I've been thinking a lot about objective in all its real applications lately.

Two buddies of mine and myself engaged in a very very interesting topic, months ago in our pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela (don't worry guys - our reasons were secular).

I proposed the idea that some art, in this case music, is *objectively* more beautiful than other music. This was criticized by them, saying music is about taste (which encompasses conditioning, culture, and perhaps even genes). They also thought my idea of absolute beauty, being able to objectively say music A is better than music B, is arrogant and offensive.

I tried to make my case by presenting two examples of both ends of the spectrum. An example of 'lower' music to me would be a DJ playing cold emotionless beats over the anonymous crowd. Don't get me wrong. I used to go to festivals, and wake up in strange places with those kinds of beats pounding. I'm just saying, this kind of music is objectively 'lesser' than the second example I'm about to propose.

My example of 'greater' music was this. I heard recordings of a singer, who sings about how he lost a friend in a mine entrance collapsing. The background story is irrelevant though - he actually SINGS like he lost a friend, in all of the songs I heard by him. Absolutely socially unacceptable music, raw, passionate, deadly emotional, divinity(this coming from an atheist).

Now, on to the debate: do you think it's *roughly* possible to say example B is 'better' than example A? Is it possible to make an objective difference between at least a few songs? My 2 friends said all music is equal by default, but I don't believe that.

Any thoughts?

You can objectively say that one thing is superior to another, by logical derivation.
The metric system is superior to the imperial system.
There is no 'taste' here, no 'personal preference', this statement is derived through simple logic: a decimal system is totally preferable to a more or less arbitrary system.

But as for music, I'm not quite sure how the logical derivation would follow. It obviously needs to be something measurable. I imagine 'beauty' could be achieved through the frequency of oscillations, and sounds are more 'beautiful' the closer they are to their natural frequency. or something.

Different kinds of music have different purposes. If they succeed well at that purpose, and the musician is good at what he or she does, the music is good. But comparing those two kinds of music is like comparing racecars to monster trucks and saying one is better than the other because it's bigger or faster. Dance music can just make people happy--that's what it's for. But if you're looking for another take on it, Fluke's album "Puppy" is a fascinating piece of work, that seems to be aimed at recovering drug addicts, and with it's antisuicidal themes it's a really uplifting thing to listen to.



Yeah, I've gone on too long about this without really trying to organize my thoughts, but you get the idea.

You can say that a certain type of music is more technically proficient than another or that an artist is more technically proficient than another, but you can't really say that about the meaning of the piece or what that piece makes a person feel.

Perhaps the way to determine what music is naturally more 'beautiful' would be an experiment involving infants who haven't been culturally conditioned to any sort of music yet.

I agree with everything so far.



Yep, they have this technique called non-nutritive sucking (which you probably know): infants suck harder on (artificial) nipples when presented with a attractive or new stimulus. Good idea.

I think 'better' is maybe too vague of a description. Scientific methodology says we'll have to agree on what 'better' actually means. This operational definition, agreed by all beforehand, should be a checklist of some sorts I think, with quantitative measurable elements. I don't know how we'd go and create such a definition. And in reality I tend to leave logic behind when listening to music.

But still, food for thought.

I believe that some things are just ugly, if you're in love with someone to the point that their physical appearance is meaningless, then nothing else in the world matters, but that doesn't mean they're good-looking. In terms of art most specifically, I believe that art should look like something, have a pattern, or have a meaning. A lot of the random crap they throw together today and call art is really hideous.

Yes but the real truth is physically attraction does count for the most part in the beginning. I mean you'ed never fall that much in love with a person if you didn't take the time to get to know them, and if someone's appearence is less than appealing to you... you wouldn't take the time to get to know them. You'ed be naturally turned away by them.

True art in music would be pushing the edges of a genre, while keeping a consistant, though original style. Trent Reznor, in example, is what I'd call a musical genius - even though I heavily dislike NIN.

there are two (or more) ways of defining 'better'. There's the technical skill involved- on which level it's much easier to determine whether music A is better than music B, and then there's the more ambiguous meanings involving personal perference (actually, this could probably be broken up into more but we'll just lump everything of the ambiguous nature such as feelings into one group).

Take an excellent choral group vs a heavy metal band. on the technical level, the choral group may be better- that is, they have the technicalities down (they sound unified, their breathing is good, they sound supported, perfect, unified vowels, crisp consonants, perfectly timed with entrances and cutoffs, great dynamics, et cetera...) while the heavy metal band seems to be screaming unintelligibly. but try telling the band's fans that the chorus is better. most people don't appreciate music purely for technical appreciation, but for the more ambiguous reasons and as far as those are concerned, it is impossible to really discern which of anything is "better"

err...random ramblings but maybe there's something in there to contribute to the discussion. *shrug*

Objective beauty.. okay, if you create a measuring system that's not a laughing stock, then I'll believe it exists. 'Til then, talk all you want.

FL, I know this of course, maybe I was being vague again or something. Damn uni, it's ****ing up my cerebral functioning.

Maybe put simply like this: there is a group of music that qualifies as contestant for 'best song ever'. We can never agree on best song, because this is obviously subjective. I'm saying there's another group that can be objectively agreed on, that will never be in the same league as the first group.

For the more visual people, put like this: there are people who like fauvism, then there are people who are really into surrealism, then ones into late impressionism, etc... it'd be really hard to call on 'which work of visual art is better', and again, I hate using the word 'better'.

But, if I produce crap, like literally a dump, a ****, and put a little flag in it, I think people should be able to throw away differences in tastes, and be objectively able to say: well, that's crap on more than one level. Like universal consensus.

If something exists, I can guarantee someone somewhere finds pleasure in it. I have yet to see anything contrary to that. The inverse is true as well: If something exists, someone somewhere loathes it.

There's really no way to determine an absolute. Not that I'm saying there isn't one. I'm just saying we can't determine it.

To sumarize: I really had no point to this post.

The term objective beauty makes no sense. Beauty is an opinion. It can't be objective. Music is an enjoyable sound. As long as someone out there enjoys it, it's music. Complexity? Classical music is one of the most simple genres out there.

Classical music.... simple??

I prefer combining choral groups and heavy metal bands. And throw in an orchestra while you're at it.

yay for taste

yes, very. Probably not as much as alot of rock I've heard, but still, very simple. There's usually little elements, no rules at all regarding speed or rythm, the melodies are generally not very complex, and the sounds generated by the instruments are very limited (unlike in electronic music where you'd have all kinds of morphings and transformations, or guitar music, where you have all sorts of distortions that add to the complexity of the composition).

I think anyone who's ever composed music will see what I mean. You just have to compare the charts to see the difference. That's also the main reason why electronic music uses a different composition system; there's so many markers for morphings, volume slides, volume envollopes, that if you tried to write it on paper using the conventional system, you'd probably need 20 pages.

That's a poor generalisation. Some classical music is like that, but definitely not all of it.

I would argue that classical music is a complex combination of many simple things.

Freelancer, are you trying to say that Metric is stupid? If so, state why, and I'll do my best to tell you how it is superior to Imperial in terms of ease of use and logic.

Aye, you have lots and lots and lots of instruments to fit together.

Metallica S&M (doesn't have chorals, but you get the idea)



Metallica S&M

Acharjay.. I was talking about a measuring system for so-called objective beauty. Heh... I agree the metric system is a nice system.

Because everything is in multiples of 10 it's a million times easier to use. Tell me how many yards are in 4.56 miles or tell me how many meters there are in 4.56 kilometers, in your head, within 3 seconds. METRIC WINS.

I agree. However, unless America does a cold turkey switch, I think our current system will remain in place. Just because people don't know how warm 20C is, or how long a centimeter is compared to an inch, etc. When I go to Canada I have no idea how fast to drive. I don't know how fast 50 kph is compared to 50 mph, etc. But I do agree. Metric wins. Wish America had adopted it before I was born so I didn't have to go through it.

If it was as simple as you propose, there would be a lot more of it.

Anyone who knows music theory can easily see the brilliance behind some of the great classical music minds from back in the day. I hadn't recognized it myself until recently, but the melodies and chord progressions are simply impressive.

If you don't believe me, try nailing one of Beethoven's or Bach's pieces and see how "easy" it really is. And that's just playing it. Composing it was a whole other story.