Album Rating: 4.5

Definitely check Cara Nier, one of the best this year for sure.

Album Rating: 4.0

Lights on the Hill has been on repeat so much that I haven't been able to listen to the album that many times.

Album Rating: 5.0 | Sound Off

"I appreciate u tho dddeftones" I would say "me too" but already confessed to Trif today, I'm just feeling too much of a Flowerfaggot for that.

"Lights on the Hill has been on repeat so much that I haven't been able to listen to the album that many times." lol gonna put that one on then.

"Definitely check Cara Nier, one of the best this year for sure." Year won't end wihtout it ;)

Lmao!

Album Rating: 4.5

If you can use objective criteria to create something you can use objective criteria to analyze it. To a degree anyhow

yeah there are certainly measurable components to music that can be described objectively, its just when you're discussing opinions on the music that its subjective. for instance i can objectively measure the influence of the beatles and respect them for that while still subjectively not liking their music lol

and its when people start getting the two confused that it becomes obnoxious

Album Rating: 4.5

No doubt Pots, though a really complete discussion or analysis would include both elements. Online it’s usually more fun to just stick to the subjective aspect. I just think it’s a lazy trope to say “everything is subjective lol”. We may as well just give up on ever doing anything productive or discussing any topic with the idea that there might be some commonality in our perceptions.

Beyond that, the fact that I will be able to measure the probability of a certain pitch, timbre, volume, rhythm, etc generating a certain emotional (read: neurotransmitter mediated) response in a majority of people and use that information to develop AI driven music creation tools implies that even the things we think are subjective are at least partially objective but just really difficult to describe with the computing power our brains provide. That tech is coming sooner than we think

its true, the "everything is subjective" argument can be often used as a way to cock-block discussion... but then again so can incorrectly using the idea of "objectivity".

Album Rating: 5.0 | Sound Off

but we can five this because its beautiful right?

u can do whatever u want bae

Album Rating: 5.0 | Sound Off

This thing is objectively beautiful on my ears, specially Lights on the Hill is an objective fave of mine.

I've just put on the track Stillness from Inter Arma next to it to call it a day ;)

Album Rating: 4.5

True Pots, I just usually assume that people have some 10-50% of objective criteria they’re looking for depending on their background and personality and then layer subjective filter over for the rest when they make a comment. And people do that calculation or more or less automatically and subconsciously unless challenged to defend a position. Then you get added complexity from the fact that even the objective criteria someone chooses to prioritize are selected through a subjective process.

Album Rating: 5.0

average free fall when

Album Rating: 4.0

There are clearly objective characteristics that any piece of music possesses. Its mathematical structure is out there in the world, independent of anyone's attitudes towards it. But normally what most people are referring to when they talk about the subjectivity of music is the aesthetic value of the piece. When the structural properties of the music have been described the question still remains "yeah, but is it good, is it beautiful? Etc" That's the sort of question that is commonly thought not to have a perspective-independent answer. Of course, there are objectively describable relationships between the mathematical structures of music and the kind of answers people give to the aesthetic value questions. It isn't just random the sorts of things people like. That is why algorithms can predict what people like to some degree. But these algorithms only predict what people like, they don't declare what is in fact good, beautiful etc. So again, it is really just those aesthetic value questions that are commonly considered only capable of subjective answers. I find that a helpful way to think about the issues anyway.

Album Rating: 4.5

I agree with pretty much all of that but right now that’s true because we don’t yet have the ability to map the specific biochemical basis for our preferences. At some point we will and subjective enjoyment will become objective science

Album Rating: 4.0

I think it is possible that science could get to a point where we can perfectly predict what a person at a particular time will like. And so there could be a science devoted to producing aesthetic pleasure in us. I don't think, however, that any of this will answer the question of what in fact is of aesthetic value.

Album Rating: 4.5

I’m not sure that’s true, at least not universally. Everyone’s biochemistry is different, so what is objectively quantifiable in one niche sub-sector of personality types, will not be relevant to others.

Album Rating: 4.0

@Demon, I agree, the science would have to be tailored very specifically to individuals, at particular times.

Album Rating: 4.0

(Even then I have some doubts that 100 percent accuracy could be achieved because I believe in (libertarian) free will and believe that sometimes we have some choice how to interpret a piece, and so sometimes I think we have a choice whether to enjoy it. But that's not a point I'd press, hence I granted the possibility above. My main point is just that the science could never settle the aesthetic value question, imo.)