Reddit

Note: This post is quite lengthy, so it may require around 15 minutes to read

A common assertion on numerous music podcasts, forums and news comment-sections, is the assertion that music quality is subjective. Put another way, music fans argue that reviews of albums are based entirely on people’s opinions, and because opinions are the subjective reasoning of people’s personal biases, history, and experience, therefore critical analysis of music, or any other art, are entirely within the eye of the beholder, and no single album is superior to any other.

I think this philosophy is heavily flawed. It is a half-passed, arrogant, lazy rationalization for most people’s inability or unwillingness to put legitimate effort into understanding and appreciating music craft. Simply put, I believe this ideology to be one of the most poisonous and troublesome attitudes in music culture today.

Making music and albums are not “subjective” — or at least they shouldn’t be. Advocating that music and music criticism are based purely on individual knee-jerk reactions of creativity and interpretations of such creativity, respectively, devalues the music and all who work to understand it. In fact, this claim asserts that there is no point in understanding the music at all. Why bother contemplating, let alone studying or practicing music if all artistic output is subjective, if none of it is great? What is the point of appreciating beauty if all that beauty is simply within one’s own mind? This philosophy ignores the craft and work taken by songwriters to make albums, and music lovers to understand and critically think about them; it disrespects music, because it argues that there is in fact no craft at all!

While no musicians or music fan is entirely free from biased perception of the world around them, some are clearly “more free” than others and are better able to dissociate their personal views and experiences from limiting their understanding of other people and their music expression. These individuals are not only more empathetic than the average person, but they are also far less apathetic and arrogant; reviews that take time to evaluate a project free from personal bias and understand the music on its own terms are superior to both those that either (a) critique an album on whether it agrees with their subjective world-view, or (b) merely make positive or negative evaluations of said work like, “I liked it,” or, “I hated it,” and attempt no further explanation of their views.

For there is the primary difference between individuals who claim music (and by extension, all art) is merely in the eye of the beholder and those who claim artistic merit is something more — differ in the effort exerted in their thought processes and evaluation of music. Simply put, they put more effort into deciding whether or not they like an album. They work harder to decide how good a song is. They try harder and think harder because they care more; they care a lot more about music and understanding the process of songwriting than the average person, who by contrast couldn’t give a shit. It’s hard to give a shit when you believe everything about a discipline is subjective. Why would you?

If music really is “subjective” and free from all criticism, then none of this matters — song craft, melodies, lyrics, originality, none of it is worth anything. Don’t bother discussing or analyzing these music, people; nobody cares! It’s all subjective, so fuck it…

Let's consider the example of Kanye West, who has invested millions of dollars and countless hours into perfecting his albums. Why would he go to such lengths if everything was simply subjective? The same can be said for U2, who tirelessly rewrite songs until they reach their desired form. For example jump to the 4th minute of this video https://youtu.be/DwwB9t47QR0?si=jSpH7YSiZIV4MxNS and take a look at Bono's laptop full of different lyrics as they work on just one song. If music was solely a matter of personal taste, why would any band strive to work harder and continuously improve?

Listen to the demo of U2's "Beautiful Day" and then compare it to the final version. Undoubtedly, the later is superior. It boasts impeccable production, lyrics that flawlessly complement the melody and harmony, enhanced guitar sounds, and an anthemic quality that blends seamlessly with the music. It's perfect. However, it is interesting to consider the perspective of those who argue that music is subjective. If these individuals were present in the room with U2 during the creation of the song, they might have found themselves quite content with the demo version. After all, if everything is subjective, why go through the trouble of perfecting something?

Listen to the initial version of Eminem's "Lose Yourself" https://youtu.be/KqBTEF7pviQ?si=bUp7gd48ZVsL7pj9 and then give a listen to the final rendition. Similarly, take a moment to hear the demo of A-ha's "Take On Me" https://youtu.be/rc6MumuychA?si=QV_Y3pWWdFK2FjYV and then compare it to the finished product. It becomes evident to anyone that the demos of these iconic songs simply do not measure up to what they eventually became. In particular, the lyrics in Eminem's song fail to harmonize with the melody, causing the message to become muddled. Additionally, it lacks the captivating piano introduction and the exceptional production that make the final version truly remarkable.

People also use subjectivity to promote their musical preferences, specifically their favorite albums that are not widely known. But no matter how much one engages in intellectual acrobatics and indulges in endless deliberation on the subjectivity of music, it is ultimately undeniable that there exists a consensus among the masses regarding the greatest albums of all time. Most of us can tell if something is really great or really awful. You can verify this by examining any list of the best music ever, not only for music but also for movies. Data suggests that people are remarkably consistent in their determination of what is good music and what is not, both within and across cultures. That’s not to say that subjectivity plays no role at all, but that the scope for subjectivity exists within the narrow confines of the traits of good music. But still, the culturally sophisticated person often proclaims music is subjective without hesitation. They even shun those who want to consider some objective standard to anything, much less the idea of quality. In a society obsessed with individuality and personal expression, it has become a staple of conversations to hear people claim this.

Pet Sounds by The Beach Boys is widely acclaimed for good reason. It is an album that showcases remarkable ambition, originality, exceptional songwriting, and expert musicianship. The collection of classic songs on this record is truly impressive. These qualities are undeniable and cannot be refuted. It is, of course, possible for individuals to have personal preferences and not enjoy any of these aspects or the album as a whole. That is perfectly acceptable; no one can impose their feelings on others. However, it is important not to let personal feelings obscure the facts. The crucial question to consider is not whether it is wrong for someone to dislike Pet Sounds. Rather, it is whether an individual's opinion towards the album have any impact on its inherent quality. Does your dislike for Miles Davis' Kind of Blue makes it bad? Is your preferred indie film superior or more significant than The Godfather? Can you not appreciate something without personally enjoying it? Ultimately, it is arrogant to claim that any music must meet your very narrow specific taste to be considered good.

For instance, I'm not particularly fond of Adele, so I don't really listen to her music. However, I would never discredit her as a singer or songwriter just because I don't personally enjoy her music. I can recognize the quality of her songs and her voice even if they're not my favorite. I have no issue with her winning song of the year for "Rolling in the Deep" because it's undeniably a fantastic song, despite not being in my regular playlist. It's a phenomenal song with amazing melodies and lyrics, showcasing some of the best vocals in the industry. I can set aside my personal preferences and acknowledge that she creates hits that resonate with millions of listeners.

Great songs transcend taste. They are phenomenal at its core, stripped down to its simplest form, and impervious to external influences. Whether remixed, covered in various genres, or rendered acapella or instrumental, its inherent quality remains unchanged. They have a way of effortlessly capturing the attention of audiences and quickly gaining widespread recognition. They become impossible to ignore, inevitably sparking discussions, evaluations, and ultimately earning their rightful place in the collective consciousness.

These songs have a magnetic pull that cannot be denied. They have the power to captivate our ears like magic. A perfect blend of melodies and words that resonate like a musical elixir. These compositions boast unmatched originality and hooks, lyrics that effortlessly blend with the melody and resonate with a diverse array of listeners. Think of hits like "Get Lucky," "Clocks," "Hey Ya," "Billie Jean," "Smells Like Teen Spirit," "Day Tripper," or "Low Rider" - These timeless melodies and catchy phrases, once nonexistent, now are etched in music history. Isn't that magic? It could be a riff, or a chord progression, but the true mark of a phenomenal song is how memorable and unique it is.

It is evident that these songs will naturally gain popularity, receive worldwide acclaim from fans, some would win numerous awards, and musicians will cover them. Regrettably, such masterpieces are exceedingly rare. The vast majority of music merely grazes the surface of good, falling into the realm of mediocrity or adequacy, with the lowest tier of music so bad that it fades into oblivion unnoticed.

Perhaps you have become accustomed to popular music always being readily available to you, or it's possible that your lack of daily exposure to the endless stream of bad music being produced, with over 20 million songs uploaded to Spotify each year, is leading you to undervalue a truly great song or even dismiss it. Perhaps immersing yourself in the sea of bad music will help you better appreciate the good one. It's not difficult at all. Simply give a listen to any Spotify account with around 200 listeners, and I guarantee you won't find any redeeming qualities in the music. There was once a time when that pop song you are currently enjoying did not exist, solely instruments playing without any enchantment. Suddenly, a mesmerizing melody or an infectious hook emerges out of nowhere. This is a unique and precious moment that deserves to be cherished.

Let's use "Rehab" by Amy Winehouse as an example. The song originated from her expressing her reluctance to enter rehab for drug treatment. One day, she complained to Mark Ronson about people pressuring her to go to rehab, saying, "He tried to make me go to rehab and I was like, 'Pfft, no no no.'" Mark himself was immediately captivated by her words, exclaiming, "And the first thing I thought was, 'ding ding ding ding ding.' I mean, I should have been asking her how she felt, but all I could think about was going back to the studio." Amy wrote the lyrics, and they recorded the song. It went on to win three Grammy Awards, including Song of the Year and Record of the Year. It also received an Ivor Novello Award for Best Contemporary Song and became a worldwide hit, covered by countless artists. However, just the day before Amy said those words to Mark, the song didn't even exist. That catchy hook and captivating melody that resonated with everyone was nonexistent. Now, it is etched into music history. This phenomenon can only be described as magical.

The same goes for films. You may have become accustomed to constantly watching movies that are meticulously crafted by writers, producers, actors, and directors. Perhaps you don't even pause to consider the amount of effort that goes into creating what you watch on Netflix or in the cinema. There was a time when Pulp Fiction didn't exist. No dialogue, no story, nothing. Then, in 1994, the movie was released and it forever changed the world of cinema. Perhaps by watching the numerous copycats that followed, or any other bad movie, you will gain a greater appreciation for the Tarantino film and understand why it is so highly acclaimed. But again, since you are not regularly subjected to poor quality films, you tend to take for granted the high-quality ones you come across. When you do encounter a bad movie, you can easily distinguish it. https://m.imdb.com/title/tt11057302/

When a catchy phrase becomes ingrained in your mind like a memorable tune and integrates into daily conversations, that's when it transforms into something extraordinary. Your music can either define an era in society or persist as a common reference in everyday interactions. For instance, when a term like "shake it like a polaroid picture" helps to temporarily revitalize the Polaroid Corporation, it's a clear indication that you have made a significant impact.

It is fascinating to observe the existence of established criteria and common sense guidelines for evaluating the excellence of songs and albums. These guidelines often emphasize the presence of remarkable melodies and captivating hooks that contribute to the uniqueness of the songs. For instance, if one were to ask about the best songs in the album "Abbey Road," it is highly likely that the mind would instantly go towards "Come Together," "Something," and "Here Comes The Sun." Interestingly, these three songs also happen to be the most streamed, acclaimed, and covered tracks from the album. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the band released the first two songs as singles, both of which reached number one on the charts. Hence, there exists a clear consensus not only among millions of people regarding the best songs, but also among the songwriters and producers themselves.

Let's analyze another album by The Beatles. If we were to discuss the weakest track on Rubber Soul, many would say is "What Goes On". Interestingly, this song is the least streamed and covered on the entire album. Due to its lack of melody, originality, and hooks, it stands out as a filler track on an otherwise exceptional album. This sentiment is not just my own, but a widely shared opinion among the millions who have purchased and listened to the album. Now, if I were to ask you about the standout tracks, you would likely mention "Michelle", "In My Life", and "Norwegian Wood". These happen to be the top three most acclaimed, covered, and streamed songs from the album, with "Michelle" winning the Grammy for song of the year.

During the production of The Joshua Tree album, U2 sought assistance from a friend to finalize the tracklist. They instructed her to rank the songs based on her preferences, with only the requirement for 'Where the Streets Have No Name' to be the opening track and 'Mothers of the Disappeared' as the closing track. The subsequent 4 tracks following 'Streets' became the most popular, covered, and streamed songs on the album. These tracks are also the most frequently performed at U2 concerts, with the first two released as singles and reaching number 1 on the charts, with one of them winning a Grammy award.

Once again, it is abundantly evident which songs reign supreme. The criteria by which we evaluate them are crystal clear. This is not a new concept, neither is mine; it has been the case since music was first introduced to the world, from the era of Bach to The Beatles and Michael Jackson. The best songs are those with memorable original melodies and hooks that remain popular throughout the years. So, why does some self-absorbed asshole has to argue that "everything is subjective" when there is a clear consensus among billions of people regarding the best songs? It can be quite frustrating to witness these well-established "rules" being undermined. It feels like common sense is being challenged by a group of arrogant individuals.

Oh but "Music is subjective, because it is influenced by personal experiences, emotions, and cultural backgrounds. What sounds melodious and captivating to one person might not resonate with someone else"..... Umm, excuse me, what?. unless you hail from an extraterrestrial realm with an entirely distinct set of neural connections, it is highly likely that you and I share more similarities than difference. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the bands I mentioned earlier all knew which songs were the best on their albums, and this was confirmed by the overwhelming agreement of hundreds of millions of people. Furthermore, the fact that a woman from Ireland curated the tracklist for The Joshua Tree, and pretty much everyone agrees that the order of the songs align perfectly with their quality, speaks volumes. The album's immense success, selling over 30 million copies worldwide, including in Japan, Germany, and Brazil, further solidifies this point. So cultural differences can't be used as an excuse to argue otherwise.

The odor of feces is universally regarded as unpleasant, repulsive, and offensive. It is highly unlikely that anyone would assert that it actually possesses a pleasant scent, unless they were intentionally being contrarian. Even if someone has a preference for a lesser-known underground band, such as Swans, they are still part of a cult of thousands who have encountered similar music. They are not a divine entity with an entirely distinct set of preferences. We all possess the ability and the necessary faculties to discern whether something is truly exceptional or bad. Therefore, don't be the contrarian asshole in the group.

There are certain benchmarks that need to be met. That's precisely why Steve Jobs dedicated an extensive amount of time to meticulously refining his products, aiming to make them look stunning and irresistibly attractive to the general public. Was he wasting his time and millions of dollars on all of this? If everything is subjective, including beauty, why would Steve Jobs bother so much with perfecting his products? Or maybe he had an innate sense of recognizing greatness, just like Led Zeppelin did with "Rock and Roll," understanding that it was a song worth dedicating time and effort to. It was evident to them that our response would mirror theirs, for we possess a collective comprehension and have the discernment to acknowledge and admire the importance of something truly extraordinary.

Similarly, comedy writers invest significant effort into repeatedly reworking and honing their jokes, fully aware of the established criteria and expectations within their craft. These individuals acknowledge the existence of certain standards and strive to meet or surpass them in order to deliver exceptional results. In a similar vein, countless songwriters attempt each day to write the next big hit, assembling the perfect combination of chords and melody that would shake the world and create a timeless song that remains in pop culture forever.

The Beach Boys spent 7 months recording "Good Vibrations," using over 90 hours of tape and dozens of session musicians at several different Los Angeles recording studios. The song cost between $75,000 and $100,000 to record — an astonishing amount for 1966.

Daft Punk dedicated over five years and invested more than a million dollars in perfecting and creating their album "Random Access Memories". They collaborated in top-tier music studios worldwide, bringing together songwriters, producers, and musicians from various backgrounds to meticulously craft each track.

Perhaps advocates of the "everything is subjective" mindset should have intervened during one of these sessions, urging everyone to cease their work, donate the funds to an organization, and go home. I mean Wtf are all these people doing? "go home guys.... Is all subjective". Fortunately, this did not happen, as we would have missed out on the album and the numerous hits that emerged from it. The album went on to win album of the year and "Get Lucky" won record of the year at the grammys. "Good Vibrations" became the biggest hit of The Beach Boys, reaching # 1 in the US and UK charts and is the 4th most acclaimed song of all time.

And it's not just the fact that they dedicated so much time and money to their songs. Is the fact that they were undeniably in pursuit of something. Something that has long been present and is evident to all; excellence. And that alone, breaks the notion of music quality being subjective. The moment they made the decision to continue working on the songs, crearly feeling they werent yet good enough, it ceased to be a matter of subjectivity. Cause otherwise, they would have released the song as it was, right? They were striving for perfection. If music quality is solely a matter of personal interpretation and the subjective reasoning of over 7 billion people, wouldn't Daft Punk have had to create 7 billion different versions of the same song in order to please everyone? And it's important to emphasize that the band made it clear that they were creating the album for themselves, with the music they enjoyed and everything they considered good.

The album reached #1 worldwide, with over 2 billion streams on Spotify, receiving widespread acclaim and producing hits that were enjoyed by people from all cultures and languages. Both Daft Punk and The Beach Boys knew those songs possessed something special that warranted their time and energy to perfect.

The perspective of the subjectivists can be summarized as: "Of course musical quality is subjective. Is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Quality is subjective and quantity is objective. Music is just an arrangement of sounds without inherent goodness or badness. So you can go on until you want about how influential Bach was, but at the end of the day that doesn't make him better than Kevin Federline because "it's all opinion".....

Ok ok ok ok...... If you choose this as your mantra you will have to face 3 consequences:

1 - Becoming an hypocrite if you use the terms "best," "good," and "bad" to describe music. Or if you critize anyone's taste.

2 - You faill to apreciate and encourage the hard work and ingenuity that goes into music.

3 - Becoming a pedant who interrupts any statement on quality, no matter how broad, with "Actually, music is subjective don't you know"....

If you invoke subjectivity to dismiss someone's analysis, realize that subjectivity could be invoked to dismiss literally anything. So find a better argument! Make a thesis that backs up your perspective. Write a speech. Using subjectivity as the foundation of your argument is just a pretentious way to end a conversation. And can be easily discredited by highlighting the countless songwriters and filmmakers who have dedicated years to perfecting their craft.

Awards play a crucial role in acknowledging and celebrating outstanding works in various fields, including film, television, music, and literature. Some of the most prestigious awards in the entertainment industry include the Oscars, Golden Globes, BAFTA's, Emmys, Critics' Choice Awards, Cannes Festival, Grammys, Mercury Prize, Ivor Novello, and Brits. The music awards and accolades hold great significance as they honor the hard work of songwriters, musicians, producers, mixing engineers, and other individuals who work tirelessly behind the scenes. They dedicate their time and energy to writing lyrics, composing melodies, capturing the essence of music, and transforming raw materials into poetic and flawless songs. Their dedication spans years, and being nominated for an award is a moment for them to realize that their work is valued and held in high esteem. Is also a moment for others musicians and songwriters to take notice and improve their craft.

And indeed, I am aware that awards frequently make mistakes that are widely recognized as incorrect, which actually strengthens my argument about the "common sense guidelines." However, there have been numerous occasions where they have made accurate judgments and contributed to establishing standards in the field. For example, the television series Breaking Bad received numerous Emmy and Golden Globes. Industry professionals and peers widely praised the show for its excellence in acting, writing, and directing. "Sgt Peppers" won the grammy for album of the year, so did "Songs in The Key of Life", "Rumors", "Saturday Night Fever", "Thriller", "The Joshua Tree", "Innervisions", "The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill", "Tapestry", "Bridge Over Troubled Water" and "Graceland".

And even if you're still cynical and don't take the awards seriously keep in mind that all these records were also nominated for album of the year; "Ok Computer", "Abbey Road", "Revolver", "Magical Mystery Tour", "Crosby, Stills & Nash", "Deja Vu", "Hotel California", "Elton John", "Aja", "The Wall", "Breakfast in America", "DAMN", "Synchronicity", "To Pimp a Butterfly", "Late Registration", "American Idiot", "Elephant", "Purple Rain", "Stankonia", "Born In the USA", "The Marshall Mathers LP", "Kid A", "Automatic for the People", "Achtung Baby", "Sign o' the Times", "Bad", "In Rainbows", "Back to Black", "Channel Orange", "Good Kid, M.A.A.D City", "Lemonade".

Receiving awards and nominations is always gratifying, but it holds even more significance when it comes from fellow professionals who truly understand the intricacies of their craft.

Look at examples of long-term consensus and divisiveness within both professional music criticism as well as pop culture. A consensus of an albums's artistic merit and cultural impact over a period of time is the true measure of that album's legacy, its historical significance, and its artistic worth as a record. After more than 60 years of dedicated fandom, critical analysis, and revolution, The Beatle's Sgt Peppers quality speaks for itself. Conversely, an album that stirs heated controversy or remains divisive years after its release speaks to that project’s notable positive and negative merits. Music that has been long forgotten, on the other hand, implies said music never possessed much artistic merit or innovative craft to begin with, despite whatever hype glorified its initial release.

When a multitude of individuals from diverse backgrounds and with varying preferences unanimously agree that something is exceptional, it undoubtedly holds great significance. Thus, the true testament of great music can be found within the previous statement. It is the kind of music that surpasses all boundaries and effortlessly transcends through different eras, yet still manages to maintain its popularity and receive acclaim. Take, for example, Michael Jackson's iconic album, Thriller; it is a masterpiece that resonates with individuals irrespective of their personal musical inclinations. Regardless of whether one prefers reggaeton, hip hop, or heavy metal, or hails from Russia or India, Thriller is an album that commands respect even from those who may not particularly favor its genre. Another noteworthy example is Nirvana's Nevermind, an album that has left an indelible impact and is appreciated by individuals from all walks of life. It has even found its way into clubs and hip hop radio stations, further solidifying its universal appeal. This notion holds true for virtually any album deemed as great; they all possess the remarkable quality of transcending all barriers and unifying diverse audiences.

So are you saying that this is a matter of popularity? Indeed, but not in the way music snobs typically think of popularity. I am referring to the consensus among individuals from various backgrounds: critics, music fans, musicians and songwriters, everybody, as that is what truly determines the greatness of something. When a restaurant consistently receives five-star ratings from all of its customers, it establishes a standard for how things should be, or at least aim to be. It sets a benchmark for other restaurant owners to strive towards. Similarly, by exalting the music of The Beatles, Queen, and The Beach Boys and placing them on a pedestal, we are proclaiming that they represent a pinnacle in songwriting, and that others bands should aspire to reach their level. No one benefits if you claim that "White Chicks" is better than "Goodfellas" simply because you personally prefer it; nobody wins, neither the filmmakers nor the audience.

This leads me to my final example of music objective validity: Splitting hairs versus disparate quality. It may be futile to determine whether an album landmark like Nevermind is really “better” or “worse” than a classic like Pet Sounds, but much, much larger contrasts in albums craft exist in excess and speak to the very real nature of objective music quality. For instance, compare either of the former to anything Pitbull has ever done. Compare Adele's Rolling in the Deep with Friday by Rebecca Black. Or even compare songs quality within a bands discography, pretty much everyone agrees that "What Goes On" by The Beatles is the poorest song on Rubber Soul. My assertion that Abbey Road is one of the greatest albums of all time isn’t my opinion, but a demonstrable, real-world phenomenon.

In other words, while it may be impossible to prove with 100% certainty the precise music quality of all albums relative to each another, that doesn’t mean music quality doesn’t exist, nor that we shouldn’t try to determine when something is truly great. If we don’t, then we devalue songwriters and producers.