Is music subjective or objective? For those that think its subjective, are you saying that Vanilla Ice's Ice Ice baby is just as good as beethoven's 9th symphony?
If music is subjective, you can't say that anything is as good as anything, objectively.
IMO it's a mix of both. I don't think the Dark Side of the Moon and an EP consisting of songs made from the sound of rubbing two pickles together hold the same artistic value. But I don't think that if you're comparing something like the Dark Side of the Moon and Illmatic you can say one is objectively better than the other.
It's like literary criticism. You can give a viewpoint, but you have to be able to defend it. You can like Vanilla Ice, but you have to say WHY. So music taste is subjective, but not arbitrary
Op compared Ice Ice Baby and Beethoven's 9th Symphony. Are you literally autistic?
Oh, I guess you are.
>are you saying that Vanilla Ice's Ice Ice baby is just as good as beethoven's 9th symphony?
>just as good
"good" means nothing really.
What is is suppose to mean? That it fulfills the purpose of music more effectively?
What is the purpose of music? For people to enjoy it? Connect with it? Feel something? Be intrigued and inspired?
That is a different experience for every individual, and "Ice Ice Baby" can be more affective to people than the '9th'
You can't tell people that their feelings are wrong, because that's just your feeling.
>you have to be able to defend it.
Isn't saying whether or not a defense is good enough something thats determined subjectively anyway?
Let's say you're in a room with 50 other people and you explain why you think Ice Ice Baby is better than 9th symphony. And 25 of the 50 people end up agreeing and liking your argument, the other 25 disagree and think it's a shitty argument. Does that mean the argument was valid and/or defended well enough for it to be viable
Exactly, the word "good" itself is subjective because people have different ideas of what "good" is.
Which is why anyone that thinks you can objectively say Beethoven's 9th symphony has more artistic value than someone recording their own shit is wrong. It might have more artistic value to a society that has been taught to consider that kind of thing is artistically valuable (again all subjective) but it doesnt make it objectively "more valuable" or "better" than the guy taking a shit
The impact and popularity of music is objective, but how you feel about it is subjective. And doesn't things being subjective mean there's no real 'better' but just things you prefer or that make you feel better than others?