If only.
What sort of subjective definition of “objective” are you peddling here
How many of your rock heroes studied music? How is that an argument for dinosaur rock?
They teach color theory. That doesn’t mean painting quality can be objectively rated.
They teach grammar and meter. That doesn’t mean poem quality can be objectively rated.
And you’re still conflating quality and preference.
What’s objectively better, bebop or prog?
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but yes.
Here’s a video by an educated jazz musician if you’d like to know more:
Also, the band I mentioned above, King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard, works primarily in a 24 note scale. But they seem to even understand that is a limitation in itself. To pretend that “music theory” is a complete idea is to ignore a great deal of the music produced in the latter half of the 20th century - and that’s only thinking about Europe and the US.
Which musical theory? Chinese and Indian music can sound very discordant to the Western ear until you train yourself to find the patterns. Microtonal music is the same. Listen to some Philip Glass. some of which I enjoy in small amounts, and it’s not just me.
It’s like physics. We can never know the exact position of a particle but we can make some really good guesses about it and they turn out to be right most of the time.
Y’all are working on the fringes. That ONE case were someone bucks the system. If you want to hang your hat on that then fine.
Me banging on a piano and saying it is “objectively” as good as Tchaikovsky piano concerto #1 is ridiculous and you all know it. You also see the trap so you dance around it and pretend mashing on a keyboard is “objectively” music. That ignores all teaching about music we have but hey…it’s a noise so it counts.
We have music schools for a reason. That is because randomly banging on your instrument is not considered music by anyone…at all.
Perhaps what you like is subjective but objectively we know there are certain things that make music music and not random sound. That is objective.
It is objective that people have opinions about music. You can make objective measurements of those opinions. Their opinions are nevertheless subjective.
Why? (I really do not understand what you are trying to say here.)
If the only requirement for being good music is to be harmonious in a Western understanding of music, I have some very bad news for you:
(I’m SO sorry for posting this 
)
I do not recall saying that.
I mean, we have art schools too but you still get someone to hang a urinal or a painter’s drop cloth and people to say it really speaks to them. So what?
Music school is probably useful for teaching musical structures that are likely to be met with approval. Which is different from teaching when it’s artistically “good”.
Well, the video would explain the whole thing better than I would. I’m an art student who knows enough music theory to know it’s far from complete. He’s a person who had to actually study the stuff. But, here’s a quick run down.
The thing that most of us think of as “music theory” is an idea from Europe in the 18th century. It does a poor job of describing any other western music. Anything from jazz to country to the blues is difficult to impossible to express in its terms. Noise rock is right out. Once you get outside of Europe, it pretty much doesn’t apply at all.
Good point. I happen to love Philip Glass. His opera “Akhnaten” is amazing, IMO. But many people hate him. How can anyone’s views of his music be anything other than subjective?
There’s a lot of “but good art is OBJECTIVE” nonsense in the middle of the thread that I’m gonna skip over, and just respond to the OP.
I grew up in the seventies and eighties, and my home was filled with Peter (which incidentally fuck that rapist) Paul and Mary and Red Clay Ramblers and the Beatles and Joan Baez and the like, and those are still my touchstones for music, because they’re what surrounded me–even though I never listen to them any more. I branched out to Weird Al and Phil Collins and U2, then to The Cure and Siouxsie and the Banshees, then to They Might Be Giants and Bauhaus and Bjork and so on. You’ll note a lot of super white musicians on that list maybe.
Wasn’t until I was an adult that I learned to appreciate Johnny Cash and Ella Fitzgerald and Janelle Monae and a lot of others.
Old music has some good stuff and some real tripe. New music? Same same. If you can’t find any new music you appreciate, that’s sad, because there’s plenty of amazing stuff being made today, and there will be tomorrow.
Music theory attempts to teach things like how to tune an instrument, how to compose counterpoint, how to improvise Carnatic music, the function of chords in jazz reharmonization, etc.
But none of this kind of theory tells you whether a piece of music is “good”. It is more a dissection of “rules” used (or broken!) in practice by actual musicians. [Which is why not all the “rules” of 18th-century European music are automatically going to apply to medieval American folk songs or to the current top-40 either.] Note that some gifted composers end up throwing away a lot of drafts, so it is not like adhering to a a well-known (or, for that matter, an experimental) theory is an automatic recipe for good music, and moreover the same composers often have an intuitive feel for their music more than run every piece through a computer analysis.
I wonder if there could be some Mad Science™ to predict whether some music is “good”, but it is not currently being taught in the conservatorium.
I’ve given it a listen a few times. Can you help describe what they are doing that is new and interesting musically? I’m not asking you to tell us why you personally like them but rather what it is that makes them special in the music world. (I am genuinely interested.)
Here is a good example of a look into what a musician is doing. I certainly do not expect anything of this detail in an answer here. I just offer it as an example of how we can see behind the curtain to what these musicians were doing:
Hmm, if you’re meaning Muse. I can’t properly explain their popularity. I remember them back when they were starting out and thought “Ok, it’s nice enough. They know a good tone occasionally.” But they’re not my cup of tea, I was just using them as an example of a band who can sell out indoor arenas fairly recently that were influenced by Lightning Bolt. I’m pretty sure you can find a video or two of why Muse has been popular and long lasting if you checked around, though. I kind of think of them as the U2 or Rolling Stones of the oughties. Good enough and popular enough to have a durable career, and I don’t hate them for it.
Now, if you’re asking what Lightning Bolt is doing differently, here is the whole track they are covering in their snippet.
Umm, if you’d told me in 1989 that there was going to be a band that made Slayer look like they were going easy on you, but still make it melodic, with herculean drums. I would have said you had taken wayyyy too much acid. And we’d probably both be right. It combines most of the loony snare stuff from things like crazy dance music from the late 90’s/early oughts (but nope, that’s a real drummer playing beats you’d never want to program) with a giant dose of Japanese puzzle punk and just about drips with metal. I can’t think about anything that predates them that sounds much like them. And well, among a group of older musicians recently, I was pointed out for knowing more than one of their song titles. Everyone knew exactly how Lightning Bolt sounds, though.