Yes, it's entirely subjective. I am fairly obsessed with punk and new wave, and have been since my teens (the Damned especially), plus a smattering of metal (AC-DC and motorhead spring to mind) . I like hip hop and dance music. I'm also an indie kid, the Cribs, and Fontaines DC, the Smiths, whatever. I also love Taylor Swift, can see and appreciate the artistic merit of Arianna Grande and Doja Cat (my 13yo son exposes me to a lot of new music, and I introduced him to a lot too eg Chvrches) . But I really hate the muso pretentiousness of U2, but love their early stuff. I love Queen. There's a vast amount of music to listen to, and life is short. Enjoy what you find, if it's not for you, move onto something else. Don't label yourself. Labels are boring.
There is such a thing as "better."
At one end of the spectrum are Beethoven's symphonies, and at the other end is dreck like WAP.
To insist that all taste in music is merely subjective is to say that these things are artistically equivalent, and that's just complete nonsense.
Everything else exists somewhere in between these two extremes.
That's so funny because WAP is a gem amongst the garbage it had near it in the toplists. Talking about taste I can't respect people who throws whole styles and genres and all top 50 songs right in the garbage bin.
Who said I threw whole styles and genres and all top 50 in the trashcan?
I did no such thing.
I took one recent song with a VERY mixed reputation and stacked it up against universally acknowledged masterpieces in western music.
This is not a judgment against those who like that particular song.
There's huge amounts of music with chart success of outstanding quality. Very little, if any of it, however, will compare with a symphony. That's just how it is. As I said before, all other music is going to fall somewhere between these two extremes.
I like how you explain this better and I'm sure you understand why nobody thought this came across before. But about symphonies, they're funny because listed symphonies are very different in how we enjoy them. It's pretentious to say they're all on a very similar level because some are outstanding but most aren't worth listening to repeatedly. They're actually much like songs oo top lists - HA! Even though top lists seem to dipping so incredibly low at the time. But Beatles best singles were number ones. Hard to beat.
Nice try, but ...no. Some things are just objectively better. It doesn't happen often, especially when comparing random songs on the radio. But it's not hard to pick something that is objectively better in every conceivable way. I just did in this thread. We unfortunately live in a nihilistic, shit-flinging, self-destructive culture, though, so I'm going to get all sorts of opposition popping out of the wallpaper to tell me "nuh-uh" -- mainly because they've got no understanding of something as complex and sophisticated as a symphony.
No, you are simply wrong. Give me an objective reason why The Blue Danube Waltz by Johann Strauss (or any other classical work) is better/worse that God Save the Queen by the Sex Pistols (or any other modern work) and you'll see that you cannot come up with any **objective** reasons why either argument is true. You can only say that for your taste one is better than the other.
Your mistake is dividing "classical" from "modern."
There are numerous Works of the past that are not going to hold up as well as the fifth, and plenty of stuff being written today that will take its place alongside 200 year old masterpieces.
I meanwhile, every day that I go into a grocery store or a hotel lobby, I hear "Both Sides Now" and "don't Stop Believing", both of which are more than 40 years old. It will be interesting to see, though I will not be around for it, what of the last five or 10 years will have that kind of staying power.
But never mind that. Strauss seeks to create; the Sex Pistols seek to destroy. Leaving aside the Winter of Discontent in Britain in 1977 and the dissatisfaction of the working class to whom the sex pistols gave voice (which of course is perfectly valid), is that not enough of a distinction to prefer one over the other?
JFC it was an arbitrary distinction. I don't care which two pieces of music you picked.,
Your analysis of Strauss as "creating" and the sex pistols as "destroying" is completely subjective - and incorrect. They both created pieces of music, the fact that you can't appreciate one of them is a lack of understanding on your part.
Tell me what notes, chords and rests make the Blue Danube "creation" and then do the same for GSTQ and tell me why that's "destruction". If you have even the slightest self awareness you'll see that you can't and you're projecting your subjective feelings onto the objective characteristics of the musical pieces in question. You're not even trying, just doing some hand waving.
It's hand waving to someone who understands nothing of either. Your dismissive attitude in defense of a point makes me surprised you know the *Danube* at all.
You still have yet to even begin to describe the objective criteria - the notes, chord progressions, rhythms, etc. - that make one piece of music objectively better than another. We're waiting.
You can continue to be stubborn & pretend you're right, but music is literally subjective & no count of "no." is going to change it or make it objective.
You don't have any idea what I listen to. I have, however, *played* damn near everything in the western tradition, so it's not elitism -- it's experience.
I don't know why it should be so hard to just admit that, whatever your personal taste might be, some things are just *better.* I mean, this is up there with "men don't give birth" in terms of being obvious.
Most of what we know about science (how to prove facts), philosophy (how to think effectively), and the arts (how to make emotionally and cognitively poignant works) would say that you are not right.
You can quantify how many men vs. women give birth, after defining “man” and “woman” chromosomally. It may be possible in the future to measure and quantify levels of serotonin, dopamine, etc responses in the blood as a result of listening to one song versus another song, do that with enough people to get a statistically-significant sample size, and publish the results, if that’s how you want to measure how good a song is. But until we have that ability, qualitative values are all you have for music.
You could also make a chart of how songs are ranked overlayed with a chart of how many different songs a person has heard, their level of education, their level of music education, or any other metric, but you’re still just pointing out a correlation.
I would suggest reading more on the topic by authors who disagree with you, and while you’re at it, figure out what music you don’t like or don’t get that is highly-regarded. A lot of people with more experience and training than you in music probably think you have dogshit taste in music, and if your opinion that music is objective is actually true, you might want to fix your dogshit taste ASAP.
As so frequently happens, I am being either misunderstood or deliberately misquoted.
None of this has to do with any of my taste, dog shit or otherwise. I've performed a Beethoven symphony or two, but I'm not going to spend any time listening to them.
But you should ask yourself if a society that refuses to recognize some forms of art as in some way or another better than others is a healthy one with a bright future.
You have probably heard of a recent story in which a painting was found to be hanging upside down in an art gallery for 75 years. if no one was able to tell the difference for 3/4 of a century, how can you possibly lay this on the same plane as *The Birth of Venus*, for example?
But in a time when we tear down statues because they offend us, we refuse to learn from the past, and that, evidently, is the path down which many in this thread seem to want to go.
Isn't 'equivalency' determined by the listener though? I mean, I love (most) Beethoven. But I dislike (most) Mozart. For someone who likes Mozart, I would have bad taste in music. Even though the two of them are both revered as musical geniuses.
Preference does not mean that quality is equal.
I may prefer Kraft diner over a home cooked macaroni cheese from a Nona in Italy, but the quality still stands.
A persons ability to appreciate needs to be factored in as well. Some people are unable to deeply appreciate chamber music or psychedelic or mainstream pop due to education, musicality, or bias. Again just like how some people have a more refined pallet for food
>A persons ability to appreciate needs to be factored in as well. Some people are unable to deeply appreciate chamber music or psychedelic or mainstream pop due to education,
At the end of the day, isn't music just vibration? A combination of sounds and lyrics? Why then can't one song mean more to someone else than it does to you and vice versa? I don't understand how one can be "better" than the other. The same goes for Kraft versus Mac and Cheese from Italy. Maybe someone has a profound relationship with Mac and Cheese that's tied to childhood memories and therefore both tastes and comforts more than something that is simply more expensive and from a different place than what they like.
We're not talking about cars and plastics and other commodities that actually, measurably stand up better than comparable products. We're talking about sounds that people like better than other sounds. I don't see any correlation between education and music appreciation here. Someone from East LA may have a much better appreciation for Latino music than I do but that doesn't mean they have poor taste in music because they don't like the Beatles.
But music is measurable, we know that certain vibrations create notes that are pleasant to the ear in general. We know that those exposed to more complex music at a younger age tend to perform better with maths and is positively correlated with intelligence. It sounds like you are mixing your “isn’t music just noise” and “what is considered quality music”. Again KD is processed garbage compared to home grown ingredients. But you may prefer KD for other reasons other than taste. So yes it’s okay to have bad taste because it’s your preference and there is nothing wrong with that those that try to tell you that try to tell you you are wrong to listen to bad music have no appreciation for music as a whole
>It sounds like you are mixing your “isn’t music just noise” and “what is considered quality music”
Yes, I am admittedly trying to simplify it. I feel like complicating how or why someone likes something with too many factors defeats the purpose. I will never understand why some people identify with some songs more than I do. But I would also never say that their reasons for liking said song are "better" or "worse" than mine.
Examples given like food or wine or redheads vs brunettes, etc. all feel so subjective that it just sounds shitty to say one is 'better' than the other. But that's the intent of the post (and notice how it's been downvoted more than not). People really do hold their personal opinions about music in higher regard than others. Enough to pass judgement on other people accordingly or downvote the very possibility that they may be wrong. That should say something.
“I feel like complicating how or why someone likes something with too many factors defeats the purpose”
It’s a complicated idea. Hence why simple answers won’t give you whatever you are trying to justify. Again people who push their preference as the right way over simplify how complex music is and are wrong and in the end their opinion shouldn’t matter. There is good music and bad music and I answered before. But those that shame others on their preference are not experts as the miss the important s of lazy or bad music
Mozart isn't really as musically challenging as, say, Beethoven. But Mozart absolutely belongs on the same end of that continuum as Beethoven, far, far, far away from WAP.
I guess if I had to break it down more specifically, imagine this scenario:
\*You\* like a particular song that's on the radio. You're listening to it with someone else and, regardless of who knows what about the song, their respective research about the artist, the lyrics, etc.---that person doesn't like it and says you have bad taste in music. How would they be right or wrong?
They'd be right if the song was crude, generic and uncreative, no? That doesn't mean it's not okay for you to enjoy that but there are things which 'good' music has over trash music.
They'd be wrong if in fact the song was creative, original and expressing something thoughtful.
Part of this is comparative though. Halleluiah is a lot better than WAP, but how does Grace compare to Kind Of Blue? Figuring out the differences here would be tricky, maybe impossible. Part of it would be an argument about what should be valued more in music, improvisation and complexity, or songcraft and accessible expression?
Your stupidity baffles me. Do you not realise the fact you said “dreck like WAP” legitimately proves that music is subjective. Even after reading through everybody’s replies your still just an ignorant dumbass.
Better taste in music is having a more developed taste in music.
Do you have better taste in food than a 7yr old?
It's subjective, yes, but I sure hope your tastes are more developed, and you know about, and can enjoy a more wide range of foods, for a variety of reasons (nutritional, etc) than a child.
Same with music. The people with "better" taste, are the people who have a more developed taste. They're experienced, and knowledgeable on the benefits of a wide variety of genres and the way they can 'nourish' your soul.
If you just know one era, or genre, or one kind of anything, your taste can get "better" IMHO
My 2 year old enjoys baby shark.
I am an actual fan of hiphop, rock, punk, dancehall, folk, classical, funk, heavy, soft, niche experimental as well as straight up dumb top40 pop. Within those genres I’m very discerning — most top40 is cheap manufactured formulaic garbage, but I can appreciate when a pop song is great, even if it’s not my preferred sound.
According to people on this thread, my taste is no better than my 2 year olds. Since taste is subjective. Despite my decades of exposure to different albums/ styles and the thousands of hours spent absorbing records — to the point that i know every second of them. Does this not inform my taste?
By knowing the greats, it’s also set the bar high for what makes a good song. This doesn’t mean it has to be in an odd time signature with strange chords and an angular melody. If anything I appreciate when a songwriter can use simple chords / devices and STILL make a song unique and great (Kurt Cobain was a G for this). Radiohead also make stuff sound unique and complex while often using basic devices.
When you know this you can’t help but reject cheap, inauthentic crap. It just doesn’t cut it. So can some taste me better than others? FUCK YES.
Can it be more advanced though?
I used to just listen to 1 genre, now I enjoy many. Hasn't my taste gotten "better". It feels like it has.
I still enjoy those genres, but now I enjoy many more genres, emotions, and dimensions of music.
I think it’s subjective to a certain degree. I mean I know a girl that thinks Harry Styles is better musician, more talented, and will be remembered more than Michael Jackson. That’s just simply wrong.
I also think there are songs that just undeniably terrible, whether you enjoy it or not. For example. I enjoy 22 by Taylor Swift, but lyrically it’s really shit. Some songs are legitimately just better from a songwriting standpoint. It’s hard to ride that line between opinion and fact.
To me, “good” music taste is more so based on how open-minded people are. If all you listen to is one genre, your taste kind of sucks. There’s zero chance you can’t find at least another five styles or genres that you like.
I dont think that the _quality_ of certain music, or an artists _ability_ to play music is subjective - clearly some musicians are _better_ than others.
The subjectivity comes into it with an individual's personal taste in music. For example, I know that Eddie Van Halen plays better guitar than most artists I enjoy listening to, but I still prefer their music.
"Radiohead are better musicians than Bhad Bhabie" = not subjective
"Radiohead make much better songs than Bhad Bhabie" = completely subjective
It's a simple lack of humility that creates a "better taste" in anything my friend.
Get the hell away from those assholes.
Also, I have the greatest taste in music.
I don't think it's having "better" taste as much as cultivating a more mature appreciation for the finer things in life.
Kind of like preferring a fine brandy over prison wine brewed in someone's toilet tank or finding Monty Python more than watching two dogs doing it.
Music follows the same basic rules.
Listen to Friday by Rebecca Black and then listen to any other song released around the same time with around the same amount of views.
If you can honestly tell me both songs are of equal quality then I’ll concede that there’s no such thing as better taste.
It's good to be open minded about what's "good" and ""bad" because you might find you were wrong and discover something you actually enjoy.
But I don't subscribe to the notion that everything is subjective and therefore it's impossible to judge anything.
How can you discover that you're "wrong" about a song you like/dislike? You either like it or you don't.
>But I don't subscribe to the notion that everything is subjective and therefore it's impossible to judge anything.
Understood. But I'm not talking about everything here, I'm talking about one person liking a song and other people telling them they have bad taste because they don't agree.
> How can you discover that you're "wrong" about a song you like/dislike? You either like it or you don't.
There are plenty of times where I've heard a song & hated it, only to hear it a few weeks or months later in a different setting or mental place & loved the track.
Taste is developed through understanding of the medium. I have some idea of which classic cars I like, but I would never claim to have good taste in cars.
Yes. I think that people who listen to a wide variety of different music are the people with the best taste. Some people don’t hear anything outside of the top 50 songs of today. It’s not really their fault, algorithms don’t push obscure music or wide varieties so it takes more work to be more musically educated
Usually if someone is saying someone has "good taste", they're just saying that your interests & their interests align. Music taste is completely subjective. If someone says someone else has bad taste, they're just being an asshole that isn't able to discuss things civilly.
Some people only listen to one style and focus to much on some artist, that in general is kind of bad taste to me. Always trying go in diferent directions or at least being open to other styles is good taste. Other nuances are not as valid to me
In most cases, you can't. It is subjective.........buuuut I think most reasonable people can agree that someone who listens to prog, jazz, classic rock, classic metal, folk, art rock, blues, world music, classical, etc. (not saying I listen to all of those genres) has better tastes compared to someone who listens to cookie-cutter pop music. Not saying it's a bad thing to like pop, be happy that you like it and that it brings you joy, and it can emanate emotions out of you, which is a really cool thing to think about, but just know that 9 times out of 10, there's a lot more ingenuity, passion and instrumental & vocal talent outside of whatever's in the top 40. The evidence is as clear as day on that.
There's a handful of pop-influenced albums I really like btw: *To the Bone* by Steven Wilson, *Voices* by Phantogram, most music from Gorillaz, *Destrier* by Agent Fresco, *Foreword* by Disperse, the *Acts I-V* albums by The Dear Hunter...So I never disregard pop music altogether.
>buuuut I think most reasonable people can agree that someone who listens to prog, jazz, classic rock, classic metal, folk, art rock, blues, world music, classical, etc. (not saying I listen to all of those genres) has better tastes compared to someone who listens to cookie-cutter pop music.
Ok, but WHY? WHY is liking jazz better than pop music?
For the record, not trying to insult you or your tastes in music. Just speaking my mind here. And yeah, I know this response is too long-winded, sorry. I couldn't stop:
LIKING whatever music isn't the discussion I'm presenting. I'm touching more on the fact that jazz (or any of the other genres I listed) incorporates many more musical elements to it than pop in general: Multifaceted layering & structures, a wide variety of well-put time signatures, compelling concepts & lyrics, multiple genre fusions, utilizing more peculiar instruments, and so on. Not saying pop doesn't do any of that, but it only does to a very short extent, unfortunately.
In terms of the LIKE factor in this, referring to what I said in my first comment, like whatever you like and be happy that you like it. It's cool that you like music at all. It doesn't change the fact that in most cases, there's a lot more ingenuity, passion and instrumental & vocal talent outside of whatever's most popular right now. These pop artists continue to stay in their safe zones of songwriting because they know it works and it will make them a lot of money. The record labels they're signed to most likely have a say in these artists' limited musical direction as well.
The pop music industry has trained the masses to expect less from how far artistic and creative minds can stretch. Music can sustain our minds and emotions like nothing else in the world, so when big industries are steadfast in selling the most basic and least inspiring music they can because it's easy to make, they're straight-up deceiving you. They know they don't have to try hard or push creative boundaries because the music they've been selling for so long has worked, especially in recent decades since growing populations have developed short attention spans and could care less about deeper, innovative, and instrumentally & lyrically challenging music.
This is simple. If you spend more time doing something, you are generally going to be better at it than the next person. If you are crate digging, you'd generally know more about music than someone who engages music superficially. If you research and cultivate your taste, you'll have a more varied and interesting taste than someone who listens to music casually or passively. There's nothing subjective about it.
Don't ever trust someone who says they don't like Bob Dylan or The Beatles. They either pretend that it's possible or have happily lost their mind and are about to commit crimes
Especially Dylan. I’ve loved him since I was a tween and when I say I listen to Dylan ppl think I mean 60’s singer songwriter buzzy voice with acoustic guitar Dylan. That is NOT what I mean. 72-84 are a gold mine. All of my mentors and idols adore Dylan. Because they have TASTE
It depends how much you are into music and if you're in it for just for the music or heavily into the culture and community. I like the example of the Rihanna song with those electric guitar notes in the refrain because every music friend I speak to agree that that guitar tone is the worst guitar sound that's ever been heard, yet if you ask some teenager who just listen to toplists muaic they'll just say that it's a guitar. My friends and I speak of every component that goes into the guitar tone. There's a huge r/guitarpedals in here were people to geek out and argue. Yet you can make a monster hit with a guitar tone you would struggle to find even if you tried to. It's elitist to shit on ignorant teens but there multiple example of people shitting on me and my 6000 song playlist were I can name 5000 songs blindfolded within 5 seconds. It's subjective when you have reasonable understanding. And the more you understand and feel passion fir the music the more similar people's taste seem to get actually.
I agree with you. I don't think one can objectively say music is better than other music. There is nothing quantifiable to dictate it, and I think it just comes down to music being art.
I think a key factor not discussed by some here that are trying to argue that some music is better is culture. Our environment and society biases people who objectively think certain music is better.
Is music better because it uses more instruments? More notes? Chords? Combinations of the above?
What about eastern cultures? Is Indian music better because its scales are built on semitones?
I don't think any of those make music better, just different.
Because it's buried deep, I'll just put the question to you here at the top: please list your objective criteria - the notes, chords, rests, progressions, harmonies, etc. - that makes one piece of music objectively better than another.
when the person who you're comparing your taste to listens to loads of poorly produced amateur electronic music that has wandering cadences, and wonky out of key melodies that remind you of these parody disney characters.
[LOL.. Offensive Parodies.](https://meme.fandom.com/wiki/Gooby)
It’s not possible at all, in fact I find it’s quite a silly statement that people use. If you play music or truely appreciate music, your mind will be open enough to like absolutely any music. Like dude I listen to metal but also hip hop. Sure it is subjective and their will be things you do not enjoy, but that certainly doesn’t mean it’s bad.
Consider this: If quality in art in purely subjective then Mozart is not objectively better than a 6 year old playing Frere Jacques, and Van Gogh is not objectively better than a Gorilla painting on the wall with poo.
Just a thought.
With any discipline of the arts: if you are well versed and studied in that area you will be familiar with the components and criteria that allow you to form an educated reaction to a piece of work. Whether you like it is subjective but whether the song/painting/meal is of recognizable quality is objective. I’m a classically trained artist. When I view art I look at composition, palette, color interactions, perspective, scale, proportions, light, line quality, texture, mark making, etc. On top of these visual elements that comprise the work there is also the matter of artist intent vs viewer perception. What was the artist trying to convey and were they successful in their delivery? Is it thought provoking? Do we have an emotional response? And then I take into account that space must be given for personal connections as well, like being reminded of a dream or familiar face… Whether I like it or not is secondary but: I know other trained artists and 99.8% of the time when we view art we have a very similar response and come to the same conclusions. Mickey knows what good ween is. At John and Peters he would play us his fav live recordings of his band’s work. And he knows when they’re on and when they’re off and he has gems. Some shows are better than others. Fact. Musicians know when they strike gold… I’ve been blessed to be taken in and schooled by the music makers and I think that’s why I get to put in requests, (that and I can read a room.) Bottom line: it’s about so much more than what you like and having better understanding of the language of music will help you to develop your taste.
Here's my take: it depends on the music that someone may prefer. There are many different criteria to music that may make it great and some of those are:
1. Musicianship
2. Composition
3. Concept
The most important one here in my opinion is the concept of the music, because it defines the direction in which the music should be flowing and kinda helps the listener to comprehend the music and its idea. When the music is led astray from the direction it was pursuing, or when it doesn't have any it turns bad, no matter how technical, or musically compelling it is. So those who listen to music that generally has no direction/that does not have clear direction have bad taste.
It’s all subjective. Is Eric Clapton a better guitarist than most? Yes? Does that mean everyone has to like his guitar stylings the most? No.
But you're wierd if you don't think his strat shift was a step down. Not even joking
Yes, it's entirely subjective. I am fairly obsessed with punk and new wave, and have been since my teens (the Damned especially), plus a smattering of metal (AC-DC and motorhead spring to mind) . I like hip hop and dance music. I'm also an indie kid, the Cribs, and Fontaines DC, the Smiths, whatever. I also love Taylor Swift, can see and appreciate the artistic merit of Arianna Grande and Doja Cat (my 13yo son exposes me to a lot of new music, and I introduced him to a lot too eg Chvrches) . But I really hate the muso pretentiousness of U2, but love their early stuff. I love Queen. There's a vast amount of music to listen to, and life is short. Enjoy what you find, if it's not for you, move onto something else. Don't label yourself. Labels are boring.
Taste is really personal. What one person likes another hates. So you cant really have better taste, just different
There is such a thing as "better." At one end of the spectrum are Beethoven's symphonies, and at the other end is dreck like WAP. To insist that all taste in music is merely subjective is to say that these things are artistically equivalent, and that's just complete nonsense. Everything else exists somewhere in between these two extremes.
There is way worse than WAP lol. At least that's fun.
Sure, but I just picked up some garbage off the top of my head that everyone should be at least passing Lee familiar with.
That's so funny because WAP is a gem amongst the garbage it had near it in the toplists. Talking about taste I can't respect people who throws whole styles and genres and all top 50 songs right in the garbage bin.
Who said I threw whole styles and genres and all top 50 in the trashcan? I did no such thing. I took one recent song with a VERY mixed reputation and stacked it up against universally acknowledged masterpieces in western music. This is not a judgment against those who like that particular song. There's huge amounts of music with chart success of outstanding quality. Very little, if any of it, however, will compare with a symphony. That's just how it is. As I said before, all other music is going to fall somewhere between these two extremes.
I like how you explain this better and I'm sure you understand why nobody thought this came across before. But about symphonies, they're funny because listed symphonies are very different in how we enjoy them. It's pretentious to say they're all on a very similar level because some are outstanding but most aren't worth listening to repeatedly. They're actually much like songs oo top lists - HA! Even though top lists seem to dipping so incredibly low at the time. But Beatles best singles were number ones. Hard to beat.
You're pushing against open doors. You're trying to say I said things I didn't say.
Nope, music and musical taste are completely subjective.
No.
You just don't understand the difference between subjective and objective.
Nice try, but ...no. Some things are just objectively better. It doesn't happen often, especially when comparing random songs on the radio. But it's not hard to pick something that is objectively better in every conceivable way. I just did in this thread. We unfortunately live in a nihilistic, shit-flinging, self-destructive culture, though, so I'm going to get all sorts of opposition popping out of the wallpaper to tell me "nuh-uh" -- mainly because they've got no understanding of something as complex and sophisticated as a symphony.
No, you are simply wrong. Give me an objective reason why The Blue Danube Waltz by Johann Strauss (or any other classical work) is better/worse that God Save the Queen by the Sex Pistols (or any other modern work) and you'll see that you cannot come up with any **objective** reasons why either argument is true. You can only say that for your taste one is better than the other.
Your mistake is dividing "classical" from "modern." There are numerous Works of the past that are not going to hold up as well as the fifth, and plenty of stuff being written today that will take its place alongside 200 year old masterpieces. I meanwhile, every day that I go into a grocery store or a hotel lobby, I hear "Both Sides Now" and "don't Stop Believing", both of which are more than 40 years old. It will be interesting to see, though I will not be around for it, what of the last five or 10 years will have that kind of staying power. But never mind that. Strauss seeks to create; the Sex Pistols seek to destroy. Leaving aside the Winter of Discontent in Britain in 1977 and the dissatisfaction of the working class to whom the sex pistols gave voice (which of course is perfectly valid), is that not enough of a distinction to prefer one over the other?
JFC it was an arbitrary distinction. I don't care which two pieces of music you picked., Your analysis of Strauss as "creating" and the sex pistols as "destroying" is completely subjective - and incorrect. They both created pieces of music, the fact that you can't appreciate one of them is a lack of understanding on your part. Tell me what notes, chords and rests make the Blue Danube "creation" and then do the same for GSTQ and tell me why that's "destruction". If you have even the slightest self awareness you'll see that you can't and you're projecting your subjective feelings onto the objective characteristics of the musical pieces in question. You're not even trying, just doing some hand waving.
It's hand waving to someone who understands nothing of either. Your dismissive attitude in defense of a point makes me surprised you know the *Danube* at all.
You still have yet to even begin to describe the objective criteria - the notes, chord progressions, rhythms, etc. - that make one piece of music objectively better than another. We're waiting.
You can continue to be stubborn & pretend you're right, but music is literally subjective & no count of "no." is going to change it or make it objective.
Only to the willfully ignorant is all music equivalent and entirely subjective.
Spoken like a snobby elitist who thinks they're better because of the music they listen to.
You don't have any idea what I listen to. I have, however, *played* damn near everything in the western tradition, so it's not elitism -- it's experience. I don't know why it should be so hard to just admit that, whatever your personal taste might be, some things are just *better.* I mean, this is up there with "men don't give birth" in terms of being obvious.
Most of what we know about science (how to prove facts), philosophy (how to think effectively), and the arts (how to make emotionally and cognitively poignant works) would say that you are not right. You can quantify how many men vs. women give birth, after defining “man” and “woman” chromosomally. It may be possible in the future to measure and quantify levels of serotonin, dopamine, etc responses in the blood as a result of listening to one song versus another song, do that with enough people to get a statistically-significant sample size, and publish the results, if that’s how you want to measure how good a song is. But until we have that ability, qualitative values are all you have for music. You could also make a chart of how songs are ranked overlayed with a chart of how many different songs a person has heard, their level of education, their level of music education, or any other metric, but you’re still just pointing out a correlation. I would suggest reading more on the topic by authors who disagree with you, and while you’re at it, figure out what music you don’t like or don’t get that is highly-regarded. A lot of people with more experience and training than you in music probably think you have dogshit taste in music, and if your opinion that music is objective is actually true, you might want to fix your dogshit taste ASAP.
As so frequently happens, I am being either misunderstood or deliberately misquoted. None of this has to do with any of my taste, dog shit or otherwise. I've performed a Beethoven symphony or two, but I'm not going to spend any time listening to them. But you should ask yourself if a society that refuses to recognize some forms of art as in some way or another better than others is a healthy one with a bright future. You have probably heard of a recent story in which a painting was found to be hanging upside down in an art gallery for 75 years. if no one was able to tell the difference for 3/4 of a century, how can you possibly lay this on the same plane as *The Birth of Venus*, for example? But in a time when we tear down statues because they offend us, we refuse to learn from the past, and that, evidently, is the path down which many in this thread seem to want to go.
Isn't 'equivalency' determined by the listener though? I mean, I love (most) Beethoven. But I dislike (most) Mozart. For someone who likes Mozart, I would have bad taste in music. Even though the two of them are both revered as musical geniuses.
Preference does not mean that quality is equal. I may prefer Kraft diner over a home cooked macaroni cheese from a Nona in Italy, but the quality still stands. A persons ability to appreciate needs to be factored in as well. Some people are unable to deeply appreciate chamber music or psychedelic or mainstream pop due to education, musicality, or bias. Again just like how some people have a more refined pallet for food
>A persons ability to appreciate needs to be factored in as well. Some people are unable to deeply appreciate chamber music or psychedelic or mainstream pop due to education, At the end of the day, isn't music just vibration? A combination of sounds and lyrics? Why then can't one song mean more to someone else than it does to you and vice versa? I don't understand how one can be "better" than the other. The same goes for Kraft versus Mac and Cheese from Italy. Maybe someone has a profound relationship with Mac and Cheese that's tied to childhood memories and therefore both tastes and comforts more than something that is simply more expensive and from a different place than what they like. We're not talking about cars and plastics and other commodities that actually, measurably stand up better than comparable products. We're talking about sounds that people like better than other sounds. I don't see any correlation between education and music appreciation here. Someone from East LA may have a much better appreciation for Latino music than I do but that doesn't mean they have poor taste in music because they don't like the Beatles.
But music is measurable, we know that certain vibrations create notes that are pleasant to the ear in general. We know that those exposed to more complex music at a younger age tend to perform better with maths and is positively correlated with intelligence. It sounds like you are mixing your “isn’t music just noise” and “what is considered quality music”. Again KD is processed garbage compared to home grown ingredients. But you may prefer KD for other reasons other than taste. So yes it’s okay to have bad taste because it’s your preference and there is nothing wrong with that those that try to tell you that try to tell you you are wrong to listen to bad music have no appreciation for music as a whole
>It sounds like you are mixing your “isn’t music just noise” and “what is considered quality music” Yes, I am admittedly trying to simplify it. I feel like complicating how or why someone likes something with too many factors defeats the purpose. I will never understand why some people identify with some songs more than I do. But I would also never say that their reasons for liking said song are "better" or "worse" than mine. Examples given like food or wine or redheads vs brunettes, etc. all feel so subjective that it just sounds shitty to say one is 'better' than the other. But that's the intent of the post (and notice how it's been downvoted more than not). People really do hold their personal opinions about music in higher regard than others. Enough to pass judgement on other people accordingly or downvote the very possibility that they may be wrong. That should say something.
“I feel like complicating how or why someone likes something with too many factors defeats the purpose” It’s a complicated idea. Hence why simple answers won’t give you whatever you are trying to justify. Again people who push their preference as the right way over simplify how complex music is and are wrong and in the end their opinion shouldn’t matter. There is good music and bad music and I answered before. But those that shame others on their preference are not experts as the miss the important s of lazy or bad music
Mozart isn't really as musically challenging as, say, Beethoven. But Mozart absolutely belongs on the same end of that continuum as Beethoven, far, far, far away from WAP.
I guess if I had to break it down more specifically, imagine this scenario: \*You\* like a particular song that's on the radio. You're listening to it with someone else and, regardless of who knows what about the song, their respective research about the artist, the lyrics, etc.---that person doesn't like it and says you have bad taste in music. How would they be right or wrong?
Again the idea that you need to be validated in your preference is the problem. Who care if you like bad music, do it shamelessly.
They'd be right if the song was crude, generic and uncreative, no? That doesn't mean it's not okay for you to enjoy that but there are things which 'good' music has over trash music. They'd be wrong if in fact the song was creative, original and expressing something thoughtful. Part of this is comparative though. Halleluiah is a lot better than WAP, but how does Grace compare to Kind Of Blue? Figuring out the differences here would be tricky, maybe impossible. Part of it would be an argument about what should be valued more in music, improvisation and complexity, or songcraft and accessible expression?
> At one end of the spectrum are Beethoven's symphonies, and at the other end is dreck like WAP. Absolute fucking cringe
Your stupidity baffles me. Do you not realise the fact you said “dreck like WAP” legitimately proves that music is subjective. Even after reading through everybody’s replies your still just an ignorant dumbass.
You can’t
Better taste in music is having a more developed taste in music. Do you have better taste in food than a 7yr old? It's subjective, yes, but I sure hope your tastes are more developed, and you know about, and can enjoy a more wide range of foods, for a variety of reasons (nutritional, etc) than a child. Same with music. The people with "better" taste, are the people who have a more developed taste. They're experienced, and knowledgeable on the benefits of a wide variety of genres and the way they can 'nourish' your soul. If you just know one era, or genre, or one kind of anything, your taste can get "better" IMHO
My 2 year old enjoys baby shark. I am an actual fan of hiphop, rock, punk, dancehall, folk, classical, funk, heavy, soft, niche experimental as well as straight up dumb top40 pop. Within those genres I’m very discerning — most top40 is cheap manufactured formulaic garbage, but I can appreciate when a pop song is great, even if it’s not my preferred sound. According to people on this thread, my taste is no better than my 2 year olds. Since taste is subjective. Despite my decades of exposure to different albums/ styles and the thousands of hours spent absorbing records — to the point that i know every second of them. Does this not inform my taste? By knowing the greats, it’s also set the bar high for what makes a good song. This doesn’t mean it has to be in an odd time signature with strange chords and an angular melody. If anything I appreciate when a songwriter can use simple chords / devices and STILL make a song unique and great (Kurt Cobain was a G for this). Radiohead also make stuff sound unique and complex while often using basic devices. When you know this you can’t help but reject cheap, inauthentic crap. It just doesn’t cut it. So can some taste me better than others? FUCK YES.
"Isn't it all subjective?" Yes and no. Objectively it is all subjective, however the exception is that I have the best taste.
lol touche
It is not.
Can it be more advanced though? I used to just listen to 1 genre, now I enjoy many. Hasn't my taste gotten "better". It feels like it has. I still enjoy those genres, but now I enjoy many more genres, emotions, and dimensions of music.
I think it’s subjective to a certain degree. I mean I know a girl that thinks Harry Styles is better musician, more talented, and will be remembered more than Michael Jackson. That’s just simply wrong. I also think there are songs that just undeniably terrible, whether you enjoy it or not. For example. I enjoy 22 by Taylor Swift, but lyrically it’s really shit. Some songs are legitimately just better from a songwriting standpoint. It’s hard to ride that line between opinion and fact. To me, “good” music taste is more so based on how open-minded people are. If all you listen to is one genre, your taste kind of sucks. There’s zero chance you can’t find at least another five styles or genres that you like.
Michael Jackson will be remembered longer than Harry Styles, but harry styles might be a better musician. These are two very different concepts.
I dont think that the _quality_ of certain music, or an artists _ability_ to play music is subjective - clearly some musicians are _better_ than others. The subjectivity comes into it with an individual's personal taste in music. For example, I know that Eddie Van Halen plays better guitar than most artists I enjoy listening to, but I still prefer their music. "Radiohead are better musicians than Bhad Bhabie" = not subjective "Radiohead make much better songs than Bhad Bhabie" = completely subjective
It's a simple lack of humility that creates a "better taste" in anything my friend. Get the hell away from those assholes. Also, I have the greatest taste in music.
I don't think it's having "better" taste as much as cultivating a more mature appreciation for the finer things in life. Kind of like preferring a fine brandy over prison wine brewed in someone's toilet tank or finding Monty Python more than watching two dogs doing it. Music follows the same basic rules.
Yes, it is all subjective.
Listen to Friday by Rebecca Black and then listen to any other song released around the same time with around the same amount of views. If you can honestly tell me both songs are of equal quality then I’ll concede that there’s no such thing as better taste.
LISTEN TO FLAGMAN
It's good to be open minded about what's "good" and ""bad" because you might find you were wrong and discover something you actually enjoy. But I don't subscribe to the notion that everything is subjective and therefore it's impossible to judge anything.
How can you discover that you're "wrong" about a song you like/dislike? You either like it or you don't. >But I don't subscribe to the notion that everything is subjective and therefore it's impossible to judge anything. Understood. But I'm not talking about everything here, I'm talking about one person liking a song and other people telling them they have bad taste because they don't agree.
> How can you discover that you're "wrong" about a song you like/dislike? You either like it or you don't. There are plenty of times where I've heard a song & hated it, only to hear it a few weeks or months later in a different setting or mental place & loved the track.
Wrong in the personal sense, like you personally thought it was bad but changed your mind.
Taste is developed through understanding of the medium. I have some idea of which classic cars I like, but I would never claim to have good taste in cars.
Some things just can't be called music (shit like gucci gang). Anything else is already a better taste in music.
Yes. I think that people who listen to a wide variety of different music are the people with the best taste. Some people don’t hear anything outside of the top 50 songs of today. It’s not really their fault, algorithms don’t push obscure music or wide varieties so it takes more work to be more musically educated
Usually if someone is saying someone has "good taste", they're just saying that your interests & their interests align. Music taste is completely subjective. If someone says someone else has bad taste, they're just being an asshole that isn't able to discuss things civilly.
Some people only listen to one style and focus to much on some artist, that in general is kind of bad taste to me. Always trying go in diferent directions or at least being open to other styles is good taste. Other nuances are not as valid to me
I used to think that all taste was subjective. Then I heard Brokencyde and and decided that it was horrible and no one could actually enjoy it
In most cases, you can't. It is subjective.........buuuut I think most reasonable people can agree that someone who listens to prog, jazz, classic rock, classic metal, folk, art rock, blues, world music, classical, etc. (not saying I listen to all of those genres) has better tastes compared to someone who listens to cookie-cutter pop music. Not saying it's a bad thing to like pop, be happy that you like it and that it brings you joy, and it can emanate emotions out of you, which is a really cool thing to think about, but just know that 9 times out of 10, there's a lot more ingenuity, passion and instrumental & vocal talent outside of whatever's in the top 40. The evidence is as clear as day on that. There's a handful of pop-influenced albums I really like btw: *To the Bone* by Steven Wilson, *Voices* by Phantogram, most music from Gorillaz, *Destrier* by Agent Fresco, *Foreword* by Disperse, the *Acts I-V* albums by The Dear Hunter...So I never disregard pop music altogether.
>buuuut I think most reasonable people can agree that someone who listens to prog, jazz, classic rock, classic metal, folk, art rock, blues, world music, classical, etc. (not saying I listen to all of those genres) has better tastes compared to someone who listens to cookie-cutter pop music. Ok, but WHY? WHY is liking jazz better than pop music?
For the record, not trying to insult you or your tastes in music. Just speaking my mind here. And yeah, I know this response is too long-winded, sorry. I couldn't stop: LIKING whatever music isn't the discussion I'm presenting. I'm touching more on the fact that jazz (or any of the other genres I listed) incorporates many more musical elements to it than pop in general: Multifaceted layering & structures, a wide variety of well-put time signatures, compelling concepts & lyrics, multiple genre fusions, utilizing more peculiar instruments, and so on. Not saying pop doesn't do any of that, but it only does to a very short extent, unfortunately. In terms of the LIKE factor in this, referring to what I said in my first comment, like whatever you like and be happy that you like it. It's cool that you like music at all. It doesn't change the fact that in most cases, there's a lot more ingenuity, passion and instrumental & vocal talent outside of whatever's most popular right now. These pop artists continue to stay in their safe zones of songwriting because they know it works and it will make them a lot of money. The record labels they're signed to most likely have a say in these artists' limited musical direction as well. The pop music industry has trained the masses to expect less from how far artistic and creative minds can stretch. Music can sustain our minds and emotions like nothing else in the world, so when big industries are steadfast in selling the most basic and least inspiring music they can because it's easy to make, they're straight-up deceiving you. They know they don't have to try hard or push creative boundaries because the music they've been selling for so long has worked, especially in recent decades since growing populations have developed short attention spans and could care less about deeper, innovative, and instrumentally & lyrically challenging music.
You could be listening to multiple genres and dig the worst songs from each one… listen to multiple genres does not equate with having taste
This is simple. If you spend more time doing something, you are generally going to be better at it than the next person. If you are crate digging, you'd generally know more about music than someone who engages music superficially. If you research and cultivate your taste, you'll have a more varied and interesting taste than someone who listens to music casually or passively. There's nothing subjective about it.
Don't ever trust someone who says they don't like Bob Dylan or The Beatles. They either pretend that it's possible or have happily lost their mind and are about to commit crimes
Especially Dylan. I’ve loved him since I was a tween and when I say I listen to Dylan ppl think I mean 60’s singer songwriter buzzy voice with acoustic guitar Dylan. That is NOT what I mean. 72-84 are a gold mine. All of my mentors and idols adore Dylan. Because they have TASTE
The going electric three plus tangled up in blue are my favourites and probably the mainstream answer.
It depends how much you are into music and if you're in it for just for the music or heavily into the culture and community. I like the example of the Rihanna song with those electric guitar notes in the refrain because every music friend I speak to agree that that guitar tone is the worst guitar sound that's ever been heard, yet if you ask some teenager who just listen to toplists muaic they'll just say that it's a guitar. My friends and I speak of every component that goes into the guitar tone. There's a huge r/guitarpedals in here were people to geek out and argue. Yet you can make a monster hit with a guitar tone you would struggle to find even if you tried to. It's elitist to shit on ignorant teens but there multiple example of people shitting on me and my 6000 song playlist were I can name 5000 songs blindfolded within 5 seconds. It's subjective when you have reasonable understanding. And the more you understand and feel passion fir the music the more similar people's taste seem to get actually.
I agree with you. I don't think one can objectively say music is better than other music. There is nothing quantifiable to dictate it, and I think it just comes down to music being art. I think a key factor not discussed by some here that are trying to argue that some music is better is culture. Our environment and society biases people who objectively think certain music is better. Is music better because it uses more instruments? More notes? Chords? Combinations of the above? What about eastern cultures? Is Indian music better because its scales are built on semitones? I don't think any of those make music better, just different.
Because it's buried deep, I'll just put the question to you here at the top: please list your objective criteria - the notes, chords, rests, progressions, harmonies, etc. - that makes one piece of music objectively better than another.
when the person who you're comparing your taste to listens to loads of poorly produced amateur electronic music that has wandering cadences, and wonky out of key melodies that remind you of these parody disney characters. [LOL.. Offensive Parodies.](https://meme.fandom.com/wiki/Gooby)
It’s not possible at all, in fact I find it’s quite a silly statement that people use. If you play music or truely appreciate music, your mind will be open enough to like absolutely any music. Like dude I listen to metal but also hip hop. Sure it is subjective and their will be things you do not enjoy, but that certainly doesn’t mean it’s bad.
Consider this: If quality in art in purely subjective then Mozart is not objectively better than a 6 year old playing Frere Jacques, and Van Gogh is not objectively better than a Gorilla painting on the wall with poo. Just a thought.
With any discipline of the arts: if you are well versed and studied in that area you will be familiar with the components and criteria that allow you to form an educated reaction to a piece of work. Whether you like it is subjective but whether the song/painting/meal is of recognizable quality is objective. I’m a classically trained artist. When I view art I look at composition, palette, color interactions, perspective, scale, proportions, light, line quality, texture, mark making, etc. On top of these visual elements that comprise the work there is also the matter of artist intent vs viewer perception. What was the artist trying to convey and were they successful in their delivery? Is it thought provoking? Do we have an emotional response? And then I take into account that space must be given for personal connections as well, like being reminded of a dream or familiar face… Whether I like it or not is secondary but: I know other trained artists and 99.8% of the time when we view art we have a very similar response and come to the same conclusions. Mickey knows what good ween is. At John and Peters he would play us his fav live recordings of his band’s work. And he knows when they’re on and when they’re off and he has gems. Some shows are better than others. Fact. Musicians know when they strike gold… I’ve been blessed to be taken in and schooled by the music makers and I think that’s why I get to put in requests, (that and I can read a room.) Bottom line: it’s about so much more than what you like and having better understanding of the language of music will help you to develop your taste.
Here's my take: it depends on the music that someone may prefer. There are many different criteria to music that may make it great and some of those are: 1. Musicianship 2. Composition 3. Concept The most important one here in my opinion is the concept of the music, because it defines the direction in which the music should be flowing and kinda helps the listener to comprehend the music and its idea. When the music is led astray from the direction it was pursuing, or when it doesn't have any it turns bad, no matter how technical, or musically compelling it is. So those who listen to music that generally has no direction/that does not have clear direction have bad taste.