Cheat Engine

[br0l0ck]

i actually agree with kyle for once. taste is subjective, quality is not. if you say something is "bad" music, that is different than saying that it is music you don't enjoy. i wouldnt say pink floyd is bad, i would say that I dislike listening to them.

art is objective too, skill put into things, technique used, cultural influence, etc. just because you don't understand a piece, or it doesn't interest you, doesn't make it any worse to the rest of the population. it just means that if you dont have any way to defend and justify your disliking of it, then you are wrong.

aesthetics are objective, taste in aesthetics is subjective.

[HackOtaku]

[br0l0ck]

It would be wrong to use the word "bad" to describe that the Sistine Chapel doesn't evoke emotion from you, or that you dislike its appearance, when you can objectively state that it is historically important, took a lot of time and effort, and is high quality by many standards.

I think the main point is that because YOU dislike something, doesn't make it bad. Just like if you enjoy something that most certainly does not make it good.

How can PF be "bad" if you can objectively say that their production is good, and that you can recognize that other people do vibe with the rhythm and lyrics. If no one at all liked PF, and their production was bad, or if you could completely articulate in some way why they're bad (saying their lyrics are simple or badly written, and then be able to defend yourself against counter arguments), then you could say they're bad.

And as for niche things that don't rely on popularity, the crowd for those can defend the objectivity in why they think it is "good" by talking about it in the meta or explaining the appeal. the people against that niche product would not be able to say that the niche thing is bad because they don't like it, they could only say that it is not appealing and does not interest them.

I think my argument for this only applies for extremely high arts like music, painting/sculpture etc, maybe fashion and literature. Only because these things are more abstract then other arts where it is far too easy to deconstruct it and point out all the flaws that we simply ignore.

[Channel GannoK]

I'll start by saying that Gods of any sort are subjective, but what they measurably do is not and that's what should be considered objective about them and their actions.

Kanye is revered as a music god because he is, according to him and his followers. Nobody has to follow this belief, but there is plenty of evidence that he is revered as one. The real question you should be asking is what is a music god and why does Kanye West qualify? The point I'm making is not that Kanye West SHOULD be looked at as a god, but he has the evidence in his own world view that he is a god and you can't take that from him, and what he does with his position is where it can be measured. He has all sorts of branding and ways of making money, and today and for as long as modern society stays the way it is, he will continue to say he is his own self appointed god and people will believe him and support him. Whether or not you feed his ego is up to you, just like the Christian God. People who do so are what consists of a modern music "god" in the end, having the company to believe in your being as supreme, whether or not there is something important to be said, Whether or not you believe he is a true god, is completely separate from what he is claiming. You're your own "god" and how you choose to portray it is subjective, however there always tends to be a consensus with an amount of people of what Is objectively "good" in an artist and how clear they send a message.

Now, what consists of being objectively "good" is how the artist(s) portray themselves and their message. Can they remove the ego? The most talented musicians have, and you can see it in their lyrics(not just spoken words). Morality comes into the picture, and what artists do with their image constructed thus far. Mozart and Beethoven never once claimed in their music pieces to be gods, or even talented. What does that mean? Does It mean nothing, or is there something to be said in the lack of self absorption? To quote Game of Thrones, "Any man who must say, "I am the king" is no true king." And Field of Dreams "If you build it, they will come."

There's a common theme in the many of talented artists that can be considered objectively good, as long as you look through it with objectivity in mind and with no bias, and If you can not let the ego and subjective feelings and thoughts in the way of measuring it as such.

Painting is an entirely different subject, as It is a different medium. One can interpret a piece of art differently simply depending on the lighting, and It can not be recreated easily in person to thousands of people in front of you, therefore is has a much harder way of sending a message In a personal way, where as sound waves are created in front of you and physically touch your ears. It's pretty difficult to compare the two. I'm sure a talented artist could be able to explain at least what is a decent painting is from a shitty one. It's all in the eye of the beholder however. Sounds are much too different from visuals and can not be compared as similar.

There's lots more I can say about the matter, but I'm driving cross country right now and I'm getting a headache from looking down at my phone.

[Up2Admin]

I think they're great, lots of really good tracks. This is my favorite song by them.

Link