# Subjective and Objective Opinions



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

In musical context, a subjective opinion would be a preference or a "favourite". An objective opinion, being an opinion in which one attempts to be objective, would be produced in one of the many 'greatest' or 'greater' polls.

But how separate are they? How much distinction is there between the two? Is it even possible to have a genuinely objective opinion? Really it seems that often when I am arguing X composer is better than Y, I prefer X to Y as well, but am attempting to rationalise it. And this is certainly true of others too I think.

I am almost arriving at the view that when we try and assess a composer's greatness, we take our own opinion and what everyone else says on the subject, and then moderate between the two. This is a little cynical I know, but who really rationalises these things - before any opinion is formed that is? In this case we might as well talk about favourites in all these polls because then everyone would know what they were talking about (their own preference), and it would depend less on how people moderated their opinions. Is it even possible to assess a composer's greatness anyway?

Anyway, seeing as how it is one of the big driving forces behind debates, I thought I would create a thread in case anyone wanted to analyse it.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

As long as you are dicking around with 'greatness', you are forced into the subjective. There _may_ be objective measures of skills, adherence to established standards thereof... ? I am uneducated, that's somebody else's call.

'Greatest', 'best', those are subjective superlatives where there is no accepted graduated scale for measurement. Better to simply say that Composer A or Symphony X is the one _I_ most admire in a period or a genre - or overall, if you can make that distinction. If 999 'I's' agree on one candidate, and one 'outlaw' chooses someone or something else, then you can decide that the Tyranny of the Majority rules... or not.


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2012)

Good one, Ramako!

I was just about to float a thread entitled _Gigantism,_ which would cover some these same points.



Ramako said:


> Is it even possible to have a genuinely objective opinion?


This is the hardest thing to get across--mostly because "objective" is universally worshipped and has come to mean "true" for most people--but an opinion is simply the type of thing that is only subjective, by definition. Of course, any given person can think so much of their own opinions that they take them as being equivalent to truth.



Ramako said:


> Is it even possible to assess a composer's greatness anyway?


Well, of course it's possible. I think the more pertinent question is "Is it worth doing?" Does it result in anything useful? Does it help anyone listen to anything with more sympathy and more understanding than before?

I suppose there will be people who will argue that it is worth doing. I have to say I see only the down side in this matter, the pointless wrangles between the Wagner factions and the Brahms factions (substitute whatever names you please for those two), the vain attempts to compare the incomparable (some people prefer oranges, some apples, some like both), and, worst, the ignoring of that vast pool of people who have never been deemed "great," but who nevertheless managed to write some very fine (able to be listened to over and over again with undiminished pleasure) music.

One thing has always been blindingly true--the opinions with the least amount of knowledge or understanding to support them are the ones that are the most vehemently presented and the most firmly held.

[Edit: Hilltroll's post appeared while I was still typing mine. I noticed some overlap, and I approve of it.]


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

[@some guy said:]
<< ...and, worst, the ignoring of that vast pool of people who have never been deemed "great," but who nevertheless managed to write some very fine (able to be listened to over and over again with undiminished pleasure) music. >>

An aspect of the 'best/greatest' foolishness that I hadn't considered. Thanks, _@some guy_; another arrow for my bow.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

What is important to me is what the composer moves and touches deeply inside us. In that way, I am highly subjective when I consider a favourite composer.

We are not the same entity all the time. Our moods change fast, our musical maturity and understanding evolves all the time too, and our life circumstances are constantly changing so our subjective approach to a composer is always different and we will always find something different in and from the musical message.

But then, what makes a composer great for each of us is -maybe- that his oeuvre moves in us the same precious things all the time we listen to his works, while other compositors maybe do not.

So, if an objective analysis tells me that 'X' composer is better than 'Y' composer but even though 'X' composer do not touches that important subjective experience in an important way, the 'X' composer will not be a relevant one for what is important for us as musical language, meanings, symbolisms and sense of emotional fulfilment.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Objective = fact, subjective = opinion, the two are mutually exclusive. The frequent use of the argumentum ad populum fallacy around here may sometimes make it seem like an opinion is really a fact, but please maintain a level head and try to avoid falling for such nonsense.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Crudblud said:


> Objective = fact, subjective = opinion, the two are mutually exclusive.


Objective = fart smells.

Subjective = fart is music.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Ramako said:


> In musical context, a subjective opinion would be a preference or a "favourite". An objective opinion, being an opinion in which one attempts to be objective, would be produced in one of the many 'greatest' or 'greater' polls.
> 
> But how separate are they? How much distinction is there between the two? Is it even possible to have a genuinely objective opinion? Really it seems that often when I am arguing X composer is better than Y, I prefer X to Y as well, but am attempting to rationalise it. And this is certainly true of others as well I think.
> 
> ...


I just go with consensus, based on reading a variety of sources (mainly books by different writers on music, but also things like opinions on this forum or reviews, music magazines, notes included with cd's and LP's and so on). Its like a researcher, you gather all the resources and kind of forumlate your own opinion or views on these issues.

Of course, 'gut feeling' is also important, and listening to the actual music concerned is very important.

But if there's no 'consensus' or no clear one, I'm on my own, and I have to just go with what's my opinion, what I think. Its a risky business on a forum like this because some people think that because you are stating an opinion that contradicts their own, you are trying to win them over to 'your' side, or stating an absolute fact (I try hard to not do that, or not come across as doing that, all opinions are my own, and if I back it up with 'expert' opinion or anecdotes, then I say I'm doing that, and I try to uncover my biases, etc.).

But personal bias is the rub. The writers on music whom I like and admire, are those that do state their genuine opinion, but if its not consensus, they say so. They say something like they're going against the grain on this issue, but they still inform you as fully as they can about the issue at hand. They might say its controversial, and their opinion on it is just one of many possible valid opinions. They may talk about what ideological position they're coming from, and kind of openly expose that.

So basically, not giving false dichotomies or opinion based more on ideology than experience or accepted facts. Or taking a 'holier than thou' moral high ground or 'highbrow' approach. I've had enough of politicians spinning bullsh*t on a daily basis, I don't need the same B-S with my music, thanks but no thanks to that. Music is not a political party that you have to swear allegiance to, and its not a religion. Music is basically just music, that's it.


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2012)

It helps to gain perspective on the question by switching contexts away from the familiar. Let us suppose that there are rich traditions of Islamic tile patterns or Japanese kabuki theatre that we know almost nothing about. We, as ignorant outsiders, might well ask who were some of the greatest Islamic tiling or kabuki theatre artists. 

While we might receive a wide range of answers to these questions, probably a lot of answers would cluster around several most common responses, with a broader scattering of names receiving increasingly fewer results. A few responders might offer a list of names wildly different from the consensus. There is nothing objectively true about the top 10 or so names we receive, but it's not completely subjective either. Rather than subjective or objective, we should consider these top 10 type answers the "collective" opinion.

How these opinions about the greatness (or lack thereof) of particular artists comes to be broadly held is really a question of how memes spread across individuals. Individuals in fact are capable of very little truly independent thought - instead we spend 99% of our time absorbing and curating the opinions of others. Case in point - we ask others to tell us who are some of the greats in Islamic art or kabuki theater.

We might like to think that memes propagate or fail to propagate solely based upon their intrinsic merit, but in my experience this is very far from the truth. Most of what we believe we believe because others around us whose opinions we admire believe the same thing. In fact it is practically impossible to escape our cultural biases completely and form truly independent opinions.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

BPS said:


> ... Individuals in fact are capable of very little truly independent thought - instead we spend 99% of our time absorbing and curating the opinions of others...


Thats an interesting way to see opinion, as curatorship of ideas (or other things, eg. facts?). I never thought of it like that.



> ... In fact it is practically impossible to escape our cultural biases completely and form truly independent opinions.


I agree and what I'd add is that its okay to have biases (we all do) but as I said above, the writers whose opinions I value in some ways spell out their biases, they put them on the table. They don't say something is (for example) without controversy when in fact it is. There are so many gaps also in our knowledge of things - eg. gaps in what we know about composer's lives, or gaps in the output that has survived from them - so sometimes knowing the gaps and controversies, knowing the questions (rather than the black and white type 'answers'), this is also very important.

In other words, critical thinking skills. But with online forums, it can be a different ballgame, esp. when you have people trying to score various (cheap?) points and push various agendas, ideological and otherwise (well, mainly ideological, actually).


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Comparative greatness isn't any more objective than like. The difference between a subjective or objective opinion has nothing to do with the opinion itself. It has to do withthe criteria you use to arrive at the opinion and the supporting arguments that back it up.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

BPS said:


> How these opinions about the greatness (or lack thereof) of particular artists comes to be broadly held is really a question of how memes spread across individuals. Individuals in fact are capable of very little truly independent thought - instead we spend 99% of our time absorbing and curating the opinions of others. Case in point - we ask others to tell us who are some of the greats in Islamic art or kabuki theater.
> 
> We might like to think that memes propagate or fail to propagate solely based upon their intrinsic merit, but in my experience this is very far from the truth. Most of what we believe we believe because others around us whose opinions we admire believe the same thing. In fact it is practically impossible to escape our cultural biases completely and form truly independent opinions.


Yes. Of course we are wont to invent ideas, but until we read others they tend to be badly formed. So it is actually helpful to absorb other's thoughts. What's more, once we accept this we can then move forward and that's when more worthwhile stuff is likely to come out.



bigshot said:


> Comparative greatness isn't any more objective than like. The difference between a subjective or objective opinion has nothing to do with the opinion itself. It has to do withthe criteria you use to arrive at the opinion and the supporting arguments that back it up.


Yeah, but does anyone really do this? _really_?



Crudblud said:


> Objective = fact, subjective = opinion, the two are mutually exclusive. The frequent use of the argumentum ad populum fallacy around here may sometimes make it seem like an opinion is really a fact, but please maintain a level head and try to avoid falling for such nonsense.


The argument of popularity can be resorted to. It is helpful in as much as it says that certain composers are more popular. But are we really supposed to believe that there was a sudden influx of "great" composers from 1685 onwards? The style became more accessible.

And yet surely there must be some intrinsic worth to these pieces, and 'greatness' of the composers. Very few people would say Albinoni is better than Bach, Hummel than Beethoven, or Balakirev than Tchaikovsky. Surely there must be something which says that Palestrina is great, even though his music is relatively obscure because of his time? Somewhere between the obscurity of minor composers and the popularity of modern pop stars there must be something _true_.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Objective = fart smells.
> 
> Subjective = fart is music.


HC likes modern music now?


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

BPS said:


> We might like to think that memes propagate or fail to propagate solely based upon their intrinsic merit, but in my experience this is very far from the truth. Most of what we believe we believe because others around us whose opinions we admire believe the same thing. In fact it is practically impossible to escape our cultural biases completely and form truly independent opinions.


I think this is true with regard to many areas of judgment, but, honestly, it isn't true of me when it comes to music.

Maybe it's because, prior to Internet involvement, I was pretty much a lone wolf when it came to classical music. There was no one I admired who had any real interest in it, so there was no one to influence me. So, even today, though I have gratefully accepted suggestions of things to which to listen, I find that my response to what I hear is actually pretty personal. It either moves me in a positive way or it doesn't. No arguments in favor of (or against) a piece of music can change the way I respond to it.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

"Objective" opinions on classical music are an oxymoron . Judging composers and performances is a profoundly subjective thing . One person may love composer X and a different person can't stand his music .
Two critics will attend the same performance of a concert or an opera and you will wonder if they actually were at the same performance . Critic X will say this was the greatest performance of the Beethoven 9th he had ever heard, sublime,inspiring and unforgettable, and critic Y will say it was the worst performance of it he had ever heard, dull, pedestrian and unispired . 
One critic will say that the New York Philharmonic had never played better at a concert and the other will say the orchestra played terribly . 
Some critics hate the conducting of Solti, Karajan, or Bernstein etc, and others admire them greatly .
If a horn player cracks a note in a prominent solo , it's obvious . But other factors in playing are not so objective to report . One critic may say a that so-and-so played out of tune, and another may not notice anything wrong with the intonation and not mention anything about the performance's intonation at all .
Sometimes, if a critic doesn't like a particular conductor or performer, he or she will exaggerate minor technical glitches in a live performance way out of proportion in order to make it sound as though it were very badly played . One critic will praise performers he or she likes for their flair and spontaneity and praise them for their freedom and individuality of interpretation, and yet pedantically nit-pick those he or she does not like for not observing the letter of the score carefully and "distorting" the music egotistically . This is your old double standard .
But wouldn't it be a boring if everybody agreed on everything ?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Ramako said:


> Yeah, but does anyone really do this? _really_?


i work in the film business. I and the people I work with make creative decisions based on critical analysis every single hour of every day. Those who don't create have a quasi mystical image of the creative process, like it all descends from heaven like a dove carrying an olive branch. But creativity is problem solving much more than it is divine inspiration.

It's the same with learning from great works. You can lay back and just experience it and have a fine time. But if you want to process and absorb it, you need to open the hood and see what makes it tick.


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2012)

Health warning: if you're not interested in the subjective opinions of the demonstrably ignorant, look away now.



Ramako said:


> In musical context, a subjective opinion would be a preference or a "favourite". An objective opinion, being an opinion in which one attempts to be objective, would be produced in one of the many 'greatest' or 'greater' polls.


Funny how this debate continues to roll around the threads in one form or another, with no real conclusion reached. Unless we're going to move into the realms of hard philosophical debate, where there is a whole set of theories to the business of 'facts' and 'truth', the difference between fact and opinion will not be hard to establish.

"Lindsay Cooper is a player of the bassoon," is a fact. "I like Lindsay Cooper's playing," is also a fact. "Lindsay Cooper is the finest basson player in the world," is an opinion. This is not rocket science.



Hilltroll72 said:


> As long as you are dicking around with 'greatness', you are forced into the subjective. There _may_ be objective measures of skills, adherence to established standards thereof... ? I am uneducated, that's somebody else's call.


There are measures of skills that some would say (perhaps many would say) are objective, to the extent that music schools award certificates to musicians (to composers too?) on the basis of agreed criteria. Of course, the examiner has to exercise judgement - and a degree of subjectivity inevitably creeps in, but you get the idea. What becomes problematic is when either the amateur (like me, the non-examiner) attempts to proclaim greatness without the technical knowledge; or when the comparison is being made between virtuosi where the differences become refined issues of technique or matters of style.



Crudblud said:


> Objective = fact, subjective = opinion, the two are mutually exclusive. The frequent use of the argumentum ad populum fallacy around here may sometimes make it seem like an opinion is really a fact, but please maintain a level head and try to avoid falling for such nonsense.





bigshot said:


> The difference between a subjective or objective opinion has nothing to do with the opinion itself. It has to do withthe criteria you use to arrive at the opinion and the supporting arguments that back it up.


Taking these two points together, whether anyone else pays attention to an expressd opinion depends partly on the quality of the expression and, as bigshot says, partly on the quality of the evidence assembled to support the opinion. As crudblud says, the argumentum ad populum is an insufficient but frequently used justification, but it may be reasonable to cite consensus instead.

What interests me is the idea that consensus and received opinions (sometimes called the orthodox view) allegedly brings with it an unassailable authority. If consensus says 'Mozart is the greatest' (I stress the 'if': this is an example) because a whole weight of critical opinion has accumulated around the case, it's an incredibly difficult task to assemble a case to offer an alternative view. Given that there is nothing certain in life (go on someone, say it for me...) it is quite possible for us all to form our own justifiable opinions on the basis of our own criteria, irrespective of history and consensus. Whether anyone else takes any notice is another matter, but there's no need to heap derision on those who offer a subjective opinion that runs against the tide.

[Bother, now instructed to go and hoover the sofa, so can't finish...I'll be back]


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Personally, I believe that in any art, there is only subjective judgement. An objective criterion for what makes great art, other than "A lot of people love it", I have never seen. And of course that reasoning leads to the conclusion that Lady Gaga is "objectively" greater than Beethoven (and whether we like it or not, for the majority of people in the world she probably is).


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> What interests me is the idea that consensus and received opinions (sometimes called the orthodox view) allegedly brings with it an unassailable authority.


Appeal to bandwagon is a logical fallacy. It's perfectly possible to objectively determine that Mozart is a bum. You just have to have the right set of criteria for judging. If your criteria for a "good" composer is that he was French, wore a beret, drank absynth, and hung around with Claude Monet, Mozart isn't going to come off well.

The thing that a lot of people don't realize that objective analysis doesn't result in the *correct* answer. It just results in a *reasoned* answer. It's perfectly possible for two people to analyze a subject objectively and come up with opposite results. The idea is that different criteria for judging spotlight different aspects of a subject. Put together a few different opinions reached through critical analysis and you'll get a better concept of the subject than any single opinion.

They really should teach critical thinking in school again. A lot of people are lacking the tools they need to make decisions. I learned a bit about debate and logic in high school, but when I went to college to study design, the rules for critique were very carefully enforced. I audited a film class once, and the critiques were a three ring circus. I couldn't believe they'd allow people to say the things they were saying. If I spoke up in a critique in design class and just said, "I like it." that would result in a drilling from the instructor under a very uncomfortable spotlight.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

A huge board of scholars should once and for all determine the objective greatness of every composer, and rank them accordingly, so that we can just go ahead and discuss favorites instead.


----------



## principe (Sep 3, 2012)

If greatness in Classical Music (not generally in music) is a matter of subjective opinion, then greatness=popularity. However, we feel, possibly even the more subjectivist, that a Late String Quartet by Beethoven or a Late Piano Sonata by Schubert or the eternal Beethoven's 9th are not great because of our mere opinions. I believe most of us we recognise that there is something there that is to be reached. 
In short: Music is a defined product of man. Based on its definition, it has its rules, criteria, normes, etc that define a great work of this Artform. This cannot be but subjective. Our ability to _identify_ the features, the qualities of a work of Classical Music is our subjective limitation, our opinion. However, we still may see that there is a consensus of our "limited" comprehension of certain works (our opinions), exactly because their subjective features cannot easily be ignored even by the ignorant！

Principe


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

bigshot said:


> It's the same with learning from great works. You can lay back and just experience it and have a fine time. But if you want to process and absorb it, you need to open the hood and see what makes it tick.


This caught my attention because it gets direct to a very heated debate about how things are experienced.

I do not want to state absolutes but proceed always with caution. So take this with a grain of salt.

Classical music is an outcome of western culture. It is the utmost feature of it. It has an important amount of an academic/scientific ingredient.

So, it is subject and encouraged to analysis so to proceed to its formal appreciation but, -an important 'but' here- when it comes to an overall experience where wholeness is essential, analysis gets short because what we are experiencing is a property that can't be found when the oeuvre is detached in parts. Its elegant term is 'emergency'.

This kind of 'emergency' -the one which happens with music- is the result of a deep and profound emotional relationship between selves. The one of the composer, -her/his subjectivity- and that of the listener.

What we listen at, are relationships of parts, not 'the parts' by themselves. And this relations are constructed in the subjective realm of the in-between selves. It is a relational experience constructed between Subjects/persons.

When I have some free time, I like to give a sort of music appreciation workshop where rhythm, melody, form, harmony, instrumental timbre, pitch, historical context, evolution of the forms, are important aspects in order to approach people to classic music and enhance their experience, but... once this elements have been grasped and evaluated, this evaluation do not change significantly the 'emergency' effect that an oeuvre has.

For example, the appreciation of Beethoven symphonic works can be enriched after knowing the way he got into that level of performance but if it is Bocherini symphonic oeuvres what 'touches' deeply the emotions and subjective experience of a given person, the relationship with Bocherini do not change in a significant way even knowing Beethoven's. The subjective experience is what really matters to the listener because it is a relational construction and it is of subjective nature.

Why is this important?

Because _this_ music heals human existence. Heals our 'soul' or whatever we call such subjective aspect; because this music is highly relational.

What matters is to see people that have never heard a single classical oeuvre shedding tears because a particular composer or oeuvre has touched a sensible string that needed to be touched. Some meaning has been found or recalled for that particular person.

This is a very subjective experience and most of the time it is out from the realm of analytic wording procedures.

Contemplative skills are developed through this, and hardly words or concepts can explain the experience. To keep that level of contemplative attitude is relevant in order to have an intimate relationship with the chosen oeuvre or composer.

I have seen that emotions arise in a more conscious way opening the opportunity to explore and understand them-selves.

After a while, when all the analytic elements have been grasped and understood in some elemental degree the mere contemplation of the oeuvre, in it's wholeness, is what brings ultimate meaning to the student (of the workshop) and that very unique and single experience seems to be in the realm of the Subjective.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> Health warning: if you're not interested in the subjective opinions of the demonstrably ignorant, look away now.
> 
> ...


I'm looking away as I type lkhkjhtwehqtrjhas;dgh;asdhg;oasdhg;asdhglkdsaf...



> ...
> 
> What interests me is the idea that consensus and received opinions (sometimes called the orthodox view) allegedly brings with it an unassailable authority. If consensus says 'Mozart is the greatest' (I stress the 'if': this is an example) because a whole weight of critical opinion has accumulated around the case, it's an incredibly difficult task to assemble a case to offer an alternative view. Given that there is nothing certain in life (go on someone, say it for me...) it is quite possible for us all to form our own justifiable opinions on the basis of our own criteria, irrespective of history and consensus. Whether anyone else takes any notice is another matter, but there's no need to heap derision on those who offer a subjective opinion that runs against the tide.
> 
> ...


I don't think there's a problem with consensus, not for me. What I've got a beef with constantly on this forum (its the only forum I'm on, but I've been on one much worse in the past) is when people use consensus to push an agenda. But then (hypocritically?) don't accept other types of consensus if it goes against their ideology. Eg. okay, Mozart is one of the greatest composers of the classical period. I don't think anyone would argue with that. Most music scholars, listeners, musicians would agree with that. But what if I say [insert a major post-1945 composer] is a major composer of the post-1945 period, you get people who basically may not like that composer pulling him down, or pulling me down for saying that, or both.

So basically, if you wanna argue consensus, then be consistent with it, or try to. Composers like Xenakis, Ligeti, Carter, Penderecki or Stockhausen may automatically ring alarm bells from some listeners. As would other non 'avant-garde' important post-1945 composers from the other end of the ideological spectrum like Glass, Reich, or neo-romantics, or even film composers. But basically, consensus of listeners, writers on music, musicians says these are ALL valued and major composers of their time, just like Mozart was of his.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I won't deny that there* is *such a thing as objective analysis of music. The problem I have with it is the _purpose to which it's put._

If we use it to analyze a particular piece of music, fine. My appreciation for, for example, Brahm's Second Piano Concerto, was greatly enhanced by hearing Greenburg's lecture on the motivic development in it.

But, when we try to use it to establish a list of good, better, best, I think we are getting away from anything really meaningful.

Number one - by far the majority of composers who have ever lived did not see themselves in a competition with other composers as to who would be remembered as "greatest" by posterity. (Well, maybe Wagner did, but...) They didn't compose for that purpose at all.

Number two- our own personal enjoyment of music is diminished when we listen with one ear on the "greatness" question. (As in-"Oh, I can use _this example _to prove that my favorite composer was also the best".) Why are we really listening anyway?

There may be a few of us here who try to pick their favorite composers strictly on how they stack up against other composers in a list of objective criteria - but, that seems like a really boring and purposeless way of listening to me.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

I know many people who hate many instruments. E.g Violin, Piano, Horn, Saxophone etc. If they listen to anything not electronic they despise it


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Sid James said:


> So basically, if you wanna argue consensus, then be consistent with it, or try to.


A related phenomenon I've noticed here and elsewhere is a "guilty conscience" over the consensus argument. On the one hand, no one wants to say that public appeal is an important factor in classical music; after all, this is one of the things that is supposed to make classical music different from pop music. On the other hand, public appeal is constantly used as a means of separating the Mozarts and Beethovens from everyone else. I almost started a thread about it after seeing several posts in a row featuring the same guilty conscience and finally being moved to call someone out on it. I refrained, but I'm glad for the opportunity to raise it again and second what you're saying: either use the consensus argument or don't, but don't use it selectively and don't pretend not to believe in it immediately before using it.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Isn't the very term "Objective Opinion" something of an oxymoron? If it's "objective" it's not opinion, it's fact... and if it is opinion, 'it'e subjective.

Ultimately, all value judgments in art are opinion and thus subjective. What we can say objectively is that Composer X wrote far more music than Composer Y that has entered into the "core repertoire" or that Composer X was responsible for this or that innovation or that Composer X has had more influence upon subsequent composers of merit than Composer Y.

The closest we can get to an "Objective Opinion" or objective judgment of the merits of a given composer is that of a "collective opinion". If Composer X continues to be admired/studied/revered/loved by a large portion of the well-informed classical music audience over an extended period of time, then we can probably assume that Composer X is in all likelihood an important figure and that if we personally dislike his or her music it says more about us than the music. We might also recognize that if we take it upon ourselves, in light of this information, to dismiss Composer X as "lightweight" or "pretentious" or "boring" or "cliché" we have set up our own opinion against a majority consensus and we are likely going to be challenged and will need to make some logical arguments as to why we have taken this stance if our opinion is not to be dismissed as of little worth.

Even this "collective opinion" is subjective to a degree. It is limited by the audience's access to an artist's work. Many Baroque and earlier composers were long ignored... even by those well-educated in classical music... for the simple reason that the works were rarely ever recorded... let alone recorded in a manner appropriate to the composers' intentions. 50 years ago Monteverdi would barely have been known, while today few would argue that he was one of the true "giants" of classical music. The collective opinion of Vivaldi is currently undergoing a major re-evaluation due to the fact that many long-ignored works are just now being afforded quality recordings, while a sizable body of previously unknown work is just now coming to light.

The "collective" opinion also tends to be more accurate... or at least more likely to be universally agreed upon after the passage of time. The mass-media and advertising, the biases of the educational institutions, various dogma and competing theories, and even the desire (especially among younger audience members and artists) to explore and embrace the latest trends and fashions all impact our opinions of art to a greater extent the closer that art is to us in time. History has repeatedly presented us with examples of artists who were championed as the "major artists"... even the "geniuses" of their time... only to be largely forgotten with the passage of time, as the concerns and values that seemed so innovative and pressing and even "essential" at the time, fade and slip into the overall scope of history.

In the end we have only opinions... our own first and foremost... and those whose opinions we trust... All judgments in art are ultimately subjective; all judgments of art come down to opinion...

...but *some opinions are better than others.*


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

So basically, if you wanna argue consensus, then be consistent with it, or try to. Composers like Xenakis, Ligeti, Carter, Penderecki or Stockhausen may automatically ring alarm bells from some listeners. As would other non 'avant-garde' important post-1945 composers from the other end of the ideological spectrum like Glass, Reich, or neo-romantics, or even film composers. But basically, consensus of listeners, writers on music, musicians says these are ALL valued and major composers of their time, just like Mozart was of his.

Now Andre/Sid... I hate to call you out on a false dichotomy... but it is what it is. What you are suggesting is that Bach and Mozart are recognized according to something of a collective opinion (at least among those well-informed in classical music) as the "major composers" of their time is no different from the fact that Stockhausen and Xenakis are recognized as "major" composers of a more recent time. But is any of this true at all? What was Mozart's reputation in contrast to Antonio Salieri who is largely seen as a minor composer today? What was Bach's reputation is contrast to G.F. Handel, Rameau, Biber, or Hasse... all who were employed in major European courts? How admired are Xenakis and Stockhausen... even among a great majority of the classical music audience?

The "collective opinion" or reputation of Bach or Mozart or any composer of the distant past is something that has grown and developed over the passage of time... largely free from the influences of the mass-media and advertising, the biases of the educational institutions, various dogma and competing theories, and the desire (especially among younger audience members and artists) to explore and embrace the latest trends and fashions.

You can't equate the reputation afforded a composer from the past such as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, etc... with that of Contemporary or Modern composer for the simple reason that they haven't yet earned such a reputation... their work is still new and open to often intense debate. Undoubtedly some of the contemporary composers that you or I personally like or admire will... with the passage of time... be seen as nothing more than minor figures... or even anomalies to be best forgotten.


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> [Bother, now instructed to go and hoover the sofa, so can't finish...I'll be back]


What I wanted to add, was to raise the idea that however a consensus is arrived at, there is nothing written that says the consensus must be accepted, even if it appears to express a well-supported view (such as the example I gave earlier about Mozart).

This is because consensus tends to be formed around a set of criteria that are presumed to be the most significant:

e.g.

enjoyability
technical mastery
degree of influence
innovation
profundity
creativity
etc

However, whilst technical mastery might be a relatively easy criteria to judge, and degree of influence could be established, a less technical and influential piece by another composer might be deemed more profound - a criteria less easy to analyse. In other words, while consensus might claim that Mozart wrote the greatest symphonies, based on some, or even all of the above criteria, an alternative view that says it was actually Stravinsky (pick your own favourite if you will) who wrote the most profound symphony might be an entirely acceptable counter to consensus, provided that some supporting evidence is offered. In other words, just because a lot of people have, over time, come to agree on an opinion, using reasoned criteria, it does not mean that such a view must prevail, since the purpose of music (classical or otherwise) is not fixed, and therefore the criteria by which purposes and outcomes might be judged are not fixed.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

The one thing you can get from consensus is that there's probably something of value there. You know the old saying... "20,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong." it may not be the "best" but if a majority of knowledgeable people rank it highly, there's most likely something to it.


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> largely free from the influences of the mass-media and advertising, the biases of the educational institutions, various dogma and competing theories [etc]


Though presumably subject to the pressures of what passed for the media in those days. I mean, someone was saying, "Mr Bach is worth a listen" and passing it on, weren't they? And someone else was saying, "If it's good enough for the Emperor, then it's good enough for me!"


----------



## principe (Sep 3, 2012)

I see (and "admire") the sheer confusion with this unnecessary debate. 
To start with: Opinion is by definition subjective. It belongs only to the holder of it (as it is said, it is the cheapest of the commodities). If opinions may coincide to the extent of having a "collective" one, still, we have a consensus of subjective opinions. To the extent that one may claim that this "collective" opinion cannot be contested by anyone, we may say that we have a "subjective" view.
Objective could be only a fact or a reference standard (upon which we built a theory, a science, etc.).
In Music, we have two aspects of approaching the work of this Artform: 
a) the subjective, which is how emotionally we receive the work of Music; what is the emotional impact on us (in simple terms, how we "like" it) and
b) the objective, which is the techincal aspect, the musical terms of reference, which, provided we have enough knowledge/preparation, we may identify, study, research. 
As it might be obvious works at the level of reference standard (e.g Bach's Fugues, Mozart's Piano Concertos, Beethoven's Symphonies, Schubert's Lieder, etc.) can have a "universal" appeal, acceptance or emotional impact, since they constitute the basis even of our perception of Classical Music. However, one has to ask himself: Is Bach going to be less important/great, if I (or a good deal of people who listen to Classical Music) have a different opinion? The obvious answer is No, because, still, Bach is going to be a reference standard for any aspiring musician, researcher, scholar, critic, even anyone who realy wishes to indulge in Classical Music. Nonetheless, if, one day, there is a good deal of people who may neglect Bach, we may claim only that his _popularity_ has declined. His value would be always the same.
If we really wish to claim that Bach is not a great composer, we have to rewrite the Book/History of Music, that is to say we have to _faslify_ it!

Principe


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2012)

principe said:


> I see (and "admire") the sheer confusion with this unnecessary debate.


In view of the subjectivity (even inaccuracy) of your opinions on this debate, I think it is wholly necessary! Your division of 'subjective' and 'objective' into emotional response and technical content is a false one.

Questioning the grounds on which it is claimed that any composer is 'great' is not rewriting or falsifying history, but it may be challenging the idea that claims of greatness are valid if they are based on something as vague as 'universal appeal' or as strict as the 'musical terms of reference', to use your terms.


----------



## principe (Sep 3, 2012)

So, to undestand your perception, MacLeod, do you believe that Bach is a great composer because most of us (or a great majority) thinks so? And, if tomorrow, for any reason, a majority of us decides otherwise, Bach is going to cease to be a great composer?
Finally, on which grounds "my division" (which by the way is not mine; I learned it during my musical studies) is "false"?

Principe


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2012)

principe said:


> So, to undestand your perception, MacLeod, do you believe that Bach is a great composer because most of us (or a great majority) thinks so? And, if tomorrow, for any reason, a majority of us decides otherwise, Bach is going to cease to be a great composer?
> Finally, on which grounds "my division" (which by the way is not mine; I learned it during my musical studies) is "false"?


I have no opinion of my own to offer on Bach - only a received one - that he is regarded as a 'great' composer. But that was not my point. I'm not interested in debating whether he or anyone else is great or not; I'm interested in debating the relevance/validity of criteria that might be used to create such an opinion.

As for your 'division', I don't see how the 'subjective' (in the context of this thread) relates only to emotional response.


----------



## principe (Sep 3, 2012)

So, MacLeod, if you have no opinion on Bach, what's the point to debate on the "relevance/validity of criteria..."? If you have not created an opinion so far with any possible criteria you may wish to use, how can you debate about the validity of any criteria that you may not even be aware of? In any case and for your information, Bach is not great in abstracto, because somebody somewhere told us so; he is the reference standard composer for anyone wish to study, learn, research Classical Music. 
If "subjective" has to do with more or beyond the emotional value of the music work, in which way, on which grounds one may judge about the technical, the musical value of a composer's work? E.g. How can I judge, on a personal basis, if technically/musically the Passacaglia and Fugue in c minor is a great work? Or the Great Fugue by Beethoven, etc.? 

Principe


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2012)

principe said:


> So, MacLeod, if you have no opinion on Bach, what's the point to debate on the "relevance/validity of criteria..."? If you have not created an opinion so far with any possible criteria you may wish to use, how can you debate about the validity of any criteria that you may not even be aware of?


This thread is not about Bach. That's why I'm posting about subjective and objective opinion in abstracto.



principe said:


> In any case and for your information, Bach is not great in abstracto, because somebody somewhere told us so; he is the reference standard composer for anyone wish to study, learn, research Classical Music.


I don't doubt it.



principe said:


> If "subjective" has to do with more or beyond the emotional value of the music work, in which way, on which grounds one may judge about the technical, the musical value of a composer's work? E.g. How can I judge, on a personal basis, if technically/musically the Passacaglia and Fugue in c minor is a great work? Or the Great Fugue by Beethoven, etc.?


I'm not sure I follow your question, but I'll have a go...

To me, Beethoven's famous "Dah Dah Dah Daahhh!" is a sequence of four notes - objective fact. To a technician, it's a set of notes (blowed if I know their names) played at a certain tempo on certain instruments, or it's a motif, varied many times - objective facts. I might then add that the notes sound 'imposing, dramatic' - emotional response, subjective, while others might point to reports that it represents 'fate knocking at the door' or possibly the sound of a yellowhammer - subjective, possibly, but not necessarily emotional responses.

As the first movement proceeds (assuming we're listening to a competently played version) a technician might well be able to offer insights into how the pitch, dynamics, pace, melody, motivic development compare with Mozart or Haydn's symphonies. I would certainly expect anyone who was going to attach a value judgement - supreme, great, profound - to offer some technical evidence based on what you can actually hear (as opposed to what you might read into it, based on a knowledge of his life). Otherwise, such a value judgement is almost wholly subjective - though not necessarily based on an emotional response.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Isn't the very term "Objective Opinion" something of an oxymoron? If it's "objective" it's not opinion, it's fact... and if it is opinion, 'it'e subjective.


Which is why I made this the title...

What I was talking about is different 'classes' of opinion. I am aware that I subjectively like Haydn and that he is my favourite composer to listen to. These are subjective matters. I am also aware that I believe that the keyboard I am typing into exists - this is an opinion I hold which I believe to be an objective fact. This is an assumption which I am willing to carry through however, along with others like it. This is how I think before anyone has a go at me for being silly though.



MacLeod said:


> Health warning: if you're not interested in the *objective* opinions of the *pretentious amateur*, look away now.


(not original quote)

In the realm of music, the frame of reference for the discussion, we have the additional problem of defining objectivity. Ultimately, all the supposedly 'objective' analysis comes down to subjectivity because I can study the motivic development (insert technique) of Beethoven's 5th (insert piece) but nothing says it is any good until I bring my opinion into it. Some 'great' pieces use a tight motivic structure, others much looser ones, but all are counted as 'great', and by creating new frames of references for all the different styles, the analysis loses all its potency and ceases to have any authority on which wide-ranging statements can be made.

However, the big qestion is, in much of this debate, not this. The question is whether 'great' is a subjective or an objective term. Not the original thread topic but certainly close enough.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> The closest we can get to an "Objective Opinion" or objective judgment of the merits of a given composer is that of a "collective opinion".


Here SLG raises the wider philosophical issue that relativistic frames of reference, whatever you think of the philosophy (personally - very little), are some of the few that everyone will agree on. That is, without saying anything about objective truth, you can say that X number of people (or experts or both) agree on Y as a fact. Whether or not this makes Y true for you depends on your philosophy, but the statement itself is objectively true. The truth of Y itself is likely to be subject to disagreement.

Then the populist argument goes, often with a sort of bizarre reference at Platonic forms, that so many people having the same concept of 'greatness' must indicate that the truly "Great" must lie somewhere within this concept of 'greatness'. Without any snipe intended at the poster (I agree with the statement):



bigshot said:


> it may not be the "best" but if a majority of knowledgeable people rank it highly, there's most likely something to it.


Others say:



StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...but *some opinions are better than others.*


This is more genuinely Platonic. Some people who strive to understand the Art get closer to the genuine vision of Greatness within. However, history teaches us that the experts can be just as wrong as the laymen, and when they are they are much more disastrously, or at least embarrassingly. Experts diverge in opinion often more than laymen, who are in normal circumstances more willing to accept the prevailing view.

I would like to remark that greatness of some sort, by some definition must exist because of the relativistic/populist argument - compare Vanhal with Mozart, and their relative current popularity, or whatever else.

So either we accept this populist definition of greatness, use a more informed version of subjectivity (analysis) or move on to other territories. These are likely to be much more objective, much more wide-ranging and useful, but much more controversial and open to debate. I will stress that this is all in the realm of objective fact - someone's perception of this fact (opinion) is subjective - but the fact itself is objective, or false.

Now we run into people's life philosophies influencing their opinions in music. Some people will say there is no depth in music - it doesn't exist - others will attribute music's primary greatness to this. Others will say that originality is the key ingredient, others that this doesn't matter at all. Some prefer emotionalism and others intellectualism, etc. etc.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Even this "collective opinion" is subjective to a degree.


On a side note, and taking this comment completely out of context - cultural environment makes a big difference. Modern writers have a tendency to talk about the norms of previous times ignoring that we have a whole set of prejudices of our own. "The times change and we change with them". Some composers are going to appeal more and less to the 'spirit' of the times as society moves on. There are and will continue to be reactions and consolidations to any accepted view, particularly on the more widely known issues.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

I think I have arrived late to the party here and can't be bothered reading all the replies so far. So I'll cut to the chase:

Although I am guilty of partaking in polls and lists of 'greatest composers', the creation of such lists is an illusory concept that fulfills a human need to categories, rank and analyse data and nothing more. Objectively, we could possibly say that a certain composer was a leader or inventor of a certain technique or form, but that says almost nothing about the greater body of their work and even less about how it sounds. The truth is that there is actually very little difference between most composers.* In essence, it is relatively easy to produce reasons why something may be 'good' or 'inventive', but almost impossible to pin down who might be "better" without resorting to personal preference or averaging out the tastes of the many. Even qualifying the concept of "good" is a difficult one as there are many variables that might contribute towards that idea and each person has a different opinion about which of these variables are most and least important. Some variables are pleasing to the ear, some pleasing to the mind and some pleasing to the soul. What appeals to you is governed by what type of person you are. Look at the larger picture. What type of music you listen to often defines what type of person you are. Why is it supposed that assessing preferences (quality) within a genre are any less personal than what genre you listen to most? Preferences do change according to the knowledge one has available with which to asses the music but they are still, nonetheless, completely subjective judgements.

*Measuring genius among the brightest musical minds in the last five centuries (and more) is as easy as analysing who the most beautiful woman who ever lived was.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Ramako said:


> Some people who strive to understand the Art get closer to the genuine vision of Greatness within. However, history teaches us that the experts can be just as wrong as the laymen, and when they are they are much more disastrously, or at least embarrassingly. Experts diverge in opinion often more than laymen, who are in normal circumstances more willing to accept the prevailing view.


it isn't about experts and laymen. Critical thinking is a process anyone can employ, and the ideas themselves stand or fall on their own merit, not because of who said them.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Eschbeg said:


> A related phenomenon I've noticed here and elsewhere is a "guilty conscience" over the consensus argument. On the one hand, no one wants to say that public appeal is an important factor in classical music; after all, this is one of the things that is supposed to make classical music different from pop music. On the other hand, public appeal is constantly used as a means of separating the Mozarts and Beethovens from everyone else. I almost started a thread about it after seeing several posts in a row featuring the same guilty conscience and finally being moved to call someone out on it. I refrained, but I'm glad for the opportunity to raise it again and second what you're saying: either use the consensus argument or don't, but don't use it selectively and don't pretend not to believe in it immediately before using it.


Yeah well I think you make many good points there and the issue is that the dividing lines between classical music and other musics are often blurry, and this has been going on for ages. I mean look at Leonard Bernstein, comfortable in writing for both the concert hall and musical theatre, as well as ballet and film. He did not see any distinction between so called 'high' and 'low' art, different types of music have different purposes. He and others apply the same rigour and high level of craftsmanship to everything they do. Andrew Lloyd Webber is like that too, many of his musicals employ a leitmotif system and take on influences far and wide from classical.

Then there's many non-classical musicians who started out in classical. The late Jon Lord was a good example, so too where people like Nina Simone and Sarah Vaughan. And classical musicians like Marni Nixon (soprano) worked with everyone from Liberace to Robert Craft.

So who's making distinctions between all this. For whom is it of use to make these distinctions? People with an agenda, basically, esp. on online forums. 'Oh, you don't like Wagner (or some other sacred cow)?...then you're a moron.' Of course, they're gutless, so they don't put it as simply as that.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...You can't equate the reputation afforded a composer from the past such as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, etc... with that of Contemporary or Modern composer for the simple reason that they haven't yet earned such a reputation... their work is still new and open to often intense debate. Undoubtedly some of the contemporary composers that you or I personally like or admire will... with the passage of time... be seen as nothing more than minor figures... or even anomalies to be best forgotten.


Okay, then does that mean all the books I read about classical music are irrelevant in your eyes? They do have controversies for sure, but they also corroborate and correlate various views. The composers I listed (Ligeti, Penderecki, Xenakis, etc.) are all major composers of post 1945 era, just like say Mozart and Haydn where of their era. Of course our views of history change, as we get more information. Eg. Charles Ives was not much known in his time (up to the end of his life), but we now know he was pioneering many things that where to come to the fore decades after he penned those works. People can dispute that but as I demonstrated to you in another thread, Ives was doing things technically which foreshadowed many things to come. Technically, mind you, so these things are about the 'mechanics' of music, not just my opinion on something. That's consensus, if something pans out in a certain way, and many people agree that a certain composer made certain impacts (even later, as Ives did, or Mahler for that matter, who became more widely known post-1945) then it is an opinion that can be shared by many, its basically common sense opinion. Baseline, not some fruitloop opinion.

But anyway, I don't want to argue these points, I'm over it, we've been here done that many times before.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2012)

Ramako said:


> Ultimately, all the supposedly 'objective' analysis comes down to subjectivity because I can study the motivic development (insert technique) of Beethoven's 5th (insert piece) but nothing says it is any good until I bring my opinion into it.


I'm not sure I like your 'ultimate reduction'. A degree of objectivity is possible until one brings in subjective opinion (the 'greatness' thing). Let's not be so hasty that we fail to recognise the value of that objectivity.

BTW, for those who were too idle to check your quote from my post, that's not what I said. I don't have a problem with your changing my words, but I'd appreciate your pointing this out.



crmoorhead said:


> What type of music you listen to often defines what type of person you are.


And some will be keen to establish their credentials as a certain kind of person by listening to a certain kind of music. As ramako alleged earlier, I'm pretentious like that too!



bigshot said:


> it isn't about experts and laymen. Critical thinking is a process anyone can employ, and the ideas themselves stand or fall on their own merit, not because of who said them.


I agree, and Simon Russell-Beale's programme about 'Symphony' was all the more engaging because he wasn't Mark Elder!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Okay, then does that mean all the books I read about classical music are irrelevant in your eyes? They do have controversies for sure, but they also corroborate and correlate various views. The composers I listed (Ligeti, Penderecki, Xenakis, etc.) are all major composers of post 1945 era, just like say Mozart and Haydn where of their era.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that Mozart and Haydn did not enjoy the reputation they now hold during their own lifetime. Haydn spent much of his career isolated from the rest of the world employed for The House of Esterházy. Salieri was more successful than Mozart, and Bach was as isolated from the musical world as Haydn and would have been seen as far less of a "major" composer than Rameau, Handel, Alessandro Scarlatti, Biber, and Hasse. Mozart, Bach, and Haydn are not so much the "major" composers of their time, as they are major composers of all time... still recognized as such in our time.

Are the books you read "irrelevant"? I would guess that most of them will indeed be seen as irrelevant after the passage of a hundred years or more. How many works of literary, musical, and art criticism that were revered as the ultimate word of the moment are soon forgotten? You know a descent bit of the history of art. Undoubtedly the name Clement Greenberg is well known to you. Greenberg was the last word in art during the 1950's and early 1960s. He could "make" or "break" an artist. The fame of Jackson Pollock and the rest of the Abstract Expressionists owes much to Greenberg. But today his theories are embarrassingly outdated. Many of the artists that he championed have slowly faded, while others that he ignored... or openly dismissed (Edward Hopper, Francis Bacon) have continued to gain in reputation. I am amazed at how rapidly many of the artists who were touted as the major painters of the era when I was an art student, have disappeared from the art magazines, and art discussions... and yet here they can be found... canonized in the great Art History textbooks of the era.

Of course our views of history change, as we get more information. Eg. Charles Ives was not much known in his time (up to the end of his life), but we now know he was pioneering many things that where to come to the fore decades after he penned those works. People can dispute that but as I demonstrated to you in another thread, Ives was doing things technically which foreshadowed many things to come.

With Charles Ives you are dealing with someone who composed the majority of his work before 1930. He has already begun to slip into history. It would seem likely that he will survive... at least to a certain extent.

I won't question Ives' reputation... or whether he did indeed pioneer many ideas that subsequent composers picked up on. What I will question is just how important you imagine such "innovations" to be with regard to an artist's reputation. It is quite likely that the development of polyphony was the single most earth-shattering innovation in the whole of Western music... prior to Schoenberg. This innovation is generally credited to Pérotin and Léonin. And yet neither composer is thought of as being greater than Mozart or Beethoven or even Mahler or Johann Strauss II. Indeed, neither composer is truly familiar to most lovers of classical music. Ultimately it seems to me that what matters is the music... not the artist's biography, or history, or his or her innovative concepts and theories. Right now Marcel Duchamp is recognized as one of the most innovative (read "major") artists of the 20th century. Yet his chances of survival over the long haul are probably slim to none... for the simply reason that he was big on ideas... but produced very little art of any real merit.

But anyway, I don't want to argue these points, I'm over it, we've been here done that many times before.

And yet you _are_ arguing the point. You are suggesting that we should consider Xenakis' or Stockhausen's or Glass' or Kaija Saariaho's reputation as the "major composers of our time" to be just as firmly "set in stone" as Mozart's or Bach's or Beethoven's or Wagner's reputations as the "major composers of their time". But you conveniently ignore the fact that in many instances the composers we most admire from the past were not immediately recognized as the greatest composers of their time... and were often the source of great controversy and disagreement... while at the same time, many of the composers that were thought of as "major" at the time... have slipped into obscurity. With a few exceptions, most individuals well-versed in classical music would agree that Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach were clearly among the major composers of their time... and all time. How many among the same well-informed audience would question the inclusion of one or more of the following names as representative of the "major" composers of our time: Xenakis, Stockhausen, Kaija Saariaho, Giacinto Scelsi, Krzysztof Penderecki, Arvo Pärt, Philip Glass, Steve Reich, Osvaldo Golijov, Mieczysław Weinberg, György Ligeti, Luciano Berio, Hans Werner Henze, Ned Rorem, Einojuhani Rautavaara, Peter Sculthorpe, Toru Takemitsu, Henryk Górecki, Terry Riley, Valentin Silvestrov, Frank Zappa, Emmanuel Nunes, Tristan Murail, Kalevi Aho, Daniel Catán, James MacMillan, Thomas Adès, etc...?

In many ways the dispute over contemporary art/music/literature is really a dispute over the direction that we believe art/music/literature should be headed... which undoubtedly makes contemporary artists more open to criticism.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Whether or not an artst is remembered after his death depends entirely on the fickle fate of whether his works survive. We all know actors of the 20th century because they're preserved in movies. How many 19th century actors do we know?

By the way, Marcel Duchamp created one work that will cement him in art history forever- Nude Descending A Staircase. I'd say that is the most important modern painting of all. I forgive him his laziness later in life for that one work.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> But you conveniently ignore the fact that in many instances the composers we most admire from the past were not immediately recognized as the greatest composers of their time...


Hmmm. I'm not sure that Sid can be criticised for not living far enough in the future to be able to look back


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> Again, you are ignoring the fact that Mozart and Haydn did not enjoy the reputation they now hold during their own lifetime. Haydn spent much of his career isolated from the rest of the world employed for The House of Esterházy. Salieri was more successful than Mozart, and Bach was as isolated from the musical world as Haydn and would have been seen as far less of a "major" composer than Rameau, Handel, Alessandro Scarlatti, Biber, and Hasse. Mozart, Bach, and Haydn are not so much the "major" composers of their time, as they are major composers of all time... still recognized as such in our time...


Well I'll just focus on a few things in your reply stlukes.

Re the above - I think that its a more complex picture with Haydn, as he did get more coverage and success when he was suspended from activities at Eszterhaza and went to the UK. Its true that Mozart did not get a court position as he wished, he was stuck in Salzburg which was a backwater and later went freelance, doing his 3 late operas. As for Bach, we know what happened with him, he was the third candidate in line for the job at Liepzig, Telemann and another guy where who they preferred.

But it is also true that even when Bach went into obscurity with the general public, those in the music industry still knew, studied, valued his music. Mozart played the WTC on a daily basis, as do many pianists today. Beethoven would also have known at least some of Bach's music, he studied with a guy called Neefe who was a major contrapuntalist (and organist) of that time. Haydn also had at least subliminal influence, as the person who put the symphony and string quartet on the map. Sammartini invented the symphony as it became, but Haydn has been known to people more than him over the 2 centuries since his death.

But its a complex picture. I don't like to make generalisations about some periods in history, as they can be very different to eachother. I mean look at things like the 'gaps' in our knowledge of history. We can debate things for ages here. But I have been meaning to make a thread about these 'gaps' and I will do it sometime soon.

But I'm saying that experts, I mean musicologists, and of course composers and musicians, they have their finger on the pulse of what's going on in music. & as I always say, not only on 'serious music,' but on many types of music. Of course, there are specialists in many areas of music, none are expert on everything. So they give us information, and we deal with it as we do, we can think about it, we can question it, whatever.



> ...
> Are the books you read "irrelevant"? I would guess that most of them will indeed be seen as irrelevant after the passage of a hundred years or more. ...


Well here we are in crystal ball territory, and I'm not a gypsy with a crystal ball, I can't gaze into the future, and I don't think anyone can.



> ...
> With a few exceptions, most individuals well-versed in classical music would agree that Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach were clearly among the major composers of their time... and all time.


Yeah, so? I mean the issue to me here is more what people value. As the conversations with MacLeod indicates above. Some people don't care about those three composers. Janacek clearly understood Bach but thought his choral music was like death. Death in terms of he wanted nothing to do with it. He consciously avoided Bach's influence in the 'Glagolitic Mass' and yet listen to his early 'Zdenka variations' for piano, and Janacek knew Bach back to front.

So what I'm saying is that even though people may not spell it out online, at the level of a listener or particpant of this forum, tney don't have to value things like BAch, Mozart or whoever. Its hard for you to accept because you are passionate about them. Everyone has their bias. And that is important in this debate. Uncovering those biases. But to be honest I'm through with fighting battles on this forum. If people want to rubbish music I like, let 'em do it. I only get angry if they basically rubbish me, or insinuate that personally. I'm trying to make this more relvant and less abstract. If Janacek did not value BAch, its ok to do that.



> ...How many among the same well-informed audience would question the inclusion of one or more of the following names as representative of the "major" composers of our time: Xenakis, Stockhausen, Kaija Saariaho, Giacinto Scelsi, Krzysztof Penderecki, Arvo Pärt, Philip Glass, Steve Reich, Osvaldo Golijov, Mieczysław Weinberg, György Ligeti, Luciano Berio, Hans Werner Henze, Ned Rorem, Einojuhani Rautavaara, Peter Sculthorpe, Toru Takemitsu, Henryk Górecki, Terry Riley, Valentin Silvestrov, Frank Zappa, Emmanuel Nunes, Tristan Murail, Kalevi Aho, Daniel Catán, James MacMillan, Thomas Adès, etc...?
> 
> ...


Man, I would love the Sydney Symphony Orchestra to perform virtually ANY of those you listed (and not just as a 'token'). So as a listener of contemporary musics, I have no issue with calling them great composers, or at least very able ones. But ask those who subscribe to these outfits, for some of them 'Modern music' stops with Stravinsky or Gershwin. & ONLY the warhorse works of composers like that.

But the basic fact is that since 1945 there has been a huge diversity of styles and approaches, and you've got things like classical cross pollinating with things like jazz, rock, world musics. In late 19th century Vienna, you had the two polarities of Brahms and Bruckner. But look at countries like USA or the European continent now, there's many types of composers there, there is not one or two dominant style or aesthetic approach, there are many.

So of course there will be more debate, but I think its healthy to question and debate. But when it comes to online, the tired old agenda of [insert sacred cow] is better than [insert living composer]. So we're debating about different things then, aren't we? & you mention Greenberg - well then it's an ideological debate with little or nothing to do with the music or art at hand.

But principe in this quote below summarises basically what I think about this whole issue.



principe said:


> ...In Music, we have two aspects of approaching the work of this Artform:
> a) the subjective, which is how emotionally we receive the work of Music; what is the emotional impact on us (in simple terms, how we "like" it) and
> b) the objective, which is the techincal aspect, the musical terms of reference, which, provided we have enough knowledge/preparation, we may identify, study, research. ...


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> But you conveniently ignore the fact that in many instances the composers we most admire from the past were not immediately recognized as the greatest composers of their time...


Many times they were. Many of the times they weren't was partly due to geographical reasons as much as anything.


----------



## principe (Sep 3, 2012)

Thanks, Sid, for your kind understaning. 
What I'm trying to say is that Bach is going to be the Classical Music himself, as one of my musical professor used to tell us, regardless of our subjective opinion about his Opus. Whether we (or Janacek) would like his music as whole or in parts or not at all, it does not diminish his "reference standard" position as one of the pinnacles, one of the summits in the development of Classical Music. 
In other words: We have the right, the prerogative to "like" whatever is "good" for us in Music, but we should be able to identify what is what, which is the identity value of each work, composer and era. If we cannot do it because of lack of expertise (not enough information, not able to read the score, not easy access to the score), we have to rely on those who have it, so that we may find out why Dvorak's Cello Concerto is the finest work in the genre or the Violin Sonata in A by Cesar Franck is the greatest in its medium and why C.P.E. Bach is so significant in the formation of the Piano literature, the development of the Sonata Form and the use of various rare tonalities in large scale works (further than his illustrious father who used any possible tonality, but mostly for "educational" purposes).
And yes, this thread is about the status of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Wagner and any other pivotal name in forming what we know as Classical Music. 

Principe


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

principe said:


> Thanks, Sid, for your kind understaning.
> What I'm trying to say is that Bach is going to be the Classical Music himself, as one of my musical professor used to tell us, regardless of our subjective opinion about his Opus. Whether we (or Janacek) would like his music as whole or in parts or not at all, it does not diminish his "reference standard" position as one of the pinnacles, one of the summits in the development of Classical Music...
> In other words: We have the right, the prerogative to "like" whatever is "good" for us in Music, but we should be able to identify what is what, which is the identity value of each work, composer and era. If we cannot do it because of lack of expertise (not enough information, not able to read the score, not easy access to the score), we have to rely on those who have it...
> And yes, this thread is about the status of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Wagner and any other pivotal name in forming what we know as Classical Music...


Well I agree that such composers are important, very important, but I also think that critiques of them need not necessarily come from a position of ignorance, as is often argued on this forum. I mean as I said Janacek was not ignorant of BAch (or Beethoven, Brahms) yet still rejected them in formulating his artistic and creative vision. Same with other composers who were not much interested in the three B's, such as Harry Partch, Xenakis, John Cage and others.

That's what I'm saying to stlukes too, but not to invalidate what he's saying (or you're saying). Some people may value these things, others may not, and ultimately it colours what they say on forums like this. I am not happy when people don't allow for critiques of these things as if they are 'sacred cows.'

I can rattle off the innovations of many post 1945 composers I know, just as you stated innovations of composers from before then. This isn't rocket science, there where great innovators and great composers of more recent times, just as there were of 100 or more years ago.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Well I agree that such composers are important, very important, but I also think that *critiques of them need not necessarily come from a position of ignorance, *as is often argued on this forum. I mean as I said Janacek was not ignorant of BAch (or Beethoven, Brahms) yet still rejected them in formulating his artistic and creative vision. Same with other composers who were not much interested in the three B's,* such as Harry Partch, Xenakis, John Cage and others.
> *


But when I've critiqued the methods or aesthetic approach of composers such as Xenakis, or tried to discuss what I believe are limitations of some musical languages, I get called all sorts of names like 'uninformed' or 'prejudiced'.
It seems that the modern 'sacred cows' are more sacred for some reason.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

The contemporaries of the greats misunderstanding their contemporaries is a massively over-rated phenomenon. Not for Bach, yes, or Mahler, or Schubert... However Haydn and Mozart were recognized as the greatest composers of their day - and lists which say otherwise are the exceptions that prove the rule. When Esterhazy died the whole world tripped over its feet to try and get Haydn. True, Rossini was more popular than Beethoven, but at the same time this has to do with competing characters - he was more overtly 'popular' whereas Beethoven was practically deliberately cantankerous. Still he was recognised by many as the greatest (or one of the greatest) composers of the day if a little eccentric. Next generation? My knowledge wanes, but I'm pretty sure Mendelssohn was well respected. And what about the Brahms vs Wagner turf wars? This sort of bickering was the support of composers considered great. Further back we have Machaut, Dufay, Palestrina, and of course Josquin who was the first 'legend' composer. Some people (not anyone here I hope) seem to believe contemporary misunderstanding is an all-pervasive phenomenon, necessary for someone to qualify as a great artist.

In general the composers now considered great were considered among the greatest of the day. What is more common is finding their names next to people now considered horribly mediocre (e.g. Cimarosa and Mozart) - i.e. the elevation of the average rather than the toppling of the great. It is quite possibly so now. There are also probably hidden talents like Bach or Schubert, but there are probably less hidden ones like Haydn or Mozart.

Anyway, IMO modern classical will diverge and become yet another separate genre, with significantly different aesthetic aims to a new 'classical'. But that is just my view.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

By the way, Marcel Duchamp created one work that will cement him in art history forever- Nude Descending A Staircase. I'd say that is the most important modern painting of all. I forgive him his laziness later in life for that one work.

No... that's just a mediocre attempt at a merger of Analytical Cubism and Futurism. The only reason the painting ever caused a big uproar was because it was shown in New York as opposed to Paris at a time when the US was still a provincial backwater in the visual arts. Duchamp himself knew that he'd never make it as a painter... and never had the least respect for painting.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I wish I could paint like that! Animators look at that painting and are amazed. It's a textbook on motion conveyed in still drawings.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Petwhac said:


> But when I've critiqued the methods or aesthetic approach of composers such as Xenakis, or tried to discuss what I believe are limitations of some musical languages, I get called all sorts of names like 'uninformed' or 'prejudiced'
> 
> It seems that the modern 'sacred cows' are more sacred for some reason.


What you say tells me that its about attitude, not what or who the sacred cow is. On my over 3 years on this forum, I've been called everything under the sun, from politically correct, to not even having a right to be posting here, and having clashes and arguments with people of both 'conservative' and 'radical' persuasions and a lot in-between.

Basically, the issue is less sacred cows and more the fact that people like to put others in a convenient ideological box. They like to build fences and boundaries, and judge others tastes, whatever they may be. I respect people's passion for the music or composers they like but they have to understand one big thing, that's that other people may not share their passion or their views. Music for me is not a religion or political party, its not about converting someone to a cause. And of course all ideologies believe they're 'right' or in some way better than other ideologies. So what I'm saying is it often boils down to ideology, not the music or subject (reality) at hand.

So I can say now that in terms of discussion of music, I'm very much interested in BOTH people's opinions on music or their interpretations of facts (more subjective side) and also more factual things about music (eg. history that is less disputed, or things like technical innovations which also can be viewed more objectively and impartially). Eg. a mix of those things is that in my opinion Wagner was a composer who is largely not to my taste, but I do acknowledge he was a great innovator in classical music, esp. opera.

But let's face it, I see it as like a high court, there can be a number of judges. They can come to different conclusions based on the same facts and evidence in a case. There can be a majority verdict deciding the case, but there can also be a minority (a dissenting judge) who is interpreting the facts different to the majority. So that's the way I see music, there is room for many sides in a debate, and the way 'objectivity' claiming to be without much or any bias is sometimes used as a battering ram to silence debate or belittle people fankly appals me. Classical listeners may be on the whole very intelligent, but attitude is a different thing altogether.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

no it's not possible because art is subjective. and most people don't care for the technical ability.

if you were to try to asses the greatest composer it would be wrong what ever you ended up with.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Sid James- But I'm saying that experts, I mean musicologists, and of course composers and musicians, they have their finger on the pulse of what's going on in music. & as I always say, not only on 'serious music,' but on many types of music. Of course, there are specialists in many areas of music, none are expert on everything. So they give us information, and we deal with it as we do, we can think about it, we can question it, whatever.

What I am saying is that there have always been such academics and critics and "experts" in the arts... but they have always been far from infallible. I'm not about to assume that the academics and critics and "experts" of our time are likely to prove themselves any more infallible. I'm not dismissing them out of hand... but I am saying that when dealing with Art (of any sort) that is "new" there will be endless debate, disagreement, dogma, etc... You know perfectly well that for every academic or "expert" who declares Stockhausen to have been a genius, there are just as many who will argue that he was a fraud. Certainly we've all heard the old Thomas Beecham quip when asked if he had ever conducted any Stockhausen, he said, "No, but I once trod in some."

_SLG- Are the books you read "irrelevant"? I would guess that most of them will indeed be seen as irrelevant after the passage of a hundred years or more. ..._

Well here we are in crystal ball territory, and I'm not a gypsy with a crystal ball, I can't gaze into the future, and I don't think anyone can. 

Again... I think what I am suggesting is something that goes beyond divination. I'm assuming that it's quite likely that the endless tomes of critical commentary written by today's academics, critics, and "experts" are no more likely to survive than the same products of the past.

Yeah, so? I mean the issue to me here is more what people value. As the conversations with MacLeod indicates above. Some people don't care about those three composers. Janacek clearly understood Bach but thought his choral music was like death. Death in terms of he wanted nothing to do with it. He consciously avoided Bach's influence in the 'Glagolitic Mass' and yet listen to his early 'Zdenka variations' for piano, and Janacek knew Bach back to front.

So what I'm saying is that even though people may not spell it out online, at the level of a listener or particpant of this forum, tney don't have to value things like Bach, Mozart or whoever. Its hard for you to accept because you are passionate about them. Everyone has their bias.

If I simply state "I don't like Mozart or Wagner," this is simply a statement of fact. If, however, you state "Mozart was a mediocre composer; there were dozens of other composers at the time who were far better than him, and Wagner...? Well Wagner just sucks." This is not a statement of fact. This is a statement of personal opinion... and in this case the personal opinion is contrary to the larger "collective opinion". Such an statement, as we have repeatedly seen, is likely to lead to rebuttals and the individual making such statements is likely going to be challenged to offer some logical reasoning as to why anyone should take his or her opinion seriously.

When we begin to deal with art and artists who are closer to us in time... who are still seen as "modern" or "new" or "avant garde" by a good many, there is no "collective opinion". I suspect that you are looking for some sort of "fair" or "Egalitarian" approach to criticism whereby Xenakis, Stockhausen, and Glass should be no less revered and immune from criticism than Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart... but what you are asking is itself patently unfair... unless you imagine that somehow Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart were revered and immune from all criticism right from the get-go.

_...How many among the same well-informed audience would question the inclusion of one or more of the following names as representative of the "major" composers of our time: Xenakis, Stockhausen, Kaija Saariaho, Giacinto Scelsi, Krzysztof Penderecki, Arvo Pärt, Philip Glass, Steve Reich, Osvaldo Golijov, Mieczysław Weinberg, György Ligeti, Luciano Berio, Hans Werner Henze, Ned Rorem, Einojuhani Rautavaara, Peter Sculthorpe, Toru Takemitsu, Henryk Górecki, Terry Riley, Valentin Silvestrov, Frank Zappa, Emmanuel Nunes, Tristan Murail, Kalevi Aho, Daniel Catán, James MacMillan, Thomas Adès, etc...?_

Man, I would love the Sydney Symphony Orchestra to perform virtually ANY of those you listed (and not just as a 'token'). So as a listener of contemporary musics, I have no issue with calling them great composers, or at least very able ones. But ask those who subscribe to these outfits, for some of them 'Modern music' stops with Stravinsky or Gershwin. & ONLY the warhorse works of composers like that.

Personally, I have recordings by every one of the composers I listed, except for Xenakis. Some I like more than others. Some I suspect are underrated/overrated among certain audiences. Even among the members of TC who portray themselves as the keepers of the faith of Modernism there are those who have dismissed one or more of these composers as "minor"... "overrated"... even "garbage". I guess what I am saying is yes... let's listen to these and other new and living composers. Let's talk and even debate about which composers and which works we like/dislike. But let's avoid the inflation of reputations... the oxymoron of "contemporary classics"... "living masters"... "greater than Mozart..."


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

But when I've critiqued the methods or aesthetic approach of composers such as Xenakis, or tried to discuss what I believe are limitations of some musical languages, I get called all sorts of names like 'uninformed' or 'prejudiced'.
It seems that the modern 'sacred cows' are more sacred for some reason.

That's because, as Bill Watterson so astutely put it in his comic strip _Calvin and Hobbes_:

"People always make the mistake of thinking art is created for them. But really, art is a private language for sophisticates to congratulate themselves on their superiority to the rest of the world. As my artist's statement explains, my work is utterly incomprehensible and is therefore full of deep significance.":lol:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> Personally, I have recordings by every one of the composers I listed, except for Xenakis. Some I like more than others. Some I suspect are underrated/overrated among certain audiences. Even among the members of TC who portray themselves as the keepers of the faith of Modernism there are those who have dismissed one or more of these composers as "minor"... "overrated"... even "garbage".


Well you gotta admit that conservative or traditionalists do that too (see my reply to petwac above).

Re underrated/overrated its a bit of a cop out, isn't it. I mean Wagner has more fans on this forum by far than I've met in real life over like 20 years. I mean just talking to people on the ground here into classical. Most people are indifferent to him. I've met one Wagnerite and he was pretty self deprecating about liking a composer who "did the soundtrack to the invasion of Poland." (the old joke) But if you tell a joke like that here, people get on their high horses.

And this kind of thing applies to this forum. It doesn't match my real life conversations about classical, often. I mean you get some people claiming things that aren't common sense. If a person is saying something that speaks to common sense or my experience reality, I try to validate that. Even if I disagree with that view. I mean I like Elliott Carter's music, but I can understand he's not a 'walk in the park' for some people. That's okay. But I only give advice if I'm asked to. Nobody is automatically ignorant for not liking something, that's absurd, yet that's often what we get around here.



> ...I guess what I am saying is yes... let's listen to these and other new and living composers. Let's talk and even debate about which composers and which works we like/dislike.


Well then we are arguing over principle because that's my position more or less.



> ...But let's avoid the inflation of reputations... the oxymoron of "contemporary classics"... "living masters"... "greater than Mozart..."


Well I try hard not to do that. I don't remember saying things to that effect. All I said is that there are great musicians around today, just as there have always been. And the majority of music I listen to is still by dead composers. But I enjoy both.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

You have to have a set of defined criteria, and you must apply these criteria in an appropriate manner. The criteria for Classical is absurd when applied to techno, and vice versa, you can't trance-dance to Bruckner.


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2012)

Since stomanek and principe want to tell me my subjective opinion is wrong, I thought I'd drag the debate over here, rather than derail the thread where it started...Mozart's Most Meaningful Opera...where I responded to the OP's comment that "It is a general thought that Mozart's compositions were not really deep -loftiness- in content"

I merely suggested that this was, in fact, my feeling about what I was listening to at the time - a CD of Mozart's 25th, 40th and 41st symphonies











My _current_ personal response - listening to this for the first time is that I had to go and listen to Beethoven's 8th as an antidote to all that delicate frivolity.

Having said in the 'what cause do you fight for' thread that I fight for the right to express a personal response without attracting derision - provided that such a response is not merely a dismissive generalisation - I felt I should elaborate a little.

It's difficult to come to Mozart untainted. That is, even if you've not actually sat down and knowingly listened to a whole symphony, it's highly likely that you've heard one of his melodies used (and abused) elsewhere. Add to that, the baggage you might bring from being much more familiar with other composers (Beethoven, Debussy, Satie, Holst, Bach, but especially the less iconic) even other types of music, and there is a battle to get past a distorted image of the music to the music itself. (Never mind the challenge, as principe pointed out, of seeing past the portrayal of Mozart in _Amadeus_!)

Oddly enough, at the Proms last night, Bernard Haitink, about to conduct the WPO in a performance of Haydn's 'London' symphony, described Mozart as 'naughty, apparently'; Beethoven as 'grumpy, apparently' but Haydn as 'good-natured'. It seems to me, in my early hearings, that those personalities come through the music. Not, of course, in every work, or every passage, certainly not in every note, but somehow permeating the whole.

And for me, what permeates the Mozart I'm listening to at the moment is a sense of (I'll borrow from Haitink) mischief, where Haydn comes across as civilised, measured, self-composed (even his jokes are courteous). Mozart, on the other hand, pauses every now and then and pretends to be serious. The 40th, especially the 1st movement, is a prime example, though even here, the straight face slips occasionally, and the finale is really quite delicately comical: the minor key is constantly undercut by the 'busy-ness' of the strings, and the opening passage is just silly fun.


----------



## Lizardfolk (Aug 28, 2012)

I have an opinion on this and, I'm going to apologize beforehand if I sound like a massive snobby prick, but I do believe that there's more to this argument than simple blanket statements like "all art is subjective". Which is, unfortunately imo, a very common opinion.



LordBlackudder said:


> no it's not possible because art is subjective. and most people don't care for the technical ability.
> 
> if you were to try to asses the greatest composer it would be wrong what ever you ended up with.


I know this is a classical music forum, and most of you might very well be talking about classical music when you say "art is subjective". Let me say that "art" as a whole is subjective only depending on the medium and to various degrees.

Generally speaking the more institutionalized the medium is the more "objective" or set of standards there will be. Let's take a look at paintings. At this point, there is no real institution with any clout in the painting. This is why modern paintings that are as abstract as humanly possible are generally greeted with open arms by "art critics and experts". They don't have any real standards to judge paintings anymore and just go by how they feel towards the medium (for better and for worse).

Let's look at the movie art medium. Oscars, Sundance Indie films, and various other competition and festivals for "art". Movies are very institutionalized. Decades of very strict academic theory, research, and history make up a fairly solid institution for films. There are "right" ways to look at films and that's critically with techniques that were crafted by academics before us and among us. While the Oscars are indeed political, there are still set standards of which judges in the Oscars or whatever film competition use to determine "which is the best picture." I graduated from an art college with a Bachelors in Cinema Production and a concentration in film theory. I, myself, am an academic and let me tell you that the way we look at films is almost like a science.

Character, character-development, shot, mise-en-scene, lighting, dialogue, acting. Believe it or not these are things that can be detected and (somewhat) measured. You might say "but these things change over time as tastes change". That is true but, with film, there is an universal language that has maintained quite well over the course of the century. In fact, look at The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) versus... let's say (for the sake of argument) Shutter Island. Both films execute their stories, shots, and themes in very similar ways. Acting and writing styles might change. But it doesn't change the fact that, in film, "art" is about setting up a theme and executing that said theme. That doesn't really change. A scene either serves the theme well or it doesn't. A scene either relates to the character or it's random and has nothing to do with developing the character (which makes it a bad scene). That's a lot more objective than "style".

In film, "good art" is saying or bringing across something about life that is worth bringing. "Good execution of art in film" is establishing a theme, then working towards serving that theme.

Let's look at the movie "Social Network". It's an Aaron Sorkin story about a nerd who, through his hubris, is trying to control everything around in his life. It's a business story, but above all, it's a story about a low self-esteem character who is trying to "prove" his worth to other people and stepping too far in doing so. How do I know this? I don't "know" it and you can never 100% accurately "measure" anything in film because it's an artform and not a science but you definitely can sharpen your senses and draw conclusions based on "evidence" on screen rather than just sit there mindlessly and react without thinking.

Let me show you an example. Look at this scene:





00:08 - 00:10: In this movie, Mark's character is a person who can't stand being out of control of elements around him. His ego and pride means that he must be smarter and better than other people and thus he constantly needs to control the situation. He comes in normally "can i talk to you for a second". At first this seems benign but Jesse Eisenberg's tense face conveys a sense of uneasiness and uneasiness with such a simple statement hints at an emotional complex.

00:10 - 00:12: Jessica Albright, Mark's scorned girlfriend resists his request to show that she's unhappy with his actions earlier in the movie.

00:12 - 00:17: Mark's very uncomfortable with Jessica's resistence. Repetition of the sentences, the awkwardness of his speech. He wants things his way. If it's not his way he's out of his comfort zone. He likes dealing with people bit by bit and not openly.

00:17 - 00:22: Jessica stands her ground. Mark then dives in to the conversation he wants to have. Which is not intimate and doesn't warrant "talking to you alone". Subtle evidence that Mark is either self conscious or he's quickly picked another conversation topic. Either way it conveys a sense of vulnerability that Mark's not really willing to display.

00:22 - 01:06: Jessica's going to be straight. She's unhappy at Mark's actions. She feels that Mark's not getting it that she's unhappy so she rips into him. Details exactly why she's unhappy and exactly why Mark's a miserable person deep down. Notice how Mark tries to interrupt her. He constantly repeats "i want to talk to you alone" while awkwardly shoving in the small justification "I didn't end up actually doing that". He did something wrong. He knows it, but he can't admit it. Atleast not to Jessica in public. He came here to talk to her about that incident yet now he's suddenly fighting with her. Mark stops talking as Jessica continues to pour her outrage and her insight into Mark.

01:06 - 01:08: Despite that. Mark still wants to talk to Jessica alone. He still wants things his way.

1:08 - end: Mark decides he doesn't want to apologize and leaves Jessica.

Film critics, film theorists, and film academics do this all the time. I've worked as a theorist writing papers for a journal and stuff like this comes natural to me during every scene. Am I always 100% correct in my analysis of a scene? Of course not, as I said this isn't a science. But this is as objective as I can get to "judging good or bad art". How is the scene setup? How is the actors displaying their emotions or expressions (or lack thereof)? How's the dialogue and writing? I can come as close to the "truth" of each movie as I can with these tools that I learned through film education. I will never be 100% right on judging a film's art. But my opinion can be more "accurate" when I use this method and less "accurate" if I just "sit there and feel it". The entire point of the art of narrative is to convey a message, theme, experience and point. Because all (or almost all) narrative art works this way it is a lot easier to "objectify" than... let's say paintings.

This is why we have experimental film. Experimental film is a complete opposite reaction to narrative films and the entire institution of narrative films. Watch this:





There's no "accurate" or "inaccurate" way to read that film. It's legitimately a film about "doing what you feel is right" compared to the very mechanical construction of narrative films.

So I guess... what I'm trying to say is that, while you can never be 100% objective, you can be "more" or "less" objective in art depending on the medium. Based on my experience here is a general guideline to each artform's "objectivity"

*100% Subjective (non-institutional or anti-institutional artforms)*
Paintings, Experimental Films, Experimental Video Games, Vernacular Music

*70% Subjective 30% Objective (semi-institutional artform/commercial artform)*
Video games, Sculptures/Architecture, Photography

*40% Subjective 60% Objective (institutionalized artforms)*
Novels, Narrative Film/Narrative TV, Classical Music, Jazz Music, Stage Plays, Dance, Poetry.

*100% Objective*
No Artform is 100% Objective

I hope I've made sense. To you guys.

On the subject of music, I've had education in classical music as well. (I planned on being a classical pianist before I decided to switch into films at the last minute before applying to colleges)

This is 100% fact, it's indisputable:
Classical Music, Jazz Music, and Oriental Classical Music is a cultivated form of music. It's heavily reliant on structure, form, and theory

Folk Music, Improvisatory Music, Religious Music (such as Gospel and Chants) is a vernacular form of music. That means that it absolutely has no standards and can be sung, chanted, performed in any way as long as it serves it's purpose. Vernacular music tends to not be notated.

Pop, Rock, Rap, Techno, etc is a combination between the cultivated approach and the vernacular approach.

Cultivated *does not *indicate "better". Vernacular *does not* indicate "worse". It just means that cultivated is a much more technical approach to music while vernacular is a much more "free" approach to music. *It is* an opinion that cultivated music is better than vernacular music. *It is not* opinion that Jazz and Classical are cultivated forms of music as it relies completely on theory, structure, and form and relies on precision and precise execution in difficult techniques.

So rather... when it comes to institutionalized art... I don't believe in "opinions", I only believe in "assessments" (which is a combination of personal experiences and ever-present evidence)

That is why in classical music we have very prestigious competitions that can make or break a musician/composer's career. Tchaikovsky Music Competition, Leeds Music Competition, Queen Elisabeth Music Competition, Van Cliburn Music Competition. The fact that classical music is so institutionalized and set in it's standards (which i think is more of a good thing than a bad thing btw) means that competitions like these can be setup to great effect.

Can you imagine doing something like that with rock or more vernacular music? Absolutely impossible. It's a lot more possible with classical, jazz, and oriental classical music.

Feel free to argue with me if anyone disagrees. I'd gladly defend my position as I had to do so countless times during my years in college


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Lizardfolk said:


> Folk Music, Improvisatory Music, *Religious Music* (such as Gospel and Chants) is a vernacular form of music. That means that it absolutely has no standards and can be sung, chanted, performed in any way as long as it serves it's purpose. Vernacular music tends to not be notated.


I don't know about other religious music (other than Western which is obviously included in your Classical), however Byzantine chant has a melodic structure which I am led to believe involves a highly refined use of formulae, used to express whatever the words require. However you could also be including this in Classical rendering this comment pointless.

In film, art and literature 'normality' is defined in relation to 'reality' - perceptions of it change, but the themes remain the same. In music abstraction is harder to define, since abandonment of a tonal system developed between the years 1000 and 1800 does not seem to qualify an an abandonment of reality in the same way as, say, modern art.

Theories change, and theorists in music certainly are notoriously behind the times, but that is perhaps because music changes faster than other artforms which more obviously relate to what we see/hear around us, even within us.


----------



## Lizardfolk (Aug 28, 2012)

Ramako said:


> I don't know about other religious music (other than Western which is obviously included in your Classical), however Byzantine chant has a melodic structure which I am led to believe involves a highly refined use of formulae, used to express whatever the words require. However you could also be including this in Classical rendering this comment pointless.


Oh I actually did not know that. Thank you for clarifying 



Ramako said:


> In film, art and literature 'normality' is defined in relation to 'reality' - perceptions of it change, but the themes remain the same.


Yes exactly which is why literature, film/tv, plays, etc can be so easily institutionalized and thus usually there's a generally accepted standard to "good and bad art" even when styles change



Ramako said:


> In music abstraction is harder to define, since abandonment of a tonal system developed between the years 1000 and 1800 does not seem to qualify an an abandonment of reality in the same way as, say, modern art.
> 
> Theories change, and theorists in music certainly are notoriously behind the times, but that is perhaps because music changes faster than other artforms which more obviously relate to what we see/hear around us, even within us.


I personally think this is due to the institution's heavy grasp on traditional values. You are right that abstractions in music are much harder to define and set as music is more directly tied to our emotions while drama and dialogue is more of a cognitive function (definitely not saying that drama isn't emotional just saying that it engages the cognitive side more naturally than the emotional side).

Again, I think (in terms of music) traditional values are great. The hard work that composers before us put into creating these marvelous, almost crystalline structures of auditory art is marvelous. It's just, sometimes, not as accessible to the common audience as they are looking for something a little more easily immersible without requiring a lot or any mental input from the listener's side. Casual listeners make up a most of the music audience.

It's hard to dive into... let's say Bach's Art of Fugue when you are just casually hearing it while doing homework while it's easy to shake your booty to Lady Gaga while you're grinding away at some menial task. I think classical music is "behind the times" largely because it just requires a lot more mental input to get emotional satisfaction from it (generally speaking of course... McDowell's To a Wild Rose is very accessible and not complicated at all). Where as pop music tends to emotionally engage the audience pretty well while being simplistic and (not always but often) shallow.

That said, I'm actually not traditionalist in the sense that I do not believe modern music cannot become classical and classical have to be only from 1000-1923 music. If someone took Lady Gaga's tune, wrote a variation of it while adhering to classical theories, structure, and harmonies and stuck to the traditional instruments that can easily become "classical music" to me. Much like how there's a 23 minute Symphonic Poem on Zelda video game music. I consider that classical too.

So, to me... anything can be classical as long as it fits the classical mode (which, imo isn't actually as obsolete as people think it is). Most institution people I know tend to be stuffy about that saying that "Ligeti was the last real classical music and nothing beyond him can't ever be considered classical" which I personally find a little silly.

I feel like the more classical music gets out of the mindset that classical only have to be music from 1000-1923 and it can welcome other types of music adapted into it's genre (as long as it adheres to traditional instruments and form in some way) the more classical will start to become relevant to the common audience again. Otherwise it'll forever be a relic of the academic which... I guess it's fine but more people would be left out on the experience lol

There's a huge audience for video game music (look at Video Game Live!!) and a lot of the motifs in video games are marvelous. Just someone need to come along and fit it into a proper structure then it'll be golden


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Objective: Material, scientific, [boring]
Subjective: Not necessarily material, related to humanistic, [interesting]

I don't try to expand that to a philosophical struggle, but I prefer Plato, Kant and Schopenhauer stances against the empiricists.

Now it's too complex! Surely you can understand the relations between these terms (adding Ideal and Real terms here!)


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2012)

Lizardfolk said:


> I do believe that there's more to this argument than simple blanket statements like "all art is subjective". Which is, unfortunately imo, a very common opinion.


Agreed. Rendering all comment to the subjective in this way is as tedious as asserting that there are absolutes that cannot be gainsaid.

I might disagree with the percentages for each art form, but there is no doubt that there are rules as well as conventions which enable a degree of objectivity in analysis - both in the observing and the breaking.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

*"This is 100% fact, it's indisputable*:
Classical Music, *Jazz Music*, and Oriental Classical Music is a cultivated form of music. It's heavily reliant on structure, form, and theory

Folk Music,* Improvisatory Music*, Religious Music (such as Gospel and Chants) is a vernacular form of music. That means that it absolutely has no standards and can be sung, chanted, performed in any way as long as it serves it's purpose. Vernacular music tends to not be notated."

I dispute, I dispute!


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Can we start this conversation from begining... 
I actualy DO believe there is objective QUALITY since I believe there is out there good and quality music and music that isn't good and quality music. 
But I will not go too much now into something that will lead to my subjective opinions.

But, let's start from begining. What is to you good melody? What makes good melody to be good and bad melody to be bad?

My example... why is this melody good to me, while this melody is boring, uncreative and whiny to me without any decent melody?

What would be your examples? Mostly it all starts with melody, especialy in pop music, so what is difference between good and bad melody? Or do you think that all melodies are good, but it all depends only on taste?

Also, in classical music.... is Beethoven's 1st symphony equaly good like his 5th or 9th symphony? I don't think so.

Where and when objectivity turns into subjectivity? Who is right and who is wrong? Are we all wrong or all right or some people are more objective than the other ones?

Also, let's make even bigger differences in quality of melody between this and this

Is quality really that subjective? If it is, then there is no need for word 'quality' I guess. It's all equaly good then based only on personal taste?


----------

