Originally posted by uzlessNow this is very interesting! This leads me to another thought experiment I posed last week sometime before Starrman started talking about Plato: which do you think would be considered "better", a song that was listened to occasionally (maybe once a week) by 80% of the world, or a song that was listened to fervently and repeatedly (maybe twice a day) by 20% of the world? And if you answer one way, would any variation in these parameters make you change your mind?
Hehe, while it is true that I DO believe I am one of the few, the proud, the 50, that can actually tell good music from bad, my opinion is a subjective one.
The only way to truly judge a piece of music objectively, with a large degree of "goodness" certainty cannot be based on one person's opinion, but rather the collective opinions of humanity. And this ...[text shortened]... any years in the future but, in a rare moment of lucidity, my single opinion matters little.
Originally posted by rbmorrisAnother good point! However, I believe uzless has answered that too...once people start listening to it, it becomes good.
But just because none of the people currently in existence like something, doesn't mean it won't ever be considered "good". What about artists whose art isn't appreciated until long after their death?
Originally posted by PBE6The answer would be whichever one I enjoy more.
which do you think would be considered "better", a song that was listened to occasionally (maybe once a week) by 80% of the world, or a song that was listened to fervently and repeatedly (maybe twice a day) by 20% of the world?
1 edit
Originally posted by darvlayBut I thought the whole point was that anything we would call objective "goodness" had to come from a consensus:
The answer would be whichever one I enjoy more.
"The only way to truly judge a piece of music objectively, with a large degree of "goodness" certainty cannot be based on one person's opinion, but rather the collective opinions of humanity. And this can only occur over time."
So to clarify my poser, when I say "which do you think would be considered 'better'", I mean which do you think would be rated higher on the objective goodness scale based on the consensus?
EDIT: Oops! Thought you were uzless there for a second...well, the question still stands open.
Originally posted by PBE6Again, I defer to my previous answer.
: which do you think would be considered "better", a song that was listened to occasionally (maybe once a week) by 80% of the world, or a song that was listened to fervently and repeatedly (maybe twice a day) by 20% of the world? And if you answer one way, would any variation in these parameters make you change your mind?
I don't think you can take any slice in time and try to determine an outcome with any degree of certainty.
Having said that, if 80% of the planet is enjoying a piece of music once a week that would imply they have made some kind of concious decision to continue listening to it and thereby think it is good.
The 20% of people question implies that 80% of people have made a decision that the song is bad.
Just looking at those numbers, it is more likely that the 80% of people know what they are talking about but NOT NECCESSARILY.
I can list dozens and dozens of songs that garnered worldwide attention but really are bad songs that will/have been forgotten in time
Originally posted by PBE6Have you ever heard the saying "Eat sh-t: One million files can't be wrong"?
But I thought the whole point was that anything we would call objective "goodness" had to come from a consensus:
[b]"The only way to truly judge a piece of music objectively, with a large degree of "goodness" certainty cannot be based on one person's opinion, but rather the collective opinions of humanity. And this can only occur over time."
So to cla ...[text shortened]... u think would be rated higher on the objective goodness scale based on the consensus?[/b]
Without sounding like a fascist, I would have to assert that one man's opinion may in fact be worth more than someone else's when it comes to quantifying how "good" something is.
Originally posted by PBE6five billion people giving their subjective opinion doesn't make the consensus objective, just average.
But I thought the whole point was that anything we would call objective "goodness" had to come from a consensus:
[b]"The only way to truly judge a piece of music objectively, with a large degree of "goodness" certainty cannot be based on one person's opinion, but rather the collective opinions of humanity. And this can only occur over time."
So to cla ...[text shortened]... ! Thought you were uzless there for a second...well, the question still stands open.[/b]
Originally posted by darvlayThat single person's opinion may in fact be worth more than a million others opinions but there is no way to prove it
Have you ever heard the saying "Eat sh-t: One million files can't be wrong"?
Without sounding like a fascist, I would have to assert that one man's opinion may in fact be worth more than someone else's when it comes to quantifying how "good" something is.
1 edit
Originally posted by Zadadkaya, and JK is now writing a new non-harry potter book so we'll see whether or not she is a good author based on the new book. I hear it's about wizards that do battle with evil dark lords.
Didn't we have this argument about popularity & stuff in the thread about books that started out about Harry Potter and The Gay Dumbledore....?