Poll: Relative or Subjective?
Poll Options
View poll results: Relative or Subjective?
Subjective
30 54%
Relative
11 20%
I don't know what these mean.
6 11%
I'm dumb and think it's objective.
9 16%
Voters: 56.
Page 1 of 2
#1
...or subjective?

Been having this argument with someone about whether music is relative or subjective, and I say that it is subjective, but he says no it's the same thing

So I want to know, what do you think, pit?


Poll coming up.

EDIT:

It seems that I have confused some people

Ok, if you were arguing and saying which band is better, pink floyd or the mars volta, not faster/stronger/higher...
Just simply 'better', would your perspective be relative, or subjective?

And please, for the love anything that's beautiful in the world, don't talk about whch of the bands is better.
Last edited by ali.guitarkid7 at Apr 13, 2011,
#6
music is music.
All the way from Palm Springs, just out of detox.
Show him a warm welcome, let's hear some applause
#8
It's relatively subjective and subjectively relative.
Quote by CodChick


Seriously, I'm not a fan of iphones and guitars mixing.
#9
How would it be relative? Relative to what?
I'm rgrockr and I do not approve of this message.
#10
Quote by StewieSwan
In what sense?


When debating/comparing one piece to another, would your points be subjective, or relative?
It's a pretty simple question
#11
Music is objective.

1. Goldeneye 007 has objectives.
2. Goldeneye 007 is awesome.
3. Awesome things must have objectives.
4. Music is awesome.
5. Therefore, music must have objectives, and thus is objective.

All kidding aside, music is objectively subjective.
Last edited by Samdroid at Apr 13, 2011,
#12
Quote by Samdroid
Music is objectively subjective.

Took the words right out of my mouth

By the way, anyone who is dumb enough to think it's objective, next time you're at a mall, ask the stupid looking kid with the sideways hat and pants around his knees how great your favourite band is.
Last edited by Necronomicon at Apr 13, 2011,
#13
Your position would be relative to your experiences and tastes I guess, which makes it subjective. Music can't really be relative. That doesn't make sense to me.
#14
Quote by ali.guitarkid7
When debating/comparing one piece to another, would your points be subjective, or relative?
It's a pretty simple question



It still depends on what aspect you are debating. It's a subjective thing to compare how 'pretty' a song is. It's a relative thing to compare how fast a song is.
Check out my band Disturbed
#15
Quote by FireHawk
I think music is a vector.

its actually an apstring.
Spread Hope Like Fire


Angels and Airwaves


Et Ducit Mundum Per Lucem
#16
The only thing I see this being relevant to is BTBAM.


....


Ohhhhh! Relative...not relevant....silly me.
#17
The way you worded the question is confusing, as other people have pointed out. Please be more specific.
#18
Any element of music: Rhythm, Pitch, Timber= Relative
Emotions: Anger, happiness, Longing= Subjective
#19
Quote by StewieSwan
It still depends on what aspect you are debating. It's a subjective thing to compare how 'pretty' a song is. It's a relative thing to compare how fast a song is.


How creative and 'pretty' a song is
#20
Quote by Necronomicon
By the way, anyone who is dumb enough to think it's objective, next time you're at a mall, ask the stupid looking kid with the sideways hat and pants around his knees how great your favourite band is.

That doesn't mean music isn't objective, it means that either the stupid looking kid with the sideways hat and pants around his knees or myself is incorrect about my favorite band.
#21
Quote by ali.guitarkid7
How creative and 'pretty' a song is



Don't be upset because you suck at wording the question.
Check out my band Disturbed
#23
Quote by RU Experienced?
That doesn't mean music isn't objective, it means that either the stupid looking kid with the sideways hat and pants around his knees or myself is incorrect about my favorite band.


Of course it means music isn't objective, because it won't be a known fact to people which band is best.

You ask ten people in a mall, what is the best band in the world, and there will definitely be different answers, one or two might be similar, but it won't be a statement of objective truth.

Subjective truth cannot be debated, therefore there isn't a best band in the world.
#25
Fuck seagulls, man.


OT: To consider something relative, wouldn't you have to compare it objectively? As soon as you do that, you run into a whole shitpile of problems
#26
Quote by ali.guitarkid7
Of course it means music isn't objective, because it won't be a known fact to people which band is best.

You ask ten people in a mall, what is the best band in the world, and there will definitely be different answers, one or two might be similar, but it won't be a statement of objective truth.

Subjective truth cannot be debated, therefore there isn't a best band in the world.

Consensus amongst a given population isn't necessary for an objective truth to exist.

I could ask people their religious beliefs and will get different answers about the existence of God and if he does exist what properties he has (eg. omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.). In this instance, God either exists in some form and has a specific set of properties assigned to him, or he does not exist. The people do not all agree on his existence or what properties are assigned to him, but objectively God either does or does not exist.
#28
I voted objective, and truly believe it is. A lot of music sucks, even if you like it. But there are objective qualities to music, and very few subjective.

EDIT: Pretty much the only subjective quality is whether or not you like it.
Last edited by due 07 at Apr 13, 2011,
#29
Quote by SkepsisMetal
Fuck seagulls, man.


OT: To consider something relative, wouldn't you have to compare it objectively? As soon as you do that, you run into a whole shitpile of problems


Yeh but you wouldn't get different results from comparing something objectively, for example "Barack Obama is president of the United States of America" is an objective truth, because it is a fact.

Relative truth is objective but also dependent on the perspective, think of two people sitting on opposite sides of a table, and there is a card with 'X' written on one side and 'Y' written on the other, now one person will say that the card reads 'X', while the other will say that it reads 'Y', they are both right, but looking at it from different perspectives.


Quote by RU Experienced?
Consensus amongst a given population isn't necessary for an objective truth to exist.

I could ask people their religious beliefs and will get different answers about the existence of God and if he does exist what properties he has (eg. omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.). In this instance, God either exists in some form and has a specific set of properties assigned to him, or he does not exist. The people do not all agree on his existence or what properties are assigned to him, but objectively God either does or does not exist.


Yes your right, consensus isn't necessary for an objective truth.
But stating that god does/doesn't exist is a relative truth.


Quote by due 07
I voted objective, and truly believe it is. A lot of music sucks, even if you like it. But there are objective qualities to music, and very few subjective.

EDIT: Pretty much the only subjective quality is whether or not you like it.


Music cannot suck, it can only be (and this is what I think you're talking about) more simple or more complex (not theoretically) eg. Dream Theater compared to The Jonas Brothers.
Although a lot of people will argue that Dream Theater is better, any Jonas Brothers fan will do the same.
But a debate about which is better would be useless, because in the end you are only giving your personal opinion, i.e. the subjective truth
#30
Quote by ali.guitarkid7


Music cannot suck, it can only be (and this is what I think you're talking about) more simple or more complex (not theoretically) eg. Dream Theater compared to The Jonas Brothers.
Although a lot of people will argue that Dream Theater is better, any Jonas Brothers fan will do the same.
But a debate about which is better would be useless, because in the end you are only giving your personal opinion, i.e. the subjective truth


That's what I mean. See, both of those bands suck, objectively. One more than the other. Either way, they still have their fair share of fans. You can like music that objectively is bad. How much you like a band doesn't make them any better. Some people might like a Toyota Celica more than say... a Porsche or something. Does that make the Toyota Celica better? No, it just means certain people like different things. Even though the porsche is objectively the better car.
#32
Quote by RU Experienced?
You keep using that word.





And there is no proof of God existing, but there is a lot of proof of him not existing. So I'd say it's safe to say it's an objective truth that he doesn't exist.
#33
Quote by due 07


And there is no proof of God existing, but there is a lot of proof of him not existing. So I'd say it's safe to say it's an objective truth that he doesn't exist.

The distribution of evidence is irrelevant to the point I was making.
#34
Quote by due 07
That's what I mean. See, both of those bands suck, objectively. One more than the other. Either way, they still have their fair share of fans. You can like music that objectively is bad. How much you like a band doesn't make them any better. Some people might like a Toyota Celica more than say... a Porsche or something. Does that make the Toyota Celica better? No, it just means certain people like different things. Even though the porsche is objectively the better car.


See that's what I mean, you don't like Dream Theater, so you call them bad because they are simply just different than your musical taste.

Also, when it comes to cars you really can't argue about which is better because it depends what your expectations of the cars are (what you want it for, day to day use, racing, moving equipment/furniture)

It would be relative if you were to debate whether the Toyota is more dependent/faster/economic, but you can't say that one is better because it depends on your taste in cars.
#35
Quote by ali.guitarkid7
See that's what I mean, you don't like Dream Theater, so you call them bad because they are simply just different than your musical taste.

Also, when it comes to cars you really can't argue about which is better because it depends what your expectations of the cars are (what you want it for, day to day use, racing, moving equipment/furniture)

It would be relative if you were to debate whether the Toyota is more dependent/faster/economic, but you can't say that one is better because it depends on your taste in cars.


Nope. I can admit if a band is good, even if I don't particularly like them. Music is totally objective. Give me one thing that isn't objective about music, besides whether or not someone likes a certain band.
#36
Quote by due 07


And there is no proof of God existing, but there is a lot of proof of him not existing. So I'd say it's safe to say it's an objective truth that he doesn't exist.



Yep to me it's an objective truth, but in a debate you'd have to agree it's relative.
#37
Quote by due 07
Nope. I can admit if a band is good, even if I don't particularly like them. Music is totally objective. Give me one thing that isn't objective about music, besides whether or not someone likes a certain band.


Ok then, tell me how is DT worse than your preferred bands?
Also, THAT'S THE POINT OF THIS THREAD!
It was an argument about how liking different bands is subjective, so tell me, why don't you like Dream Theater and what do you prefer to them?
Page 1 of 2