Does music have objectively measureable quality?

[Texas King]

Is perception of 'quality' music subjective or objective?

What do you think?

And what is a quality music for you? How would you define it? Does music have objectively measureable quality?

Edited February 18, 2018 by Texas King

[Permanent-Rush]

I don't understand what u mean.

[Lucas]

Music has accomplished something wonderful when it connects in any way, shape or form with a listener ..

 

By "objectively measurable", do you mean it achieves a certain standard by succeeding in a tangible way ??

 

X amount of time changes ??

 

X amount of notes per second ?

 

shrug

 

Truth be told, seeing a sea of people enjoying themselves as if it were a spiritual experience is what I would consider a successful measureable

[Principled Man]

Just as people's opinions of visual art are fully subjective, so are people's opinions of music.

 

The pictures and sounds that give pleasure to your eyes and ears are, to the guy across the street, nothing but ugliness....and vice-versa.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

It's pretty much subjective, but we are often similar enough and share enough of the same context that we can consider certain technically subjective values in music (around here some of those might be skill, or authenticity, or depth) as more or less objective qualifiers. If we all agree that a technically proficient guitarist is better to listen to than an amateur (and I am NOT saying that we all agree on that, because I know we don't), then we can have more interesting discussion about what else we like and dislike about him knowing we share some common ground. Otherwise, where we can't find enough common ground for interesting discussion, generally two things can happen: 1. we don't end up discussing it at all, which is sad, or 2. we argue endlessly around the point either unable to pinpoint where we disagree or for some ulterior motive (like for comedic effect when someone thinks that PeW is an 80s album....oops, :P ).

[Rick N. Backer]

No. It’s why Nirvana’s Bleach is better than any Queen album.

 

 

To me.

[Segue Myles]

No. It’s why Nirvana’s Bleach is better than any Queen album.

 

 

To me.

 

And me.

[Fordgalaxy]

No. It’s why Nirvana’s Bleach is better than any Queen album.

 

 

To me.

 

Wow.

[Rick N. Backer]

No. It’s why Nirvana’s Bleach is better than any Queen album.

 

 

To me.

 

Wow.

 

Yup. By miles, in fact.

[Fordgalaxy]

No. It’s why Nirvana’s Bleach is better than any Queen album.

 

 

To me.

 

Wow.

 

Yup. By miles, in fact.

 

And that's why, when I read someone say in a definitive statement that this band is better than that band, or Caress of Steel is better than Hold Your Fire, or any other comparison like that, I just shake my head.It's all very subjective and somewhat personal.

[Principled Man]

It's all very subjective and somewhat personal.

 

Absolutely. I've thrown a few CD's straight into the trash after one listen, cause my ears told me that they were pure noise.

 

"How on Earth can anyone listen to that shit?" I asked myself ....

[Entre_Perpetuo]

No. It’s why Nirvana’s Bleach is better than any Queen album.

 

 

To me.

 

Dang, can't figure out why you went with that comparison but I definitely do not agree. Can't think of one Queen album I'd trade for anything by Nirvana.

[blueschica]

Kind of, so I voted yes. Only because I'm thinking of technical proficiency as measured by missed notes or mistakes in playing the music. (Or lack of those things.) When someone covers "All Along the Watchtower", for example, I want to hear "Watchtower" and not some version with a bunch of mistakes. They didn't do that song, but I'm thinking of an Aerosmith concert I saw in the 70's when I was a wee one. Steven Tyler and Joe Perry's efforts were much less than stellar- a waste of everyone's time and money.

 

Or are we just talking about recordings?

Edited February 19, 2018 by blueschica

[Rick N. Backer]

No. It’s why Nirvana’s Bleach is better than any Queen album.

 

 

To me.

 

Dang, can't figure out why you went with that comparison but I definitely do not agree. Can't think of one Queen album I'd trade for anything by Nirvana.

 

Because Queen fans often talk about how Mercury "objectively" had the best voice in rock, and how proficient May, Taylor and Deacon were. And yet an album that is nearly a demo blows everything they've ever recorded away.

 

To me.

[Rick N. Backer]

No. It’s why Nirvana’s Bleach is better than any Queen album.

 

 

To me.

 

Wow.

 

Yup. By miles, in fact.

 

And that's why, when I read someone say in a definitive statement that this band is better than that band, or Caress of Steel is better than Hold Your Fire, or any other comparison like that, I just shake my head.It's all very subjective and somewhat personal.

 

Yes, but there's a difference between passionately saying PeW is better than HYF, which I believe it is to my core, and saying PeW is "objectively" better than HYF.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

No. It’s why Nirvana’s Bleach is better than any Queen album.

 

 

To me.

 

Dang, can't figure out why you went with that comparison but I definitely do not agree. Can't think of one Queen album I'd trade for anything by Nirvana.

 

Because Queen fans often talk about how Mercury "objectively" had the best voice in rock, and how proficient May, Taylor and Deacon were. And yet an album that is nearly a demo blows everything they've ever recorded away.

 

To me.

 

Well, Mercury does have "objectively" the best voice in rock, and May, Taylor, and Deacon are all vastly underrated (Deacy especially) as songwriters and instrumentalists...

 

To me.

[Rick N. Backer]

No. It’s why Nirvana’s Bleach is better than any Queen album.

 

 

To me.

 

Dang, can't figure out why you went with that comparison but I definitely do not agree. Can't think of one Queen album I'd trade for anything by Nirvana.

 

Because Queen fans often talk about how Mercury "objectively" had the best voice in rock, and how proficient May, Taylor and Deacon were. And yet an album that is nearly a demo blows everything they've ever recorded away.

 

To me.

 

Well, Mercury does have "objectively" the best voice in rock, and May, Taylor, and Deacon are all vastly underrated (Deacy especially) as songwriters and instrumentalists...

 

To me.

 

Take out "objectively" and "underrated" and I'd have thrown you a like. :)

[Entre_Perpetuo]

No. It’s why Nirvana’s Bleach is better than any Queen album.

 

 

To me.

 

Dang, can't figure out why you went with that comparison but I definitely do not agree. Can't think of one Queen album I'd trade for anything by Nirvana.

 

Because Queen fans often talk about how Mercury "objectively" had the best voice in rock, and how proficient May, Taylor and Deacon were. And yet an album that is nearly a demo blows everything they've ever recorded away.

 

To me.

 

Well, Mercury does have "objectively" the best voice in rock, and May, Taylor, and Deacon are all vastly underrated (Deacy especially) as songwriters and instrumentalists...

 

To me.

 

Take out "objectively" and "underrated" and I'd have thrown you a like. :)

 

I like using the terms "objectively" and "underrated" as subjectively as possible. :P

[RUSHHEAD666]

No. It’s why Nirvana’s Bleach is better than any Queen album.

 

 

To me.

 

"daddy's little girl ain't a girl no more......"

 

 

You are such a "Negative Creep" Rick!

 

Signed,

 

"Fat Bottom Earls"

[JohnnyBlaze]

No. It’s why Nirvana’s Bleach is better than any Queen album.

 

 

To me.

 

Dang, can't figure out why you went with that comparison but I definitely do not agree. Can't think of one Queen album I'd trade for anything by Nirvana.

 

Because Queen fans often talk about how Mercury "objectively" had the best voice in rock, and how proficient May, Taylor and Deacon were. And yet an album that is nearly a demo blows everything they've ever recorded away.

 

To me.

 

Well, Mercury does have "objectively" the best voice in rock, and May, Taylor, and Deacon are all vastly underrated (Deacy especially) as songwriters and instrumentalists...

 

To me.

 

There’s nothing objective there even when you include “to me”. In fact, especially when you include “to me.”

 

I think instrument vs instrument and vocals vs vocals, Queen obliterates Nirvana but there’s nothing objective in this thought. And I like Nirvana

[Entre_Perpetuo]

No. It’s why Nirvana’s Bleach is better than any Queen album.

 

 

To me.

 

Dang, can't figure out why you went with that comparison but I definitely do not agree. Can't think of one Queen album I'd trade for anything by Nirvana.

 

Because Queen fans often talk about how Mercury "objectively" had the best voice in rock, and how proficient May, Taylor and Deacon were. And yet an album that is nearly a demo blows everything they've ever recorded away.

 

To me.

 

Well, Mercury does have "objectively" the best voice in rock, and May, Taylor, and Deacon are all vastly underrated (Deacy especially) as songwriters and instrumentalists...

 

To me.

 

There’s nothing objective there even when you include “to me”. In fact, especially when you include “to me.”

 

I think instrument vs instrument and vocals vs vocals, Queen obliterates Nirvana but there’s nothing objective in this thought. And I like Nirvana

 

From my frame of reference, this is the world where Freddie is the greatest singer of all time, no matter what anyone else thinks. I think subjectively that this is an objective fact, no matter what anyone else thinks of the matter. I don't mind if others disagree, but I do think they're wrong, though they are entitled to their own opinions and I wouldn't dare sway them from their own tastes.

 

That's my philosophy on the matter.

[Fordgalaxy]

It's all very subjective and somewhat personal.

 

Absolutely. I've thrown a few CD's straight into the trash after one listen, cause my ears told me that they were pure noise.

 

"How on Earth can anyone listen to that shit?" I asked myself ....

 

I didn't throw it away, but that's what I think about "Victor". I tried it 3 times and just don't get it. Since tastes change over time, I will probably listen to it again, but I don't expect much will change.

[Lucas]

Both Queen and Nirvana were very successful with what they accomplished .. And by that, I do not necessarily mean financially, I mean that when the band members sat down to write songs, when went into a studio with blank tapes or hard drives or whatever they used to capture their music -- to a good degree, they captured what they set out to do ..

 

And it meant a lot - and still means a lot - to millions of people ..

 

In looking at it like that, both bands could be looked at the same ..

 

Now, as far as what each band means to me - that is something only I can measure ..

[Bigbobby10]

Thats what I love about music, it is completely subjective, there is no way you can objectively say an album is better than another one.

 

you could go with the success of a band or the album, but that depends on the band and the type music they make. Like most prog rock bands wont be successful because of their type of music they make, but that doesn't determine if they are better than another band. Also depends on where they are from and what they have to work with for their success.

 

It is awesome to see 2 people listen to the same music and have completely different opinions on that song, and both be right (hopefully ;) )

[Segue Myles]

No. It’s why Nirvana’s Bleach is better than any Queen album.

 

 

To me.

 

Dang, can't figure out why you went with that comparison but I definitely do not agree. Can't think of one Queen album I'd trade for anything by Nirvana.

 

Because Queen fans often talk about how Mercury "objectively" had the best voice in rock, and how proficient May, Taylor and Deacon were. And yet an album that is nearly a demo blows everything they've ever recorded away.

 

To me.

 

Well, Mercury does have "objectively" the best voice in rock, and May, Taylor, and Deacon are all vastly underrated (Deacy especially) as songwriters and instrumentalists...

 

To me.

 

I disagree.

 

I also agree Bleach is better than any Queen album.

 

I don't think Queen are any better than the likes of Limp Bizkit or Spice Girls.