Music Myths

Technique vs feel or technique vs groove all over again ... yeah, maybe it's been too long since we had one of these blood baths heeheehee

Lol. Didn't realize there was a knock-down, drag-out debate on that before. We've had the same topic on the sax forum where I'm a member, and it was a very civil debate.
 
Man he really nails it. It is easier to claim genius in the arts (despite lacking it) because when called on the no-talent thing, people just say "its all subjective" or - "player X isn't a technically accomplished player, but he/she plays exactly what the music calls for." How many times have we seen that play out on this forum? Its a lot different trying to claim ability in a field where the ability can be concretely measured. Here is my question, if there is no such thing as a better drummer or better guitarist etc, then how do I make a decision when hiring someone new? I'll give you a hint - when I have money to make or lose based on a decision - all that PC bullcrap goes out the window.

( Off his FB page; ) Brandford Marsalis -

"What I’ve learned from my students is that students today are completely full of shit! That is what I’ve learned from my students! (Is that) much like the generation before them the only thing they’re really interested in is you telling them how right they are and how good they are!

That is the same mentality that basically forces Harvard to give out B’s to people that don’t deserve them, out of the fear that they’ll go to other schools that will give them B’s, and those schools will make the money. We live in a country that seems to be in this massive state of delusion where the idea of what you are is more important that you actually being that. And it actually works as long as everybody’s winking at the same time.

Then if one person stops winking, you just beat the crap out of that person and then they either start winking or they go somewhere else. Yeah, my students, all they want to hear is how good they are and how talented they are. Most of them aren't really willing to work to the degree to live up to that!
"

..
 
Man he really nails it. It is easier to claim genius in the arts (despite lacking it) because when called on the no-talent thing, people just say "its all subjective" or - "player X isn't a technically accomplished player, but he/she plays exactly what the music calls for." How many times have we seen that play out on this forum? Its a lot different trying to claim ability in a field where the ability can be concretely measured. Here is my question, if there is no such thing as a better drummer or better guitarist etc, then how do I make a decision when hiring someone new? I'll give you a hint - when I have money to make or lose based on a decision - all that PC bullcrap goes out the window.

Great post Average. Not only is there a lot of truth in Brandon's statement, but your point about not being able to say that one musician is better than another is spot-on. This whole "you can't use the word "better" because it's all subjective" thing really needs to go. What's so bad about it? Are we that thin-skinned that we can't deal with saying one musician is better than another simply because somebody might get offended?

Also, as you said, if no musician is better than another, how do you decide on hiring a musician when hiring a new band member? Just take the first person that comes due to the "it's all subjective" view. Maybe we should just abolish tryouts all together because according the the "it's all subjective view" no musician is better than another, and if you chose not to hire the first person that tried out it might hurt their feelings.

What if I started in a band where we were pretty much all on the same skill level at the beginning, but my band mates really worked hard to improve their playing, while I on the other hand, put in little practice time and improved very little, and I'm now struggling to keep up? Should the band be able to fire me because I don't have the dedication to improve my skills to their level? I sure think they should be able to do so.

I'm also tired of this crap about "let's not use the word "better" and just enjoy the music". So if two people have a debate about two musicians on who they think is the better musician of the two, then they're not enjoying the music? That's just ridiculous.

This PC "can't say this or that because it might offend somebody" crap really needs to go. Some people just need to grow a thicker skin.

This is a problem in our society in general that started with the self-esteem movement. This "everybody makes the team" crap has to stop. Sorry, but that's not reality. If you don't make the team, use that as a motivation to practice harder and make the team next year. I suppose when people are adults nobody should get a raise at work unless everybody gets a raise. That's the mentality that we're bringing our kids up with. This idea that it's wrong to reward only certain people, even though they worked harder/did better than the others, is not only ridiculous, but unrealistic.

As I've said in posts in previous threads, I could use the "it's all subjective" view as a reason to say that I'm just as good of a saxophonist as Sonny Rollins, if I wanted to live in this PC fantasy world to protect a fragile ego. Of course, the reality of the situation is that I'm not as a good as him and I'd be a complete fool to think otherwise.
 
Great post Average. Not only is there a lot of truth in Brandon's statement, but your point about not being able to say that one musician is better than another is spot-on. This whole "you can't use the word "better" because it's all subjective" thing really needs to go. What's so bad about it? Are we that thin-skinned that we can't deal with saying one musician is better than another simply because somebody might get offended?

Also, as you said, if no musician is better than another, how do you decide on hiring a musician when hiring a new band member? Just take the first person that comes due to the "it's all subjective" view. Maybe we should just abolish tryouts all together because according the the "it's all subjective view" no musician is better than another, and if you chose not to hire the first person that tried out it might hurt their feelings.

What if I started in a band where we were pretty much all on the same skill level at the beginning, but my band mates really worked hard to improve their playing, while I on the other hand, put in little practice time and improved very little, and I'm now struggling to keep up? Should the band be able to fire me because I don't have the dedication to improve my skills to their level? I sure think they should be able to do so.

I'm also tired of this crap about "let's not use the word "better" and just enjoy the music". So if two people have a debate about two musicians on who they think is the better musician of the two, then they're not enjoying the music? That's just ridiculous.

This PC "can't say this or that because it might offend somebody" crap really needs to go. Some people just need to grow a thicker skin.

This is a problem in our society in general that started with the self-esteem movement. This "everybody makes the team" crap has to stop. Sorry, but that's not reality. If you don't make the team, use that as a motivation to practice harder and make the team next year. I suppose when people are adults nobody should get a raise at work unless everybody gets a raise. That's the mentality that we're bringing our kids up with. This idea that it's wrong to reward only certain people, even though they worked harder/did better than the others, is not only ridiculous, but unrealistic.

I have several problems with this:
- The entire point of subjectivity is that you make personal judgments, not that you make no judgments at all.
- I've never actually heard the "it's all subjective" argument made by anyone knowledgeable- it always seems to come from ignorant people who can't deal with the fact that someone might know more than them. It's not any kind of establishment/PC position that I've ever been exposed to.
- I don't recognize this "self-esteem"/"everybody makes the team" movement from real life- and I went to a hippie school in the biggest hippie town in America in the 1970's. I've heard a lot about it on right-wing radio however, almost like it's a made-up bogeyman.
- Avoiding saying offensive things is not PC, it's just being a gentleman. But I don't think teachers need to coddle students' feelings, and I have not met many teachers who do.
- I think you're misinterpreting what (Branford) Marsalis said- I don't believe he is responding to so-called political correctness. He appears to be complaining that over-privileged (that's my interpretation) students are basically refusing serious instruction, and schools are degrading their standards not in the name of PC, but in competing for those students.
 
I have several problems with this:
- The entire point of subjectivity is that you make personal judgments, not that you make no judgments at all.
- I've never actually heard the "it's all subjective" argument made by anyone knowledgeable- it always seems to come from ignorant people who can't deal with the fact that someone might know more than them. It's not any kind of establishment/PC position that I've ever been exposed to.

I don't know how long you've been around this particular forum, but the argument seems to be - everything is subjective, its just your personal taste/judgment and all judgments/personal tastes are equal. The whole argument here has been that no one's opinion is any more valid than any one else's, regardless of ability, success etc. Therefore, there is no such thing as a 'better' drummer, which of course, is BS.

You said you went to school in the 1970's. The "self esteem" movement happened in the late 80's and 90's and continues today. It is real. I can attest to it from personal experience and from the experience of my wife, who was a music teacher in both the Chicago and Kansas City public schools. Its effects are being seen in an entire generation of idiots who can't think and can't do a project without it being a 'group effort.' The intended result was to remove individual effort and individual reward from the concept of achievement. They have largely been successful and the thinking is pervasive. The other point BM was making was - if someone stops winking, everyone jumps on them. Witness this phenomenon on MULTIPLE F'ING threads on drummerworld. It happens OVER and OVER and OVER again.

-
- Avoiding saying offensive things is not PC, it's just being a gentleman. But I don't think teachers need to coddle students' feelings, and I have not met many teachers who do.
The problem is that what is considered 'offensive' has been redefined by a bunch of no-nothing twits. It is offensive to think outside of the box. It is offensive to say that there is such a thing as a better drummer. The whole concept of individual achievement is supposed to be a no-no now, so saying that one person is better at a given task than another is offensive. Remember, there is no I in t-e-a-m.

Here is the other thing - part of the self-esteem indoctrination training that we received in school was that you had to give someone a 'warm-fuzzy' (compliment) and that was supposed to make the feel good and have self esteem. It wasn't supposed to be something that they earned, just something arbitrary that you would pick out to say. "I love the way your shoe laces are tied today."
 
I have several problems with this:
- The entire point of subjectivity is that you make personal judgments, not that you make no judgments at all.

True, but I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is that I don't like the view that no musician is better than another with the defense of an "it's all subjective" argument. Some musicians ARE better than others. Professional musicians that I go and see at clubs around Chicago ARE better than me. Of course, that doesn't mean that I can't one day reach their level, but to kid myself into thinking that I am on their level due to subjectivity would be foolish on my part.

- I've never actually heard the "it's all subjective" argument made by anyone knowledgeable- it always seems to come from ignorant people who can't deal with the fact that someone might know more than them. It's not any kind of establishment/PC position that I've ever been exposed to.

Well, I've certainly seen it made on here quite a bit. Just look at the Ginger Baker thread from a while back and you'll see plenty of it. There were two quotes in that thread that I highly agree with:

I've talked to a lot of older musicians about this better is all subjective thing, and they just look at me like I'm nuts. One of them told me How do I hire the better drummer when I can't tell what better is?

Sometimes I log on here and wonder if I am living/playing in some alternate universe where there actually IS a difference between a 6 year old drummer after his first lesson and a seasoned player with 33 years of experience. Clearly, reality must be wrong.

Clearly, I am not the only person that has seen this on here.


- I don't recognize this "self-esteem"/"everybody makes the team" movement from real life- and I went to a hippie school in the biggest hippie town in America in the 1970's. I've heard a lot about it on right-wing radio however, almost like it's a made-up bogeyman.

I can tell you right now I'm probably the farthest thing from right wing. However, from my own experiences a lot of younger kids do have an attitude that they always deserve a reward for something. I'm a teacher myself, and I see it all the time. Thing is, it's not the kids' fault, it's the parents' fault. I've especially seen this from other special ed. teachers. The kids who did their reading at home for the month for the Book It program would get ice cream as a reward. One teacher would always give all the kids ice cream arguing that it wasn't fair. Uh, yeah it is fair because they did the work. So the message they're sending to the kids who didn't do the work is that they can not do the work and still get rewarded. Then the kids who did do the work see this and say to themselves "why should I do the work when they did nothing and still got rewarded?" They feel sorry for the kids and that's the worst possible thing you can do, because when they get out in the real world nobody is going to feel sorry for them, and reality is going to smack them down hard.

This has nothing to do with political views. You're experiences are obviously different than mine, therefor we have differing opinions. Nothing wrong with that. I base my opinion on my experiences, so I'm not going to change it because I have seen it.

Avoiding saying offensive things is not PC, it's just being a gentleman. But I don't think teachers need to coddle students' feelings, and I have not met many teachers who do.

Well, I have. Especially in special ed. The above is just one example. But saying that people shouldn't use the word "better" is different. So anybody who says that one musician is better than another is not being a gentleman? Sorry, but I don't agree with that at all. If somebody finds it offensive when somebody says that this musician is better than that musician, then they just need to grow a thicker skin.

- I think you're misinterpreting what (Branford) Marsalis said- I don't believe he is responding to so-called political correctness. He appears to be complaining that over-privileged (that's my interpretation) students are basically refusing serious instruction, and schools are degrading their standards not in the name of PC, but in competing for those students.

He didn't specify that so I guess that's open to interpretation, but even if your interpretation is correct, I don't think that the attitudes of the students he talks about simply applies to over-privileged kids, because I've seen it a lot with kids from middle and working class families as well. Kids who can't handle any kind of negative criticism and expect to be praised all the time. To say that only over-privileged kids act that way is not true.

Granted, it's not in the name of PC, but the fact is that a lot of kids nowadays are brought up with the "nothing but praise" attitude, and it doesn't just apply to the upper class. Again, parents are to blame for that, not kids.
 
Last edited:
True, but I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is that I don't like the view that no musician is better than another with the defense of an "it's all subjective" argument. Some musicians ARE better than others. Professional musicians that I go and see at clubs around Chicago ARE better than me. Of course, that doesn't mean that I can't one day reach their level, but to kid myself into thinking that I am on their level due to subjectivity would be foolish on my part.

The one thing here about Jeff is that he is so fu'en the real deal. You talk about a guy who is a player, who has honed and owned his craft. He has one of the most distinctive sounds, grooves and techniques. He along with a few others, really defined this instrument. I think that such talent is a detriment as well because your sound is so unique and your language so particular you may not be the best all around guy for the job.
 
I dunno, guys. I get the point that there are distinctions between levels of proficiency amongst musicians. And yeah, I think a lot of that is objectively measurable. But I can't dismiss the reality that subjectivity is a huge part of evaluating music and, by proxy, musicians. How do you hire the better drummer? By hiring the one you like better. Just know that doesn't necessarily mean it's the same drummer someone else will like better. If all of this was so objective, we'd all list the same top 10 drummers. And clearly, we don't.

Music isn't a hard science. It's just not. We have different tastes. Some of the music I consider beautiful and sublime sounds like noise to someone else. And vice versa. I think the frustration over this fact is what drives people who have dedicated their lives to an art form like music so crazy. It really can be frustrating.
 
I'll take this one.

Even though you may prefer one player over the other, you would still recognize that the five guys who auditioned for the job had merit because that is objectively observable. You can discuss those merits with the other guys in your band who are doing the auditioning. The guy who came in and didn't know squat, he would stick out like a sore thumb.
 
I'll take this one.

Even though you may prefer one player over the other, you would still recognize that the five guys who auditioned for the job had merit because that is objectively observable. You can discuss those merits with the other guys in your band who are doing the auditioning. The guy who came in and didn't know squat, he would stick out like a sore thumb.

Okay, I'm good with that. And maybe nobody was saying anything more than that. If not, then no argument from me.
 
I'll take this one.

Even though you may prefer one player over the other, you would still recognize that the five guys who auditioned for the job had merit because that is objectively observable. You can discuss those merits with the other guys in your band who are doing the auditioning. The guy who came in and didn't know squat, he would stick out like a sore thumb.

But what if one person in the world (his mother) thinks that the 6 year old who just auditioned for my band is the greatest drummer who ever lived? Remember -

Just know that doesn't necessarily mean it's the same drummer someone else will like better. If all of this was so objective, we'd all list the same top 10 drummers. And clearly, we don't.

Just because I like Tony Williams better than Precious, the 6 year old after the first lesson, doesn't mean that I'm right. Precious' mother thinks he is a fantastic drummer and since its all subjective, who am I to say that Tony Williams is better?
 
I dunno, guys. I get the point that there are distinctions between levels of proficiency amongst musicians. And yeah, I think a lot of that is objectively measurable. But I can't dismiss the reality that subjectivity is a huge part of evaluating music and, by proxy, musicians. How do you hire the better drummer? By hiring the one you like better. Just know that doesn't necessarily mean it's the same drummer someone else will like better. If all of this was so objective, we'd all list the same top 10 drummers. And clearly, we don't.

Music isn't a hard science. It's just not. We have different tastes. Some of the music I consider beautiful and sublime sounds like noise to someone else. And vice versa. I think the frustration over this fact is what drives people who have dedicated their lives to an art form like music so crazy. It really can be frustrating.

I'm not arguing that subjectivity doesn't play a role. I just don't like the "it's ALL subjective". To say that it isn't ALL subjective doesn't mean that your saying that it's all objective. They both play their roles.

I am able to make my personal opinions on musicianship without letting my preferences cloud my judgement. As I stated in an earlier thread, I'm not a fan of Andres Segovia. His music doesn't fit my personal taste. HOWEVER, if somebody were to ask me who I thought were the best guitarists of all-time, Segovia would be in my top 3 for sure. I would choose to listen to Jimmy Page instead if I had to choose between the two. However, I would NEVER say that Page was a better guitarist than Segovia. Even though I really enjoy Page's playing.

Maybe some people can't make the distinction between "favorite musicians" and "better musicians", but that doesn't mean it applies to all of us.
 
True, but I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is that I don't like the view that no musician is better than another with the defense of an "it's all subjective" argument. Some musicians ARE better than others. Professional musicians that I go and see at clubs around Chicago ARE better than me. Of course, that doesn't mean that I can't one day reach their level, but to kid myself into thinking that I am on their level due to subjectivity would be foolish on my part.

But you were asking "how would I know who to hire for my band if everything is subjective?" I'm pointing out that picking the people you want is not inconsistent with being subjective.

Well, I've certainly seen it made on here quite a bit. Just look at the Ginger Baker thread from a while back and you'll see plenty of it.

I guess I should've put an emphasis on the word knowledgeable. I know people who don't know what they're talking about say it all the time.

I can tell you right now I'm probably the farthest thing from right wing.

I'm glad to hear it, and that you are speaking from personal experience- you seemed to be repeating some right wing/Libertarian memes. Sorry if I came off as accusing you of something.

But saying that people shouldn't use the word "better" is different. So anybody who says that one musician is better than another is not being a gentleman?

No, I didn't say that. I am not arguing in favor of this "subjective" thing. When you said "This PC "can't say this or that because it might offend somebody" crap really needs to go" I thought you were making a broader point about civility/PC/niceness. For some reason, certain Libertarians are very big on this- they seem to view judgments on them being a-holes as some kind of infringement on their personal liberties.

Granted, it's not in the name of PC, but the fact that a lot of kids nowadays are brought up with the "nothing but praise" attitude, and it doesn't just apply to the upper class. Again, parents are to blame for that, not kids.

I don't necessarily disagree with that- you seemed to be laying it all at the feet of PC, and I disputed that.

Sorry if this is boring for other readers- I'm just having to repeat myself from the previous comment. I tried to be as clear in my language as I could.
 
I'm not totally sure that the ability to judge good, better, best, completely negates the subjectivity argument though. Blind Freddy could tell you that I am not as a good a drummer than a host of others, it's evident to all and sundry that there are "better" players than me. I'd never assume a 'subjectivity' debate between Jojo and and a guy who's been playing for three weeks. Of course that line of thinking is unrealistic.

But what about when we're looking into the upper echelon of players out there?

I remember that quote from Matt Smith as it gave me plenty to think about.....but on the flip side, couldn't it be argued that the idea presented by the band leader of knowing who to hire, is indeed subjective to his own requirements for his own music, in the first place? He will pick and choose who he thinks is "best" to fill the roll.....in this case, it's his music he's making the call on and it makes perfect sense that he would have an idea of who he thought was the best option for that purpose.

But taking that idea a step further, do you think it's fair to say that if there really was "one best drummer", there'd be only one drummer who get's all the work? If the "best' was as easy to define as some say it is the drumming world would be a one man show. We could definitively say that Gadd is better than Vinnie who is better than Weckl and as a result Gadd would be on every session played. But I'm wondering if the fact that all three (and a multitude of others) get called upon so frequently denotes that there is some degree of subjectivity with respect to those doing the hiring?

What do you guys think?
 
Toldja that parsing this stuff is a fraught business online :)

If we were all sitting at a club with drinks in hand and listening to a succession of bands then I expect we'd find there would be a fair bit of consensus as to who's the more skilled drummer and even whose playing we liked more.

The objective technical side relates to speed, independence and dynamic control - what the player is capable of playing. The subjective side relates to whether you enjoy the choices made with the technique at the drummer's disposal.

When I was in my teens I got into fusion and was an Al DiMeola fan. A fried, who hated fusion, said he reckoned Keith Richards was a better guitarist than Al. I just about had an apoplexy :) Of course Al has far better technique with far fewer limitations but the problem was that the comparison was futile. If we were teaching or auditioning for RTF or The Stones or a project band then it's useful but it otherwise totally doesn't matter IMO. Al's great doing what he does and Keef's great doing what he does and the fact that Al is a much better guitarist is irrelevant.

Brad Pitt is richer and better looking than all of my previous partners but that doesn't mean he would have been be a better match for me.
 
But what if one person in the world (his mother) thinks that the 6 year old who just auditioned for my band is the greatest drummer who ever lived? Remember -

Just because I like Tony Williams better than Precious, the 6 year old after the first lesson, doesn't mean that I'm right. Precious' mother thinks he is a fantastic drummer and since its all subjective, who am I to say that Tony Williams is better?

Sorry that job has been taken. Playing devil's advocate is Aydee's job. Truthfully, the ironic thing is that we can all sit down and say who the 10 greatest drummers are.
 
I'd never assume a 'subjectivity' debate between Jojo and and a guy who's been playing for three weeks. Of course that line of thinking is unrealistic.

But what about when we're looking into the upper echelon of players out there?

I vaguely remember that back when I first started playing drums there were two guys, call them drummer A and drummer B. Both of those drummers were so much better than me that I could barely even tell how much better than me they were, and I did not have the ability to distinguish better or worse between the two of them. As time went on, it became really, really, really obvious that drummer A blew drummer B's doors off in every respect. But if you went on the street and asked someone with no drumming knowledge, opinions would be split. I think you have a point about top echelon players (placed in the top echelon because of ability, not necessarily because of fame). They are much closer in ability level and one would have to be very accomplished to make an informed judgment as to who was better.

But taking that idea a step further, do you think it's fair to say that if there really was "one best drummer", there'd be only one drummer who get's all the work? If the "best' was as easy to define as some say it is the drumming world would be a one man show. We could definitively say that Gadd is better than Vinnie who is better than Weckl and as a result Gadd would be on every session played. But I'm wondering if the fact that all three (and a multitude of others) get called upon so frequently denotes that there is some degree of subjectivity with respect to those doing the hiring?

What do you guys think?
Two of those guys are FAR better than one of them. I'll let you decide who is who. A lot of how busy a player is has to do with availability and whether or not they are likable, dependable guys. You can be a phenomenal player but you won't get many gigs if you are a jerk and show up late/drunk.
 
I'm not totally sure that the ability to judge good, better, best, completely negates the subjectivity argument though. Blind Freddy could tell you that I am not as a good a drummer than a host of others, it's evident to all and sundry that there are "better" players than me. I'd never assume a 'subjectivity' debate between Jojo and and a guy who's been playing for three weeks. Of course that line of thinking is unrealistic.

But what about when we're looking into the upper echelon of players out there?

I remember that quote from Matt Smith as it gave me plenty to think about.....but on the flip side, couldn't it be argued that the idea presented by the band leader of knowing who to hire, is indeed subjective to his own requirements for his own music, in the first place? He will pick and choose who he thinks is "best" to fill the roll.....in this case, it's his music he's making the call on and it makes perfect sense that he would have an idea of who he thought was the best option for that purpose.

But taking that idea a step further, do you think it's fair to say that if there really was "one best drummer", there'd be only one drummer who get's all the work? If the "best' was as easy to define as some say it is the drumming world would be a one man show. We could definitively say that Gadd is better than Vinnie who is better than Weckl and as a result Gadd would be on every session played. But I'm wondering if the fact that all three (and a multitude of others) get called upon so frequently denotes that there is some degree of subjectivity with respect to those doing the hiring?

What do you guys think?

See, but that's the thing. Why would we all have to agree on who was the "one best drummer"? Can we not therefor, use the term better because in order to do so we all must agree?

Of course a band leader is going to pick the drummer that fits his band best. (OMG I'm using the word best! :O), but objectivity is still going to be involved as well. Still doesn't mean he can't look at other musicians and not be able to tell the difference between his favorites and who he feels are better musicians. He can still look at a guy during auditions and say "this guy is the best drummer out of the lot so far, but his style just doesn't fit mine".

It's this assumption that favorite is always going to mean best when people look at musicianship and that's simply not true. Maybe some people can't discern the two, but that doesn't mean we should stereotype everybody else as not being able to do so.

Again, just to say that it isn't ALL subjective isn't saying that subjectivity doesn't play a role. Why does it always have to be "all this" or "all that"? Can't both play a role?
 
The whole argument here has been that no one's opinion is any more valid than any one else's, regardless of ability, success etc. Therefore, there is no such thing as a 'better' drummer, which of course, is BS.

Of course it is. And I'll say again, I don't know anyone serious who thinks otherwise. I know there are people on the site who say that; you should go argue with them instead of hijacking unrelated threads.

Re: the rest of your Glen-Beckian rant:

The whole concept of individual achievement is supposed to be a no-no now, so saying that one person is better at a given task than another is offensive. Remember, there is no I in t-e-a-m.

What, is Vince Lombardi a commie socialist now?

This is absolutely ridiculous. I have nothing else to say about it, except good job forcing the asinine subjectivity debate.
 
See, but that's the thing. Why would we all have to agree on who was the "one best drummer"?

I'm not trying to state we would....it was more a question surrounding what I perceived to be a dismissal of the term "subjective" as being irrelevant. It was a direct question posed on the back of the "One of them told me How do I hire the better drummer when I can't tell what better is? ", line of thought.

I just questioned the notion that subjectivity can be removed entirely, thus leaving a clear cut answer on who should be hired.


Again, just to say that it isn't ALL subjective isn't saying that subjectivity doesn't play a role. Why does it always have to be "all this" or "all that"? Can't both play a role?


Couldn't agree more mate....and that was the angle I was approaching my post from. ;-)
 
Back
Top