Bryce Christian says…

Yes, music can be objectively good or objectively bad. First, my definition of objective in this case is not unanimity, but consensus. There will always be listeners who refuse to give certain songs or artists a chance in their queues. This is understandable to a moderate extent, as many songs are acquired tastes or come from niche genres. However, there are certain songs, such as “Thriller” by Michael Jackson or “Gold Digger” by Kanye West, that undeniably are sonically pleasing. To not sing along to “Thriller” or bop their head to “Gold Digger,” one must either really hate the artist or be listening with closed ears.

I will concede the point that, although the music may be objectively good, the voice or certain parts of production turn some listeners off, even the ones that aren’t simply rejecting the song out of spite. But here’s the thing: I’m not arguing that music is objectively perfect, but that some music can at the very least be objectively good.

From a more technical standpoint, music theory and its role in music are vital to its validity as objectively good. I would even argue that “breaking” the rules of music theory, even if done correctly, eliminates music from the contention of being objectively good. If one were to look at the songs that are objectively good to many listeners, they would see technically sound music that aligns superbly with core aspects of music theory. Switching the lens to objectively bad music, such as Taylor Swift’s new album, “The Life of a Showgirl,” has been proven by many musicians who are well-versed in music theory that her latest album has ample instances of poor production from a music-theory perspective. For example, her outro track, “The Life of a Showgirl,” is in G Mixolydian, which is G Major with a flat seven. This results in a G major scale of G, A, B, C, D, E and F, instead of F#. However, when the seventh is flat, the leading tone of the scale is removed, and in pop music, specifically in this track, this sloppy sense of music theory is off-putting. Some can do these music theory experiments correctly, such as The Beatles, who used E Mixolydian in their song “Norwegian Wood”; however, it doesn’t work for everybody. This can be true of plenty of songs and albums; however, proving that music is objectively bad is less justifiable than proving that it is objectively good. This is because, even though the music theory may be technically wrong, some music can still sound good subjectively when done correctly.

Grace Huidobro says…

It is simply impossible to call music “objectively good.”

Merriam-Webster defines the word objective as “expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.” Musical preferences are an inherently personal matter, so it is impossible to call a song “objectively good.”

While I can admit that some songs are iconic and have had a major influence, that doesn’t mean they are objectively good. While we see that songs like “Thriller” and “Gold Digger” have influenced the music game in many different ways, that doesn’t mean they are good.

To be able to define music as good, you have to first define what “good music” is. Is it popular music? Influential? Or music that means something? There is no way to define “good music,” so there can’t be a way for music to be objectively good.

Contrary to Christian’s beliefs, there is no specific way to create good or bad music. Even though Taylor Swift’s “Life of a Showgirl”isn’t considered “good” to music theorists, many people loved the album. The album spent four weeks at number one, so clearly she did something right. For it to be “objectively bad,” there would need to be a consensus, which is simply impossible to achieve.

Another major part of music is how you interpret it. Some people may love a song, while others can’t stand it. In order for something to be objective, there must be a consensus. “Gold Digger” and “Thriller” are not loved by all eight billion people on the planet. In fact, in a ranking of all of Jackson’s songs, Billboard “Thriller” at 40. If it can’t even be considered in the top 10 of his best songs, how can it be an objectively good song?

Music is also an inherently emotional art. The way people perceive music is heavily influenced by their emotions and how they relate to it. Specifically, culture plays a huge role in music. Songs that perform well in one country may not perform as well in another. For example, according to the Music Vault, Young Cister is the top performing artist in Chile, while he doesn’t even touch the Top 100 in the U.S. Music is based in culture, and while it is possible to love artists from different countries, the culture barrier is definitely there.

At the end of the day, musical preferences come down to your own feelings. This means that it is impossible to call certain songs or artists “objectively good.”