Joined: 10 Nov 2017
|Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:41 am Post subject: Does objectively good and bad music exist?
I posted this somewhere on reddit, supporting that it doesn't, but all I got was circular ad hominems(you say that because you have shitty taste and got told) and circular vanilla arguments(using "Mozart and Lil Wayne" as a counterexample without justifying further). It was probably my fault too for being too aggressive(it was r/negareddit and in the title a generalized too much against the kind of people who use their tastes to put themselves over others, and I was too aggressive in general), but anyway I thought that maybe better discussion could be possible.
So I'll just explain my claim: music can't be objectively good or bad. My reasoning is:
1- To talk about "good music" and "bad music" you need a at least a way to distinguish between the two, be it just what you feel or more complicated arguments.
2- For objectively good and bad music to exist, there must be at least a way of doing it that can be measured objectively and whose relevance is objective too(there's no doubt that The Beatles is simpler than Beethoven, but what if someone likes simplicity rather than complexity, or doesn't care at all?)
3- No such method exist, therefore
4- Music can't be objectively good or bad.
(As you can observe, it could be applied to movies, food, books... too)
My claim is falsable: you just have to find a counterexample for 3.
Also you can check this