Does subjectivity really have a place in a serious argument concerning music?

Beyond that, it's just aesthetic preference (eg. I like the use of the color red in this painting, A Tibe Called Quest makes me shake my ass, "La Mer" effectively conveys the essence of the sea, which I intuitively like).

Radical subjectivism might be a cop-out, but with art you can never quite tell where to draw the line, and so you end up with accepting subjectivity. We can speak about what band does X best, but whether or not X is good or not or what qualifies as doing X well is not something we can assert without controversy. In the end of the day whether or not you like something will stem from enjoyment and not some arbitrary "objective" standard.

Everyone has standards and that's fine, but who wants a rigid system? Hitler made himself the arbiter of taste in post-Weimar Germany and look what a shithole he turned the art world into. I'd love to have a cosmic yardstick to hold music up to, but I'm not willing to go insane trying to create some objective universal system. I can only make a value judgement. Do I like this this aesthetic and does it effectively promote a viewpoint that I approve of.

i suppose it accepts the same judgemental criteria insomuch as it can tend to reify the ego (as can empirical objectivity -- subjectivism declares its permanance, and objectivism accepting that says that it can be so defined as to subtract it entirely from the equation)

[haha i've been reading philosophy again. also writing a statement of intent for grad school. poor ilx.]

Subjectivity, implying a subject, and objectivity, implying an object, leads me to think that these are necessary parts of any perception. That is to say, the subject, the cogniser stands in a particular relation to some state of affairs, the object, the cognised.

When it comes to arguing for fun and pleasure, and to share another person's perspective, rather than arguing for the sake of insisting on one's own perspective, I find much of my pleasure comes from trying to understand another's subjective relation to the object, and in having them grasp and understand mine. If all individuals participating in an argument have this basic goodwill, it can be a rewarding and, well, mind-expanding experience to argue.

If we argue without necessarily being committed to the view we are proposing, we do run the risk of seeming like radical relativists, because we derive some pleasure from switching sides, trying new perspectives, and so on, just as an actor might derive insight and pleasure from playing different roles. However, of course, we're not radical relativists if we do this, but rather empiricists. We try this angle, then that angle, and see where it takes us, see what view or perspective we derive - or what tool it gives us which we can then use. Some views are naturally going to be more illuminating than others - depending on what we are trying to see. We may come to form a view that some perspectives take in a more realistic view of the world than others. But this, too, is open to test. We don't have to settle on a dogma. We need the right perspective for the job at hand. This is no real news to anyone who's tried to fix a fence or measure something. A ruler's no good for measuring the earth, and a sattelite map is no good for measuring a table.

I find these forums valuable insofar as they grant me access to multiple minds - very sharp minds. I can ask a question and receive a variety of answers. None of them are necessarily privileged - but some see to be more privileged in some areas than others. The site is teeming with experts and specialists. Somewhat confusingly, we don't know who's an expert in what field except insofar as we can discern it from their posts.

I am at liberty to try out the musical views of the people here insofar as I have the time, and inclination - and of course, it helps if I can grasp what they're trying to tell me. There have been many perspectives on certain recurring topics in ILM. I am free to take them all seriously, one after the other and see what it does to my own music, where it leads my creativity. These disparate views are like gifts.

An example: I recently asked if people could recommend some music of a particular style to me on another thread. I got a lot of different answers. A lot of music was suggested to me. What can I do with all this information? I can follow the suggestions of individuals on that thread, and in so doing, I am, to some extent, experiencing their minds, communing with their consciousness. To a degree, when I listen to the music they recommend,I am being them; I am also participating in their culture, upbringing, and aspirations. There is maybe not so much of a difference between being a curious musical explorer and being an actor. It is mental travel. I can't afford a plane ticket, but this is a pretty good alternative.

I think, but I am not sure, that absolutism is really the enemy of enquiry. Radical subjectivism may be one form of absolutism.

In academia, and, of course, on sites like these, it's when tempers flare that there seems to be little point in further pursuing the thread. When my own temper flares, I sense I'm digging in, preserving my world view, from perceived (or even real) attack. I think it would be better for me to learn some kind of martial arts approach to arguing. When someone attacks, perhaps I can better preserve myself, and them, by giving way, rolling or falling safely. Gracefully giving way is something worth learning, a really civilised art.

Radical subjectivism and radical objectivism might be connected with denial of the relational nature of cognition, the ackowledgement that we as organisms are interactions, permeated by, and permeating, a common space.

You can't approach anything without subjectivity. Even stating proven *facts* about anything - length of song, name etc - needs a degree of subjectivity, which means subjectivity is the only option as *objectivity* really only means reference to a commonly accepted subjective viewpoint: from Wittgenstein to Einstein to Derrida to Baudrillard.

And even forgetting this philosophical cant, what could you really say about music using even a spurious objectivity? You would need to be able to demonstrate beyond doubt that song x is better than song y. Where this comes from etc is beyond me?

And whatsmore, even forgettign all of the above, surely subjectivity has its place in anyones analysis of music, because even if it is a useless as you say it is it is still a part of how we listen/enjoy. A discussion of music without subjectivity is like a discussion of music without volume.

I have mostly found that passionate, subjective reviews are the worst thing ever.

In the case of overly self-referential reviews, the subject-object relation is still fully present, but the objects are not relevant and are biographical.

For example, in a review that starts, "X's new record calls to mind a summer many years ago when I first tasted cranberry juice..." and continues in that vein, the subject (the reviewer) and the object (cranberry juice) are still prsent, so the codependence of subject and object never disappears; what makes the approach so annoying (if it continues in this autobiographical vein) is that the object is not relevant to the job at hand - namely, reviewing, describing and assessing X's new record.

This kind of approach is entirely 'subjective' in the narcissistic sense, rather than in the logical sense. In the logical sense, the subject-object link cannot be defeated as it's fundamental to all acts of perception including hearing. This is why espistemic subjectivity or objectivity, where we say 'all acts of hearing are subjective' or 'all acts of hearing are objective' is untenable.

I suppose it's worthwhile to distinguish the two different meanings. Most people say they dislike subjective criticism, meaning they dislike narcisstically autobiographical criticism. In such cases the critic brings a great deal of personal baggage to the reviewing desk, making the review less useful to readers who generally want information about the recording rather than the reviewer. Personal history cannot be totally expunged from a review, but it's a matter of striking a balance between free association on a personal, reactive level and simple direct perception and description. The latter is possible to a degree - to a degree at least, one can become aware of the object without personal baggage and then attempt to find words to describe it. That's a real challenge - describing music without too many biographical impositions and limitations is a real challenge.

what a wind up!!

it's one thing to say subjectivity is an easy out (everyone's opinion is equally valid), but wouldn't a truly radical subjectivism actually constitute a path to the objective?

the problem with a completely objective approach to philosophy or criticism is that it limits the vocabulary ie. how interesting is a discussion of music and musical contexts when reduced to logic? objectivism is abstract...it's not enough to say that something is beautiful, we need to know why it is so.

how about dick jokes?

is it serious like something vital is at stake or serious like yahoo serious? serious like a fluffy cloud?

and does the term "argument" presuppose the answer to the question?

also is it about music because it is "around" music or because it is about a particular piece of music or because it is about the term "music" or anything which can be classified under the term "music"?

what is music?

(or is that where we need the serious objective argument to determine?)

im not sure you can have objectivity vs subjectivity, because i am not sure that objectivity exists

Taking Sides: Objective vs. Subjective

(i was a bit insufferable back then. hell, i'm probably a bit insufferable now though too.)

Objectivity make for dull discussions, to whit:

"Bob Marley is I feel vastly underrated, culturally. I don't actually like that much of his stuff. I hate none of it. But he is very good".

Now how interesting was that?

q.v. Objectivity has no place in a serious argument regarding music. Or, this is not a serious argument and nor should it be.

But it gets complicated, and the subject is an influence. The observer infects the observed.

So what you want is a moderate subjectivism because it's not either/or it's both.

So maybe 80% of "objective" critics would give Bob Dylan (just an example - insert any name) high marks for lyrical greatness, in 20 years, objective critics might find his lyrics completely trite. Oh, and we'll have jetpacks.

"I know that our pal Raggett pops up every 5 minutes to tell people that what they are saying is actually a subjective response. Quite possibly he's right. Either way, I don't want to go down that road - we both know it is endless."

Or he could be implying that objective statements about music ought to be treated as selective and capricious, just as we treat obviously subjective ones. After all, you do choose what you say, and you can't say everything. If objective details theoretically cover every atom of circumstance around a piece of music then you're going to emphasize some things and leave out others, in order to achieve a certain effect, or win a certain argument.

not dredging this up to argue it, i know we're all decent upstanding radical subjectivists here, but a survey of nearly 1000 philsophers suggests we're in a minority:

Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?
Accept or lean toward: objective 382 / 931 (41%)
Accept or lean toward: subjective 321 / 931 (34.4%)
Other 228 / 931 (24.4%)

http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

Frank Kogan feat. Tom Ewing, "Subjectivity And Objectivity Must Die"

http://koganbot.livejournal.com/156836.html

Boy that digs up an old note of mine, doesn't it. (Took me a second to remember which JD I was referring to.)

agree w/ kogan in a general sense, esp wr2 the basic social practices that govern critical conversation (though i have some tangential history in this debate). but would not be so quick to throw out "subjective" and "objective". in discussing what they like, people often conflate the two, what they feel with what they know. and it's therefore useful to have simple words to pry the concepts back apart.