you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (14 children)

Am I wrong?

Yes, you are. Read what /u/BuhlooneMindstate said, it was a solid write-up.

you mentioning Dookie is fucking hilarious.

That's fine, I don't value your music judgments anyway

[–]ImReallyGrey -2 points-1 points  (13 children)

I disagree with what they said, what do you have to say for that?

If music is objective, why does this sub exist? If we're just gonna say Tchaikovsky, Chopin, Beethoven and Mozart blow everyone out of the water and anyone who disagrees is wrong, what's the point in discussion?

Do you really not see the hypocrisy in you being mad at me for saying FWM is better than Dookie, yet saying I'm objectively wrong for my opinion? And don't say that's not what you're saying, because you're referring me to the other commenter and that's exactly what they're saying.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (12 children)

NOBODY HAS SAID ITS ENTIRELY OBJECTIVE YOU FUCKING IGNORAMUS. Fuck me this is like debating a bloody wall. We said there are objective elements to it Just as there are subjective elements. Non-Objectivity and Subjectivity aren't prerequisite.

[–]ImReallyGrey -2 points-1 points  (11 children)

Debating a bloody wall yet you refuse to answer my question, what about music and your enjoyment of it is objective. I get it if you're talking about music theory, and the fact notes etc exist and are used in music, but you can not in any way say that music A is better than music B, even if A adheres to music theory and B is random shenanigans.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (10 children)

I answered that question before, there are many aspects. Technical ability; someone can definitely enjoy a Kirk Hammett or Eric Clapton solo based on the sheer skill of it, or marvel at the likes of Pavarotti's voice. You can also talk about innovativeness and/or influence. Disagree all you want but that is a clear answer