Subjectivity vs Objectivity

[nastrond]

Dedrater pretty much had it nailed from the beginning.  The quality of music is relative to its intended function/the type of measurement being used; these functions can in turn be represented in a hierarchy like a pyramid, but the ordering will depend on generalization since each category contains outliers (with the qualitative distinctions becoming more absolute as you move towards the extremities of the hierarchy); that is to say: classical music is better than pop music, but regardless a few bands have managed to create substantial, compelling art within the confines of the commercial vomit sphere.  Inversely, metal is generally better than Kidz Bop, but many bands flying the metal flag have stooped to about that level.  On the other hand, going case-by-case and grading all the bands in a given set by the highest possible criteria will yield definite objective results; I might not be the best authority on this, but I would nominate mastery of reality (and surreality) and creativity of sublimation of mortality as the sturdiest denominators. Of course other comparatively minor attributes such as finesse and perhaps personality may tip the scale in either direction, and the lack of one quality may be displaced by the abundance of another which is why the total abstracted equilibrated gestalt of the music is what counts.  Accordingly, the objective grading of music requires subjective interpretation by an intelligent observer who can track the distortions of his own biase and surgically remove them from his analysis, leaving only experiential understanding from which conclusive data can be derived.     

[Chains]

There is no way to scientifically measure how "good" music is.

There are no equations in formal logic to prove that a certain song or band has 'X' degree of music quality.

"Quality' and 'goodness' of music are not rigorously or scientifically defined.

Music is not measured like temperature is.

And where is your argument backing all these claims up?

If the scientific community has a formal method (meaning with empirical evidence or mathematical proofs) of measuring the "quality" and "goodness" of music then I am wrong.

The scientific community does not have a formal  method of measuring the "quality" or "goodness" of music.

Therefore I am not wrong.

"If A, then B.
Not A, therefore, not B."

Whenever I listen to music, I breathe
I am not listening to music, therefore, I am suffocating.
 
And no one called you out on this in a discussion on objectivity? Man.

[nous]

I don't even understand why music should become beautiful or ugly (only) when we measure it...that is already a thorougly subjectivist position.

Actually, thoroughly stupid fits better.

[nous]

"If A, then B.
Not A, therefore, not B."

Whenever I listen to music, I breathe
I am not listening to music, therefore, I am suffocating.
 
And no one called you out on this in a discussion on objectivity? Man.

He didn't say it explicitly, but...

(1) None but the scientific community could measure [and thereby "create"] the quality of music.
(2) It cannot.
(3) None can.

[Cargést]

Pity that point 1 is flawed.

[nastrond]

I don't even understand why music should become beautiful or ugly (only) when we measure it...that is already a thorougly subjectivist position.

Actually, thoroughly stupid fits better.

Beauty is ingrained in beautiful music, but just as it takes an intelligent conscious being to purposely produce beautiful art, it takes a conscious being to perceive that beauty because it is an abstract quality.

[Chains]

I don't even understand why music should become beautiful or ugly (only) when we measure it...that is already a thorougly subjectivist position.

Actually, thoroughly stupid fits better.

Beauty is ingrained in beautiful music, but just as it takes an intelligent conscious being to purposely produce beautiful art, it takes a conscious being to perceive that beauty because it is an abstract quality.

Is a tree in the forest still beautiful if there's no one there to see it?

[Cargést]

Yes, but only because we know what trees are.

[Reginald Gillette]

I've been reading this whole thread for, like, a half hour, and I've lost the plot, though this spoke to me:

The objective truth of the matter is that both objectivity and subjectivity exist, and are complimentary, rather than negatory.  There is no "vs.".

...and though I INTUIT that Bach is 'better' Britney, I'm not sure how to 'prove' it, beyond recourse to complexity.  Even more interesting to me is, could we prove that Slayer "Angel of Death" is better than say "World Painted Blood" [whoops, I haven't ever heard the latter]? 

Someone pointed out that music has functions, different tracks serve different functions, and we judge the track by it's effectiveness towards that function.  Like, as I type this, I'm listening to Comsat Angels (some '80s proto-INDIEROCK), because it's destracting to have Immolation blasting while I try to formulate sentences.  The latter is better when I'm able to focus completely on the melodies, intricacies, and textures.

3.  If you look around these forums long enough, you'll realise that we do have formal methods for judging the objective quality of music, people just tend to ignore them.

Could you direct us to these formal methods? I looked around and haven't found them yet.