Music is subjective

thanks dr manhattan

Define progress using non arbitrary criteria

All art is completely subjective, but that’s why people discuss it. If there was a list of objectively bad and objectively good music there would be no reason to debate music because it would be like debating 1+1. The point of musical debate and exploration is to see different perspectives and the artistic possibilities of “air vibrations.”

fpbp though

Based on ur mum gay lol

No because morality is not a real feature of the world, therefore you question is nonsense an unintelligible outside of arbitrary criteria.

based on your mom gay

So would it be accurate to say "killing niggers is just as morally good as giving healthcare to the sick?"

Music is not random vibrations, faggot.
There’s a mathematical relationship between the frequencies that makes it sound harmonious to our ears

No because it presupposes that morality and "good" are real features of the world, there is "good" or "bad" things simply are

>There’s a mathematical relationship between the frequencies that makes it sound harmonious to our ears
This is highly dependent on cultural conditioning.

Yeah I’m sure mozarts compositions don’t sound good in india lmao

I don't understand why people want to turn art into this objective thing
Is it STEM autists?

Literally just spergs with black/white worldview.

>It's literally vibrations in the air
Art is literally pigments on material
Literature is literally just words on pieces of trees
Sculpture is just weird shaped rocks
Fuck off with this logic, seriously, it's the most 14 year old tumblr snowflake tier argument to come back at someone saying your music is bad.

>Art is literally pigments on material
>Literature is literally just words on pieces of trees
>Sculpture is just weird shaped rocks
correct.

Lol

>There’s a mathematical relationship between the frequencies that makes it sound harmonious to our ears
...but that's only consonance; that's far from the only element of good music, and anyway it doesn't really correspond closely to the 12 tone equal tempered scale that you're most accustomed to hearing

Unless you are accustomed to western musical practice, the music would sound out of tune and the very concept of harmony would be alien.

I'm an engineer and I think the suggestion that art can be objectively evaluated is completely retarded

What if I dislike harmony, why do I ought to like it ? You're just describing a feature of the vibrations and conflating it with quality, but that's arbitrary, I can simply assert that length is the criteria to judge quality and it be as much as arbitrary as yours.

And that's wrong for what reason? Art is indeed subjective user, your post just proves it.

there might not be 'bad' music, but there are DEFINITELY bad lyrics

Based on what non arbitrary criteria?

based and blackpilled
that's why many people cling to religions, because the only objective thing is god, and whatever god says is right. opinions of people dont matter

go back to your grave alan watts, there's a bottle of jack waiting for ya

you can just lie in your lyrics

there's no god though

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 58.31K)

>not listening to both rap and classical
Still falling for the genre meme huh?

Read Aristotle

So not lying is what makes a lyric good? That's arbitrary, I can also say that quality is measured by the number of words contained in a lyric and that will have as much basis on reality as your criteria.

what music genre will Kanye West's "Runaway" be considered in 100 years? Perhaps it will be called Enhanced Classical.

there's still no god

Literally just Hip Hop.
If Progressive Hip Hop ever happens then that song will be basically considered an early Prog. Hip Hop song.

>doesn't listen to classical rap
literally lmaoing at you right now

for me its opera rap youtube.com/watch?v=1VlZ8mDR53A

pic related
also
watch Life of Pi
then watch it again in like 7 years

Attached: 1564284892357.jpg (700x6826, 600.5K)

Maths

Food is subjective.
Eat poison pls

FEW THINGS ARE MORE PATHETIC, LAME, AND SELFEVIDENTLY ERRONEOUS, THAN A RELATIVIST’S SOLILOQUY.

>Food is subjective.
You say this ironically but there are cultures that thrive off bugs or fermented fish it really is.

Show me a single framework that can bring each thing into it's full potential. Objectivism is a highly limited viewpoint.

everyone eats fermented shit (look up how salami or worcestershire sauce is made), but it's really only the US and Canada that doesn't eat bugs

chapulines are great btw

These “vibrations in the air” hold more weight than you think my friend. How people find wether these “vibrations” are good or bad is how they’re organized and why they’re organized. The banging of rocks in caveman caves, the first instances of music being made, were direct products of this. People liked the sounds they were producing in a rhythm, other people added to those sounds with shit like sticks and their voice, and next thing you know it you have a band. That’s what music does, it brings people together with sounds that people like, if everyone liked it for just being “vibrations” then there wouldn’t be any reason to add new sounds when the “perfect vibration” is right there. But yeah, keep saying your rick and morty tier statement and act like you know how the world works fag.

Attached: FB3773FE-3F44-4AA9-85BB-5F30D88B7E5F.jpg (225x225, 6.37K)

Then demonstrate the errors and refute them

So you're saying that people have emotional responses to the vibrations? How does that refute anything that I said?

People can find reasons that the vibrations give them emotional responses. Thus, people will try to experiment and find more different sounds that give off the same emotional response and try to organize the vibrations in more complex manners to give off an even better emotional response in the end. Even if other people don't get the same emotional response, they could at least appreciate the complexities of the vibrations to see how they could organize THEIR vibrations through the contributions of others. That way they could get their own emotional response through their own vibrations by organizing the vibrations in smart and precise manners with the inspiration of another's efforts to gain a response themselves.

Even then they are just exploring their subjective reactions to the vibrations, it still doesn't demonstrate that categories such as good and bad are real features of the world, they don't exist in the things themselves, they are not measurable by objective non arbitrary criteria.

Damn I hate "intellectual" thoughts like this one. -life has no meaning bcuz it's just a bunch of chemicals happening at once and reacting so therefore being sad or happy is arbitrary.-
You're not smart nor you sound smart, you're just a fucking insufferable retard.

Attached: 9A9EE1C6-818D-4C93-B0CD-B22BB7183839.jpg (502x513, 47.69K)

Demonstrate the errors and refute them, you're just making assertions.

That's where the appreciation comes in. Niggas may not have the same emotional response, but they could at least see why someone could receive an emotional response. By clearly hearing shit as thought out and complex, you don't have to get an emotional response from the music itself but from the idea that it could give you an emotional response in another timeline. If the music is simple for the wrong reasons and not thought out and poorly made, then you couldn't see why someone would receive an emotional response and the only reason you'd see someone getting an emotional response is pure lack of knowledge of what makes good music good. Music is subjective based on knowledge on art and the understanding of complexities and personality. And if I look like a dumbass for posting this, at least we can agree on the fact that imagine dragons sucks ass.

that's the comedy