# Objectively Good Music



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

I'm posting this to start a philosophical discussion about music. Does objectively good music exist? If you think you know of any can you prove it?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Define "good" in this context for a more meaningful discussion please.


----------



## musicrom (Dec 29, 2013)

In my opinion, this is impossible to prove. First, you would need agree on the criteria that comprise good music. Good luck with that. Then, you would need to find some way to measure those criteria. Once again, good luck. Then you would have to come up with an all-encompassing equation to match the criteria to a "goodness" scale. Of course, even if you are able to accomplish this, you should realize that the criteria that you chose to measure "goodness" were subjective in the first place.


----------



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

Art Rock said:


> Define "good" in this context for a more meaningful discussion please.


Good as it relates to merit. Does music exist that objectively has merit?


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Art Rock said:


> Define "good" in this context for a more meaningful discussion please.


Yes! I think that the initial question has to be: is there an objective definition of "good?" If we can hammer out a working definition of that word, then we can start thinking about how it might apply to various musical works.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Art Rock said:


> Define "good" in this context for a more meaningful discussion please.


Good point mad,. before we know it another can of worms is opened


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

arnerich said:


> Good as it relates to merit. Does music exist that objectively has merit?


Whenever someone enjoys a piece of music, then that piece has merit for that person. But I'm not sure if I would call that objective or subjective merit...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

We can't even agree on how to define "music", much less "good music."


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

KenOC said:


> We can't even agree on how to define "music", much less "good music."


So true! We haven't even reached a consensus on whether 4'33" is music, and we probably never will!


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Intuitively, WTC is objectively good music. Can I prove it? I could but I don't want to now


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I think the works that are well known that survive the test of time are as close as one can get to 'objectively good'. One may not enjoy those works, but I don't think a work has to be liked by everyone to be objectively good. 

So for example I think the well known works in the classical canon that have survived a century or more are objectively good, or as close to that as one can get. 

The best works of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are objectively good. They may not all be perfect or equal but they have objective goodness in the sense of artistic merit.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Bettina said:


> So true! We haven't even reached a consensus on whether 4'33" is music, and we probably never will!


That's keeps us on our toes.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Bettina said:


> Whenever someone enjoys a piece of music, then that piece has merit for that person. But I'm not sure if I would call that objective or subjective merit...


It's an objective fact that a piece of music can cause a subjective experience


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

I think classical music is too subjectively complex to make universal objective judgements such as 'good'
Too much personal taste involved


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Dedalus said:


> It's an objective fact that a piece of music can cause a subjective experience


Yes, I think you can say that, music is cathartic for emotion


----------



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

I think it's because objectively good music (or composers for that matter) can't be proven that all these topics get created, "'1' through '10' scale?", "how good is the Manfred symphony?", "Rachmaninoff vs Shostakovich" and "Puccini or Schoenberg". 

We almost have an obsession with ranking and comparing because gaining a consensus with like minded individuals is the closest thing we have to the illusion of objective truth.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

arnerich said:


> Good as it relates to merit. Does music exist that objectively has merit?


All music that is appreciated by at least one individual obviously has merit. For that individual (or more of them) it is a subjective experience, but as an objective onlooker I can conclude that it clearly has merit. Not much of a discussion though.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Haydn man said:


> Yes, I think you can say that, music is cathartic for emotion


I mean an experience in even a more general sense than even that. Whether it causes emotion or the simple subjective experience of hearing sound with no emotion involved. There is some kind of subjective experience going on and that is an objective fact. This may seem like a trivial point but I often think people forget that it's an objective fact that these subjective experiences exist. If a piece of music makes you very happy (subjectively) when listening to it, that is an objective fact.


----------



## Czech composer (Feb 20, 2016)

I think there IS a possibility of objectivity in music. Trick is that most of you are looking to this problem only on personal level and on tiny time scale.
For me criterion of objectively good music is: How many generations of people will like it (enjoy it) on the greater time scale. 
For example it is impossible to say which music of nowadays is objectively good, because we don´t know how this music will be seen in future. So we don´t know if for example Michael Jackson and recent pop music will be praysed in year 2100. 
But we know for sure that Mozart, Bach and Beethoven must be somewhat good, because it survived every political regime, every changes of society, every war, every fashion trend.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

arnerich said:


> the closest thing we have to the illusion of objective truth.


Do you mean this just in regards to music, or in general?

If you acknowledge that the law of gravity is an objective truth, then objective truth exists. If it exists, then I think it exists at least to some extent in music.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Music doesn't objectively exist. So I guess not.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

Maybe the composer knows?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

tdc said:


> Do you mean this just in regards to music, or in general?
> 
> If you acknowledge that the law of gravity is an objective truth, then objective truth exists. If it exists, then I think it exists at least to some extent in music.


Objective truth exists in exact science. Not in art. I don't see how it follows that it must exist to some extent in art (music) if it exists in science.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Czech composer said:


> I think there IS a possibility of objectivity in music. Trick is that most of you are looking to this problem only on personal level and on tiny time scale.
> For me criterion of objectively good music is: How many generations of people will like it (enjoy it) on the greater time scale.
> For example it is impossible to say which music of nowadays is objectively good, because we don´t know how this music will be seen in future. So we don´t know if for example Michael Jackson and recent pop music will be praysed in year 2100.
> But we know for sure that Mozart, Bach and Beethoven must be somewhat good, because it survived every political regime, every changes of society, every war, every fashion trend.


I still don't think this counts as objectivity. It's widespread consensus, which is the closest we can get, but it's never going to be objective. Music that gets called "good" is that which is _liked_ by some critical mass of tastemakers (whoever they may be - audiences, critics, performers, composers, historians...). And liking music is something that happens on a personal level. So of course we look at it on a personal level; because the global level is simply the sum of all the personal-level assessments.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Art Rock said:


> Objective truth exists in exact science. Not in art. I don't see how it follows that it must exist to some extent in art (music) if it exists in science.


Music includes elements of science though, the science of sound. If nothing in music is objective then why are some composers considered more important or skilled than others? Why are some compositions called masterpieces? Why is there such a degree of consensus on the value of Bach Mozart and Beethoven's music? Why are some musicians considered better than others? If everything about music is completely subjective than any musician would have as good a chance as any other at being a professional.

It has already been pointed out earlier in this thread that if somebody has a valuable experience from a piece of music that it is an objective fact that this experience occurred. These are just some examples of how objectivity relates to music.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

tdc said:


> It has already been pointed out earlier in this thread that if somebody has a valuable experience from a piece of music that it is an objective fact that this experience occurred. These are just some examples of how objectivity relates to music.


Just as an addendum to this... This is under the assumption that we're not going to go full hard solipsism with this. That is a more or less valid direction to take.. But it's also a complete dead end.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

tdc said:


> Music includes elements of science though, the science of sound.


Yes, I also note you do not follow up how the science of sound results in an objective quality assessment of the music. So?



> If nothing in music is objective then why are some composers considered more important or skilled than others? Why are some compositions called masterpieces? Why is there such a degree of consensus on the value of Bach Mozart and Beethoven's music? Why are some musicians considered better than others?


Averaged compilation of subjective opinions. Also note that there are plenty, even among classical music lovers (let alone outside that community) who do not think that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are the best composers ever. So far for objective truth in art appreciation.



> If everything about music is completely subjective than any musician would have as good a chance as any other at being a professional.


Non sequitur. Note though that also here, there is no clear consensus about e.g. best soprano of all time, best conductor of all time, best pianist of all time, etc.



> It has already been pointed out earlier in this thread that if somebody has a valuable experience from a piece of music that it is an objective fact that this experience occurred.


Yes. I did actually. It is also objectively true that the instrument Ashkenazy is playing on this CD I'm listening to is a piano. And that the CD was issued by Decca. That the music is by Chopin. All objective truths. But I don't think that's what we mean when we talk about objective assessment of music quality.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Art Rock said:


> Yes, I also note you do not follow up how the science of sound results in an objective quality assessment of the music. So?
> 
> Averaged compilation of subjective opinions. Also note that there are plenty, even among classical music lovers (let alone outside that community) who do not think that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are the best composers ever. So far for objective truth in art appreciation.
> 
> ...


You've mixed up "objectively good" and "the best".


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> Music that gets called "good" is that which is _liked_ by some critical mass of tastemakers (whoever they may be - audiences, critics, performers, composers, historians...).


Or maybe just music which some listeners _perceive _to have properties X Y Z. Cognitive judgement. I just note that you're begging the question about this.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Mandryka said:


> You've mixed up "objectively good" and "the best".


Fair enough. Even so, I'd like the defenders of the "objectively good music exists" to list the criteria for it. Just saying "it must exist" does not cut it.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Art Rock said:


> Fair enough. Even so, I'd like the defenders of the "objectively good music exists" to list the criteria for it. Just saying "it must exist" does not cut it.


I already have. You seem to be suggesting that if something is not an exact science than there is no objectivity in it whatsoever. I disagree and I've already given you examples that to me are perfectly logical.

I see the complete subjectivity music argument about as logical as claiming that pi does not objectively exist because it cannot be expressed exactly.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I've always hated the term "good" music. It implies snobbery, as in "better".


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

[to tdc]

Humour me. Supposed that you agree that according to you Bach, Mozart, Beethoven made music that is objectively good. Based on what criteria do you come to that conclusion?

Where I'm coming from (a chemist with a keen interest in art including music) is that an objective statement is one where you can lay down how you got to that statement, in a way that it is clear that others would come to that statement as well. And with the same system you should also be able to decide that some music is objectively not good.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

hpowders said:


> I've always hated the term "good" music. It implies snobbery, as in "better".


I think 'better' exists in music.

If two people perform the same piece of music, and one plays it correctly, and the other one plays it incorrectly the former has performed the piece of music 'better'.

Like wise if I randomly scribble some notes on a page and then compare the results to a piece from Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier, I think it would be reasonable to conclude (unless some miraculous event occurred) the Bach piece would be 'better'. I don't think this is snobby so much as just being a fact of life.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Art Rock said:


> [to tdc]
> 
> Humour me. Supposed that you agree that according to you Bach, Mozart, Beethoven made music that is objectively good. Based on what criteria do you come to that conclusion?
> 
> Where I'm coming from (a chemist with a keen interest in art including music) is that an objective statement is one where you can lay down how you got to that statement, in a way that it is clear that others would come to that statement as well. And with the same system you should also be able to decide that some music is objectively not good.


If a composer is influential, enjoyed by many both academic and non academic and regularly performed more than a century after their death, it is safe to say they composed objectively good music. Old music can be revived so it is best to reserve judgement on what is 'not good'.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

tdc said:


> If a composer is influential, enjoyed by many both academic and non academic and regularly performed more than a century after their death, it is safe to say they composed objectively good music. Old music can be revived so it is best to reserve judgement on what is 'not good'.


That sounds more like "objectively successful music" than "objectively good music". *
If an influential composer's music is popular for a century and then gradually fades from view, does it cease to be good music at some point? Even though the music itself hasn't changed in the slightest?

* or maybe "_obviously_ successful music" would be a better term.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> Or maybe just music which some listeners _perceive _to have properties X Y Z. Cognitive judgement. I just note that you're begging the question about this.


Well, yes, "liking" could be conceptualised as "perceiving to have certain specific properties". But that perception still relies on personal preferences regarding which properties are the most significant, and the perception of these properties will still be subjective (e.g., how do we objectively define "beautiful", "memorable", "masterly" etc etc etc etc etc).


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

tdc said:


> If a composer is influential, enjoyed by many both academic and non academic and regularly performed more than a century after their death, it is safe to say they composed objectively good music. Old music can be revived so it is best to reserve judgement on what is 'not good'.


I'll inform the spirits of (to name a few) Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Sibelius, Richard Strauss, Prokofiev, Bartok, Shostakovich, Vaughan Williams that their best works cannot be classified as objective good music. It will be a surprise for many of them.

I'm not nitpicking, this is the logical consequence of your stated criteria.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

tdc said:


> If a composer is influential, enjoyed by many both academic and non academic and regularly performed more than a century after their death, it is safe to say they composed objectively good music. Old music can be revived so it is best to reserve judgement on what is 'not good'.


That does not follow as 'influential' and 'enjoyed' change over time so by that logic a piece is objectively good at one point and not at another.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bettina said:


> So true! We haven't even reached a consensus on whether 4'33" is music, and we probably never will!


You can still use your "call a friend" option if you are stuck.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Technically, objectively good music would be something that you like, that someone else, not under your influence, also likes. (I am, of course, assuming that "like" is basically the criteria for "good.") Your impression is subjective, and the other person's impression is subjective to that person, but objective to you. The agreement of two independent listeners would, I think, constitute a meaningfully "objective" evaluation. 

If you mean universally objective as good music, I think that is a hopeless idea.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Art Rock said:


> I'll inform the spirits of (to name a few) Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Sibelius, Richard Strauss, Prokofiev, Bartok, Shostakovich, Vaughan Williams that their best works cannot be classified as objective good music. It will be a surprise for many of them.
> 
> I'm not nitpicking, this is the logical consequence of your stated criteria.


Nope, I was just giving an example of what I consider to be cases of objective good music. I did not say that only that criteria qualify, and under my criteria all of those pieces will likely eventually be seen as 'objective good music'.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Becca said:


> That does not follow as 'influential' and 'enjoyed' change over time so by that logic a piece is objectively good at one point and not at another.


If a composer was influential and their music regularly performed more than a century after their death, that is an objective fact that does not change over time. I did not say the piece of music had to stay equally influential or enjoyed by a specific amount of people for an infinite amount of time.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Art Rock said:


> I'll inform the spirits of (to name a few) Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Sibelius, Richard Strauss, Prokofiev, Bartok, Shostakovich, Vaughan Williams that their best works cannot be classified as objective good music. It will be a surprise for many of them.
> 
> I'm not nitpicking, this is the logical consequence of your stated criteria.


The problem is you keep trying to pin this down to an exact science. I keep telling you that it isn't. I can see this will continue to be a topic we do not see eye to eye on, so it is ok if we agree to disagree.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I'm still searching for Plato's Ideal Chair.

After I finally find it, I'll get started on finding some objectively good music.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

hpowders said:


> I'm still searching for Plato's Ideal Chair.
> 
> After I finally find it, I'll get started on finding some objectively good music.


Just use common sense. Is there any context in which Mozart's best pieces could be viewed as bad music? Only in ignorance.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

hpowders said:


> I'm still searching for Plato's Ideal Chair.
> 
> After I finally find it, I'll get started on finding some objectively good music.


I once found Plato's ideal chair at a thrift store. Ecstatic, I took it up to the counter where I was greeted by Plato's ideal thrift store clerk. He demanded I pay with ideal money, of which I had none.

Some days nothing works out right.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I once found Plato's ideal chair at a thrift store. Ecstatic, I took it up to the counter where I was greeted by Plato's ideal thrift store clerk. He demanded I pay with ideal money, of which I had none.
> 
> Some days nothing works out right.


I think the last time I saw that chair, Schrodinger's cat was sitting in it, leaving all sorts of fur on the upholstery . . . but I am not sure.


----------



## jenspen (Apr 25, 2015)

hpowders said:


> I've always hated the term "good" music. It implies snobbery, as in "better".


This thread is making my head hurt. It's playing with words, isn't it? Words more suitable to a debate between rabid enthusiasts for different varieties of pop music?

I'm only popping my head over the parapet to say that the term "good music" is pretty ugly and that I will call myself "a musical snob" so as not to hurt other people's feelings when they want me to attend some concert by Andre Rieu for instance.

But, in a forum like this, it would be a betrayal of my profoundest and most sincere (and evolving) responses to music, literature and art to agree that there are not examples of each of those areas of intellectual and emotional endeavour that are not "better" than others.

I hold these truths to be self-evident!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Those against the concept of objectively good music seem to see a looming threat of snobbery behind it. Personally I see the threat of solipsism, nihilism and moral relativism as far more dangerous and detrimental concepts towards society.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

tdc said:


> Those against the concept of objectively good music seem to see a looming threat of snobbery behind it. Personally I see the threat of solipsism, nihilism and moral relativism as far more dangerous and detrimental concepts towards society.


Solipsism is hardly a threat, so long as the solipsist is me.  And (by definition) it is.


----------



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

So Beethoven's 9th has the same objective merit as chopsticks? The subjective experience of listening to the 9th is so overwhelming and so objectively moving to the soul. Which is why its so maddening that there's no objective basis for those emotions. To say the 9th and chopsticks have equal objective merit is like saying 2+2=5 to me. It just can't be true! Yet it can't be proven otherwise.


----------



## lextune (Nov 25, 2016)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Intuitively, WTC is objectively good music. Can I prove it? I could but I don't want to now


Exactly. It is a little absurd to ask someone to defend objectively good music.

If one does not already have the musical wherewithal to realize what a masterpiece is: then they are asking you for a musical education.



tdc said:


> I think the works that are well known that survive the test of time are as close as one can get to 'objectively good'. One may not enjoy those works, but I don't think a work has to be liked by everyone to be objectively good.
> 
> So for example I think the well known works in the classical canon that have survived a century or more are objectively good, or as close to that as one can get.
> 
> The best works of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are objectively good. They may not all be perfect or equal but they have objective goodness in the sense of artistic merit.


^This.



tdc said:


> Music includes elements of science though, the science of sound. If nothing in music is objective then why are some composers considered more important or skilled than others? Why are some compositions called masterpieces? Why is there such a degree of consensus on the value of Bach Mozart and Beethoven's music? Why are some musicians considered better than others? If everything about music is completely subjective than any musician would have as good a chance as any other at being a professional.
> 
> It has already been pointed out earlier in this thread that if somebody has a valuable experience from a piece of music that it is an objective fact that this experience occurred. These are just some examples of how objectivity relates to music.


^This is also well said.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Robert Pirsig spent a whole book wrestling with the concept of Quality, concluding (sort of) that it exists, you can recognize it, but can't define it. And what's more, it exists in neither the object (the work), the subject (you or me) -- but at some meeting of the two at the moment of perception. Then he went insane.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MarkW said:


> Robert Pirsig spent a whole book wrestling with the concept of Quality, concluding (sort of) that it exists, you can recognize it, but can't define it. And what's more, it exists in neither the object (the work), the subject (you or me) -- but at some meeting of the two at the moment of perception. Then he went insane.


Not totally insane. He bought a Honda, not yet recognized then as a motorcycle of some...er...quality.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

If the WTC score lies there on its own in a forest and no one has seen or heard it, is it still to be considered good?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

JAS said:


> I think the last time I saw that chair, Schrodinger's cat was sitting in it, leaving all sorts of fur on the upholstery . . . but I am not sure.


I shaved Schrödinger's Cat with Occam's Razor, and Pavlov's Dog chased it into a Cartesian Vortex. Haven't seen it since.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Solipsism is hardly a threat, so long as the solipsist is me.  And (by definition) it is.


We solipsists have got to stick together. In unity there is strength! Let's persuade the others to join us.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> I shaved Schrödinger's Cat with Occam's Razor, and Pavlov's Dog chased it into a Cartesian Vortex. Haven't seen it since.


But in the middle of the night I keep waking to the ghostly strains of someone playing Higgs' bassoon.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

JS Bach's Brandenburg Concertos lay in a library vault for over 120 years, untouched and unplayed. During that time did the music have merit and value even though it was hidden? Arguably the finest baroque ever composed although it ironically was never performed in the baroque era.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

JAS said:


> Technically, objectively good music would be something that you like, that someone else, not under your influence, also likes. (I am, of course, assuming that "like" is basically the criteria for "good.") Your impression is subjective, and the other person's impression is subjective to that person, but objective to you. The agreement of two independent listeners would, I think, constitute a meaningfully "objective" evaluation.
> 
> If you mean universally objective as good music, I think that is a hopeless idea.


I don't like Wagner's music (for the most part) but I also think it is good music.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

beetzart said:


> JS Bach's Brandenburg Concertos lay in a library vault for over 120 years, untouched and unplayed. During that time did the music have merit and value even though it was hidden? Arguably the finest baroque ever composed although it ironically was never performed in the baroque era.


Essentially the same point as post 56. Of course it had merit. Any opinion to the contrary would be really hard to defend.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Because of my 24/7 involvement with objectively good music, I may be getting myself involved in a rather subjective divorce.


----------



## lextune (Nov 25, 2016)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> If the WTC score lies there on its own in a forest and no one has seen or heard it, is it still to be considered good?


:lol:

Yes....It is still a damn masterpiece.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

I believe objectively good music doesn't exist. If it would be possible to objectively determine if music is good or not by certain criteria, the criteria themselves would be totally era-dependend and completely subjective.

The only thing to determine if music is "good" or not is wether a lot of people like it or not. In addition to that you can make some subcategories like "do people who seriously listen to a lot of music like it or not" OR "do people who study music a lot like it or not".

And so are born the 3 categories of good music:

"music liked by lots of people": for example: Adele, Beyoncé, Beethoven

"music liked by lots of people who seriously listen to a lot of music": for example: Beethoven

"music liked by lots of people who study music a lot": for example: Beethoven 


Feel free to make your own subcategories.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

How about good music that is not liked or even listened to by lots of people? Example, traditional _cante flamenco_, and probably lots of equally obscure "specialist" enthusiasms. Perhaps there is no such thing as bad music. Maybe there is just---music.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Generally, if you asked 100 people randomly to name a classical composer 95 would say Beethoven and some would go Da, Da, Da, Dooo! Obviously that doesn't make Beethoven objectively the greatest, he leaves that to his music.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The good and the bad has to do with the performance. For example, the bedrock of much of American popular music is the blues. Some musicians have a feeling for this type of music and can do it justice with a satisfying performance. Other musicians are better of playing something else. Itzhak Perlman and John Williams are great classical instrumentalists, but they make bad jazz music.


----------



## Czech composer (Feb 20, 2016)

Razumovskymas said:


> "music liked by lots of people": for example: Adele, Beyoncé, Beethoven


I know that i am repeating myself, but there is flaw of comparing artists like Beyoncé and Beethoven. 
Your argument is probably, that even bad music can be listened by many people. Problem is that you consider too short time period. "Objectively good music" must survive for long time. And what we know. It is possible, that 200 years from now will be Beyoncé still more successful that Beethoven. And if it will be the case, I would admit, that Beyoncé is better than Beethoven even If I 100% more appreciate music of second one.
But I agree that is needed to define good music as "the most enjoyed by most of listeners"

*And that idea leads me maybe to discovery of main flaw of this whole debate which was almost pointed out in a very first two responses*
This debate cannot ever be solved from one simply reason. Name of this thread is *Objectively good music*. 
And problem is that the word "good" itself isn´t objective exact term, but purely subjective word. So name of this thread logicaly doesn´t make sence, although it is realy fun to debate...


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

lextune said:


> :lol:
> 
> Yes....It is still a damn masterpiece.


How would YOU know, if no one has ever seen or heard it?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> How about good music that is not liked or even listened to by lots of people? Example, traditional _cante flamenco_, and probably lots of equally obscure "specialist" enthusiasms. Perhaps there is no such thing as bad music. Maybe there is just---music.


You have heard rap, right?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Razumovskymas said:


> "music liked by lots of people": for example: Adele, Beyoncé, Beethoven


I think you overestimate how many people like Beethoven. Most people who like the first 2 haven't even heard of Beethoven.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

If the claim that there is no objectivity in music is true, the conclusion that this song






is as good as WTC follows. Now I don't know about you folks but to me that is just plain wrong.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

For people who like that better than Bach, it is subjectively better. That most of us here don't feel that way does not change one thing about that fact. Nor does it make us objectively right in our preference.

I don't understand the conclusion that comes up all the time in these discussions that if appreciation of music is subjective, all music is equally good.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I think you overestimate how many people like Beethoven. Most people who like the first 2 haven't even heard of Beethoven.


I know but I just wanted Beethoven in my 3 categories


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Art Rock said:


> For people who like that better than Bach, it is subjectively better. That most of us here don't feel that way does not change one thing about that fact. Nor does it make us objectively right in our preference.
> 
> I don't understand the conclusion that comes up all the time in these discussions that if appreciation of music is subjective, all music is equally good.


Yes, it's kind of like we're saying it doesn't make sense to ask "how long is a piece of string?" and then being accused of thinking all strings are the same length!


----------



## lextune (Nov 25, 2016)

hpowders said:


> How would YOU know, if no one has ever seen or heard it?


It came to me in a dream....


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Art Rock said:


> I don't understand the conclusion that comes up all the time in these discussions that i*f appreciation of music is subjective*, all music is equally good.


No. The conclusion follows from the premise that there is no (some)objective way to measure music. I don't think the same conclusion follows from the bolded statement, I agree with that.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> You have heard rap, right?


I am not among the audience properly equipped to enjoy rap. The "fault" is mine. But I can live with the shame .


----------



## EarthBoundRules (Sep 25, 2011)

The only way to tell is through a popularity contest, if you believe in the greatest enjoyment for the greatest amount of people being objectively good (like the Utilitarians). There's music I like and dislike that would shock all of you, since for literally every piece of music out there there's somebody who likes it and somebody who dislikes it. So I'll say there's no such thing as objectively good music.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

EarthBoundRules said:


> The only way to tell is through a popularity contest, if you believe in the greatest enjoyment for the greatest amount of people being objectively good (like the Utilitarians). There's music I like and dislike that would shock all of you, since for literally every piece of music out there there's somebody who likes it and somebody who dislikes it. So I'll say there's no such thing as objectively good music.


Well, there is also for every fact out there someone who doesn't believe it. That doesn't make the fact less true.


----------



## Daniel Atkinson (Dec 31, 2016)

Objectivity just doesn't exist in art *at all*

The most objective you can get is that "I listened to it" or "It has a run time of 45 minutes and 20 seconds", everything else is purely opinion and nothing else.


----------



## David OByrne (Dec 1, 2016)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> If the claim that there is no objectivity in music is true, the conclusion that this song
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is it just me or is the WTC really boring and repetitive after the first few preludes and fugues? :lol:


----------



## EarthBoundRules (Sep 25, 2011)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Well, there is also for every fact out there someone who doesn't believe it. That doesn't make the fact less true.


Very true. I'll change my reasoning to be that I haven't heard a good definition for what would be objectively good music, so that's why I don't believe in it.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

As David A just said (sort of), "Good" is not an attribute that can be modified by6"objectively."


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

David OByrne said:


> Is it just me or is the WTC really boring and repetitive after the first few preludes and fugues? :lol:


No, not just you. It gets boring after the first 48 preludes and fugues


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

EarthBoundRules said:


> Very true. I'll change my reasoning to be that I haven't heard a good definition for what would be objectively good music, so that's why I don't believe in it.


I haven't heard a good definition either. And by good I mean a definition that can be used to logically reason about quality of music. There is something troubling about this to me since I know intuitively (but cannot prove) that some music is higher quality than other music.


----------



## David OByrne (Dec 1, 2016)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> No, not just you. It gets boring after the first 48 preludes and fugues


More like the first 5, and deep down you know it :lol:


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

What about D.Scarlatti? Are his 555 sonatas worthy or do they have value and preference to be on par with Bach and Handel's keyboard music? Listening to Scarlatti is a life time's work if you analysed everything he did. At times he feels the most advanced, harmonically, of the 1685 club yet apart form some sacred music he didn't compose in any other forms I am aware of. Or do his sonatas make up for that?


----------



## pcnog11 (Nov 14, 2016)

IMHO, there is no objectivity to music. Here are the reasons why:

1. Good music is very difficult, if not, impossible to define.

2. If this can be defined, it is difficult, if not impossible to measure.

3. Most of us probably agree that music stir up emotions and it is very much a personal experience and reaction to the music itself. In other words, highly subjective.

If things are highly subjective, personal and without a definition or measure. The answer is simple to figure out.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Yet why does Bach and Beethoven's music always rise to the top of most people's minds? I like Clementi's piano sonatas but I know they are not on par with Beethoven's. Yet why do I know this? Peer pressure or the fact Beethoven's music is actually better then Clementi's? But why?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

What is the greatest, best color? Which is the most popular color? Which color do you like best? Which color do connoisseurs of color think best? Is it important that my color choice matches that of anyone else? Questions like these torment me.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

beetzart said:


> Yet why does Bach and Beethoven's music always rise to the top of most people's minds? I like Clementi's piano sonatas but I know they are not on par with Beethoven's. Yet why do I know this? Peer pressure or the fact Beethoven's music is actually better then Clementi's? But why?


I think this is an extension of my earlier suggestion, although there is a potential complication that knowing a composer has a strong reputation can influence our view of the music he or she produced, so it is not necessarily independent confirmation. And there is a danger, at some level, of reaching the conclusion that general popularity is a meaningful measure. (It isn't necessarily a useless measure, particularly over time, but it can really only function as a suggestive indicator.) Most importantly, in the end I think you just have to go with your own response, even if no one agrees with you. (I like some of Shostakovich's film music, but no matter how many people tell me that his symphony such and such is beautiful, and I try to listen to a recommended performance, I just cannot get beyond cringing at all of the dreadful noise. At some point, I just have to accept that his output isn't for me.)


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Haydn man said:


> I think classical music is too subjectively complex to make universal objective judgements such as 'good'
> Too much personal taste involved


I agree. Trying to objectively apply a value judgement such as 'good' to something that is so subjectively perceived is a category error on a par with equating the 'facts' of scientists with the 'truth' of religionists.
[Lifts lid off can of worms, quietly sidles away....]


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Strange Magic said:


> What is the greatest, best color? Which is the most popular color? Which color do you like best? Which color do connoisseurs of color think best? Is it important that my color choice matches that of anyone else? Questions like these torment me.


Your use of the verb torment is very apt here. I enjoy science and maths and much of those two subjects, if not all, are objective. I have some urge, that I wish I could detach from, and that is to find a way to do the same with music and it has ruined many musical experiences in my adult life. I am listening to the Air from Bach's OS 1068 and it is utterly divine. When you look at the score it is truly perfect and musically sound from a purists position yet it should sound mechanical but it doesn't. How does JS Bach invoke so much emotion from music that is so perfect musicologically? Compare him to Teleman who is a fine composer but doesn't have the magical touch that Bach had. Even Vivaldi is the same, and Handel. I think Bach has one genuine peer on his level and that is D.Scarlatti. He does the same. He writes perfect little sonatas that were just practice pieces but many are hugely powerful when it comes to emotions. Well I don't know. I just don't have a clue why music does this at any level. Do people ever burst into tears when they see a famous painting?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Beetzart, excellent post. Your point asking whether people burst into tears upon seeing a painting is well taken, as it shows the greater power music has over us. This is certainly in part due to the temporal involvement required just to simply hear music, let alone be moved by it. We can walk through an art gallery, taking in picture after picture, perhaps sitting before a favorite, and many will have a certain power, invoking positive or negative feelings or moods--I'm thinking of many of the paintings by Goya that hint of or actually show a world of horror just around the corner, or of the Luminist painters of mid-nineteenth century America who trigger a dreamlike quasi-transcendental euphoria. But these moods, compared to those triggered by music, are transient and feeble, and are also anchored in the static, concrete, relatively simple images of painting and sculpture. It is key that cinema bursts out of the stasis of unmoving pictorial art and can engage us on near the same level as music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Music, like anything else, can be objectively good _by a given standard._ Mozart is objectively better than Myslivecek because they are both working within a similar aesthetic; we apply roughly the same set of criteria to them both, and find that Mozart meets these criteria more fully. The hitch is that standards themselves have to be chosen by certain criteria.

It's a good thing we don't have to work all this out to enjoy music.


----------

