The most underestimated synths...

[jancivil]

This all harks back to a discussion with a long-time 'roommate' (chosen roommate that is, my pal in the first place), who didn't accept that anything is music, he required 'intent'. I didn't agree with that as a 24-year old and still don't. It's my intent if I chose to experience anything as music. I don't have to record it and present it as such, in the moment it's music, I hear it as such so it is.

But back to birds. I sat for, a couple of hours I bet, to dig this one mockingbird at University of Arizona in the, what it is, Commons there. Who was 'mocking' the vocabulary of all the other birdsong there and recombining it. That is an act of musical composition. It seems self-evident what this mockingbird was up to. {Do what you know and (instead of some mindless automatism*) have fun with it, this thing in itself.}
If I'm wrong about it, it hardly matters.

I've since read up on the how (and why) of birdsong a little bit. The birdbrain is of course very small. But extremely efficient, *hard-wired to bird function. Why is one arguably chief function seem musical? More significant musicians than I have sought to quantify it.
It's a mystery, "it's God", so don't worry about it.

[BlackWinny]

Beeper by Voxengo is a VERY, VERY, VERY underestimated synth!

[Michael L]

A recent quantitative analysis of thousands of butcherbird songs found all characteristics of music (eg variations on a theme) in that birdsong. Birds have measurable aesthetic ability. Of course, many composers wrote pieces based on birdsong motifs.

[cron]

This all harks back to a discussion with a long-time 'roommate' (chosen roommate that is, my pal in the first place), who didn't accept that anything is music, he required 'intent'. I didn't agree with that as a 24-year old and still don't. It's my intent if I chose to experience anything as music. I don't have to record it and present it as such, in the moment it's music, I hear it as such so it is.

An excellent point. The flipside of this is the cliche stock phrase "that's not music, that's just noise". Music is arguably as much in the ear of the beholder as the creator.

[jancivil]

You straight-up cannot have "objectively bad" anything because "bad" is itself a strictly subjective term. This isn't complicated stuff. Let's pretend for a moment that it isn't and argue from here on in using exclusively objective terms and language, or failing that, simply show me the data. Good luck.

All I'm really getting from this thread is the sense that most people don't know what the terms subjective and objective actually mean. Even if every single creature, in every infinite multiverse, thought something was bad, it still wouldn't sum up to an objective fact. If something requires a subject to appraise it, you're not in objective territory.

Subjective is not an antonym of universal.

No, there is such a thing as poorly-made, in music, in any art, as in anything tangible which is made. Here's the fundamental fallacy of that rhetoric: The Walmart's (sorry, it was Walgreens in objective fact) umbrella fell apart, first use of it. It's objectively not a good umbrella. It took a 'subject' to know that by trying to use it. It did not work as an umbrella is expected to work. Is that too subjective for 'it's a shite umbrella' to be true? This is true of many things.

Materials and craftmanship.
Now, for your 'argument' to hold, music as a craft is outside the boundaries of human language. 'Using exclusively objective terms' is impossible? Because music. No, if one sets out to write a Symphony, and signaled so there will be no confusion that this "Symphony" is a "classical" work, and there is no classical symphonic form at work, there is no Sonata-Allegro, or Rondeau, it's flatter than a normal (A B A) pop song in this regard, it's a poorly-formed Symphony. By definition. Now, if the themes are banal, despite that being a subjective term, it's going to be hard to create a *good* Symphonic work from it. To any knowledgable 'subject', it can't be good because the reasonable expectation is not met. It doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Besides that, in general terms you have decided to promote the idea that bad music is strictly impossible. Then, good music is conceptually impossible. Your logic! So any lunatic or idiot banging on a toy which produces maybe two tones can be said to be equal to the very finest work? And you think this works?

Your second paragraph states the argument from popularity as no necessary proof of 'it's bad'. So it strikes me that this definition of 'objective' is special (as though narrowed in order to suit your premise). Also suspect is the word 'fact' here, as if 'your idea of music is never actual fact' obviates speaking of the objective in music.
I would say that if something is taken as not good by every single entity in every possible universe chances are extremely high it is not good.



Before you respond, I will reiterate that I said 'chances are high' rather than 'absolutely must be true'.

[jancivil]

A recent quantitative analysis of thousands of butcherbird songs found all characteristics of music (eg variations on a theme) in that birdsong.

One thing I found, researching this, was that the skill of a bird in executing its song (what may appear to be its programming) depended on good tutelage or not. So it's like craftsmanship! IE: people that have scrupulously studied this found that there were birds that were better at it than others.

[Michael L]

Yes. Some birds just repeat their songs while others learn motifs, copy, vary, etc. And female birds recognise and value the greater craftsmanship of some males as a sign of mate quality.

[wagtunes]

Two final points and then I'm done defending my position on this inane topic.

Going back to your umbrella example.

What is the purpose of the umbrella? Because in order for anything to be deemed good or bad, you need to know what the purpose of that thing is in order to tell if it succeeded or failed in its purpose.

In the case of the umbrella, the purpose is to keep an individual from getting wet from the rain. If the umbrella immediately falls apart, it has failed in its purpose and is a bad umbrella.

Okay, now let's take music.

What is the purpose of music?

You claim that if a person sets out to write a symphony and that symphony is in poor form that it has not fulfilled its purpose as a symphony.

But what if somebody writes a piece of music and doesn't say what it is or isn't? It's just music. Now you have nothing specific to compare it to in order to determine its purpose. So in this case, I have proven that music doesn't always have to have a purpose and thus, according to mathematical law, if I've proven it false just once then that is sufficient to prove that it is not always true and thus is not a universal truth.

In addition to that (and I had to do a crap ton of research to find this) 20th century philosophers have begrudgingly agreed that there is no such thing as objectively good and bad music.

So your opinion that there is doesn't mean squat to me.

But by all means you can go on believing anything you like.

It doesn't make it true.

[martinjuenke]

Form by Native Instruments is a true innovation, not that boring 15th virtual analog thing...

[jancivil]

Yes. Some birds just repeat their songs while others learn motifs, copy, vary, etc. And female birds recognise and value the greater craftsmanship of some males as a sign of mate quality.

It's funny because it's true!

Yeah, so science has demonstrated that some birds have more chops, and that the girl birds tend to have the musical discernment to know it.

But hey, all consideration of musical quality is absolutely per se subjective. There is no craft to it! Or that just doesn't matter.

So why not take this to another artform: Jersey Shore is as good as television can be because quality cannot be judged on any basis. An image is never better than any other image regardless of its compositional sense. Because there is no such thing as compositional sense, because everything is subjective. Nothing is ever constructed or composed. That smacks of nihilism, the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. (There can be no criteria because you have no tools to use it, is what happened there, methinks.)

[martinjuenke]

Yes. Some birds just repeat their songs while others learn motifs, copy, vary, etc. And female birds recognise and value the greater craftsmanship of some males as a sign of mate quality.

It's funny because it's true!

Yeah, so science has demonstrated that some birds have more chops, and that the girl birds tend to have the musical discernment to know it.

But hey, all consideration of musical quality is absolutely per se subjective. There is no craft to it! Or that just doesn't matter.

So why not take this to another artform: Jersey Shore is as good as television can be because quality cannot be judged on any basis. An image is never better than any other image regardless of its compositional sense. Because there is no such thing as compositional sense, because everything is subjective. Nothing is ever constructed or composed. That smacks of nihilism, the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. (There can be no criteria because you have no tools to use it, is what happened there, methinks.)

Oh my god! The philosopher is in...

[cron]

You straight-up cannot have "objectively bad" anything because "bad" is itself a strictly subjective term. This isn't complicated stuff. Let's pretend for a moment that it isn't and argue from here on in using exclusively objective terms and language, or failing that, simply show me the data. Good luck.

All I'm really getting from this thread is the sense that most people don't know what the terms subjective and objective actually mean. Even if every single creature, in every infinite multiverse, thought something was bad, it still wouldn't sum up to an objective fact. If something requires a subject to appraise it, you're not in objective territory.

Subjective is not an antonym of universal.

No, there is such a thing as poorly-made, in music, in any art, as in anything tangible which is made. Here's the fundamental fallacy of that rhetoric: The Walmart's (sorry, it was Walgreens in objective fact) umbrella fell apart, first use of it. It's objectively not a good umbrella. It took a 'subject' to know that by trying to use it. It did not work as an umbrella is expected to work. Is that too subjective for 'it's a shite umbrella' to be true? This is true of many things.

Materials and craftmanship.
Now, for your 'argument' to hold, music as a craft is outside the boundaries of human language. 'Using exclusively objective terms' is impossible? Because music. No, if one sets out to write a Symphony, and signaled so there will be no confusion that this "Symphony" is a "classical" work, and there is no classical symphonic form at work, there is no Sonata-Allegro, or Rondeau, it's flatter than a normal (A B A) pop song in this regard, it's a poorly-formed Symphony. By definition. Now, if the themes are banal, despite that being a subjective term, it's going to be hard to create a *good* Symphonic work from it. To any knowledgable 'subject', it can't be good because the reasonable expectation is not met. It doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Besides that, in general terms you have decided to promote the idea that bad music is strictly impossible. Then, good music is conceptually impossible. Your logic! So any lunatic or idiot banging on a toy which produces maybe two tones can be said to be equal to the very finest work? And you think this works?

Your second paragraph states the argument from popularity as no necessary proof of 'it's bad'. So it strikes me that this definition of 'objective' is special (as though narrowed in order to suit your premise). Also suspect is the word 'fact' here, as if 'your idea of music is never actual fact' obviates speaking of the objective in music.
I would say that if something is taken as not good by every single entity in every possible universe chances are extremely high it is not good.



Before you respond, I will reiterate that I said 'chances are high' rather than 'absolutely must be true'.

I should have said that my comments related only to aesthetic quality rather than expected function, and you're right to call out the overconfident generalisation. I've also perhaps misread the conversation as I believed we were talking about objective/subjective as in exists without/within the mind.

I was responding to the post directly above mine, which claimed the Crazy Bus theme to be "objectively bad". Ironically, the Crazy Bus theme is a literally perfect piece of music from the objective viewpoint because it flawlessly served its function as a quick and dirty test of the author's sound driver. It is subjectively bad because the listener has no way of knowing this, and listens to it believing that it represents something grander than it was ever supposed to be.

I agree entirely that when we have a predefined framework against which to measure something (e.g. the conventions of symphonic form, the expected function of an umbrella) then the subject is taken away because we have an objective, inflexible framework to compare against. I was thinking less about whether the umbrella broke after one use, and more about whether or not I like the pattern on it.

As for how my original message was lost?

Last edited by cron on Sat Apr 22, 2017 10:38 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Important lesson for my future self there!

Besides that, in general terms you have decided to promote the idea that bad music is strictly impossible. Then, good music is conceptually impossible. Your logic! So any lunatic or idiot banging on a toy which produces maybe two tones can be said to be equal to the very finest work? And you think this works?

I absolutely stand by this however. "Can be said to be..." well who's saying it? Somebody has to! The works don't exist within a vacuum. Good and bad music can only be good or bad if there's someone there to hear it. *Objectively good" music is equally impossible unless the people appraising it are able to escape their personhood. The terms subjective and objective simply do not belong in criticism of aesthetics. "Objectively functional" is about the best we can confidently achieve before we start injecting ourselves into the work.

And all this is fine. I'm still perfectly apt to believe that an obscure work by a major composer will trump the latest boy-band mega hit in terms of aesthetic quality. I don't need a truly objective perspective to convince me that'll almost certainly be the case. Someone might have a different opinion. They might think their last fart equalled The Ring Cycle. It's a perfectly valid opinion, it's just a deeply stupid one.

[Armagibbon]

Beeper by Voxengo is a VERY, VERY, VERY underestimated synth!

That's not a synth, it's a tone generator.
VERY big and important difference!

Just ask noiseboyuk over here!
That or find your nearest self-appointed lord or lady of semantics and trivia and ask them to clear it up for ya.

[BlackWinny]

That's not a synth, it's a tone generator.
VERY big and important difference!

Just ask noiseboyuk over here!
That or find your nearest self-appointed lord or lady of semantics and trivia and ask them to clear it up for ya.

Don't worry... As usual (or at least as very often) I was simply kidding.

[Armagibbon]

That's not a synth, it's a tone generator.
VERY big and important difference!

Just ask noiseboyuk over here!
That or find your nearest self-appointed lord or lady of semantics and trivia and ask them to clear it up for ya.

Don't worry... As usual (or at least as very often) I was simply kidding.

Yeah, when you step on the toes of gnomes with long shadows? You're not allowed to be kidding!
They live for technicalities and minutiae that mean jack shit, you can't just marginalize their purpose with a joke. How insensitive!