People use it to make excuses for bullshit. Music is not nearly as subjective as people would think in my opinion.

That is all

Hate is such a subjective notion.

This thread is subjective

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I think there is a threshold for subjectivity and objectivity. While plenty of things about a song can be judged objectively, there is still a level of subjectivity involved, as with all things creative.

I have seen people go crazy over artwork that I (a rather poor visual artist) could easily have done with a paintbrush sticking out of my ass. Their usual argument isn't that the artwork is good, but that they were the first ones to do it, thus being original. I usually counter-argue that there is a probably a reason why no one else had done it before, it sucks. Furthermore, I'd hate to think that originality only exists in the realm of shitty art no one has bothered making yet ....

I dunno, i tend to be pretty open to pretty 'bad' art and sounds. I think that creative processes HAVE to be mostly subjectively viewed. I also think that for contemporary analysis, art/music criticism is very often wildly flawed to the degree that it is nearly pointless(though i understand that it is unavoidable, and not going anyplace soon).

For viewing cycles and cataclysms years and centuries removed, it can function(IMO that is all it is good for) but when professional critics try to apply the unwieldy machine to quick-moving, sharp-end-of-the-creative-stick, contemporary stuff, they often miss the point entirely. For one, i think that it defeats the purpose of something creative, to try to imply that there is a universal/objective "ideal" for finished works. If there was, then all works would have to looks the same and sound the same. Or would have to be shown always to work towards this homogeneity.

The idea, in my opinion, of creativity, is that it REQUIRES the input of a unique creator, whose idea of the "ideal" DIFFERS from what is considered, objectively, to be the current majority-vetted "ideal". I.e., that basically, the objective analysis of art is a perversion when applied to the contemporary. Because it misses the basic fucking point of art, which is: that creative ideals are brought out by individuals who have NEW angles and ideas on what exactly, is good. I.e., that the old ideas of this are flawed or incomplete.

Objective analysis then, IMO, is fine for viewing creative history, to measure and illustrate longer cycles, trends, and cataclysms, but is often seriously misapplied when folks try to aim it at the present and the new. BECAUSE, all it can do, really, is determine somewhat, whether something IS new, or whether it is actually something old, revisited. It can provide no judgement on whether something is good or bad though. Too many critics and their supporters, in my opinion, miss this distinction entirely.

Only every individual can, individually, make the good/bad judgement. It is more instinctual than it is intellectual. And it is kinds of silly/egotistical/counterproductive to spend as much time as we do, trying to determine "what is truly "GOOD"", "what will last long after we are gone", "what our monuments will be". And we set ourselves up, in this fashion, to miss what is enjoyable right now, in front of us. "Good" right here today, does not have to be "good" two thousand years from now. It doesn't matter for us here today anyhow. What does matter, is finding and recognizing, and embracing, right now, whatever it is that we (completely subjectively!) find good RIGHT NOW.

Objective art analysis is nearly useless for this. The purpose of it, IMO, is actually the same as say, the attempt to analyze in real time, the stock market. It is about commodities, profitability, "putting our money where it will get us the best return". Objective art analysis has a LOT more to do with selling art than it has to do with celebrating creativity.

Annnnnd it completely misses the point of why most of us humans, create things. It is NOT, for me anyhow, about monuments. It is about unique interpretations. Can't help but say a thing, can't help but say it the way i say things. Some people let others say things for them and adopt the viewpoint. Others can't help but try to create their own. All individuals either get, or don't get, a specific artist's viewpoint.

Even if 99% of humans don't understand why an artist felt compelled to create something, that IMO cannot detract from the creative value of the thing in question, because the human that made it, felt it needed to be made. This in and of itself undoes the usefulness of art criticism for me. Find what makes sense to you and run with it, don't wait for someone else to tell you what you should be feeling when you feel. Art analysis in the present should be 100% subjective. For me, responses to creative things should first be current, in-the-moment, visceral, and individually sourced.

[Yes, i am pretty rambly today. ]

(TL/DR: Say Ocean, i disagree.)

Obviously music is largely subjective, I'm not denying that. But I think there is a certain level of objectivity; I guess this is coming from the standpoint of the academic composition stuff I've been working on at school. The way we perceive music is a mixture of biological fact combined with how we were brought up and what we were socialized to. It's just that music is creating relationships between sounds, and I hate when someone does something in a song that has absolutely no reason to it, doesn't help the song, doesn't create anything and they ask for my opinion and I tell them that it's redundant and they use the subjectivity excuse. It's just a way to not actually involve themselves in the creative process and just spit out bullshit without actually thinking about it I know that art is extremely subjective, I'm just saying it's a little more objective, or can be, than people will generally admit. Just imo though

The bit "someone does something in a song that has absolutely no reason to it" is a red flag to me.

I understand what you mean, because of where you are, and what you are there for.

But that sort of analysis is just one type of analysis. One way of looking at creativity. One perspective/filter.

Sometimes "no reason to do it" is the right reason.

Yeah I get what you mean, I think I'm just venting because it's taxing to listen to pieces that spin the wheels but don't go anywhere.

I know what you are talking aboot. Anyhow, that sort of analysis training is exactly what you are at school for. So i would say that you have the right mindset for what you need to do.

The extremely German mindset

I dunno, I think I see correlations and certain things that music moves towards in history or that music now embraces, if you neglect the some of the avant garde stuff. Even serialism and other forms of atonalism seem to follow from a linear progression. I don't know if this is because something is actually objective about music, or because everyone who makes this music is culturalized into it. Probably the latter, considering world music.

It's actually kind of interesting to think about; how much of a roll genetics or human nature plays in our comprehension and enjoyment of music and how much of it is what we are socialized into.