> So we talk and debate this kind of stuff a lot - what’s objectively or
> subjectively bad or good when it comes to art. I think usually we fall on
> the side of 80% of what we like is purely subjective and the 20%
> objectivity, say, happens if an instrument is accidentally out of tune and
> therefore “not good”, I dunno.

> But how much of this, especially with film scores and the role they must
> play, can be just quantifiably and objectively labelled as great (or bad)
> regardless of your personal opinion? A little? Some? Tons?

> Mostly asking because I watched Once Upon a Time in the West again the
> other day and I just don’t think I’m wrong in saying it’s objectively
> great movie music. Personally, yes I love it and love listening to it, but
> man, even if I didn’t, how it fits the flick perfectly and helps tell the
> story (and fill us in on character motivation and emotion) is just
> objectively goddamn great. Like, 100% so, not that 80% silliness I
> mentioned earlier.

> I dunno….what do you folks think? How much is personal, and are there are
> any famous or major times where we can just say “screw personal, that’s
> masterful music right there”?

In the grand scheme of things, IMHO its not art if its value is not subjective. I feel like that could be a definition of Art - something where the value of it is subjective.

That being said, a lot of talent and a lot of skill can make many of us come to a near-consensus! Like Once Upon a Time in the West

N8