| Norris2k said: But if I think there is a lot of subjectivity, I don't think there is no objectivity in music, I mean not at all. I still believe you can't sound as good as someone that live for music, have been listening music for several thousand of hours, play for 40 years. |
Damn it, I wanted to include this in my reply as an exception (art done by someone who knows what they're doing can be regarded as objectively better than an amateur's art), but I left it out for briefness' sake. I totally agree with that. But I would consider it more of an exception than something that invalidates the entire argument about art being subjectve...
| Norris2k said: But I agree he's on a different level. I could talk about Robert Johnson, Elvis Presley, etc. Their value is not the price you will pay their CD, it's about influencing for 50 years music, and being the influence of about any group I like... and even groups I don't like. |
I think this is a cognitive bias of some kind that a lot of people share I think. Overvaluing things that were influential and/pr first of their kind. I mean no matter how you look at it, most of modern romance is better than Romeo & Juliet in every way imaginable, yet still we all somehow consider Shakespeare's work valuable... it's strange, huh?
