Thread: Judging Music: Objectivity vs. Subjectivity

A popular response to the scenario"Band Y is far more talented than Band Z" is often, "that's only your OPINION"

So the question than becomes this: Can Band Y be objectively better than Band Z?" Or is it really only a matter of subjective judgment? In other words, can a certain band or artist be objectively better than anther band or artist?

When I say that Alice in Chains is a far more talented band than Nickleback, is this objectively true, or is it just a matter of my opinion? How about saying that Jimi Hendrix was a far greater musician/artist than Justin Bieber is?

What's your take on this? Is Radiohead REALLY about a trillion times better than Limp Bizkit? Or is that only my opinion?

DEBATE!

Originally Posted by In Winter

Second off, did you just ask if Jimi Hendrix is better than Justin Bieber? Um...2 completely different kinds of music my friend

no. i asked if Hendrix was a better MUSICIAN than Beiber.

Originally Posted by WordzMyth

I don't think Droogz was actually comparing Hendrix to Justin Bieber. It was just an example

right!

My take on it is that it IS possible for a band to be objectively better than another band. I'll give you my reasoning tomorrow, when I'm fully awake.

Yes musicians obviously can have more talent than other musicians, but pure technicality is only part of music, emotion is the other half. So when comparing artists you must not only compare their actual skills but how they display them as well, because he can sweep pick does that make guitarist A better then guitarist B who can't sweep pick but can move an audience to tears with the emotion generated from his vibrato. In depth-ness ftw.

Well, I don't know what better means in this situation... Define it...

Originally Posted by FreeTime

Well, I don't know what better means in this situation... Define it...

musically superior.. the question is can band A factually be better than band B.

Originally Posted by Manson7703

Yes musicians obviously can have more talent than other musicians, but pure technicality is only part of music, emotion is the other half. So when comparing artists you must not only compare their actual skills but how they display them as well, because he can sweep pick does that make guitarist A better then guitarist B who can't sweep pick but can move an audience to tears with the emotion generated from his vibrato. In depth-ness ftw.

i don't think i've ever cried over vibrato LOL.. but i get your point.

^

What do you mean by musically superior???

Originally Posted by FreeTime

^

What do you mean by musically superior???

can band A be factually/objectively a better band than band B.

you're over thinking it

^

Well that's the thing. Better can mean a lot of things. Better at playing faster, better at exploring genres, better at making longer albums, better at being performers, etc...

No band is factually better than any other, but I will say this though;

The music Justin Bieber produces is 'fake', and his 'music' is ALL about commercialism. That, vs another musician where his/her music is written by them, played by them and isn't all about being commercial, then you can analyze and judge the music easier.

The music of Britney Spears, The Spice Girls, N*SYNC etc isn't actually 'good' music because it was never intended to be anything but a cash cow for young people. They would listen to it less about the music and more because it was 'cool', and you can never create deeply enjoyable music this way, when it is so shallow and meaningless.

Nice discussion thread Droogie. I think it's difficult for anyone to be objective about anything. I'm never comparing band A to band B when I'm listening to something new. I probably would never use the word judging either. I evaluate the music I hear in a very personal way. If it draws me in, moves me...then I can appreciate it...regardless of genre. I think it takes strong talented artists/musicians to do that. You know...cause I have great taste/good ears.