music or bad music; only popular and unpopular. You can take the most nonsensical and tone-deaf piece you can find, and someone is bound to find it naturally appealing. As such, you can find what you'd consider the pinnacle of music creation, but someone is bound to think of it as utter rubbish. It's the same for all art.

[Raven Rawne 1,381]

Now that's a tough one.

 

I daresay it's both subjective and objective at the same time. Allow me to explain:

 

It's objective, because nearly every genre has "rules", witch define said genre. On top of that, there's the general music theory witch encompasses keys, timing and a slew of other, measurable aspects of music. Some are set in stone, like timing - you can't change it during a song. But some are more like guidelines, or a time tested way of obtaining good results, like keys. Imagine you have a song in C major key. Does it mean you can't use notes from outside the key? No siree! You can, but it requires more skill to incorporate them, and, yes, there are rules to applying them. And there are songs that break the "soft" rules in order to create something entirely new - if they succeed, they will be blueprints for new rules witch help schieve simillar effect.

 

Music is also subjective, because people have different tases in music. So even though a specific song may be a masterpiece in technical terms, it still will be too X or not enough Y to some people. What's more, music is a very emotional medium, so obviously a liquid pride inducing score for one person will be meh for another.

[Not_active 732]

YES, YES, YES. 

 

A lot of people believe that their taste in music is superior, like it's a scientific fact that 80's music is better than today's music, and their argument for that is almost always the lyrics. You know, this type of shit:

 

 

If you agree with this image, let me tell you something: MUSIC IS NOT POETRY. Music isn't about giving it as much meaning as possible, it's about making something that sounds beautiful, an audible artwork. Lyrics really have no significance to music whatsoever, and that's how it's been since the beginning of humanity. Composers like Bach and Mozart usually had zero lyrics in their music, so do they suck as well? Don't get me wrong though, if you want to put meaning in your music, by all means go for it, that just makes it more interesting. But it's not the most important thing, as so many people imply it to be. If I don't like the sound of it...it's pretty much worthless to me.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Ferg

[EpicEnergy 23,218]

It depends on what aspect you are talking about. I think it is mostly subjective though.

[Tom Gallagher 33,588]

It is. I don’t know how people can listen to current music.

[dead account 2,710]

I agree with @EpicEnergy and say it's mostly subjective.

It is INCREDIBLY hard for me to find music that I like. I hate all genre, but at the same time I love all genre too. I like music that is unique, but it also needs to be my taste as well.

What works for me is to look for creators, not genre. I love video game music. When thinking about names such as David Wise or Motoi Sakuraba, I always know I'm going to experience greatness.

Another example is rap music, I hate it of course. But then there are exceptions like the DK Rap (<3), Pinkie Pie rapping about the Wonderbolts (<3) and some others (<3). It's different + my taste and that makes me love it. Pinkie's high-pitched voice makes it so cute and everything. And she is not using vulgar words and all that. It's so nice!

Or when Feather Bangs sings for Sugar Belle, it's hilarious! He is like Justin Bieber or something, not my type of stuff, but in FiM it's really funny and catchy for some reason, like all the other songs and soundtracks. It's the creators for me. There are only a few I really like! But they make the world so exciting for me!

I would say that every good creator has something you will recognize them for. They follow some "rules" they made up for themselves. And this is objective. And to like them in the first place is subjective.

[ExplosionMare 18,062]

Most definitely, since everyone has different tastes and preferences.

[Early Sunsets 2,106]

For the most part, yeah. The quality of a song can be objectively bad, but whether the song itself is good or bad is down to personal taste. 

[TBD 17,254]

It's subjective. Music is meant for everyone, that means everyone will have a genre or two or a song that can speak for them individually.  Although I do sometime question some people taste for musics..

[ZiggWheelsManning 10,341]

Rage Against the Machine and System of a Down, their music is "subjective", right?  

[Sir Hugsalot 9,348]

There is no simple answer to this question. 

When discussing music in terms of objective or subjective it should be split between artistry/personal taste and technical skills of the musicians.

The first is largely subjective with the only exception being shamelessly stealing parts of songs someone else wrote before. These, while sounding goods simply don't belong and thus in a song which stole them are NOT good. You can't just pull out a leg of a wolf, then attach it to a deer and pretend it's a job well done. Weird analogy, but You get what I mean. 

Skill is a whole different story though. When Your playing is sloppy it is just sloppy, period. When two notes don't fit musically at all they just won't fit. When Your instrument is not in tune and it wasn't done on purpose (yeah, that SOMETIMES happens) then it will sound objectively bad and calling it a "human element" is just an excuse. Basically - technical aspect of music is 100% objective, but it also happens to be something that only musicians pay attention to (and that doesn't mean that everyone else is bad, quite the contrary, I am sometimes jealous that some people can enjoy sloppy playing, because they can't hear what I hear xD). Average listener pays little attention to this and that's okay. 

[Sonic Shimmer 4,132]

To an extent, yes. There are many different styles and genres of music so obviously different people will have varying preferences.

But talent is certainly something that can be measured and graded.

[Splashee 28,564]

Songs, maybe. Singing and lyrics, and rap, dubstep, and so on.

 

But music is pretty much universal to everyone. People associate minor chords as sounding sad, etc. Music is a very good way to express emotions that can reach anyone, basically.

[Pentium100 2,123]

Music is subjective. It depends on the taste of the listener. I do not listen to some talented musicians just because I do not like the genre. It does not mean that I consider those musicians bad, though there are some bad musicians (as with everything else, few people are very good at it, a lot of people are OK and some people are bad at it)

[They call me Loyalty 1,948]

What is not subjective on this world? Even the value of life is put to the one-eyed scales. So, of course music is subjective as well. Isn't it?

[Dreambiscuit 9,743]

Music is subjective and everyone responds to certain kinds of music for different reasons. The only thing that strikes me as incongruous and inexplicable is that the majority of people from each generation will completely dismiss anything that isn’t from their generation, as though it can’t possibly have merit if it isn’t a clone of the last 100 songs released to the current market. Whenever I ask people to listen to Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby, Jack Jones, Nelson Eddy, Margaret Whiting, Jo Stafford, etc, and give an opinion, I’m invariably greeted with a low moan and total disregard without even listening, just because the music is considered old. When this music was new, it was extremely popular, especially among the ‘younger generation’ of the time. Fans were screaming and fainting in the aisles at Frank Sinatra concerts, and disregarding the stuff that came a generation earlier than that. Now it’s the same thing with the latest music, and the only thing that’s changed is the dates. Good music and bad music have existed in every generation, but the deciding factor seems to be how recent the music is rather than the quality of the composition. I know music is subjective, but the prejudices that influence the opinions and tastes of listeners remains baffling to me.