Sign In:
Login with Facebook

Sign Up! (forgotten password?)

Boards Blogs User Profiles

Boards

Music Social Article Comments More…
My Posts Radar

Objectively, is it fair to say Radiohead are the greatest band of all time?

PigOnAntibiotics [Edit] [Delete] 107 replies 17:27 February 28th, 2010

View NestedLinear

  • No, because if nothing else you can't really claim knowledge of the future

    Feel free to make it as a subjective claim though

    lyserge | 28 Feb '10, 17:32 | X | ^ This | Reply
    Luis_Carruthers, Arfie, ring_tailed_lemur, Randy_Orton, elyka, furio, and kostenurky this'd this

  • They've never written anything 'happy'

    which is why they are not better than Blur.

    weneedmorebooze | 28 Feb '10, 17:53 | X | ^ This | Reply

  • only if you have no concept

    of what the word objective means

    Jamie_Summers | 28 Feb '10, 18:03 | X | ^ This | Reply
    Luis_Carruthers, Royter-Hatfood, marckee, bunkerbuster, WhiteLightWhiteCity, elyka, hello_dave, brusma, medulla, -dan-, OvertakenByTractors, Cementimental, and sadpunk this'd this

    • ^this

      I mean, what can you say with regard to music that is truly objective? I could make a statement like, 'The album Person Pitch by Panda Bear is a lot better than anything The View have ever released*' and most people on here would agree with me, but it still wouldn't be objective. I don't think.

      *these were the first two band name that came into my head

      ring_tailed_lemur @Jamie_Summers | 28 Feb '10, 18:09 | X | ^ This | Reply
  • levis517 this'd this

    • to be fair

      As worded, the title means 'is it objectively fair to say Radiohead are the greatest band of all time?' rather than 'is it fair to say Radiohead are objectively the greatest band of all time?'.

      Though I suspect that's more down to poor grammar on Mr. and/or Mrs. OnAntibiotics's part, but who can say?

      Arfie @ThingsThatFly | 28 Feb '10, 19:41 | X | ^ This | Reply

    • Certainly one of the most influential British bands.

      Even those who despise Radiohead would probably have to agree with that because many of them despair of how much they have been 'copied' by bands ever since to varying degrees.

      It must be pretty tough to be honest because if you don't like them then the fact that their style(s) have infected British music for a quite a while, must drive you nuts.

      Thankfully, I have been a Radiohead fan for a long time and I would not describe myself as a fan of many bands at all.

      Violator @mug_mug_mug | 28 Feb '10, 19:33 | X | ^ This | Reply

  • No, that'd be my band.

    m-dizzle | 28 Feb '10, 19:35 | X | ^ This | Reply

  • whatever your stance on Radiohead it is always fascinating

    how extreme a reaction they provoke.

    People who like them tend to love them and be rather blinkered to any criticism of the band.

    People who dislike them tend to hate them and froth at the mouth with fury and scorn when they are mentioned.

    terminus_est | 28 Feb '10, 19:55 | X | ^ This | Reply

  • 'Great' is an inherently subjective term, so no

    But I mean if for sake or argument we say it's a formula consisting of popularity x critical acclaim x enduring appeal x influence then it's clearly The Beatles, and I think I say that objectively because I don't really like them very much.

    lukowski | 28 Feb '10, 19:56 | X | ^ This | Reply
  • Royter-Hatfood and shucks this'd this

  • who cares

    josh | 28 Feb '10, 20:08 | X | ^ This | Reply
    pieces_of_reece this'd this

  • No

    this is an opinion, it's subjective, you can't objectify a form of expression like music.

    I've honestly got no idea who I'd award the "greatest band of all time", there's no way I could decide.

    GalacticStar3ruption | 28 Feb '10, 20:24 | X | ^ This | Reply

  • Short answer: NO

    Contrary to popular view on this site I think it is possible to have an objective view on popular / alternative music based on criteria gained by consensus or expertise. Under any criteria I can think of (to be debated and agreed) Radiohead are not the greatest band of all time. What a bloody crazy thing to say in the first place though!

    El_Goodo | 28 Feb '10, 21:09 | X | ^ This | Reply

    • i agree

      If you say music is subjective you are basically saying that Britney spears is just as good as Mozart/Rachmaninov/Liszt/etc etc, of course this is impossible. Also if music were subjective universities/conservatoriums couldn’t say that some one that can play the previous mentioned composers on piano is better than someone who can’t play piano at all.

      Of course a lot of people I know can’t tell the difference between enjoying music and good music, I really enjoy listening to Franz Ferdinand but I would never say that they are a great band.

      I think the main way to judge how good music is by how far ahead the musicians were compared to their peers at the same and what came before hand, wether it be stylistically, technicality wise or musicality wise. Radiohead gets a lot of credit because of OKC and Kid A and Johnny greenwood gets a lot of credit for being able to write symphonies and his own computer programmes to make music but I wouldn’t say they are the best band ever. O f course radiohead and their music/influence shouldn’t be judged until 50 yeas or so this enables their music to be viewed from a proper context.

      Of course when trying to decide how good music is now a few pieces of criteria that I think are particularly important is style(originality), technical ability of musicians, musicality of piece and musicians, complexity of compositions, lyrics and does the music acheive waht its wants to (as in, is this song that is trying to be scary, scary?. That’s all I can think of now.

      19948 @El_Goodo | 1 Mar '10, 10:33 | X | ^ This | Reply

      • Music IS subjective if you want to think about values in a classically subjective/ objective way.

        In that sense, Britney Spears is no better and no worse than Mozart/ Rachmaninov/ Lizt, because devoid of a set of values by which to make judgments between them, you are inevitably left to accept that nothing is better or worse than anything else.

        Subjective evaluations mean that those values by which we make statements of the type "A is better than B" or "A is more important than B" are entirely based on subjective opinion, circumstance and perspective and not on any objective fact (if there are any objective facts).

        People have a real tough time trying to argue that there is any such thing as objective values in the sphere of morality so you can hardly be surprised that such an enterprise might prove similarly unsatisfying when considering music and the arts.

        Violator @19948 | 1 Mar '10, 12:34 | X | ^ This | Reply

        • nothing funnier than a subjectivist boldly asserting what is and is not so

          all whilst doubting there are such things as objective facts. OH THE IRONY

          ottermagic @Violator | 1 Mar '10, 14:27 | X | ^ This | Reply
          robluvsnic this'd this

          • But

            as far as I can see, nobody on this thread has said that nothing is objectively true - only that there is no objectively right or wrong answer as to whether band A are better than band B. There's no contradiction there.

            EustaceHPlimsoll @ottermagic | 1 Mar '10, 17:46 | X | ^ This | Reply

            • err it's right there in the post I was replying to

              "Subjective evaluations mean that those values by which we make statements of the type "A is better than B" or "A is more important than B" are entirely based on subjective opinion, circumstance and perspective and not on any objective fact (if there are any objective facts)"

              ottermagic @EustaceHPlimsoll | 1 Mar '10, 18:17 | X | ^ This | Reply

              • As far as I can see, that only says value judgements are subjective

                and leaves open the question of whether there are any objective facts.

                EustaceHPlimsoll @ottermagic | 1 Mar '10, 18:53 | X | ^ This | Reply

                • yes

                  and the assertion that value judgements are subjective (made without argument, presented as a self-evident truth) presupposes some corresponding objective fact. Maybe this isn't an out and out contradiction, but there's certainly an uncomfortable tension here.

                  ottermagic @EustaceHPlimsoll | 1 Mar '10, 19:30 | X | ^ This | Reply

                  • Not for me really.

                    It pretty well reflects what I think - basically some things are matters of fact and some of opinion. Value judgements are matters of opinion.

                    EustaceHPlimsoll @ottermagic | 1 Mar '10, 22:09 | X | ^ This | Reply

                  • How are value judgements not subjective?

                    The problem with your argument is you're getting opinions and facts mixed up. Of course there are objective facts. But all opinions will be, by their nature, subjective as they are impossible to quantify or prove (for, if you could prove them, they would be facts not opinions) and rooted in the biases of the persons stating the opinion. So stating as a fact that opinions are subjective is not at all contradictory because it's being presented as a statement of fact rather than a matter of opinion. I myself would agree that it's a statement of fact that all opinions are subjective.

                    Of course it can only be a fact so long as nobody is able to disprove it. If you can disprove the theory that all opinions are subjective then you obviously have every right to do so and so feel free to go ahead. But I don't really see how you could successfully argue against that premise.

                    theguywithnousername @ottermagic | 1 Mar '10, 23:22 | X | ^ This | Reply

                  • Yes, the tension comes from the non-transcendental nature (or contextually bound force) of the fact/value distinction

                    and from the belief in an absolute distinction between (and opposition of) subjectivity and objectivity.

                    The hardest thought to think in these debates is the idea that neither the objectivist nor the subjectivist position is right (and not because it's some "happy median" between the two, but rather because both positions presuppose that "consciousness" is autonomous and pregiven).

                    I've had it out a few times in these parts, and coincidentally enough once was in a thread on Radiohead. What is it about Radiohead that provokes philosophical discussions on the nature of aesthetic perception and/or appreciation?

                    robluvsnic @ottermagic | 2 Mar '10, 08:04 | X | ^ This | Reply

                    • It's a nice theory but unfortunately you're wrong.

                      There is a clear distinction between objectivity and subjectivity. The fact people frequently confuse the two doesn't alter the fact that a clearly defined distinction exists.

                      An objective statement is one that can be independently tested and either verified or disproven. (Hence why "all opinions are subjective" is an objective statement - if someone proves that an opinion can be subjective then it can be said to be false. If nobody can prove that an opinion can be subjective it can be held to be true.)

                      A subjective statement is one that it is impossible to independently rest and verify. "Radiohead are the greatest band of all time" is as such a subjective statement as there's no way to test and verify that theory as all assessment of it would come down to individual opinion.

                      People sometimes blur the edges and get confused but objectivity and subjectivity are two distinct concepts with a clear difference between the two.

                      theguywithnousername @robluvsnic | 2 Mar '10, 09:28 | X | ^ This | Reply

                      • Probably The Beatles would sit as the objective greatest band.

                        I mean that in the same way the Great Pyramid at Giza is objectively amazing, yeah?

                        You could certainly dig up a LOT of commentary to the effect that the Great Pyramid isn't all that or that really it's too popular and the Red Pyramid is far cooler, or that if you REALLY want to see an amazing monument then you're kidding yourself starting in Egypt at all...But we accept that as a...um...Minority report? Is that the right term.

                        I guess what I'm saying is there have been so many, many good things written about the Beatles, they have been so loved, emulated and rated over the years that if one were to say, "Find me a band that are objectively the greatest of all time," The Beatles would fit that bill. And it wouldn't mean all their songs were greatest songs ever written, or that they played the best gigs, or had the best ideas, or philosophies. Because when it comes to an objective view point you have to take things as read, you have to make approximations, like in science. And by its nature, an objective thing can be overridden by a subjective thing: objectively the world is a sphere but subjectively it's flat and both statements are in a sense completely valid.

                        TheoGB @theguywithnousername | 2 Mar '10, 10:49 | X | ^ This | Reply

                      • do I really want to get into this again? I'm not sure

                        "objectivity" and "subjectivity" are concepts that have a history. E.g. your working definition of "objectivity" above ("An objective statement is one that can be independently tested and either verified or disproven") amounts to only one definition of objectivity.

                        For evidence of this point (objective evidence? subjective opinion?) one might refer to the following:

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity

                        Note the different disciplinary/professional uses or formulations of a concept of objectivity. "Objectivity" in journalism isn't the same as it is in science, nor in philosophy. Nor, indeed, does the notion of objectivity function uniformly within each context — such that, for instance, "objectivity" in journalism might be seen on the one hand as a kind of "neutrality" attained through "balanced" coverage, or on the other hand as "non-distortion" attained through the avoidance of "value-laden" words, etc. This inconsistency in turn leads to situations where the two definitions contradict each each other. (I can cite a study that makes this point, if you really want me to.)

                        Of course, we might challenge the authority of wikipedia — just a website edited by people who know nothing, blah, blah, blah. I'm versed enough both in journalism and in philosophy to be broadly satisfied with overviews provided on each, and I'd certainly stake my house on the accuracy of the summary paragraph at the start of the "Objectivity (philosophy)" entry:

                        "Objectivity is both a central and elusive concept in philosophy. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity. Contrary to this, most recent philosophers, since the Critique of Pure Reason (1781) by Immanuel Kant, have concluded that scientific knowledge is systematic knowledge of the nature of things as we perceive them rather than [as] they are in themselves."

                        For Kant — and for a significant proportion of Western philosophy since then — "objectivity" is grounded in *universal* reason. "Objectivity" is thus grounded in, conditioned by, "subjectivity" (albeit as *universal* subjectivity, which is a very different understanding of subjectivity to that thrown around in these debates). This seems to me to be what you're referencing (whether knowingly or not, I could not say) when you describe an objective statement (by which I assume you mean "objectively true statement" or "objective false statement") as "one that can be independently tested and either verified or disproven". The definition of objectivity provide by Gaukroger in the "Objectivity (science)" entry seems at first to resonate with Kant's, but it's reference to objective accounts "not draw[ing] on any assumptions" potentially conflicts with Kant's, since in order to produce the objective account one would first have to demonstrate "objectively" that the distinction between "objective" and "subjective" is an objective one, rather than merely assuming it. But how could one objectively show this without presupposing the concept that one sought to justify objectively?

                        None of this means for a second that I don't believe that there are facts out there that aren't subjective (i.e. that I reduce the claim that "the Earth orbits the sun" to subjective opinion). The point is simply that the term "objective" is called on to do a lot of work, to mean a lot of different things (e.g. transcendentality, universality, neutrality, non-distortion, detachment, factuality, and more) such that "objectivity" is far from a rigorous concept, and certainly not rigorous enough to provide the self-evident basis to the distinction you want to make between objectivity and subjectivity — especially since the concept of "subjectivity" is even less coherent than that of objectivity.

                        Oh god, I can't believe I've allowed myself to get drawn into this again...

                        robluvsnic @theguywithnousername | 2 Mar '10, 14:07 | X | ^ This | Reply

                        • So, basically people need to define their terms otherwise it all gets really confusing

                          I agree. But otherwise, how does that relate to what you were saying before about neither the subjective or objective position being correct? In laymans terms. I did study philosophy but it was ages ago and I haven't got the foggiest what your first post means.

                          EustaceHPlimsoll @robluvsnic | 2 Mar '10, 14:27 | X | ^ This | Reply

                          • My second post only tangentially relates to the first

                            since I was responding directly to theguywithnousername's post. Regarding the point about the non-absolute nature of the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity, I can't help but cop out by referring you to a previous debate:

                            http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/music/4185609

                            I kick in about the 7th or 8th post, but it gets interesting around this point, when I get into an exchange with Anikulapo:

                            http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/music/4185609#r4684297

                            It's also worth keeping in mind that both in that debate and here, I'm aiming to critique knee-jerk affirmations of subjectivity, rather than to defend (or challenge objectivity). The bit about the fact/value distinction is something else altogether — though part of the problem in these debates is the conflation of the two distinctions.

                            I think I put the objectivity/subjectivity issue clearest in the older thread, but I'm happy to elaborate here (over the course of days, perhaps),

                            robluvsnic @EustaceHPlimsoll | 2 Mar '10, 14:40 | X | ^ This | Reply

                        • We're coming down to definitions here of course.

                          For me personally objectivity is a misused term in terms of both journalism and philosophy (in so far as that in both of those objectivity is clearly an impossible aim) and I'd only use it in the far more rigorous scientific definition. But fair enough - I'd not considered the other ways in which people use the word.

                          I largely disagree with Kant et al. Or more strictly consider it a wholly academic debate in that we can only experience the world as we perceive it and cannot possibly know or test whether such things are as they are in themselves. So for all practical purposes we might as well assume the world as we as humans perceive it and the world as it is are one and the same (in so far as all experience where human perception is essentially universally the same go at least). But I also agree I've probably opened a can of worms that doesn't really need to be opened here.

                          theguywithnousername @robluvsnic | 2 Mar '10, 15:03 | X | ^ This | Reply

        • A set of values has been suggested by 19948

          so we have a set of reference points from which we can begin to make judgements or start the debate on our set of values. I agree that any evaluation of those are subjective but you'll easily find that a common opinion or ground can be established. Films have a set of values for objective evaluation which we're all happy to use - plot, acting, dialogue / script, cinematography, directoring etc so there's no reason why these can't be developed for music. I mean, we can all come up with the same reasons why Jedward's 'Ice Ice Baby' is a bad recording or why The Beatles 'Eleanor Rigby' is a good one. Personal enjoyment of music should be separated from a critical evaluation. 'A' better than 'B' is a more difficult prospect but can be achieved once we've started the dialogue on the values that we're applying.

          El_Goodo @Violator | 1 Mar '10, 20:37 | X | ^ This | Reply

          • Personal enjoyment of music should be separated from a critical evaluation

            why? sorry if that sounds like a stupid question. I just don't see what value a debate about music that set aside personal enjoyment could possibly have.

            ring_tailed_lemur @El_Goodo | 1 Mar '10, 20:47 | X | ^ This | Reply

            • Don't get me wrong,

              my favourite conversations about music are all about personal emotions and what one person enjoys and why, that's what we're all here for, sharing in the joy. And that's subjective. What I'm suggesting is that we could elevate the debate above 'I like this, buggers to the rest of you' to something more sophisticated. I mean, we recognise that an episode of Hollyoakes is inferior to a Scorsese film or a dirty kebab to a Michellin star Sunday roast. If there's no objective values then everything is as shit or good as anything else but that's ok as long as someone likes it.

              El_Goodo @ring_tailed_lemur | 1 Mar '10, 21:55 | X | ^ This | Reply
View NestedLinear
« Back to Music forum
Radiohead Alla fagra Issa Bagayogo Lilly Wood & The Prick The Cunts
 

Thread not appearing correctly? Click here to rebuild | Report this