And if there are any more logical fallacies in this post, point out each and every one of them. I'm not as biased as you seem to think I am, even if it doesn't show that in text.
What the hell, I’m game to go down the rabbit hole one more time...
I genuinely don't see what this post has to do with the topic at hand.
@Black Abyss Babe posited that things like having instruments be in tune or trying to have notes sometimes line up with strong beats in the music weren’t “rules”, but her description of how people arrived at those conventions directly mirrored how society arrived at other conventions that we regularly refer to as rules. I attempted to use humor to point out this irony.
It has everything to do with the topic at hand, because her assertion appeared to be an attempt to undermine the notion that there are any objective notions of “correctness” to musical form, but her argument directly undermined her own position.
OK, let’s move on to the biggest problem in your post:
Being off-key is subjective, definitely
I'll give you up-front being off-key - that's objective
You do realize that you’ve just taken two completely opposing positions in the same post, right? You really ought to pick one and stick with it. (Spoiler alert, you should pick the second one.)
Missing notes and the other things you said is what you think of as sloppy - and that's exactly why sloppiness is subjective. "Sloppiness" is a blank term that can be argued via actual things, but it depends on the listener to make the discernment.
You’re half right. I think the subtle distinction that may be being missed here is that the measurement of factors that contribute to the perception of sloppiness is pretty obviously objective, but the thresholding of those factors and the assessment of what’s “too sloppy” or “too clinical” is personal and subjective.
Saying “it’s all subjective” is obviously bullshit, because you can of course measure how close a note is to the frequency it ought to be on the scale being used, or how close it is to the rhythm features underneath it. Whether you personally notice those objective differences, or like or dislike them, has no bearing on whether they exist or not.
Of course they exist — you can measure them independently. And because you can do that, those differences are not subjective — only your reaction to them is.
Janick isn't the best improviser in the world, I'll give you that straight-up, but we're talking about studio recordings, right? How can you miss notes there?
If your producer is in love with the idea of recording everything live in the studio and just keeping the best full takes, and if you play in a “loose, improvisational style” that gives you cover for your lack of technical precision.
I know very little about the actual constructions of music
Well, here’s a hint: it’s all math underneath. The rhythms, the relationships of the frequencies of the notes, and why certain ones work well together in chords and others don’t. One might even refer to them as “rules”.
What bothers me personally is more along the lines of "Brighter Than A Thousand Suns", where Bruce isn't always on top of the music. But other people love the song and would argue that it works to its purpose. I wouldn't call that sloppiness, it just doesn't work well to my ears.
And you’re illustrating my point. Where his lyrics fall vs. the rhythm is measurable and objective. How you respond to it is personal and subjective.
Also, Dr. Suess forged a living via randomly coming up with words to describe shit instead of using ones that already exist - is he sloppy, too?
No, you have to be quite composed to work successfully with rhythm and rhyme and puns. And word invention is a long-standing tradition appearing in everything from Seuss to Shakespeare. If the meaning or role of the word is understood, then it fits into the same grammatical structures as any other word would.
WriTiNG liK E T. HiS may look sloppy to someone, but what if there's an actual purpose behind it? Is that sloppiness?
Yes, it’s just intentionally sloppy in that case.
Things are not as objective as you may think.
Well, you state this as if it’s a fact, but you haven’t offered a substantive argument for your point of view.