Intervals considered consonant in one style will be considered dissonant in another. For instance, a P4th is considered dissonant in western counterpoint music (as far as I know, correct me if there are exceptions), yet it is an inversion of a P5th, which is considered consonant.

There is obviously a taste factor in music. Hamburgers might not be popular in Indonesia (forgive me if they are), but they might think another food is very tasty which people in Canada might find revolting. Music can be the same way (listen to John Cage music, and you will see that anything can be considered music by someone).

Thus, one might think that there is no objectively good music, as everyone has different opinions. However, what if someone conducted a study in which people all over the world listened to two songs (it doesn’t matter what genre, it might be best to have the two be the same genre, though, I haven’t thought about that) and simply stated which song was better (even if they hated both)? Would there be a tendency for everyone in the world to like one better than the other? What if you repeated this test over different decades with different songs.

If any one song can be generally considered better than any other given song, then it follows that there is one song which everyone would (on average) enjoy better than any other song (remember, genre doesn’t matter). Is that song, then, the example of the closest humanity has ever gotten to creating the objectively perfect song? What if humanity is wrong?

One additional point we must keep in mind in this sort of debate is this. The world right now is very influenced by the western system of music. Some music might be very hard to find people who like it. This doesn’t mean that it is good music (or does it….?).

In summary, if there is objectively good music, who says what that music is? The expert? The local teenager who strums his electric guitar late in the night? Mozart? Metallica? Vivaldi? Is no one right?

I don’t have the answers to these questions, but I think I can reasonably say this: music is somewhat like a language. The job of the musician is to communicate with his/her audience. If the message gets across (it doesn’t have to have lyrics to do this), the job of the musician is done. I do understand that there are limitations to this theory, as some music doesn’t necessarily have a message, but is music (some ambiance music).

Music is an amazing thing! Don’t let this question distract you from making it.

I do think you can be objectively good for a purpose eg. objectively good for getting young people in the right kind of nightclub dancing – that’s something that we can measure and quantify. But I don’t know what universal standards you would use to measure that dance song against a country ballad say.

Jeff (www.cerebellumblues.com)

Matters of taste can never be 100% objective. If they were, everyone would feel the same way as everybody else about every song. You could argue that some people are just wrong about what’s good, but I don’t think judgment of good/bad can exist outside of human perception.

On the other hand, certain songs really do feel less effective than others. And if you push too far, you find yourself outside the realm of what can be defined as music altogether. John Cage’s “4’33″ is an interesting thought experiment, for instance, and it may even be art, but it’s not music.

Love Pete xxx