What's the point of music criticism if musical taste is admittedly not objective?
>>127606589Because theory objectively is. The only reason why musical criticism exists is because of theory.Of course, that means that the likes of jazz are impervious to criticism.
>>127606589>if musical taste is admittedly not objective?Midwit-tourist take of those who don't play any instruments/not into music theory whatsoever/haven't listened enough music
>>127606609>Because theory objectively is. The only reason why musical criticism exists is because of theorythis guy gets it
The bantz. It's why Christgau is worth reading and Scaruffi isn't.
Beauty is objective.https://youtube.com/watch?v=5acCujoUyzg
>>127606670Both are worth reading but only Scaruffi's opinions are worth considering
>>127606589haha OP I love froggo XD
>>127606609>>127606647>>127606661>>127606674No refutation>>127606670Kind of this actually
>>127606589Music is objectiveTake that meme Caretaker albumYou're telling me Stage 6 is music?Come on
>>127606702Cuckgau is fun reading because it's like the most concentrated form of leftwing seethe and cuckoldry expressed in musical reviews written like puzzles. It's hillariousScaruffi is not fun and takes himself way too seriously considering the warped sense of what's valuable in music according to him. We just like it because he's eager to slap into irrelevance some of normies' popular holy cowsBoth these guys have dubious tastes in music, though.
>>127606609>>127606647music has some objective qualities, originality, technical skill, compositional intelligence and so on, but you can never show any inherent worth of those qualities without resorting to subjectivity or self-reference; their existence is undeniable but their value to the listener is ultimately as subjective as, for instance, music's overall aesthetics>>127606589music criticism is largely pointless because of the ego of critics. one might write about music, discuss it and describe it. a writer can even say whether or not they like it, and to what extent, and why. but I don't know of a critic who can rein in their ego enough to refrain from placing a purportedly objective rating, score or verdict on a piece. sooner or later they all fall into the trap of thinking they know better than everyone else, that their judgement is worth more than others. having said that, its inevitable and shouldn't be surprising. these people have been given this job of assessing music, thats what their employers and/or readers want and expect. of course its going to go to their head, its human nature. they always end up seeing themselves as experts.
>>127606609Theory doesn’t prescribe artistic value at any point. I’ve been classically trained, there’s nothing in the work books about criticism or what makes something “good” or “bad”. Music theory is about thing like intervals, modes, temperament, chords, etc. Music criticism is the same as all art criticism. Yes there is true beauty imo, no not everybody will agree on everything, but only autists desire that. I also believe there is a second, more subjective worthiness to be found and that’s where all the middle ground lies. Between true, objective ugliness and true, objective beauty.Art criticism is flawed and inaccurate, but it is an entertaining way to get a little bit more out of the art, discuss it, maybe gain some new perspectives and find both true beauty and also just things that are interesting to you, which lead you to more new things and so on.
>>127606589Taste is subjective, the quality of music is objective but plebeians arent ready for that conversation
>>127606589Taste and judgment are subjective, but musical quality and architecture can be assessed by relatively objective criteria. And no, it's not just strict music theory or math, but also aesthetics, psychology, and even poetic description.
>everything is le subjective
>>127607675let me guess, the music you like just happens to be the objectively good stuff, right?
>>127607836>musical quality and architecture can be assessed by relatively objective criteriaWhat are these criteria, and how do you objectively judge their value and importance?
>>127607939Yes obviously. I didn't spend the last 25 years obsessively education myself on the subject for nothing
>>127608098I see. I realise it wasn't you who was quoted but would you answer this, specifically the second part >>127607962
>>127607003How would you refute a question
>>127608098>25 years obsessively education myselfI'd ask for a refund
>>127608168Don't be obtuse
Liking dogshit is okay, pretending dogshit is good is not. Equating shit art with good art degrades all of it. Critiquing or reviewing music should have thorough observational basis and not put preferences, vibes, or superficialities above that. You don't need theory or music-making experience to know any of this, like you don't need to be a chef or have a culinary arts degree to know when food is rotten or cooked improperly.relevant fat bald metal snob on the subjecthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kpD2Q9UsJc
>>127606589If music taste was objective there would be no need for music critics whatsoever. It would just be correctly identified as being good or not and then you'd move on
>>127608348>It would just be correctly identified as being good or notSo, music criticism? How would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning?
>>127606589what would the point of music criticism be if music taste was objective? you would make an objective list of the best stuff, everyone would agree and then you’d be done with it.
>>127608394Nope that's not music criiticism
The problem with subjective fags is if they can't comprehend that music can be objectively good than they don't have strong enough convictions with music taste and thusly their takes don't matter that much. I could list tons of objectively good artists, none of them rap or electronic
>>127606702Scsruffis reviews are artistic and soulful. Just read his fare forward voyager review by John fahey
>>127608457You're mistaken. I know what I like and I think I'm right about it. I even believe I'm right about it. I just don’t delude myself that I know I'm objectively right about it because I accept that I can't prove it.
>>127608457>I could list tons of subjectively good artists, none of them rap or electronicFTFY
>>127608502>can't prove itThat's where you talk like you're evaluating something scientific and not something that concerns the soul. If the music makes you feel extraordinarily than it's objectively good. The only time that isn't true is when someone is over stating the feeling the music provides. You hear it all the time with people half ass praising something and not even knowing what it is about it that impacts them
>>127608348>>127608418What are you doing?>>127608457They are music egalitarians. Rewarding the good and punishing the bad is problematic. Poptimists preach musical egalitarianism as truth because their music would be discarded by merit or hierarchy.
is there a free way to read christgau reviews?
>>127608525You must either not love your music enough, be a redditor, or both
>>127608535>If the music makes you feel extraordinarily than it's objectively goodbut what if it leaves someone else completely cold, as it the case with practically all music? whos right?
>>127608545> muh heckin Poptimists
>>127608567Not all people can comprehend the quality and beauty of specific music. That said there is a such thing as a normie surface level listener claiming the latest Taylor swift song made them cry and at that point it's more than likely a problem in themself that negates their take. Not to say they are always going to be wrong that swift might have done something sincere and objectively good at some point but mob mentality and fan hysteria is going to blind peoples taste and souls
>>127608589Yes? How is definitionally middle of the road, status-driven, mass produced, lowest common denominator music, on the same planet as anything else?
>>127608602>Not all people can comprehend the quality and beauty of specific musicbut if thats true, that statement explicitly makes the value of music subjective to those people who appreciate it. if its good for one person but not for other, for whatever reason, thats what subjective value means.
>>127608545i didn’t read the thread and made the exact same point as the anon two posts above me with almost the exact same verbage. kinda spooky
>>127608634>definitionally middle of the road, status-driven, mass produced, lowest common denominator musicwhat, in your opinion, is non "mass produced" music?
>>127606589it is to a certain point, I dont listen to country music but I can tell when the guitar has a unique textured sound that stands out and still fits the genre, or when the vocalist has a certain tune that matches that track and I can see the intention and it pleasantly works, or something with techno tracks, you can hear the repetition in a bad way, some may hate how repetatitve but if youre a good artist you can make that repetition be like "you know im not a fan of techno its too repetatitve but for whatever reason it sounds kinda nice like I dont want to jam my ears with bee wax"
Objectivity exists in music to some degree, as in the purity, craft, historic and intellectual depth of the art. This can affect how it sounds and how it's interpreted, but isn't what determines a good track. The listener's enjoyment of the track will be subjective and reviewers can only attempt to discuss the 1st part without making things subjective. Any sort of modern rating for music is the 2nd part, i.e. rating the quality and enjoyment of it, and purely subjective. The best reviewers will tap into both while knowing they're both a biased listener and a blank slate for the art to be interpreted.
>>127606589>What's the point of music criticismIt's some faggot's writing exercise for an audience of even bigger faggots in need of validation. That's it, that's all.Also music is very objective if what you're looking at is the level of craft and artistry and not what basically boils down "this is relatable = it must be objectively good" followed by many explanations of why that is true. But there's still some value in that for me. If someone only likes things that are like them, i.e. if their life had a soundtrack it would be that, then I know they're massive, luminous faggots.
>>127606589https://youtu.be/RvosqOXM0LoWildly unpopular opinion (especially amongst pretentious faggots...)Popular Music is almost always better than "Unpopular Music"
>>127608833>Objectivity exists in music to some degreeThat's why for example nobody thinks RHCP were listenable music.
>>127608925RHCP has 41 million monthly listeners on Spotify
>>127608925you made a stupid point since you didn't read the entire post.objectively there is a talent and earnestness behind their art which you can't deny, along with alot of popular musicians that hipsters and pseuds are too good for. they dislike it but the music still objectively tries, and subjectively succeeds for many.RHCP is a bad example because they're a legacy band that actually believed in what they were for decades. there is at least some objective credibility to a band of talented players (minus the singer) going for that long. pick any pop artist in the last 3 years and it's a better example to your point. objectively, it's dogshit and manufactured, disingenuous pop like sabrina carpenter. subjectively people still lick it up
>>127609037wasn't pop never not that way?
>>127609078In the 1930s what was popular was Duke Ellington type stuff where the musicianship was definitely light years ahead of today's. Then after the war it was the original RnB that led to everything to do with rock and the other RnB from the '70s/soul/disco/whatever that in turn evolved into almost all dance music and rap.'30s and '70s "popular" music is pretty damn good in my opinion. So no it wasn't always like now, but it's not the first time that it's shit.
>>127606589Music critics exist purely because people follow their personalities or share taste, so they can get recommendations or find new music from them
>>127607962You can look at coherence (how well ideas are developed), craft (form, harmony, counterpoint, orchestration), originality and historical significance, emotional range, expressive depth, etc. The reason I said "relatively objective" is because these aren't "objective" like physics equations, but intersubjective, i.e. shared frameworks that let us compare works beyond personal taste. People often misuse "objective" as if it means only "quantifiable", and "subjective" as "pure opinion". But objectivity can mean intersubjective validity (reasons and criteria that can be debated even if not reducible to numbers), while subjectivity doesn't mean random, but is rooted in perception, which itself can be trained and refined. Even the natural sciences aren't perfectly "objective" in the cartoon sense (Hume's induction problem); their authority rests on consensus and repeatability, not metaphysical certainty. By the same logic, music criticism isn't objective like physics, nor subjective like ice cream preference, but that middle ground of reasoned, intersubjective judgment. Kant called it "subjective universality": judgments of taste claim validity even though they aren't strict truths. An aesthetic judgment is rooted in individual feeling (subjective), but it makes a claim to universal validity; we expect others to agree, even if it can't be proven like a math theorem. For example, two people may both recognize Bach and Chopin as great composers, while preferring one over the other. That's different taste resting on sound judgment. But to claim that either is "shit" or a bad composer would be poor judgment, since they fail to register the widely recognized criteria that ground their greatness. And no, this isn't some kind of appeal to authority or appeal to popularity fallacy, because independent observers across different times, places, and traditions have found the same qualities in this music, which suggests the criteria are robust and not arbitrary.
>>127609078Nope, back then popular music used to have way more integrity despite its mass appeal -in the 50s, chuck berry, elvis, dean martin, sam cooke -in the 60s, ronettes, motown records, the previously mentioned 50s artists, the beatles were redefining the musicianship and artistic integrity of a pop song -70s had bowie, hall & oates, michael jackson, billy joel, elton john(this is just the artists I would consider more "pop" than the other rock/prog acts that were huge in the 70s)-80s had wham, the cure, tears for fears, men at work, duran duran, sade, to name a fewall under the umbrella of "pop" that redefined the genre into something more artistic and not commercially manufacturedup until this point, pumping money into genuinely talented and artistic individuals was seen as the best outcomethen the 90s onward is when we saw the backstreet boys and britney spears and the downward spiral of pop as art. not sure what happened to the songwriting at this point, because the beatles had the same effect as the backstreet boys on young women, but one lacked all authenticity imo
>>127608348People arent born with the ability to recognize objectivity in art, it is a learned skill. The average person isn't properly educated to make that evaluation and that is why critics and people who specialize in the field are necessary to sort it all out.
>>127607222>Cuckgau is fun reading because it's like the most concentrated form of leftwing seethe and cuckoldry expressed in musical reviews written like puzzles. It's hillariousno, it's tedious and he's a shit writer
>>127606609>Of course, that means that the likes of jazz are impervious to criticism.he thinks jazz is theoryless. it's giving romanticism incel, lil bro.
>>127606670This
>>127607134>Music is objective>Take that meme John Cage piece>You're telling me 4’33” is music?>Come on
