# Are there any objective criteria for placing a value on a piece of music?



## StephenTC (Apr 24, 2014)

Hi: first post: I have done some searches with keywords looking for previous threads on this topic an could not find any - please let me know otherwise.

Essentially i am I suppose what is called a relativist. I really do believe that beauty in in the ear [brain really] of the beholder.

It comes to this: why is music different from the 100 yard dash?

Because with the 100 yard dash you have an instrument (a stopwatch) and a criteria (length of time)
by which to evaluate the best performance from several performances of the 100 yard dash.

The length of time is an objective and universally agreed upon measure of performance.

My thesis is that there is no parallel criteria to evaluate a piece of music (or, I suppose, a particular performance of a piece of music.)

thoughts...comments....


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Perfect analogy!

And even when looking at the price of Boulez's Complete Columbia Recordings on various sites you can see that it's "value" is not fixed in stone either.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Position A: "The Art of Fugue is simply a deathless masterwork. Nothing subjective about it."

Position B: "To a society with different values, Bach's accomplishments would have no more interest than the tricks of a performing seal."

Take your choice!


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

StephenTC said:


> ...why is music different from the 100 yard dash?
> 
> Because with the 100 yard dash you have an instrument (a stopwatch) and a criteria (length of time)
> by which to evaluate the best performance from several performances of the 100 yard dash.
> ...


Well, you can evaluate music in the same way (time it with a stopwatch) and what you get is a length of time. Clearly there are many other ways in which you can evaluate it.

This throws some light on so-called objective measurement: it means that conventionally we choose to measure the time it takes a runner to 'dash' 100 yards, but that says nothing at all of the aesthetic impression the runner makes, or about his thoughts as he runs, or about the context in which the run takes place, or how he trained, or his genetic inheritance, or the sounds he makes as he runs. It's just that we have decided that the time taken is the important thing to measure. There are just as many things about a hundred yard dash that are unquantifiable as there are in a piece of music.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

See my contributions to the "Stylistic diversity" thread (starting from this post) for some of my thoughts on the matter.
Short version: not "objectivity", but "collective subjectivity".


----------



## Ludric (Oct 29, 2014)

How do you objectively judge a piece of music? (or any piece of art, for that matter) Well, I don't pretend to know the precise answer to this, but a fairly objective method I've formulated is thus:

Step #1: Determine exactly what the goal of the piece is - that is, what the composer was trying to convey through the music.
Step #2: Judge the music based on how well it achieves that goal. (in the case of performance, how well the performance conveys that goal as well)

Of course, the tricky part is step #1.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Ludric said:


> How do you objectively judge a piece of music? (or any piece of art, for that matter) Well, I don't pretend to know the precise answer to this, but a fairly objective method I've formulated is thus:
> 
> Step #1: Determine exactly what the goal of the piece is - that is, what the composer was trying to convey through the music.
> Step #2: Judge the music based on how well it achieves that goal. (in the case of performance, how well the performance conveys that goal as well)
> ...


How is that sort of achievement measured though? Measuring something by its "wellness" automatically bases it on _opinion_ because of the phrase "how well" being inherently subjective


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Ludric said:


> Step #1: Determine exactly what the goal of the piece is - that is, what the composer was trying to convey through the music.
> Step #2: Judge the music based on how well it achieves that goal. (in the case of performance, how well the performance conveys that goal as well).


Step one: "I want this piece to convey maximum ugliness with no redeeming values."
Step two: Both the composition and the performance achieve that goal fully.

I'm not sure the methodology works in all cases.


----------



## Ludric (Oct 29, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Step one: "I want this piece to convey maximum ugliness with no redeeming values."
> Step two: Both the composition and the performance achieve that goal fully.
> 
> I'm not sure the methodology works in all cases.


Then the composer was very successful in achieving his goal, no? It might not be pretty, but that's not what he was aiming for.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Ludric said:


> Then the composer was very successful in achieving his goal, no? It might not be pretty, but that's not what he was aiming for.


Absolutely, but I don't think that's how I (or you most probably, or anybody else) evaluates music. What the goal is, is critically important to most.


----------



## Guest (Dec 10, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Position A: "The Art of Fugue is simply a deathless masterwork. Nothing subjective about it."
> 
> Position B: "To a society with different values, Bach's accomplishments would have no more interest than the tricks of a performing seal."
> 
> Take your choice!


Position B definitely! Not because I have anything against Bach, but because I love performing seals!


----------



## Ludric (Oct 29, 2014)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> How is that sort of achievement measured though? Measuring something by its "wellness" automatically bases it on _opinion_ because of the phrase "how well" being inherently subjective


Certainly it's still subjective, but it's at least more objective than something along the lines of "this music is good because I like it". Part of why it's difficult to judge music in this manner is because often the goal of a piece is to move the emotions in a particular way - something that can't objectively be measured, but can certainly be felt.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Ludric said:


> Certainly it's still subjective, but it's at least more objective than something along the lines of "this music is good because I like it".


Actually whether or not I like it is pretty darned objective -- to me! If you look beyond that, you're simply looking for a group consensus of tastes. What you've said so far suggests no other alternative.


----------



## Ludric (Oct 29, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Absolutely, but I don't think that's how I (or you most probably, or anybody else) evaluates music. What the goal is, is critically important to most.


Precisely - and I believe this is at the root of arguments over what composers ought or ought not do. Everybody - listeners and composers alike - has different ideas of what music should achieve, and we base our listening (and composing) habits around music that achieves those things.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

There do seem to be some criteria, at least for musicologists (from what I've read) - the amount of detail in a work is generally taken as a positive criterion. For example, if a symphony has more independent parts for winds, this is taken to be positive. The originality of a work is also one such criterion, at least in classical - a composer always gets bonus points for doing something that others haven't before him. One could also name the quality of the melodies as such a criterion. Also, the clarity of the form and structural cohesion play a role - is the work focussed, or does it 'go off in all directions', does the work 'return' to segments it has introduced earlier, thus enhancing cohesion?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

TurnaboutVox said:


> Well, you can evaluate music in the same way (time it with a stopwatch) and what you get is a length of time. Clearly there are many other ways in which you can evaluate it.


 About 30 years ago, the Dutch Consumers Organization, who tended to give helpful reviews and recommendations on things like refrigerators and washing machines, featured their recommendation of the available recordings of Vivaldi's Four Seasons. Their recommendation was based on one criterion: the longest run length (maximum value for money).


----------



## Guest (Dec 10, 2014)

Language.

Words like judge and value and evaluate all belong to the subjective.

Words like measure, strictly speaking, belong to objective.

What that means is that as soon as you start talking about judging or evaluating, you are outside of the objective realm. Everything you do will be subjective, by definition.

This is an extremely difficult idea to accept, principally (I think) because the term "objective" has come to acquire a connotation of "good" or "desirable" or "valid," while the term "subjective" is seen as something less valuable because it's not fixed; it changes; it's no good for measuring (with equivocation going on with that word). That is, there is often an emotional attachment to objective. It is the desirable goal, so even things like opinions (which are entirely in the subjective realm) have to be able to be redefined as objective, because objective is the good thing. And it's the good thing because it's the stable thing; it's the thing that is independent of perception or emotion or preference or bias or prejudice or feelings, which are all lumped together as undesirable because they point to differences between people, differences that are difficult to validate.

So then you get categories like "collective subjectivity," which attempt to give subjective things the kind of stability and independence of individual tastes that objective has.

All of this presupposes static relationships, however. Even the counter to "beauty resides in the object," which is "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," presupposes stasis. But, as anyone can know just by being alive, the world is a dynamic place, and relationships are dynamic. In a dynamic context, beauty is neither in the object nor in the beholder but is what is created when a beholder and an object enter into a relationship.

I've been identified in other conversations of this sort as a relativist. But relativism belongs to the same realm of stasis as identifying where beauty resides. I'm not a relativist; what I think is that the world is dynamic. Looking at certain things as if the world were static can be useful, but it's a limited use and a temporary use. I suppose that's how "objective" got to have the glamour it has. It seems to be unchanging. But nothing in the world is static. Everything changes. Even dead things like rocks and corpses are constantly changing.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Well, the real answer is "no." But a lot of people have tried to grapple with it in a lot of ways. Goethe asked one to ask three questions in judging a work of art: What is the artist trying to day? How well did he say it? Was it worth it? These are harder with music than with theatre of literature, but they're a good start in forming one's own opinion.

The best analysis of why quality seems to be so intangible remains Robert Pirsig's book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" -- which is still, 40 years later, a must read for an educated person.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

There are objective measurements for recordings, yes, like length of time and tempo of the recording. However, these scientific measurements have to looked at in light of subjective factors such as conductor's intent or passion level of the performer(s). The complexity of these types of evaluations are evidently imposed by the intellectual desires of whoever is looking at the piece.

You could apply say the literary approach to musical compositions... examples such as deconstruction, structuralism, etc. I would assume could be used for musical forms.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Are there any hard and fast rules which can be applied at all times to all pieces? No. No sooner than one makes a declaration of art of any kind does an exception make itself known (or perhaps one makes the declaration in order to combat that very exception).

But I think the idea of absolute relativism is facile and does nothing whatsoever to account for our actual experiences of art. As some guy said, it is static in its own way.

Many seem to assume that when one posits the existence of objective value in works of art, it constitutes a claim that "I personally am able to see this value, apart from my biases." I do not believe this is true of myself at all. I believe that any aesthetic judgment is affected and guided by one's own bias, one's own taste, no matter how much one might try to escape it.

Any valuation of a work of art is valid, in that it is a judgment of that particular work. It is a single perspective. There are different bases for perspectives, though, and it should be clear that some perspectives are closer to their object than others. For example, a perspective on Beethoven's Ninth that says that it dislikes the work because the ode to joy theme never comes back is as valid in itself as any other, but it is based on the assumption that a theme should return in the exact same form as it appeared, whereas the theme is continually present under various transformations.

A view of the work that dislikes the work because of all of those variations, when one simply wants to hear the theme again as before, recognizes more about the work than the first view. The aesthetic perspective is somewhat different as well, though similar in spirit.

Saying "it's all relative" seems to paper over the real value of discussions about art, to get us closer to the object in question.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

As Cole Porter once said, Anything Goes.:tiphat:


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> See my contributions to the "Stylistic diversity" thread (starting from this post) for some of my thoughts on the matter.
> Short version: not "objectivity", but "collective subjectivity".


that's pretty much my opinion too.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Are there any hard and fast rules which can be applied at all times to all pieces? No. No sooner than one makes a declaration of art of any kind does an exception make itself known (or perhaps one makes the declaration in order to combat that very exception).
> 
> But I think the idea of absolute relativism is facile and does nothing whatsoever to account for our actual experiences of art. As some guy said, it is static in its own way.
> 
> ...


One's evaluation of something depends on one's criteria, and these may vary. _But some criteria are more appropriate or intrinsic to the thing being evaluated. _

This is where knowledge comes in. A person who has studied the Classical style, or may simply have listened to a great deal of Classical music, is in a position to say, in terms of that style, why a symphony by Haydn is superior to one by Cannabich - superior specifically as a Classical symphony. By any number of other criteria, the Haydn may not be superior at all; the Cannabich, being less formally ingenious, may be less demanding on one's attention and musical perceptiveness and therefore less likely to distract from conversation at a party. But this is a criterion of value which says more about the valuer's purposes than the thing being evaluated. It leaves completely unaddressed the questions of what a Classical symphony is, and what makes a particular Classical symphony a fine Classical symphony.

When we say that one work of art is superior to another, we can be on solid ground if we understand that that judgment assumes some definite idea of the kind of thing we are talking about and of how well the works in question embody the defining traits and principles of that kind of thing. This is to a considerable degree separable from personal taste. It's what allows us to say things like "this is ambitious, ingenious, original music which fulfills its purposes admirably, but I don't care for it," or "this music is undistiguished - formally simplistic, melodically trite, etc. - but it does well what it sets out to do and it's fun to listen to."

The real goal of evaluation, if I may restate Mahlerian's final point in different words, is deeper understanding of what we're evaluating. Our choice of the criteria by which we judge can both reveal the extent of our present understanding and open the way to further understanding.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

No objective criteria. Rather, intersubjective consensus among the knowledgeable and the innately musical. (Thus agreeing with Nerrefid, Woodduck, and probably others above)

The intentions of the composer and how well those intentions are fulfilled is not useful as a criterion. If the intentions aren't apparent in the work itself (and for programmatic works, this includes the program, title, etc.), they are irrelevant.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

The length of the corresponding Wikipedia article. 

/thread


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

StephenTC said:


> Hi: first post: I have done some searches with keywords looking for previous threads on this topic an could not find any - please let me know otherwise.
> 
> Essentially i am I suppose what is called a relativist. I really do believe that beauty in in the ear [brain really] of the beholder.
> 
> ...


Q: "Are there any objective criteria for placing a value on a piece of music?" 
A: No. :lol::tiphat:

Even after a rigorous set of criteria have been arrived at, there will be (forever, I think), too many variables, the "objectives" being so varied, composer to composer, era to era, piece to piece, that there will be no such basic and simply defined criteria as there is for the 100 Yard Dash! The 100 yard dash has but one criterion, no criteria, and aesthetics does not enter into racing, and I think that vast difference of means of measure between sport and art are where 'the relativists,' make an impossible assumption -- that they can apply such simple sports scoring methods to something as variable as art.

So sorry, Relativists, but determining what a piece is, its qualities and its level of accomplishment, how it is perceived by both the pros and the public, and rating all that is just going to remain one of those very nebulous and cosmically messy kinds of affairs


----------



## Guest (Dec 11, 2014)

StephenTC said:


> Hi: first post: I have done some searches with keywords looking for previous threads on this topic an could not find any - please let me know otherwise.
> 
> Essentially i am I suppose what is called a relativist. I really do believe that beauty in in the ear [brain really] of the beholder.
> 
> ...


Speaking subjectively, no, there are no absolute criteria by which to evaluate a piece of music, though that does not prevent people having helpful and engaging discussions about the kind of criteria that might be useful to an exchange about what they like or dislike, or what they think has greater or lesser worth.

It's part of being human to seek validation of who we are and what we think: why would our opinions on music be any less susceptible to our humanity?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

StephenTC said:


> Hi: first post: I have done some searches with keywords looking for previous threads on this topic an could not find any - please let me know otherwise.
> 
> Essentially i am I suppose what is called a relativist. I really do believe that beauty in in the ear [brain really] of the beholder.
> 
> ...


When it comes to enjoyment, it is no differ to why I prefer pizza to a plate of mixed salad.

When it comes to analysis, you can say based on agreed objective criteria (that may be subjective to begin with), that piece A is technically better than piece B.

When it comes to collective opinion, the key is *over time*, more enjoyable pieces wins the day (or the centuries).

These would be the three ways how I look at it, and it is without a doubt, pure and simple.


----------



## StephenTC (Apr 24, 2014)

Position A: hmm don't know about that. I recently read an interview with Angela Hewitt about her recording of the Art of Fugue where she stated that she had avoided recording the Art of Fugue for many years because she found it 'boring' (at those times) despite the work's great technical accomplishments. I suspect no evaluation of any work (such as "deathless masterwork") is without a subjective component (even within one society/ culture). Not that there is anything intrinsically wrong with subjectivity (except where it presents itself as objectivity.)

Position B: Your point here got me thinking about different cultures and the barriers (not necessarily impassable) they may present to appreciating music from cultures other than our own. Perhaps in the same way a young person is more easily able to acquire foreign languages than an adult already grown up with one language, when we grow up in the western musical culture we find it harder to appreciate music from say the Indian or Chinese classical culture.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Even if there were a way to objectively say work (composer) A is "better" than work (composer) B (and I can't imagine one), I would not care. All I care about is my personal reaction to hearing the music, and that is by definition subjective.


----------



## StephenTC (Apr 24, 2014)

Hi OP here: 
Thanks for all the responses, there was a lot consider and think about.

The corrollary to my original post is that any bald statement of the worth of a piece eg: "crap", "masterpiece", "beautiful", "horrible" etc is meaningless outside the head of the person who made the statement.

I also want to say that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with subjectivity. But we should be wary of subjectivity that presents itself as objective assessment.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

If you take a look at a score, there are objective, measurable things in there. Like the number of repetitions, on whichever level. Basically, new things (within the context of the work) compared to things that have already occured. A repetition is a duplication and therefore less creative, requiring less effort, than coming up with something different.

I think one of the reasons why pop music is considered a lesser art form is because of its repetitive tendencies. There are songs that use a single three- or four-chord progression all the way throughout.

Variety is a quantative thing, you can count the number of times certain things change in a score. You can even look at whether these changes are following a pattern and therefore are repetitive, or whether they occur in different ways.

I suppose these things ultimately make to the degree of complexity of a work. Of course the value, quality or greatness of a piece is not determined by its complexity. As we know, complexity can negatively affect the appeal and effectiveness of a piece of music. But complexity does reflect the musical wealth of depth of a piece. There is more in it, so to speak. Or to put it another way, a complex musical piece can not as easily be reduced to patterns of repeated elements. It is less shorthandable.

Though one has to be careful. In the case of a strict canon, for instance, a single melodic line can be sufficient to create a work of rhythmic, harmonic and contrapuntal intricacy (even without the help of inversions, augmentations/diminutions, etc.). However, I would say that the composition of a melodic line that, when used in canon, creates these complex musical events, requires a considerable degree of craftsmanship and thinking ahead, considering all possible consequences that each note of the line will produce.

Point is, you can measure the complexity of a score objectively, and therefore the effort and creativity that went into it. Personally, I would consider that a value in itself.


----------



## Guest (Dec 11, 2014)

Andreas said:


> A repetition is a duplication and therefore less creative, requiring less effort, than coming up with something different.


This is essentially my point about neo-tonal compositional practices in the twenty-first century, but, oddly enough, I find it less compelling when applied to any individual piece. Well, I shouldn't say "oddly," I guess, as that's just me anticipating other people's possible response. I myself don't find it odd at all.

First, I don't think that the effort a composer puts into a piece at all correlates to the depth of the experience that a listener is able to have with said piece. And that's what this view of value leaves out, the relationship between a listener and the notes.

Second, while a repetition within a piece is indeed a duplication, in a sense, it is also anything but. For one, if the context has shifted, the notes that have occurred before will seem different in the new context. Will be different in the new context. That's a very cool thing to do, I think. Make something different without changing its qualities, just changing the contexts in which it appears. For two, as time passes, the listener changes, too. And so "the same music," even appearing in the same context--and exact repetition--will seem different to any particular listener as that listener has changed. Sometimes, that change will be for the worse, like when I listen to Dvorak's fourth symphony. After awhile, I get impatient with hearing the same stuff over and over again. Other listeners, however, don't have any trouble with that at all.

Third, different listeners will respond to "the same" music in different ways. Complexity, simplicity, variety, sameness are all well and good. But they don't tell the whole story. To get that, you have to factor in a listener listening. And listeners differ from each other. They get different things out of the same stimuli. Talking about the values of any art can ignore the interaction between object and observer, but at a certain cost. The values of any art are intimately wrapped up with an observer having an experience with that object. Whatever values an object may be said to have in a vacuum, the whole point of an art object is that it does not exist in a vacuum.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Andreas said:


> Point is, you can measure the complexity of a score objectively, and therefore the effort and creativity that went into it. Personally, I would consider that a value in itself.


But the word "personally" puts you into the realm of the subjective. Does more effort objectively equate to a better work? Why do we often praise artists who sound "effortless"? [You acknowledge this in your post.]

I am pleased that it took Someguy little time to connect this to 21st century Classical, which is so often blasted for being too complex, too "intellectual." Unlike the old-timers who used to crank works out like nothing.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

We're physically locked to subjectivity. But subjectivity must be destroyed. That's the aim of all human endeavor, from art to science, religion, politics, economics... and civil discussion, like TC.

My take on the value of art is Kant + Hegel (Critique of Judgement + Lectures on Aesthetics).


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Andreas said:


> If you take a look at a score, there are objective, measurable things in there. Like the number of repetitions, on whichever level. Basically, new things (within the context of the work) compared to things that have already occured. A repetition is a duplication and therefore less creative, requiring less effort, than coming up with something different.
> 
> I think one of the reasons why pop music is considered a lesser art form is because of its repetitive tendencies. There are songs that use a single three- or four-chord progression all the way throughout.
> 
> ...


Pop music isn't a lesser art form... I consider some of the complex orchestrations of The Beatles, The Who, Traffic, and Pink Floyd to be comparable to Bach or Mozart. In fact, it's only mainstream pop music that is boring and mundane.


----------

