# Sophisticated Art (Such as Classical Music)



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Over the past few years, I've been struggling to figure out where my tastes in Art lay. I asked important questions such as, what am I looking for and what is important to me in Art?

In answering those questions, I'm looking for art that touches my soul, and has a certain amount of artistic sophistication.

The next question was, how do I qualify artistic sophistication? I found that I can't put it into words, but when I hear something, I can say if I think it is high, sophisticated art or not. Then the next question is, do I love it or not. That is how I decide if something is for me or not. 

Question 1: How do you assess Art, do you have a method like me, or is it simpler to you?

Question 2: Do you agree with me, that Sophisticated/intellectual art takes more brain power to understand, and is actually more intelligent b/c of this, but that doesn't make it better than other art? In other words, not everyone is looking for something sophisticated and intelligent, and that's ok.

Any other related comments are welcome.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

1) Do I like it. Do I respond in some meaningful way? If I have to study a work of art, or listen to the "experts" explain it, then it probably isn't for me. I assume by "Art" you mean art in its many forms: music, literature, poetry, architecture, sculpture, art art, etc. There is music and paintings that I responded to instantly and still love: Mahler's 7th, Philip de Loutherbourg's "An Avalanche in the Alps", or Frederick Remington's "The Cowboy". Something about those works hits home and I identify with. Other things, like Tippet's 4th, anything by Picasso turn me off and don't resonate in the least. So, I don't assess art; if it touches me in some intrinsic way, I like it, and at least for me, it's great art.

2) Yes, it takes a certain intelligence and brainpower to understand some art. The Brahms 1st is a great example. This is not for classical beginners and anyone who knows nothing about classical will be totally bewildered. But it doesn't end there. I am sure that some people listen to the music of Elliot Carter or Milton Babbitt and just are in awe of how great it is. I can't. Maybe my IQ is too low, but I just can't identify anything in their music worthy of my time. This is where the snob factor comes it. I know people who think that listening to esoteric modern music, watching movies in foreign languages, or studying modern painting makes them superior to the rest of us. Art that doesn't touch the soul is empty and worthless as far as I'm concerned. I've laughed my way through museums of modern art - they're devoid of talent, skill, taste. I've walked out of concerts of modern music. I will not be the butt of some so-called artists joke. So no, I'm not looking for something sophisticated or intelligent, whatever that means. The music of Verdi was enormously popular in his time and still is because it touches people from all walks of life in some mysterious way. And that's why no one gives a damn about modern opera: it touches no one. Simple is good. You know what I think the greatest "song" of all time is? Not some complicated thing by Schubert, Schumann or Mahler. Not Richard Strauss or Wiliam Bolcom or Mussorgsky. It's "Wichita Lineman" by Jimmy Webb. A perfect song. Not sophisticated or complex, but even 50 years after Glen Campbell recorded it, it's still a great song that no song writer today can approach.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> 1) Do I like it. Do I respond in some meaningful way? If I have to study a work of art, or listen to the "experts" explain it, then it probably isn't for me. I assume by "Art" you mean art in its many forms: music, literature, poetry, architecture, sculpture, art art, etc. There is music and paintings that I responded to instantly and still love: Mahler's 7th, Philip de Loutherbourg's "An Avalanche in the Alps", or Frederick Remington's "The Cowboy". Something about those works hits home and I identify with. Other things, like Tippet's 4th, anything by Picasso turn me off and don't resonate in the least. So, I don't assess art; if it touches me in some intrinsic way, I like it, and at least for me, it's great art.
> 
> 2) Yes, it takes a certain intelligence and brainpower to understand some art. The Brahms 1st is a great example. This is not for classical beginners and anyone who knows nothing about classical will be totally bewildered. But it doesn't end there. I am sure that some people listen to the music of Elliot Carter or Milton Babbitt and just are in awe of how great it is. I can't. Maybe my IQ is too low, but I just can't identify anything in their music worthy of my time. This is where the snob factor comes it. I know people who think that listening to esoteric modern music, watching movies in foreign languages, or studying modern painting makes them superior to the rest of us. Art that doesn't touch the soul is empty and worthless as far as I'm concerned. I've laughed my way through museums of modern art - they're devoid of talent, skill, taste. I've walked out of concerts of modern music. I will not be the butt of some so-called artists joke. So no, I'm not looking for something sophisticated or intelligent, whatever that means. The music of Verdi was enormously popular in his time and still is because it touches people from all walks of life in some mysterious way. And that's why no one gives a damn about modern opera: it touches no one. Simple is good. You know what I think the greatest "song" of all time is? Not some complicated thing by Schubert, Schumann or Mahler. Not Richard Strauss or Wiliam Bolcom or Mussorgsky. It's "Wichita Lineman" by Jimmy Webb. A perfect song. Not sophisticated or complex, but even 50 years after Glen Campbell recorded it, it's still a great song that no song writer today can approach.


I agree with the statement that if it has to be explained to you, then you are just forcing it. However, sometimes, and I'm sure you'll agree, a different perspective may have you appreciate something in a new way. That's slightly different than having explained to you why a work is good or bad.

Yes, I am speaking of all art, literature, paintings, music etc.

I am also with you on the snobbery nature of pseudo modern art. With this thread I am wanting to separate the notion that some art does take more intelligence to comprehend, recognize that some Art tries to be different, but it's lifeless/soulless, but understand that just b/c something is more intellectual doesn't make it superior; not everyone is an intellectual, and that is fine.

I enjoy this board a lot, b/c if seems to be filled with genuine intellectuals that don't like the snobbery that comes with high art.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Also, I get not liking Picasso. I think his work is very kid friendly, imaginative and fun! Like Alice in Wonderland, it appeals to both kids and adults.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think what it means to be an intellectual is no more than pursuing further knowledge in topics you are passionate about; nothing else.

I think what makes a person sophisticated, is having emotional control and good manners.

I think what makes some Art more highbrow than others is really hard to put into words; I can't figure out how to articulate it, but I know I sense it when I hear/see/eat/drink/ etc it.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Do you have to be stoic to be sophisticated?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> Do you have to be stoic to be sophisticated?


No, it's about emotional control, not withholding emotion. It's about articulating your emotional states or intellectual positions w/o losing emotional control.

Poised is a better word than stoic I'd say.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Also, I get not liking Picasso. I think his work is very kid friendly, imaginative and fun! Like Alice in Wonderland, it appeals to both kids and adults.


Picasso's _Guernica._ Not exactly kid friendly. Powerful. Death from the air!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think I just need to allow myself to love what I love instead of thinking too hard about it. But what I tend to love is highbrow Art.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> Picasso's _Guernica._ Not exactly kid friendly. Powerful!


I think it's pretty fun and wild.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I like this definition for sophistication - devoid of grossness. I fit the bill except for when I eat. 

Sorry, but this isn't a topic I can take seriously - I'll stop posting.


----------



## laurie (Jan 12, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> Picasso's _Guernica._ Not exactly kid friendly. Powerful. Death from the air!





Captainnumber36 said:


> I think it's pretty fun and wild.











"Fun"? I'm guessing that you're thinking of a _different_ Picasso ....


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

laurie said:


> View attachment 105652
> 
> 
> "Fun"? I'm guessing that you're thinking of a _different_ Picasso ....


I know the painting.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

If I feel it, I like it. I don't always understand it but it gets in me.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

This is related to the philosophy of Art. Art has great power in music, paintings, film, and poetry. Art aesthetics goes back it Ancient times, with the idea of what Beauty is. It has been suggested that Art is manipulative, which I agree to a large extant. The Godfather is a very stylish movie, but morally bad, but as cool as it seems. The theme of having to do bad for greater good is a theme that attracts immature people. The music by Mozart and Beethoven is highly manipulative like a lot of movies. 

Art for its own sake is empty. The Romantic view as held by Beethoven of conversing with the Heavens, etc. is bogus. It is for mental or emotional stimulation, and is only as sophisticated as the composer/creator and the listener is able to take it, even if it suggests more. The key is not to think there is more than what you hear, see, etc.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Question 1: How do you assess Art, do you have a method like me, or is it simpler to you?


My often applied criterion is: did the art accomplish what the artist intended? Applies well to music, paintings, movies, plays, literature, just about everything.

Sometimes it is hard to figure out what the artist intends. And sometimes that may be deliberate. But in most cases this seems to work.

Now, that is a criteria for good art, not a criteria for whether I like it or not. Some things I like because they touch my soul. Some because they engage the intellect, some both, some neither. There is a lot of good art I don't like, both so called high brow and low brow.

I cannot understand why anyone would want to know what I like and why.


----------



## Guest (Jul 15, 2018)

1. I don't really _assess_ art, but I enjoy it, that's for sure, especially if I find that I have some kind of emotional involvement when experience the art in question.

2. Art is only as sophisticated or intellectual as the viewer of the art and how they are willing to engage with it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 15, 2018)

I like going to galleries and exhibitions and concerts, but I don't live very near anywhere that provides this in quantity, so now the summer's come, I'm looking forward to going to see the Terracotta Soldiers in Liverpool - a two hour drive away. While I'm there, I'll visit Tate Liverpool where there's an exhibition of Op Art and Egon Schiele.

I go part way to meet the artist - if I don't instantly like it or understand it, I'll make an effort to see things differently. But I don't go part way to meet the critics. Just because something has been lauded doesn't mean that I'm going to "assess" it to the same extent.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Personally, I value three things: 

1. Pleasure. Do I like it? This doesn't need to be a superficial "prettiness," it could be pleasing in other ways, such as being ironic, morally uplifting, intellectually challenging, humorous, insightful, and so on. 

2. Skill. Is it well done? Did the artist(s) achieve what they tried to do? 

3. Cleverness. Does close analysis reveal thoughtfulness that is not initially apparent? 

These categories don't just apply to the classical "arts" (painting, sculpture, architecture, music, literature) but to pretty much everything: cooking, clothing, mechanics, mathematics, lesson plans (I'm a teacher), vacation plans, etc... Essentially, if something is "well done," it's art.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I dig any art that rocks.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I find the OP a little "allien" (to me): I don't think I am exploring _myself _and _my _tastes when I encounter a piece of art. I thing my taste grows and develops (and, maybe, deepens): it is not something _in me _so much as something _growing in me_! There is, I suppose, a voyage of (self-) discovery but what I am conscious of doing is exploring something that others who I sometimes agree with find good or bad (or whatever word might apply). It feels more like exploring the work than my tastes but I am not sure I can pinpoint the difference - I suppose it is down to not "trusting" my first impression. With an artist I have never heard of, I suppose it comes down to whether it catches my attention in the first place. This may have something to do with how it fits with what I do know. Sometimes you discover a love for an artist over time, when you get to know their "language". Over time I have found myself getting much more out of composers who I didn't previously know and out of a first visit to a gallery.

There is plenty of admired art that I don't like. But I try not to reject something just because that is my first reaction.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think it's pretty fun and wild.


"Fun"? Picasso didn't paint it for fun. What if you or your family had been in Guernica when the German bombings took place? Fun then? The painting was created by an enraged Picasso in response to the 1937 bombing of Guernica, a Basque Country village in northern Spain, by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italian warplanes at the request of the Spanish Nationalists. One of the main leaders of the 1936 coup, General Francisco Franco, would lead this faction throughout the war and later would become the dictator of Spain from 1939 to 1975. This wasn't exactly a fun period in Spanish history. Guernica was a nice little warmup for what Hitler was going to do for fun to the rest of Europe during WW2. Some people with an interest in history may have heard of that war. :/ Picasso's _Guernica_ was the painter at the full height and sophisticated expression of his power. He wasn't always being fun and playful as he could be at other times.


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

I just looked around and didn't see a forum for paintings or sculpture. I was wondering there is one and if not we could tell everyone to link their images from Flickr or somewhere so it wouldn't take up as much space. Any ideas?


----------



## fliege (Nov 7, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> 1) Do I like it. Do I respond in some meaningful way? If I have to study a work of art, or listen to the "experts" explain it, then it probably isn't for me.


I find it not so black and white. If there is zero response to begin with, then probably explanations from experts won't help. However if there is a bit of a response then having an expert point the way can greatly open a work or genre.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

haydnguy said:


> I just looked around and didn't see a forum for paintings or sculpture. I was wondering there is one and if not we could tell everyone to link their images from Flickr or somewhere so it wouldn't take up as much space. Any ideas?


Check out the "Community Forum" of this site.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> "Fun"? Picasso didn't paint it for fun. What if you or your family had been in Guernica when the German bombings took place? Fun then? The painting was created by an enraged Picasso in response to the 1937 bombing of Guernica, a Basque Country village in northern Spain, by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italian warplanes at the request of the Spanish Nationalists. One of the main leaders of the 1936 coup, General Francisco Franco, would lead this faction throughout the war and later would become the dictator of Spain from 1939 to 1975. This wasn't exactly a fun period in Spanish history. Guernica was a nice little warmup for what Hitler was going to do for fun to the rest of Europe during WW2. Some people with an interest in history may have heard of that war. :/ Picasso's _Guernica_ was the painter at the full height and sophisticated expression of his power. He wasn't always being fun and playful as he could be at other times.


It's hard to take Picasso's cubist period very seriously for me, I like viewing it as playful even if it wasn't his intent.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think I'm too hung up on labels. I agree with the above that it's good if you love it and describing how it makes you feel is what's important when intellectualizing about a particular work.


----------



## Guest (Jul 15, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think I'm too hung up on labels. I agree with the above that it's good if you love it and describing how it makes you feel is what's important when intellectualizing about a particular work.


Well personal response is what I would say is _primarily _valid. But let's take the Op Art I referred to. I've heard of it, and heard of, for example, Bridget Riley. I'll go to the gallery and see what I think of her works, but at the same time, I'll do my research, read the background, find out more about her and those who are deemed to belong to the movement. How do I know whether my response is the "right" one unless I know what she and the others were trying to achieve? Obviously, any response is the "right" one - it is what it is - but in reaching any kind of assessment about what's on show and what I think about it (I'm not just talking emotional response here) I need to consider the artist's intent. Here's an example:



> 'Riley's black and white paintings were made in response to the trauma and anger she felt at the age of 28, when an older man with whom she had been having an affair brought their relationship to an end. As she later recalled her feelings at that time as being: 'I can't communicate verbally with you, so what's the point in trying? But I'll paint you a message so loud and clear you'll know exactly how I feel.'


https://web.archive.org/web/2010111...ieze.com/issue/article/seeing_is_believing_1/

She goes on:



> '_To say that there were absolutes_; that one could not pretend that black was white … to make a deliberate statement, to make a thing that put itself into hazard by some aspect of its own nature. And that was the beginning of the black and white paintings. People at the time thought, and some people still seem to think, that they were paintings having to do with optical experiment … really they were an attempt to say something about stabilities and instabilities, certainties and uncertainties.'


It may not matter in the end whether I get what Riley intended. But if I am impertinent enough to judge her work, the least I can do is to add in more evidence to my views than merely, "Oooh, look at that - pretty, optical illusion, playing with formality instead of photo-realism" (or whatever!)


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Well personal response is what I would say is _primarily _valid. But let's take the Op Art I referred to. I've heard of it, and heard of, for example, Bridget Riley. I'll go to the gallery and see what I think of her works, but at the same time, I'll do my research, read the background, find out more about her and those who are deemed to belong to the movement. How do I know whether my response is the "right" one unless I know what she and the others were trying to achieve? Obviously, any response is the "right" one - it is what it is - but in reaching any kind of assessment about what's on show and what I think about it (I'm not just talking emotional response here) I need to consider the artist's intent. Here's an example:
> 
> https://web.archive.org/web/2010111...ieze.com/issue/article/seeing_is_believing_1/
> 
> ...


While I certainly won't invalidate the Artist's intent and think it's another component to describe when discussing a work, what's most important to me is how it makes me feel.

(I didn't care much for Bridget's work)


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

What about brain power, does some Art take more brain power to engage with than others?


----------



## Guest (Jul 15, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> While I certainly won't invalidate the Artist's intent and think it's another component to describe when discussing a work, *what's most important to me is how it makes me feel*.
> 
> (I didn't care much for Bridget's work)


Why not how it makes you think?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Why not how it makes you think?


I tend towards feeling since I listen mostly to the melodies rather than the lyrics and further, more instrumental music in general. Lyrics are more for thought where melody and arrangement are more for feeling.

But at heart, I think heart and mind should be tied together and not separated.

Whenever you articulate your response to a work, it should not be void of the emotional components, and articulation is the very act of verbalizing thoughts (thinking component).


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

But lately, I've been trying to get more into lyrics.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

science said:


> Personally, I value three things:
> 
> 1. Pleasure. Do I like it? This doesn't need to be a superficial "prettiness," it could be pleasing in other ways, such as being ironic, morally uplifting, intellectually challenging, humorous, insightful, and so on.
> 
> ...


Let's just say, Creation is Art. Mother nature is an Artist, every living thing on this planet (and perhaps other planets) is an Artist.


----------



## Guest (Jul 15, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I tend towards feeling since I listen mostly to the melodies rather than the lyrics and further, more instrumental music in general. Lyrics are more for thought where melody and arrangement are more for feeling.


Hang on, I thought we were on art - and the arts in general? And even if you do want to slip back to music, are you suggesting that melody is only about the heart and not about the head?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Hang on, I thought we were on art - and the arts in general? And even if you do want to slip back to music, are you suggesting that melody is only about the heart and not about the head?


All Art, music included. I think melody tends to be more about the heart than the head, that's been my experience.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

laurie said:


> View attachment 105652
> 
> 
> "Fun"? I'm guessing that you're thinking of a _different_ Picasso ....


When I was a first year undergraduate I had a print of this on my bedroom wall and I thought it was very funny, like wacky cartoon characters or something, crazy bulls popping out of nowhere. Like Scooby Doo. Halloween zombies.

My point is that it's really the context which makes it into something tragic. Understanding the context of its creation and reception is an intellectual thing.

Some people can't be bothered to investigate these things. Someone like the bloke who made the OP is free to have a giggle when he sees it, it's just that his response is totally shallow and puerile, like mine when I was 18.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> When I was a first year undergraduate I had a print of this on my bedroom wall and I thought it was very funny, like wacky cartoon characters or something, crazy bulls popping out of nowhere. Like Scooby Doo. Halloween zombies.
> 
> My point is that it's really the context which makes it into something tragic. Understanding the context of its creation and reception is an intellectual thing.
> 
> Some people can't be bothered to investigate these things. Someone like the bloke who made the OP is free to have a giggle when he sees it, it's just that his response is totally shallow and puerile, like mine when I was 18.


EEk! I think shallow and puerile are going over the top. It's an opinion that is derived based on the creation and what it does for me, which is how I like to Art. I'm not personally as interested in artist intention and it's not out of laziness, it's just not what I value in Art. But if someone wanted to bring it up in conversation, I'd acknowledge it and be receptive towards it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Let's just say, Creation is Art. Mother nature is an Artist, every living thing on this planet (and perhaps other planets) is an Artist.


It's an interesting metaphor but I find the humanity of art is an essential, non-negotiable feature of it. It is an expressive communication.

Also, I don't think it's only an I-thou relationship between the artist(s) and the audience. The audience-audience relationships are important as well. So there's a kind of trinity: the artist(s), the rest of the audience, and me.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Question 2: Do you agree with me, that Sophisticated/intellectual art takes more brain power to understand, and is actually more intelligent b/c of this, but that doesn't make it better than other art? In other words, not everyone is looking for something sophisticated and intelligent, and that's ok.


Sorry for not directly addressing this earlier.

Yes, I agree, and I also agree that it's ok.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

science said:


> It's an interesting metaphor but I find the humanity of art is an essential, non-negotiable feature of it. It is an expressive communication.
> 
> Also, I don't think it's only an I-thou relationship between the artist(s) and the audience. The audience-audience relationships are important as well. So there's a kind of trinity: the artist(s), the rest of the audience, and me.


If it's expressive, is an itinerary really Art? If I stretch it, I can see math, but math isn't aesthetic in an of itself, but can be applied to create Art (Bach for example).


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> When I was a first year undergraduate I had a print of this on my bedroom wall and I thought it was very funny, like wacky cartoon characters or something, crazy bulls popping out of nowhere. Like Scooby Doo. Halloween zombies.
> 
> My point is that it's really the context which makes it into something tragic. Understanding the context of its creation and reception is an intellectual thing.
> 
> Some people can't be bothered to investigate these things. Someone like the bloke who made the OP is free to have a giggle when he sees it, it's just that his response is totally shallow and puerile, like mine when I was 18.


Picasso failed to express tragedy without having context and knowledge that that is what he was going for. I blame Picasso for not making me feel turmoil when viewing that painting.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I have trouble identifying with anything in the OP. I've never struggled to figure out what my tastes are or had to ask what I'm looking for. I don't give a rat's a$$ about sophistication. Some great art is difficult to untangle and come to terms with, some hits immediately with all its force and nothing hidden. I've always needed music, art and literature like I've needed air. I know what I need instinctively and take great pleasure in figuring out how it works after being immersed in it.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> What about brain power, does some Art take more brain power to engage with than others?


Difficult question. My instinctual answer is "no" because art for me is about what I feel. But feelings need the brain, too. But I do think that too much brain can lead to liking something through enhancing your understanding of what it "means" and I feel a little suspicious of that sort of liking when it happens to me.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Why not how it makes you think?


I agree with this. Most music I enjoy is more with following the music and how it transforms and explores harmony and rhythms, without necessarily making me feel any kind of emotion. I don't think it takes more brain power at all just experience with different forms.

I gave all my brain power to try to crack the code in serilism without success until I stopped focussing on how the harmony fits together and just follow the general shape of melody and other aspects like rhythm, timbre.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

It’s possible to think too much.
I was exposed to a lot of different music as a kid, and gravitated to CM because it spoke to me, and everything I’ve learned about music since was just in the service of trying to figure out why. But the liking came first. It can be fun to be an explainer, but that’s not a necessary condition for appreciation.
I do think it’s possible to learn to appreciate a, say, Jackson Pollack painting without someone telling you you should; that it’s possible to see Waiting for Godot and recognize it as a compelling piece of theatre even if you have no idea what it “meant;” that you can hear a piece by Elliot Carter in concert and come away realizing you have just heard a real piece of music even though you didn’t like it.
I too like Wichita Lineman, and a lot of Frank Sinatra, Billie Holliday, jazz, late Beatles, etc. – almost anything that I deem to be “good music” (whatever that is), so long as it doesn’t have to be played so loud you can’t hear it.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I agree with this. Most music I enjoy is more with following the music and how it transforms and explores harmony and rhythms, without necessarily making me feel any kind of emotion. I don't think it takes more brain power at all just experience with different forms.
> 
> I gave all my brain power to try to crack the code in serilism without success until I stopped focussing on how the harmony fits together and just follow the general shape of melody and other aspects like rhythm, timbre.


You've posted about this many times. I know you are in favor of appreciating works based on the theory and structural components more than how it makes you feel.

Who was it that offered this sort of appreciation again?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> Difficult question. My instinctual answer is "no" because art for me is about what I feel. But feelings need the brain, too. But I do think that too much brain can lead to liking something through enhancing your understanding of what it "means" and I feel a little suspicious of that sort of liking when it happens to me.


I agree 100%! Well put.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> You've posted about this many times. I know you are in favor of appreciating works based on the theory and structural components more than how it makes you feel.
> 
> Who was it that offered this sort of appreciation again?


Lots of 20th century composers. I wouldn't say it is based on theory, structure or something dry-sounding like that. That would be how Nikola would want to portray that type of mentality, since he wouldn't know better  It just takes curiosity and imagination.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Lots of 20th century composers. I wouldn't say it is based on theory, structure or something dry-sounding like that. That would be how Nikola would want to portray that type of mentality, since he wouldn't know better  It just takes curiosity and imagination.


How would you put it?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Is it not based on understanding, "how a piece works" and appreciating it based upon that? And you view it as appreciating it beyond the mere emotionality of the work.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Is it not based on understanding, "how a piece works" and appreciating it based upon that? And you view it as appreciating it beyond the mere emotionality of the work.


Emotions are the easiest things to generate in music, even musically untrained film composers like Hans Zimmer can do it. But their music lacks 'sophistication', even Zimmer admitted his music is limited compared to other trained composers. "Sophisticated Art" has to go beyond just emotion, and has to be more mentally stimulating.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Emotions are the easiest things to generate in music, even musically untrained film composers like Hans Zimmer can do it. But their music lacks 'sophistication', even Zimmer admitted his music is limited compared to other trained composers. "Sophisticated Art" has to go beyond just emotion, and has to be more mentally stimulating.


So, what makes a work more mentally stimulating for you? What makes it go beyond mere emotionality?


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

To enjoy a certain kind of art is not snobbish. To insult art that you don't enjoy and the people who enjoy it is snobbish. There are snobs for every medium, style, and genre of art. It's not something only associated with modern art. Just because something doesn't touch your soul or resonate with you doesn't mean it doesn't for someone else. I can totally understand not enjoying it, but I cannot understand going on and on about how modern art is meaningless. Just don't think about it.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> To enjoy a certain kind of art is not snobbish. To insult art that you don't enjoy and the people who enjoy it is snobbish. There are snobs for every medium, style, and genre of art. It's not something only associated with modern art. Just because something doesn't touch your soul or resonate with you doesn't mean it doesn't for someone else. I can totally understand not enjoying it, but I cannot understand going on and on about how modern art is meaningless. Just don't think about it.


I agree with most of what you said, I don't think all modern art is meaningless, but I do find some of it quite laughable and pretentious. You also failed to acknowledge the pseudo intellectuals pretending to "get" some pretentious work and thinking they are above others and smarter.

No art is more intelligent than another, it's just about what does it for you. I enjoy really vivid art; a piece of music that feels like a painting, a novel or film where the characters and story are so lifelike it feels like life itself even if so far from actual reality itself.

Take a film like Jim Carrey's "The Mask", magical Masks do not actually exist, but the performance and story are so strong, it is believable; I love that movie and will watch it with my children one day.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I agree with most of what you said, I don't think all modern art is meaningless, but I do find some of it quite laughable and pretentious. You also failed to acknowledge the pseudo intellectuals pretending to "get" some pretentious work and thinking they are above others and smarter.
> 
> No art is more intelligent than another, it's just about what does it for you. I enjoy really vivid art; a piece of music that feels like a painting, a novel or film where the characters and story are so lifelike it feels like life itself even if so far from actual reality itself.
> 
> Take a film like Jim Carrey's "The Mask", magical Masks do not actually exist, but the performance and story are so strong, it is believable; I love that movie and will watch it with my children one day.


I did acknowledge that. I said that there are snobs for every art style, it's not restricted to modern art. Just because some of it is pretentious doesn't mean that the entirety of modern/avant-garde art should be insulted. There are works of art that are considered "serious" "great" works of art that I would laugh at in a similar way. I wouldn't insult it or people who enjoy it though. In my opinion all art is equally valid for a person to enjoy, and enjoying art should never make one feel more intelligent than another. If being enjoyed by snobs makes an entire style of art bad, then any art is bad.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> I did acknowledge that. I said that there are snobs for every art style, it's not restricted to modern art. Just because some of it is pretentious doesn't mean that the entirety of modern/avant-garde art should be insulted. There are works of art that are considered "serious" "great" works of art that I would laugh at in a similar way. I wouldn't insult it or people who enjoy it though. In my opinion all art is equally valid for a person to enjoy, and enjoying art should never make one feel more intelligent than another. If being enjoyed by snobs makes an entire style of art bad, then any art is bad.


I won't put up with anyone that gives me the feeling of snobbery, but while you noted on the notion that there exist snobs in every genre, you didn't acknowledge that there exists people that pretend to like something just b/c it makes them feel smarter.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I won't put up with anyone that gives me the feeling of snobbery, but while you noted on the notion that there exist snobs in every genre, you didn't acknowledge that there exists people that pretend to like something just b/c it makes them feel smarter.


That would be the definition of a pretentious snob, no? I don't think those people are relevant in the discussion of art. I'm sure there are plenty of people who enjoy normal famous art in a pretentious snobby way as well, but those people are backed up by popular opinion. It doesn't make any style better or worse than others.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm not personally as interested in artist intention and it's not out of laziness, it's just not what I value in Art.


I don't think it's an option. Experiencing a work of art correctly means understanding it. Works of art aren't the same sort of thing as rides in a theme park -- they're not things you just plant yourself in and emote. They're things to be made sense of (like all human behaviour -- language and action)

Your approach to art is as shallow and daft as someone who listens to someone speak a foreign language without making any effort to understand what's being said -- it misses the point completely.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> That would be the definition of a pretentious snob, no? I don't think those people are relevant in the discussion of art. I'm sure there are plenty of people who enjoy normal famous art in a pretentious snobby way as well, but those people are backed up by popular opinion. It doesn't make any style better or worse than others.


Yes, but you just didn't explicate that side of snobbery. I agree there are snobs of all types of Art and no one style is better than another.

But I still think you are missing the part that there are some pretentious "artists" out there just trying to be different for the sake of it and have a following of ppl pretending to like it b/c they think they "get it".


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> I don't think it's an option. Experiencing a work of art correctly means understanding it. Works of art aren't the same sort of thing as rides in a theme park -- they're not things you just plant yourself in and emote. They're things to be made sense of (like all human behaviour -- language and action)
> 
> Your approach to art is as shallow and daft as someone who listens to someone speak a foreign language without making any effort to understand what's being said -- it misses the point completely.


The way I make sense of Art is through emoting and deriving an appraisal of what the work means to me.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I love that piece by Picasso, but it certainly doesn't make me feel the pain of those who suffered during the War. I see it as fun and cartoony, almost like Tim Burton's "The Corpse Bride"; full of dark childlike spirit.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> The way I make sense of Art is through emoting and deriving an appraisal of what the work means to me.


This is self centred.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I love that piece by Picasso, but it certainly doesn't make me feel the pain of those who suffered during the War.


Of course not !!!!!!!!!


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Yes, but you just didn't explicate that side of snobbery. I agree there are snobs of all types of Art and no one style is better than another.
> 
> But I still think you are missing the part that there are some pretentious "artists" out there just trying to be different for the sake of it and have a following of ppl pretending to like it b/c they think they "get it".


I'm not missing that. My point is that the existence of those people and artists doesn't make it valid to broadly insult entire styles of art.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> I'm not missing that. My point is that the existence of those people and artists doesn't make it valid to broadly insult entire styles of art.


And I agree!  :tiphat:


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> This is self centred.


IMO, being self-centered in how you experience Art is the only way to do it righteously!

Being an Artist myself, I typically don't have intended meanings of my instrumental music, it is all based on feelings. I have emotional reactions to my pieces and can verbalize those to others, and hope others have their own reactions to discuss with me.

Even when I write lyrics (which I don't anymore since I've chosen not to sing anymore), I just find words that go with the music well. I find a meaning after it comes out for a certain period, but it's not definite and that meaning can change for me over time.

Likewise, I leave it open to others to derive what they want from it.

Once Art is put out to the public, it is open to interpretation. You shouldn't have to read it's meaning somewhere to "get it". It's the artists job to convey what they want to.

This is the reason I tend to like more abstract Art in general; more open to interpretation than more explicit Art.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> 1) Do I like it. Do I respond in some meaningful way? If I have to study a work of art, or listen to the "experts" explain it, then it probably isn't for me. I assume by "Art" you mean art in its many forms: music, literature, poetry, architecture, sculpture, art art, etc. There is music and paintings that I responded to instantly and still love: Mahler's 7th, Philip de Loutherbourg's "An Avalanche in the Alps", or Frederick Remington's "The Cowboy". Something about those works hits home and I identify with. Other things, like Tippet's 4th, anything by Picasso turn me off and don't resonate in the least. So, I don't assess art; if it touches me in some intrinsic way, I like it, and at least for me, it's great art.
> 
> 2) Yes, it takes a certain intelligence and brainpower to understand some art. The Brahms 1st is a great example. This is not for classical beginners and anyone who knows nothing about classical will be totally bewildered. But it doesn't end there. I am sure that some people listen to the music of Elliot Carter or Milton Babbitt and just are in awe of how great it is. I can't. Maybe my IQ is too low, but I just can't identify anything in their music worthy of my time. This is where the snob factor comes it. I know people who think that listening to esoteric modern music, watching movies in foreign languages, or studying modern painting makes them superior to the rest of us. Art that doesn't touch the soul is empty and worthless as far as I'm concerned. I've laughed my way through museums of modern art - they're devoid of talent, skill, taste. I've walked out of concerts of modern music. I will not be the butt of some so-called artists joke. So no, I'm not looking for something sophisticated or intelligent, whatever that means. The music of Verdi was enormously popular in his time and still is because it touches people from all walks of life in some mysterious way. And that's why no one gives a damn about modern opera: it touches no one. Simple is good. You know what I think the greatest "song" of all time is? Not some complicated thing by Schubert, Schumann or Mahler. Not Richard Strauss or Wiliam Bolcom or Mussorgsky. It's "Wichita Lineman" by Jimmy Webb. A perfect song. Not sophisticated or complex, but even 50 years after Glen Campbell recorded it, it's still a great song that no song writer today can approach.


I just put on Brahms 1st.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

"Yes, it takes a certain intelligence and brainpower to understand some art."
---
Modern physics and mathematics takes intelligence and brainpower to understand, art should not. Art should stimulate your emotions, intuition, should make you reflect upon your own life or make you see life in a different perspective (mostly literature and movies). Music for me is purely about enjoyment. I really do not like to "think" while listening to music, I just want to enjoy. And I do enjoy some Carter and it is not snobbism. For example his first symphony is wonderful.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Jacck said:


> "Yes, it takes a certain intelligence and brainpower to understand some art."
> ---
> Modern physics and mathematics takes intelligence and brainpower to understand, art should not. Art should stimulate your emotions, intuition, should make you reflect upon your own life or make you see life in a different perspective (mostly literature and movies). Music for me is purely about enjoyment. I really do not like to "think" while listening to music, I just want to enjoy. And I do enjoy some Carter and it is not snobbism. For example his first symphony is wonderful.


I agree, well put! I think Phil would retort with, in disagreement, that this is too primitive of a way of enjoying Art and that we must grow beyond to understand how the piece works and appreciate the technical splendor of it. That is a logical and technical way of enjoying Art, and that does require brain power...however, it can be applied to any genre of music. We can enjoy the theoretical fundamentals of a Beatles pop song as much as a composition such as Mozart's 41st intellectually.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

BTW, thanks for the great responses in this thread, I'm really enjoying this discussion! It's a very important one to me.

:tiphat:


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I agree, well put! I think Phil would retort with, in disagreement, that this is too primitive of a way of enjoying Art and that we must grow beyond to understand how the piece works and appreciate the technical splendor of it. That is a logical and technical way of enjoying Art, and that does require brain power...however, it can be applied to any genre of music. We can enjoy the theoretical fundamentals of a Beatles pop song as much as a composition such as Mozart's 41st intellectually.


I have no doubt that trained musicians can enjoy music more than me by looking at the score and deconstructing it and analysing it and that they understand it much deeper. But for me it is not worth the effort to study notes to enjoy music more. I am content at my lay person level


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Jacck said:


> I have no doubt that trained musicians can enjoy music more than me by looking at the score and deconstructing it and analysing it and that they understand it much deeper. But for me it is not worth the effort to study notes to enjoy music more. I am content at my lay person level


I wouldn't say deeper, just differently. Getting caught up in theory can ruin the experience too, I think; they can forget how to listen without applying theoretical knowledge analysis to it and thus unable to appreciate the emotional and intuitive sides of music (which are far more important to me as an Artist and fan of the Arts).

I am very good at using Art as a tool for self reflection and introspection, I don't think scholars would be on my level of doing that. I'm not tooting my own horn, I'm just saying I've spent a lot of time introspecting and growing as a man for a long time now, that is important to me.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I wouldn't say deeper, just differently. Getting caught up in theory can ruin the experience too, I think; they can forget how to listen without applying theoretical knowledge analysis to it and thus unable to appreciate the emotional and intuitive sides of music (which are far more important to me as an Artist and fan of the Arts). I am very good at using Art as a tool for self reflection and introspection, I don't think scholars would be on my level of doing that. I'm not tooting my own horn, I'm just saying I've spent a lot of time introspecting and growing as a man for a long time now, that is important to me.


Art should do that. Only music does not do that for me, but literature and movies can. Some books can be pretty deep, like The Philosopher's Stone by Anker Larsen or anything by Dostoyevski. They can express thoughts, ideas, or show interpersonal relationsships, explore various themes like love, loneliness, sexuality, offer social critique and commentary etc. or stretch the imagination like scifi literature. Music does not do that for me and is in a certain sense more shallow. I listen to music purely to enjoy.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

If someone wants to "think" about the music or art they're experiencing, I don't see a problem with that unless they assert that they're better than others because of it. I also don't see a direct correlation of modern art with intellectualism and more traditional art with simply feeling.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

"I also don't see a direct correlation of modern art with intellectualism and more traditional art with simply feeling."

I don't think anymore made that claim here.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Jacck said:


> Art should do that. Only music does not do that for me, but literature and movies can. Some books can be pretty deep, like The Philosopher's Stone by Anker Larsen or anything by Dostoyevski. They can express thoughts, ideas, or show interpersonal relationsships, explore various themes like love, loneliness, sexuality, offer social critique and commentary etc. or stretch the imagination like scifi literature. Music does not do that for me and is in a certain sense more shallow. I listen to music purely to enjoy.


It is a on the surface way of appreciating music, which I honestly do respect less, but you shouldn't let my judgement effect how you do your Art.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It is a on the surface way of appreciating music, which I honestly do respect less, but you shouldn't let my judgement effect how you do your Art.


I would like to know how music brings you to introspection or self-reflection. I does not do that for me. Maybe I can learn something.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Jacck said:


> I would like to know how music brings you to introspection or self-reflection. I does not do that for me. Maybe I can learn something.


First off, let me ask you this. Why do you listen to Classical music, and do you have preferred composers and/or Eras?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Jacck said:


> I would like to know how music brings you to introspection or self-reflection. I does not do that for me. Maybe I can learn something.


Well, there is music that is highly introspective such as Froberger's. I must admit that listening to this type of music sometimes brings out my self-reflective emotions.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> Well, there is music that is highly introspective such as Froberger's. I must admit that listening to this type of music sometimes brings out my self-reflective emotions.


I thought you couldn't take this thread seriously?


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> First off, let me ask you this. Why do you listen to Classical music, and do you have preferred composers and/or Eras?


I like the sounds. They produce a pleasant feeling in me. That is all, there is nothing deeper behind it. I have no prefered era. I am still at an exploratory stage, that is trying to discover as much new music as possible and evaluate it in terms of enjoyment and finding what I enjoy most. I really do enjoy music of all eras almost in equal measure, ie I can listen to Monteverdi, Haydn, Schumann, Prokofiev or Gubaidulina and enjoy all, depending on my mood.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I love that piece by Picasso, but it certainly doesn't make me feel the pain of those who suffered during the War.


Art is not there to make you feel the same emotions it depicts (I'm talking, of course, about art pieces with a distinguishable emotional topic, like the painting by Picasso mentioned before). If that were the case, then we would all go and kill ourselves after the death of Isolda in Wagner's famous opera.

Art depicts emotions in a poetic way, and what moves us is the sublimity and transcendency of that poetry as a mirror of human nature, one is moved at the understanding that the artist and the piece have of emotional processes that one may have felt at some moment in life, or something close to it, but that one would never be able to express, or even understand, in that clear way. That's why people who are sad tend to find consolation, the understanding and consolation of a friend, in sad music. But they key of that is that we do it as spectators, not as protagonists, otherwise the experience would be unbearable.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I thought you couldn't take this thread seriously?


Right, because I don't take art seriously. I'm just a regular guy who happens to connect with classical music including the music of the baroque and classical periods that you like to cast shade on.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Jacck said:


> Art should do that. Only music does not do that for me, but literature and movies can. Some books can be pretty deep, like The Philosopher's Stone by Anker Larsen or anything by Dostoyevski. They can express thoughts, ideas, or show interpersonal relationsships, explore various themes like love, loneliness, sexuality, offer social critique and commentary etc. or stretch the imagination like scifi literature. Music does not do that for me and is in a certain sense more shallow. I listen to music purely to enjoy.


Ha, Schopenhauer would say exactly the opposite about the relation of music with the other arts.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> First off, let me ask you this. Why do you listen to Classical music, and do you have preferred composers and/or Eras?


My reason in asking this is to assess if you have reasons for listening to classical other than, "I like it". Having a deeper connection and being able to articulate it reveals more depth and I would respect that.

I have a buddy that enjoys Taylor Swift because he secretly would love for her to be his g/f. When he listens to her, he can imagine being in a relationship with her, and get to know her through her lyrics and music as if she was right there beside him.

To me, that is deep, having reason makes all the difference.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Jacck said:


> "Yes, it takes a certain intelligence and brainpower to understand some art."
> ---
> Modern physics and mathematics takes intelligence and brainpower to understand, art should not. Art should stimulate your emotions, intuition, should make you reflect upon your own life or make you see life in a different perspective (mostly literature and movies). Music for me is purely about enjoyment. I really do not like to "think" while listening to music, I just want to enjoy. And I do enjoy some Carter and it is not snobbism. For example his first symphony is wonderful.


I don't think it's the same effort as that needed to solve a hard problem. In the science analogy, I would say it's similar to the effort needed to understand a new conceptual framework. To have an open mind, which often requires deliberate mental effort. That's all the mental effort needed in music listening.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> Right, because I don't take art seriously. I'm just a regular guy who happens to connect with classical music including the music of the baroque and classical periods that you like to cast shade on.


That's fine if your are ok with your on the surface level of understanding and appreciation of music. I just don't respect that, but that shouldn't bother you, b/c you should be confident in yourself and how you conduct your life.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Jacck said:


> I like the sounds. They produce a pleasant feeling in me. That is all, there is nothing deeper behind it. I have no prefered era. I am still at an exploratory stage, that is trying to discover as much new music as possible and evaluate it in terms of enjoyment and finding what I enjoy most. I really do enjoy music of all eras almost in equal measure, ie I can listen to Monteverdi, Haydn, Schumann, Prokofiev or Gubaidulina and enjoy all, depending on my mood.


Well then, that is fine, just fine! Explore away, I'm sure your tastes will grow, deepen and change the more you are exposed to.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

aleazk said:


> I don't think it's the same effort as that needed to solve a hard problem. In the science analogy, I would say it's similar to the effort needed to understand a new conceptual framework. To have an open mind, which often requires deliberate mental effort. That's all the mental effort needed in music listening.


Some music requires some effort/repeated exposure to start liking, it is an acquired taste. I can name Schoenberg and serialism or even the classical and baroque music. Or potentially the whole classical music is like that. People rarely like it at first listening, if they were not exposed to it from early age. I came to classical music in my late thirties on my own effort. No one of my frieds or family listens to classical. So yes, you need an open mind, you need to initially put in some effort into learning to appreciate some forms of music. But that can happen almost unconsciously, without much intellectual effort. Just expose yourself to the music and have an open mind. If you study science, it is much much tougher than that.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> That's fine if your are ok with your on the surface level of understanding and appreciation of music.


That's condescending nonsense, but I can't really say that I expect better from you.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> That's condescending nonsense, but I can't really say that I expect better from you.


It's not condescending, it's a matter of fact. "Right, because I don't take art seriously. I'm just a regular guy who happens to connect with classical music..."

1. You don't take Art seriously.
2. You just connect with classical music, it's just something you listen to and appreciate.

Both of these statements reveal a shallow perspective towards appreciating art. And that is ok, depth isn't the ultimate goal unless you value it to be. Our society says being deep is better, and while it is what I personally respect, it's not the only way to live.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

No music I like was an acquired taste. If you like give something a serious try and you like it, you like it; if you don't like it, you don't like it. I don't think one should make an effort to enjoy something. In the case of music I used to dislike but now enjoy (for example, extremely brutal grindcore), I didn't force myself to listen to it until I liked it. I heard one song and decided I didn't like it, then years later I listened to some more and I loved it. Some music I love immediately. I instantly knew I loved Monteverdi, Mozart, Brahms, Wagner, Schoenberg, Webern, Marin, Ives, The Beatles, the first time I heard anything by them. I instantly knew Feldman was my favorite composer the first time I heard anything by him. People have different tastes, and if someone likes something you don't like, it's not always because they're pretentious snobs.

Same with visual art. I know I am bored with representational art and that I only really love pure abstract art. Not because I think it makes me more intelligent than others.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Jacck said:


> Some music requires some effort/repeated exposure to start liking, it is an acquired taste. I can name Schoenberg and serialism or even the classical and baroque music. Or potentially the whole classical music is like that. People rarely like it at first listening, if they were not exposed to it from early age. I came to classical music in my late thirties on my own effort. No one of my frieds or family listens to classical. So yes, you need an open mind, you need to initially put in some effort into learning to appreciate some forms of music. But that can happen almost unconsciously, without much intellectual effort. Just expose yourself to the music and have an open mind. If you study science, it is much much tougher than that.


My theory on Acquired tastes is, if it interests you, and you are motivated to keep coming back to it, then it's all ok. But if you are trying to force it on yourself, that's no good.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I agree, well put! I think Phil would retort with, in disagreement, that this is too primitive of a way of enjoying Art and that we must grow beyond to understand how the piece works and appreciate the technical splendor of it. That is a logical and technical way of enjoying Art, and that does require brain power...however, it can be applied to any genre of music. We can enjoy the theoretical fundamentals of a Beatles pop song as much as a composition such as Mozart's 41st intellectually.


Actually purely technical and structural stuff bores me. And I actually find a lot of Romanticism purely technical, just run-throughs in form and virtuosity, short in inspiration and not innovative in any way. I was saying to appreciate certain music, specifically Modern, you need to have that curiosity to go beyond common practice musical patterns the Classical mainstream accepted. Otherwise there is no use in using the terms sophistication, or innovation. Most people around me find current pop music is already emotional and moving.

I think you're saying Classical is more sophisticated than a lot of pop which I agree, but then you seem to limit the extant of sophistication it can achieve by limiting to it emotional impact only.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Actually purely technical and structural stuff bores me. And I actually find a lot of Romanticism purely technical, just run-throughs in form and virtuosity, short in inspiration and not innovative in any way. I was saying to appreciate certain music, specifically Modern, you need to have that curiosity to go beyond common practice musical patterns the Classical mainstream accepted. Otherwise there is no use in using the terms sophistication, or innovation. Most people around me find current pop music is already emotional and moving.
> 
> I think you're saying Classical is more sophisticated than a lot of pop which I agree, but then you seem to limit the extant of sophistication it can achieve by limiting to it emotional impact only.


Instead of having me play a guessing game, can you more explicitly state your stance on how you go about appreciating music? I don't feel I quite get where you are coming from.

I've actually grown past the term sophistication, it's rather useless and only places some Art in a superior level than others.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Instead of having me play a guessing game, can you more explicitly state your stance on how you go about appreciating music? I don't feel I quite get where you are coming from.
> 
> I've actually grown past the term sophistication, it's rather useless and only places some Art in a superior level than others.


Some Art will appeal to senses in a beautiful way, like say Wagner's Tristan prelude. But some Art appeals to the mind only like atonal and a lot of Modern music. I "naturally" (or intuitively) didn't like Webern or Carter until I discovered a way of listening that is not naturally emotional or beautiful to me. Much of that appreciation came from curiosity of going beyond common practice boundaries. If I wasn't curious I wouldn't be listening to that sort of music. That music can be so stimulating if we let of go our natural inhibitions that we could call that music, or Art like Picasso and others, beautiful.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> Some Art will appeal to senses in a beautiful way, like say Wagner's Tristan prelude. But some Art appeals to the mind only like atonal and a lot of Modern music. I "naturally" (or intuitively) didn't like Webern or Carter until I discovered a way of listening that is not naturally emotional or beautiful to me. Much of that appreciation came from curiosity of going beyond common practice boundaries. If I wasn't curious I wouldn't be listening to that sort of music. That music can be so stimulating if we let of go our natural inhibitions that we could call that music, or Art like Picasso and others, beautiful.


If you stated that as your own opinion it would be agreeable, but you did not. Rather than your dislike being "natural," I think it's because you are/were more familiar with the sound of the more prevalent and popular tonal music. To think that your dislike of something makes enjoying it unnatural is snobbery.


----------



## derin684 (Feb 14, 2018)

Actually, not liking atonal/12 tone music when you first listen is quite natural because the listener thought the music they liked it was all about tonality, harmony, and etc. The listener must change their view to music to understand and like atonal/12 tone music. And to change their view, they must try to understand why they don't understand or why they don't like it. If you liked Schoenberg when you first listened to him, you unfortunately didn't like it the way how he wanted you to. He was creating a new language in music and you don't learn a new language when you first hear a sentence from it.

That's the reason why you can see comments in Youtube like "Schoenberg wrote these kind of music because he couldn't write proper things."


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

derin684 said:


> Actually, not liking atonal/12 tone music when you first listen is quite natural because the listener thought the music they liked it was all about tonality, harmony, and etc. The listener must change their view to music to understand and like atonal/12 tone music. And to change their view, they must try to understand why they don't understand or why they don't like it. If you liked Schoenberg when you first listened to him, you unfortunately didn't like it the way how he wanted you to. He was creating a new language in music and you don't learn a new language when you first hear a sentence from it.
> 
> That's the reason why you can see comments in Youtube like "Schoenberg wrote these kind of music because he couldn't write proper things."


Being conditioned to prefer tonal music is the opposite of natural. Not everyone thinks that what is popular and tried-and-true is synonymous with what is the best. In my opinion, the best pieces of art are those that involve new creativity rather than following established styles, also known as Modernism. That is the natural way I feel about art; it's not contrived or because I think it makes me smarter or better than others. There is no universal natural opinion of art.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

derin684 said:


> Actually, not liking atonal/12 tone music when you first listen is quite natural because the listener thought the music they liked it was all about tonality, harmony, and etc. The listener must change their view to music to understand and like atonal/12 tone music. And to change their view, they must try to understand why they don't understand or why they don't like it. If you liked Schoenberg when you first listened to him, you unfortunately didn't like it the way how he wanted you to. He was creating a new language in music and you don't learn a new language when you first hear a sentence from it.
> 
> That's the reason why you can see comments in Youtube like "Schoenberg wrote these kind of music because he couldn't write proper things."


Bravo! So well put. I wish more people would use this approach, but they usually don't and make the matter worse for new listeners. Maybe your post will make a difference.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

derin684 said:


> Actually, not liking atonal/12 tone music when you first listen is quite natural because the listener thought the music they liked it was all about tonality, harmony, and etc. The listener must change their view to music to understand and like atonal/12 tone music. And to change their view, they must try to understand why they don't understand or why they don't like it. If you liked Schoenberg when you first listened to him, you unfortunately didn't like it the way how he wanted you to. He was creating a new language in music and you don't learn a new language when you first hear a sentence from it.
> 
> That's the reason why you can see comments in Youtube like "Schoenberg wrote these kind of music because he couldn't write proper things."


I agree with this comment 100%.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> If you stated that as your own opinion it would be agreeable, but you did not. Rather than your dislike being "natural," I think it's because you are/were more familiar with the sound of the more prevalent and popular tonal music. To think that your dislike of something makes enjoying it unnatural is snobbery.


I think of atonal music sort of as a movie sequel to tonal music. There are a lot of references to tonal music (the original). To approach the sequel first is missing out on a lot of things implied indirectly. Take Webern's symphony for instance. It is a canon written in atonal language. I can't imagine listening to this and grasping any of it before being familiar with Pachelbel or Bach in the form.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> I think of atonal music sort of as a movie sequel to tonal music. There are a lot of references to tonal music (the original). To approach the sequel first is missing out on a lot of things implied indirectly. Take Webern's symphony for instance. It is a canon written in atonal language. I can't imagine listening to this and grasping any of it before being familiar with Pachelbel or Bach in the form.


I did not "approach the sequel first". For most of my life I listened to tonal music. I understood it and enjoyed it. Then I heard atonal music and instantly loved it more than any other kind of classical music. I still love tonal music as well. Loving tonal music and hating atonal music are not the only natural opinions. I appreciate Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern's allusions to previous musical styles, but that is part of the reason none of them are my very favorite composers. It seems like you are implying that I don't have enough knowledge or musical experience to have a valid opinion, which is not the case.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

derin684 said:


> That's the reason why you can see comments in Youtube like "Schoenberg wrote these kind of music because he couldn't write proper things."


The actual reasons there are comments like that are because they haven't heard his tonal music and/or they have a chip on their shoulder. Why can't people leave their vindictive negativity to themselves?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> I did not "approach the sequel first". For most of my life I listened to tonal music. I understood it and enjoyed it. Then I heard atonal music and instantly loved it more than any other kind of classical music. I still love tonal music as well. Loving tonal music and hating atonal music are not the only natural opinions. I appreciate Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern's allusions to previous musical styles, but that is part of the reason none of them are my very favorite composers. It seems like you are implying that I don't have enough knowledge or musical experience to have a valid opinion, which is not the case.


Not you personally. But I've heard of some that just click with atonal and never with tonal.


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2018)

I'm not sure exactly we use the term 'acquired taste' with music, as if there's some kind of more 'comfort food' taste and 'acquired' taste.......as far as I am able to tell there is simply music and the different ways we engage with music. If one finds it difficult to engage with a piece of music emotionally/intellectually, then perhaps it's simply because they are not in the mood for it at that present moment. I doubt we are always consciously in control of what we are in the mood for, but sometimes it's just rather hard to suddenly be in the mood for a specific piece of music when we already have associations with other music (or any other art) which we can readily turn to, knowing that we have developed a kind of 'engagement' with it that is more suitable.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> Not you personally. But I've heard of some that just click with atonal and never with tonal.


But are they pretentious, snobby, or unnatural for that reason alone? It isn't right for someone to insult styles of music/art or people who enjoy them just because they doesn't enjoy it; it goes both ways for people who dislike either tonal or atonal music. On this forum so far, I believe I have only seen people who enjoy or at least appreciate all styles of music, and then people insulting modernist music and the people who enjoy it.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> But are they pretentious, snobby, or unnatural for that reason alone? It isn't right for someone to insult styles of music/art or people who enjoy them just because they doesn't enjoy it; it goes both ways for people who dislike either tonal or atonal music. On this forum so far, I believe I have only seen people who enjoy or at least appreciate all styles of music, and then people insulting modernist music and the people who enjoy it.


Of course they aren't being snobby in that case. I'm just wondering if a listener connects more with atonal music more on the get-go than with tonal music, if they really understand either. I couldn't tell the difference between Prokofiev and Schoenberg before. They were both just dissonant. Without working from the ground up from tonality, I can't see how I could come to appreciate their difference if I was "grounded atonally" (which is an oxymoron in my book).


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> Of course they aren't being snobby in that case. I'm just wondering if a listener connects more with atonal music more on the get-go than with tonal music, if they really understand either. I couldn't tell the difference between Prokofiev and Schoenberg before. They were both just dissonant. Without working from the ground up from tonality, I can't see how I could come to appreciate their difference if I was "grounded atonally" (which is an oxymoron in my book).


I tend to think it has much more to do with the linearity or non-linearity of music and how that is limited by any cultural upbringing we may have. A lot of modern (i.e. going back the past five or six centuries) western philosophy, language and other things prioritise a way of life that is linear, a journey from a to b, and that is reflected in the way western music has developed as structures showing a linear timeline. An assimilation of other types of musical and aesthetic philosophies that gradually changed music and aesthetics over time ended up providing fertile ground for music which isn't formalised through linear progressions, but using other formalisations that create a foundation for new means of expression outside linear forms and progressions.

Whether something is 'dissonant' or 'tonal' or 'atonal' is more a product of one history of music, when there are a far greater number of ways music has been appreciated when looking outside of mainstream western history.

It won't be out of the question that something like Matthias Pintscher's music would be better appreciated on the get-go than Beethoven, based on different ways we have grown up listening to music............
(at 14:36)


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

shirime said:


> I tend to think it has much more to do with the linearity or non-linearity of music and how that is limited by any cultural upbringing we may have. A lot of modern (i.e. going back the past five or six centuries) western philosophy, language and other things prioritise a way of life that is linear, a journey from a to b, and that is reflected in the way western music has developed as structures showing a linear timeline. An assimilation of other types of musical and aesthetic philosophies that gradually changed music and aesthetics over time ended up providing fertile ground for music which isn't formalised through linear progressions, but using other formalisations that create a foundation for new means of expression outside linear forms and progressions.
> 
> Whether something is 'dissonant' or 'tonal' or 'atonal' is more a product of one history of music, when there are a far greater number of ways music has been appreciated when looking outside of mainstream western history.
> 
> ...


That's an interesting scene. Perhaps I would agree with the African guy he mentioned, except replace "shocked" with "bored".... (no offense meant)


----------



## fliege (Nov 7, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Of course they aren't being snobby in that case. I'm just wondering if a listener connects more with atonal music more on the get-go than with tonal music, if they really understand either.


How do you define understanding? Enjoying a piece of music is arguably one indication that you understand it. This is especially true with more abstract music that isn't attempting to also convey a non-musical message.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It's not condescending, it's a matter of fact. "Right, because I don't take art seriously. I'm just a regular guy who happens to connect with classical music..."
> 
> 1. You don't take Art seriously.
> 2. You just connect with classical music, it's just something you listen to and appreciate.
> ...


I get you. Some people experience art and/or music by examining it some take a more emotional and experiential approach. And I sure there are other ways also. I can examine but my preferred way is to just experience art and music.

You do you, baby!


----------



## derin684 (Feb 14, 2018)

You aren't biologically conditioned to prefer to tonal music when you are born, you learn and understand the tonal language and harmony in time. Because almost every kind of popular music you hear is tonal, which makes you get used to tonal music and makes you be conditioned to prefer tonal music. This makes it natural to prefer and like to hear tonal music.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I won't put up with anyone that gives me the feeling of snobbery, but while you noted on the notion that there exist snobs in every genre, you didn't acknowledge that there exists people that pretend to like something just b/c it makes them feel smarter.


I guess such people exist. So what? Let them. I think the greater incidence is of people believing that someone who loves something that they don't must be guilty of that behaviour.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Fredx2098 said:


> No music I like was an acquired taste. If you like give something a serious try and you like it, you like it; if you don't like it, you don't like it. I don't think one should make an effort to enjoy something. In the case of music I used to dislike but now enjoy (for example, extremely brutal grindcore), I didn't force myself to listen to it until I liked it. I heard one song and decided I didn't like it, then years later I listened to some more and I loved it. Some music I love immediately. I instantly knew I loved Monteverdi, Mozart, Brahms, Wagner, Schoenberg, Webern, Marin, Ives, The Beatles, the first time I heard anything by them. I instantly knew Feldman was my favorite composer the first time I heard anything by him. People have different tastes, and if someone likes something you don't like, it's not always because they're pretentious snobs.
> 
> Same with visual art. I know I am bored with representational art and that I only really love pure abstract art. Not because I think it makes me more intelligent than others.


I don't think it is about effort so much as giving it a chance. It may take a few listens or views, probably interesting or enjoyable in themselves, before it really kicks you! Or it may "die on the table" - you like it at first but then get bored.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

derin684 said:


> You aren't biologically conditioned to prefer to tonal music when you are born, you learn and understand the tonal language and harmony in time. Because almost every kind of popular music you hear is tonal, which makes you get used to tonal music and makes you be conditioned to prefer tonal music. This makes it natural to prefer and like to hear tonal music.


Those statements don't support the argument that it's more natural to enjoy tonal music. They support the fact that most people are more likely to enjoy what they're familiar with. The fact that we need to learn the tonal language by repeatedly exposure is proof that it isn't natural. Preferring tonal music is just as natural as speaking English or any other language, as in, it's not. In the case of "nature vs. nurture" in terms of art, it is nurture.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It's not condescending, it's a matter of fact. "Right, because I don't take art seriously. I'm just a regular guy who happens to connect with classical music..."
> 
> 1. You don't take Art seriously.
> 2. You just connect with classical music, it's just something you listen to and appreciate.
> ...


Connecting with music does not preclude depth of understanding, and nobody elected you the judge of such qualities.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

shirime said:


> I'm not sure exactly we use the term 'acquired taste' with music, as if there's some kind of more 'comfort food' taste and 'acquired' taste.......as far as I am able to tell there is simply music and the different ways we engage with music. If one finds it difficult to engage with a piece of music emotionally/intellectually, then perhaps it's simply because they are not in the mood for it at that present moment. I doubt we are always consciously in control of what we are in the mood for, but sometimes it's just rather hard to suddenly be in the mood for a specific piece of music when we already have associations with other music (or any other art) which we can readily turn to, knowing that we have developed a kind of 'engagement' with it that is more suitable.


Mood is definitely important but I have many times found myself loving something (or some composer) that on earlier hearings had left me bored and cold and I am not sure that was down to mood alone. It does seem to me that the more you get to know a composer the more you come to love their music ... or to dislike it (so the more you get to know x the more you get to know x) and this is acquired taste.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

shirime said:


> I tend to think it has much more to do with the linearity or non-linearity of music and how that is limited by any cultural upbringing we may have. A lot of modern (i.e. going back the past five or six centuries) western philosophy, language and other things prioritise a way of life that is linear, a journey from a to b, and that is reflected in the way western music has developed as structures showing a linear timeline. An assimilation of other types of musical and aesthetic philosophies that gradually changed music and aesthetics over time ended up providing fertile ground for music which isn't formalised through linear progressions, but using other formalisations that create a foundation for new means of expression outside linear forms and progressions.
> 
> Whether something is 'dissonant' or 'tonal' or 'atonal' is more a product of one history of music, when there are a far greater number of ways music has been appreciated when looking outside of mainstream western history.
> 
> ...


We can only speculate because history, and the way we started out learning is linear, even though I suspect linearity is instinctive to us. But who says there is anything but linearity in music? I still hear any contemporary music in that way, only that I got accustomed to the idiom more.


----------



## jenspen (Apr 25, 2015)

Fredx2098 said:


> Those statements don't support the argument that it's more natural to enjoy tonal music. They support the fact that most people are more likely to enjoy what they're familiar with. The fact that we need to learn the tonal language by repeatedly exposure is proof that it isn't natural. Preferring tonal music is just as natural as speaking English or any other language, as in, it's not. In the case of "nature vs. nurture" in terms of art, it is nurture.


What does neuroscience have to say about this? I have read articles summarising research showing that consonance activates the brain's reward systems.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

jenspen said:


> What does neuroscience have to say about this? I have read articles summarising research showing that consonance activates the brain's reward systems.


the people here that claim that we enjoy tonal music because we were "conditioned" to enjoy tonal music are missing the reason the tonal system evolved in the first place. The tonal system evolved because the tonal music sounds mostly consonant (pleasant) while most atonal music sounds disonant (unpleasant). This can certainly be shown to have relationships with physics and psychoacoustics (neuroscience of music perception). If you combine tones of various frequencies, then some combinations will sound consonant and other disonant. So the tonal system did not materalize out of thin air and then we were conditioned to enjoy it, but rather the tonal system is a set of rules that evolved to produce consonant music.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

jenspen said:


> What does neuroscience have to say about this? I have read articles summarising research showing that consonance activates the brain's reward systems.


It would be hard to say without a group of feral humans. That's the point. The video shirime posted addresses that somewhat.

I recall reading about a test where a bell was rung before giving an animal food over and over, and after a while the animal associated the bell with food and happiness. That seems fairly relevant.

Personally, I do not feel that consonance=good and dissonance=bad. I find dissonance enjoyable and interesting, and I find consonance to be bland and boring. It might be hard to believe for some people, but not everyone's opinions align with the most popular one.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Jacck said:


> the people here that claim that we enjoy tonal music because we were "conditioned" to enjoy tonal music are missing the reason the tonal system evolved in the first place. The tonal system evolved because the tonal music sounds mostly consonant (pleasant) while most atonal music sounds disonant (unpleasant). This can certainly be shown to have relationships with physics and psychoacoustics (neuroscience of music perception). If you combine tones of various frequencies, then some combinations will sound consonant and other disonant. So the tonal system did not materalize out of thin air and then we were conditioned to enjoy it, but rather the tonal system is a set of rules that evolved to produce consonant music.


I'm not missing anything. That's exactly the same concept behind pop music. There is no science to prove what is universally pleasant or unpleasant. Can't you just be content with being part of the group mentality of preferring tonal music without arguing against people liking other things as well?


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> There is no science to prove what is universally pleasant or unpleasant.


I am pretty sure there is science behind this, ie direct experiments on animals and humans that test what sounds they perceive as pleasant and what not, and that the results behind it are universally (cross-culturaly) valid, because the way we perceive sounds (music) is hardwired into our brains. It is the same with visual perception. Some shapes are universally perceived as elegant, beautiful, attractive (geometric symmetric objects such as sphere, honeycombs etc), others are universally perceived to be ugly. This question has been answered elsewhere
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-ph...armony-or-is-it-just-a-matter-of-conditioning
with some effort, you can google some papers about tonality and psychoacoustics. 
http://music.psych.cornell.edu/arti...Tonal_structures_in_perception_and_memory.pdf


----------



## jenspen (Apr 25, 2015)

Fredx2098 said:


> It would be hard to say without a group of feral humans.


They've done such research on babies


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Jacck said:


> I am pretty sure there is science behind this, ie direct experiments on animals and humans that test what sounds they perceive as pleasant and what not, and that the results behind it are universally (cross-culturaly) valid, because the way we perceive sounds (music) is hardwired into our brains. It is the same with visual perception. Some shapes are universally perceived as elegant, beautiful, attractive (geometric symmetric objects such as sphere, honeycombs etc), others are universally perceived to be ugly. This question has been answered elsewhere
> https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-ph...armony-or-is-it-just-a-matter-of-conditioning
> with some effort, you can google some papers about tonality and psychoacoustics.
> http://music.psych.cornell.edu/arti...Tonal_structures_in_perception_and_memory.pdf


Do you realize how ridiculous it is to argue against someone's opinion of art using science? No science will make me like Mozart more than Shoenberg or the Mona Lisa more than a Rothko painting. Your use of the word "universal" is incorrect because I disagree.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

jenspen said:


> They've done such research on babies


Babies looking at something producing consonant harmonies does not persuade me that consonance is objectively good and pleasant and that dissonance is objectively bad and unpleasant.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> Do you realize how ridiculous it is to argue against someone's opinion of art using science? No science will make me like Mozart more than Shoenberg or the Mona Lisa more than a Rothko painting. Your use of the word "universal" is incorrect because I disagree.


Some sounds are universally unpleasant - nail scratching on blackboard, shovel on concrete or the dentist drill


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> ...there are some pretentious "artists" out there just trying to be different for the sake of it and have a following of ppl pretending to like it b/c they think they "get it".


So what?

Even if this is true, so what?


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Jacck said:


> Some sounds are universally unpleasant - nail scratching on blackboard, shovel on concrete or the dentist drill


Still not true. There is a genre of music called harsh noise that is enjoyed by many people including myself.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Physical pain is as objective as unpleasantness gets, and still there are people who like it.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> We can only speculate because history, and the way we started out learning is linear, even though I suspect linearity is instinctive to us. But who says there is anything but linearity in music? I still hear any contemporary music in that way, only that I got accustomed to the idiom more.


Maybe I am not getting what linearity is but maybe it is not instinctive: I suspect only a cultural (learned) dimension, here. The Koran, for example, doesn't tell a story and has something like a geometric shape. And I guess the obsession with patterns in Islamic art is something other than linear. Then what about mandalas and, maybe, thankas? I suppose also that Pollock's drip paintings are not linear? So I certainly agree that linearity is not necessary in art.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Fredx2098 said:


> Physical pain is as objective as unpleasantness gets, and still there are people who like it.


They interpret it differently (so pain, also, is subjective) or they want to test themselves or put themselves through something (pain remains objective).


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> Physical pain is as objective as unpleasantness gets, and still there are people who like it.


nobody likes pain, at least not permanent pain. There are certainly some masochists who couple pain with sexual arousal, but even they like pain only at certain times. Even they would not like to have a constant chronic pain. And you would not like to listen to a dentist drill symphony the whole day.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> They interpret it differently (so pain, also, is subjective) or they want to test themselves or put themselves through something (pain remains objective).


The first way is how I feel about dissonance. I find it to be pleasant and enjoyable unlike consonance. The only scientific correlation between dissonance and unpleasantness that I can discern is that dissonant waves are more complex, and people tend to prefer simple things. I prefer complex things. I do not believe that the "pleasantness" or "unpleasantness" of art can be universally described with science. The concept is absurd.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Jacck said:


> nobody likes pain, at least not permanent pain. There are certainly some masochists who couple pain with sexual arousal, but even they like pain only at certain times. Even they would not like to have a constant chronic pain. And you would not like to listen to a dentist drill symphony the whole day.


I disagree. Listening to harsh noise for hours is very meditative and relaxing to me and others, and it accentuates the silence that comes after. There is no universal opinion of art.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Jacck said:


> I am pretty sure there is science behind this, ie direct experiments on animals and humans that test what sounds they perceive as pleasant and what not, and that the results behind it are universally (cross-culturaly) valid, because the way we perceive sounds (music) is hardwired into our brains. It is the same with visual perception. Some shapes are universally perceived as elegant, beautiful, attractive (geometric symmetric objects such as sphere, honeycombs etc), others are universally perceived to be ugly. This question has been answered elsewhere
> https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-ph...armony-or-is-it-just-a-matter-of-conditioning
> with some effort, you can google some papers about tonality and psychoacoustics.
> http://music.psych.cornell.edu/arti...Tonal_structures_in_perception_and_memory.pdf


There is quite a lot to say about this! Obviously I don't need to enjoy the same music or sounds as Mrs Jones and her pet cat. But it is the claims for universality in the findings you site that worries me.

Firstly, cross-cultural psy experiments are usually done with university students in different cultures. In the world today that more or less means considerable overlap in the music that is heard or the shapes that are seen. So, it is not really cross-cultural. There is probably an anthropological literature on this but I don't know what it says. I do remember in Colin Turnbull's book, The Forest People, a story of the Mbuti people he lived with looking down from a hill for the first time in their lives (they lived in dense jungle) and not appreciating that distance made things small; the cattle they saw looked tiny to them. Similarly, there is quite a literature on how people who have never seen one have difficulty decoding a photograph to see what we see. This suggests that universality in such perceptions may not be as clear as all that.

Secondly, even if there are these a statistical phenomena, they are unlikely to apply to all individuals.

Thirdly, artists are not Martians. They are human, like us, so they have the same perceptual hard wiring (or even learned - soft - wiring) as us. So when they use these "ugly" sounds or shapes they are doing so in the context of their art. So here we seem to have something akin the the sublimation that is involved in art about the horribly tragic or ugly even still being powerfully beautiful.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Have you guys ever worked out - or for that matter, had a massage? You know that feeling when you're through with a really good workout/massage and all the muscles in your body seem to ache at once? 

Fundamentally, that's a good feeling. 

Have you ever eaten junk food that you know you really don't want to eat? It tastes good, but, fundamentally, it's a bad feeling. 

The physical sensation of pain/pleasure is only the most superficial sort of pain/pleasure.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Speaking of chronic pain, I am someone with excruciatingly intense chronic pain, and I enjoy dissonance more than consonance and find it more pleasant.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

science said:


> So what?
> 
> Even if this is true, so what?


I just think it's important to acknowledge it. Really, something which we cannot know, is the Artist's motivation in creating a piece, and the observer's motivations in stating they enjoy it or not is the concept I'm noting on.

The only way we can know is if they reveal it to us and the best way to deal with ppl, is to respect their opinions, but if you feel they are being snobby about it, back off politely.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> Still not true. There is a genre of music called harsh noise that is enjoyed by many people including myself.


This makes my teeth hurt! :lol:


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> The first way is how I feel about dissonance. I find it to be pleasant and enjoyable unlike consonance. The only scientific correlation between dissonance and unpleasantness that I can discern is that dissonant waves are more complex, and people tend to prefer simple things. I prefer complex things. I do not believe that the "pleasantness" or "unpleasantness" of art can be universally described with science. The concept is absurd.


So, do you think dissonant music takes more intelligence to appreciate since it's more complex?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

To me, melody and the components of the music that support it, speak directly to the emotions. Instrumental music is a language of emotion. This is why we can appreciate music of different cultures, the melody speaks to our emotions even if we don't understand the words.

When we hear something innovative (melody wise), we can either resonate with it, to varying levels, or not. I believe if we are genuinely interested in going back to it and gain more appreciation with more listens that's ok, just don't force it.

So, I think the analogy to atonality being a new language that takes time to understand is mostly false in the way it's been presented in this thread. It is something new and unique, but like all music, it either speaks to your emotions or it doesn't. It doesn't require more intelligence to understand.


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> So, I think the analogy to atonality being a new language that takes time to understand is mostly false in the way it's been presented in this thread. It is something new and unique, but like all music, it either speaks to your emotions or it doesn't. It doesn't require more intelligence to understand.


I'm late to join this thread, but would like to expand on this idea - I do believe that music operates very much like a language. Just as in reading a book or listening to a play, we are not conscious of the dictionary meanings or the grammatical structure of what we are reading or hearing, the same applies for music. No one just hears music in a vacuum - it always occurs to us in the context of what we have heard before. All music builds on what came before it - whether that's what a composer has heard or studied earlier in their life, or even on what has been heard earlier within that same single piece of music. And the same applies to the listener - we bring with us our history of what we've heard in our lives to everything new that we listen to, whether we are conscious of it or not - whether or not a melody 'resonates' with us, take places in this context. Our minds recognize the elements that are familiar and those that are new in all music, and our minds process all this to form our reaction to music. The fact that much of this takes place at a subconscious level does not mean it is not happening.

So I don't think it's correct to say that art should not require more intelligence to understand, though perhaps 'intelligence' isn't the right word - perhaps it's more accurate to say 'familiarity'. So a child or a non-English speaker with a limited vocabulary, isn't going to understand (or be able to appreciate, or be able to form the same emotional reaction to) a Shakespeare play, for example, the same way someone who has that vocabulary is going to. That's really independent of whether or not someone likes or doesn't like the play. It's not a matter of intelligence so much as having the tools to unlock some of the meaning.

So expanding one's musical vocabulary and knowledge (at least in my life experience) has played a major in expanding my appreciation of music and opening new doors for hearing and enjoying more things, or hearing old things in new ways that make them more fresh and enjoyable than before. Learning about music (and all art, for that matter) has for me, only ever helped me to enjoy _more music_, or enjoy _music more_, never less. I don't think it requires intelligence necessarily, as much as just an investment of time and interest and attention, just as learning a language would.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Thomyum2 said:


> I'm late to join this thread, but would like to expand on this idea - I do believe that music operates very much like a language. Just as in reading a book or listening to a play, we are not conscious of the dictionary meanings or the grammatical structure of what we are reading or hearing, the same applies for music. No one just hears music in a vacuum - it always occurs to us in the context of what we have heard before. All music builds on what came before it - whether that's what a composer has heard or studied earlier in their life, or even on what has been heard earlier within that same single piece of music. And the same applies to the listener - we bring with us our history of what we've heard in our lives to everything new that we listen to, whether we are conscious of it or not - whether or not a melody 'resonates' with us, take places in this context. Our minds recognize the elements that are familiar and those that are new in all music, and our minds process all this to form our reaction to music. The fact that much of this takes place at a subconscious level does not mean it is not happening.
> 
> So I don't think it's correct to say that art should not require more intelligence to understand, though perhaps 'intelligence' isn't the right word - perhaps it's more accurate to say 'familiarity'. So a child or a non-English speaker with a limited vocabulary, isn't going to understand (or be able to appreciate, or be able to form the same emotional reaction to) a Shakespeare play, for example, the same way someone who has that vocabulary is going to. That's really independent of whether or not someone likes or doesn't like the play. It's not a matter of intelligence so much as having the tools to unlock some of the meaning.
> 
> So expanding one's musical vocabulary and knowledge (at least in my life experience) has played a major in expanding my appreciation of music and opening new doors for hearing and enjoying more things, or hearing old things in new ways that make them more fresh and enjoyable than before. Learning about music (and all art, for that matter) has for me, only ever helped me to enjoy _more music_, or enjoy _music more_, never less. I don't think it requires intelligence necessarily, as much as just an investment of time and interest and attention, just as learning a language would.


I agree we separate what is familiar and unfamiliar when listening to new works, mostly on a sub-conscious level, but whereas novels take understanding of the words being used in the way they are being used, it doesn't take understanding of music theory, the grammar and vocabulary of music, to appreciate it. That's how music is a different language, it speaks directly to the emotions!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Thomyum2 said:


> I'm late to join this thread, but would like to expand on this idea - I do believe that music operates very much like a language. Just as in reading a book or listening to a play, we are not conscious of the dictionary meanings or the grammatical structure of what we are reading or hearing, the same applies for music. No one just hears music in a vacuum - it always occurs to us in the context of what we have heard before. All music builds on what came before it - whether that's what a composer has heard or studied earlier in their life, or even on what has been heard earlier within that same single piece of music. And the same applies to the listener - we bring with us our history of what we've heard in our lives to everything new that we listen to, whether we are conscious of it or not - whether or not a melody 'resonates' with us, take places in this context. Our minds recognize the elements that are familiar and those that are new in all music, and our minds process all this to form our reaction to music. The fact that much of this takes place at a subconscious level does not mean it is not happening.
> 
> So I don't think it's correct to say that art should not require more intelligence to understand, though perhaps 'intelligence' isn't the right word - perhaps it's more accurate to say 'familiarity'. So a child or a non-English speaker with a limited vocabulary, isn't going to understand (or be able to appreciate, or be able to form the same emotional reaction to) a Shakespeare play, for example, the same way someone who has that vocabulary is going to. That's really independent of whether or not someone likes or doesn't like the play. It's not a matter of intelligence so much as having the tools to unlock some of the meaning.
> 
> So expanding one's musical vocabulary and knowledge (at least in my life experience) has played a major in expanding my appreciation of music and opening new doors for hearing and enjoying more things, or hearing old things in new ways that make them more fresh and enjoyable than before. Learning about music (and all art, for that matter) has for me, only ever helped me to enjoy _more music_, or enjoy _music more_, never less. I don't think it requires intelligence necessarily, as much as just an investment of time and interest and attention, just as learning a language would.


I don't think we are fully disagreeing, I think if we are exposed to something new to us, we recognize what is familiar and unfamiliar and form a reaction. If we are intrigued, we will come back and keep listening and thus gain more familiarity to it and greater or less appreciation.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> So, do you think dissonant music takes more intelligence to appreciate since it's more complex?


I wouldn't use the word intelligence. They're just different desires: to want to listen to something that sounds/feels familiar, or to want to hear something that sounds strange and different. It's funny, this debate seems to be nonexistent for A/V media. People understand that there are people who like romances, comedies, horror, mystery, etc., but if someone likes music that isn't just happy and normal, they're pretentious snobs? It doesn't make someone less intelligent to prefer consonance, and it doesn't make someone more intelligent to prefer dissonance. They're just opinions. The problem is when someone asserts that one way or another is more proper and that the other way(s) are pretentious garbage. It's "easier" to enjoy the popular consonant music that most people grow up with, but I don't think someone is less intelligent if they prefer it and at least appreciate other styles. Now, if someone feels the need to insult art they don't like and people who enjoy it, then maybe I would say that is not a very intelligent or wise thing to do.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> I wouldn't use the word intelligence. They're just different desires: to want to listen to something that sounds/feels familiar, or to want to hear something that sounds strange and different. It's funny, this debate seems to be nonexistent for A/V media. People understand that there are people who like romances, comedies, horror, mystery, etc., but if someone likes music that isn't just happy and normal, they're pretentious snobs? It doesn't make someone less intelligent to prefer consonance, and it doesn't make someone more intelligent to prefer dissonance. They're just opinions. The problem is when someone asserts that one way or another is more proper and that the other way(s) are pretentious garbage. It's "easier" to enjoy the popular consonant music that most people grow up with, but I don't think someone is less intelligent if they prefer it and at least appreciate other styles. Now, if someone feels the need to insult art they don't like and people who enjoy it, then maybe I would say that is not a very intelligent or wise thing to do.


I wouldn't even say it's "easier" to listen to, it's just preference and what does it for you. You find it "harder" to appreciate consonant music where most ppl find it "easier" to listen to consonant music. These are just trends, not matter of fact about the appreciation of the art.

In reality, it's not harder or easier to listen to either, it's just about what you enjoy.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Also, there are different kinds of complexity. Complexity is present in all the eras, mostly virtuosic complexity before the Romantic or Moderns eras. I'm not a huge fan of virtuosity for virtuosity's sake, but I do understand why people like it and wouldn't put it/them down. I prefer harmonic complexity rather than technical complexity. That's part of why Feldman is my favorite composer. Notes aren't flying by at breakneck speeds, you're not waiting for a big crescendo or finale, it's just slow, quiet, complex harmonies and rhythms that you can take in one at a time.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> Also, there are different kinds of complexity. Complexity is present in all the eras, mostly virtuosic complexity before the Romantic or Moderns eras. I'm not a huge fan of virtuosity for virtuosity's sake, but I do understand why people like it and wouldn't put it/them down. I prefer harmonic complexity rather than technical complexity. That's part of why Feldman is my favorite composer. Notes aren't flying by at breakneck speeds, you're not waiting for a big crescendo or finale, it's just slow, quiet, complex harmonies and rhythms that you can take in one at a time.


I agree with this.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think emotional complexity is my favorite to find in music and paintings. With novels and film, I like characters and stories that appeal to me, I won't say complex characters b/c that is subjective.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

With the culinary arts, I'm mostly interested in rich/divine flavors.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I wouldn't even say it's "easier" to listen to, it's just preference and what does it for you. You find it "harder" to appreciate consonant music where most ppl find it "easier" to listen to consonant music. These are just trends, not matter of fact about the appreciation of the art.
> 
> In reality, it's not harder or easier to listen to either, it's just about what you enjoy.


I didn't mean easy as in it takes more skill to enjoy dissonance, just that, since consonant music is the most popular and prevalent, it's easier to just join the majority of people who like it rather than seeking out other styles. And since most people grow up with consonant music around them, that's what sounds "familiar", and most people enjoy familiarity. Now that I've said that, it seems like most art styles have arisen due to people either preferring familiarity or wanting to explore unfamiliar ideas. Neither is inherently better for art. It seems obvious which would be more popular though. I don't like how people have been citing popularity as a reason why tonal music is objectively better. If people would look at the "art" that is currently popular, they would see that greatness and popularity are not synonymous.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> I didn't mean easy as in it takes more skill to enjoy dissonance, just that, since consonant music is the most popular and prevalent, it's easier to just join the majority of people who like it rather than seeking out other styles. And since most people grow up with consonant music around them, that's what sounds "familiar", and most people enjoy familiarity. Now that I've said that, it seems like most art styles have arisen due to people either preferring familiarity or wanting to explore unfamiliar ideas. Neither is inherently better for art. It seems obvious which would be more popular though. I don't like how people have been citing popularity as a reason why tonal music is objectively better. If people would look at the "art" that is currently popular, they would see that greatness and popularity are not synonymous.


You're revealing a bias in this passage. "Greatness and popularity are not synonymous": with this quote you are implying there is a difference between objectively great and objectively bad music, which might have been accidental.

But I agree, consonant is more popular and familiar (that is just a fact) and most people seek out what is familiar to them.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> You're revealing a bias in this passage. "Greatness and popularity are not synonymous": with this quote you are implying there is a difference between objectively great and objectively bad music, which might have been accidental.
> 
> But I agree, consonant is more popular and familiar (that is just a fact) and most people seek out what is familiar to them.


I meant more that there is no such thing as objectively great music, and that a composer or artist being popular doesn't make them objectively great, so it doesn't seem relevant to mention it. I would consider some art objectively bad, specifically modern pop music that is more mass produced by companies to make money rather than made by artists who want to express themselves. That doesn't stop people from liking it though, and it doesn't make it right to argue against someone who likes the music, but if someone argues that someone's popularity is a sign of their greatness, then Drake and Kanye West are better than Mozart and Beethoven ever were, and Kim Kardashian is better than Shakespeare.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

"I would consider some art objectively bad"

Your whole stance in this thread is beginning to change.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> "I would consider some art objectively bad"
> 
> Your whole stance in this thread is beginning to change.


The key to understanding that statement is in the rest of the post... It isn't that the art itself cannot or should not be enjoyed, but there is art that has objectively bad ulterior motives like commercial pop music made for money or propaganda music made to brainwash people for example.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> The key to understanding that statement is in the rest of the post... It isn't that the art itself cannot or should not be enjoyed, but there is art that has objectively bad ulterior motives like commercial pop music made for money or propaganda music made to brainwash people for example.


Kind of like the pretentious artists that appeal to ppl looking for something as horrid, ahem, incredibly artistic and unique, as "harsh music"?


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Kind of like the pretentious artists that appeal to ppl looking for something as horrid, ahem, incredibly artistic and unique, as "harsh music"?


Yes, exactly like that. If I said I'm superior for liking harsh noise, I would be pretentious, but I didn't. It's hard to tell whether or not an artist is a pretentious snob unless they actually said things that make it evident, so to use that as a reason to dislike modern art as a whole is a strawman. An artist being pretentious doesn't stop the art from being enjoyable either. There seems to be a lot of evidence that Wagner was pretentious, but I still enjoy his music. Very formal art seems to be much more inherently pretentious than art made freely without adhering to rules, by an artist who may or may not think they're superior because of it.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> Yes, exactly like that. If I said I'm superior for liking harsh noise, I would be pretentious, but I didn't. It's hard to tell whether or not an artist is a pretentious snob unless they actually said things that make it evident, so to use that as a reason to dislike modern art as a whole is a strawman. An artist being pretentious doesn't stop the art from being enjoyable either. There seems to be a lot of evidence that Wagner was pretentious, but I still enjoy his music. Very formal art seems to be much more inherently pretentious than art made freely without adhering to rules, by an artist who may or may not think they're superior because of it.


And likewise, it's hard to tell if a pop songwriter is writing for money and commercialism or not; it's hard to gage his/her motivations. That said, like you said, even if that is their motive, it doesn't make it unenjoyable and to use that are a reason to dislike pop music as a whole is a strawman.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> And likewise, it's hard to tell if a pop songwriter is writing for money and commercialism or not; it's hard to gage his/her motivations. That said, like you said, even if that is their motive, it doesn't make it unenjoyable and to use that are a reason to dislike pop music as a whole is a strawman.


It's not quite as hard when there's an album with one person as the figurehead and all they did was sing or rap the words that ten other people wrote, along with music that ten other people made (by the way, when I say pop music, I'm not referring to any music that isn't classical or folk, which might be the technical definition). That's not why I subjectively dislike it in general though, but it is the main reason why I avoid it. I love a lot of rap and electronic music, so it's also not just because I don't like those styles.

The difference between what I'm saying and what others have said that you agreed with is that I'm not trying to say that any style of music is more proper to like or dislike because of objective factors. That's the definition of pretentious snobbery, so it's ironic to see people use those words to slight music they don't enjoy while claiming that what they like is what's proper to enjoy.


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> "I would consider some art objectively bad"
> 
> Your whole stance in this thread is beginning to change.





Fredx2098 said:


> The key to understanding that statement is in the rest of the post... It isn't that the art itself cannot or should not be enjoyed, but there is art that has objectively bad ulterior motives like commercial pop music made for money or propaganda music made to brainwash people for example.


I think it's worth flipping back to science's post #19 on this:



science said:


> Personally, I value three things:
> 
> 1. Pleasure. Do I like it? This doesn't need to be a superficial "prettiness," it could be pleasing in other ways, such as being ironic, morally uplifting, intellectually challenging, humorous, insightful, and so on.
> 
> ...


I think art that is 'objectively bad' is such when it fails into category #2. If you can permit me another metaphor, I like to think of a wood-worker who builds furniture. Whether or not you 'like' the piece of furniture, or find it comfortable, or want it in your house, really falls into category #1. But if you take time to learn to appreciate quality woodworking, you can appreciate the skill that went into making it, and recognize that the materials and workmanship are of high quality, i.e. the finish is even, the angles are symmetric, joints without gaps, etc. - in other words, you can differentiate between a work of quality vs. something that is cheaply and carelessly made, mass-produced, pre-fab. But not everything that is skillfully made is necessarily the style you like or what you would want to surround yourself with in your day-to-day life. Music for me is a similar thing - there is music that is of good and poor quality, but that is really irrelevant to and independent of whether or not it can be enjoyed.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Thomyum2 said:


> I think it's worth flipping back to science's post #19 on this:
> 
> I think art that is 'objectively bad' is such when it fails in the second category. If you can permit me another metaphor, I like to think of a wood-worker who builds furniture. Whether or not you 'like' the piece of furniture, or find it comfortable, or want it in your house, really falls into category #1. But if you take time to learn to appreciate quality woodworking, you can appreciate the skill that went into making it, and recognize that the materials and workmanship are of high quality - in other words, you can differentiate between a work of quality vs. something that is cheaply and carelessly made, mass-produced, pre-fab, etc. Music for me is a similar thing - there is music that is of poor quality, but that is really irrelevant to whether or not it can be enjoyed.


I think that verbiage is a little confusing. When I hear the word "skill" applied to music or art, it makes me think of virtuosity or being able to paint a photorealistic picture, neither of which personally interest me very much, because of how people say that composers/artists make modernist music/art because they're not skilled enough to make anything else.


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> I think that verbiage is a little confusing. When I hear the word "skill" applied to music or art, it makes me think of virtuosity or being able to paint a photorealistic picture, neither of which personally interest me very much, because of how people say that composers/artists make modernist music/art because they're not skilled enough to make anything else.


No, I certainly don't mean virtuosity (which I call 'technique'), but I agree perhaps 'skill' isn't the word I would use - I personally like 'craftsmanship'. But whichever word you choose, a good composition stands out from a mediocre one in much the same way - through seamless transitions, balance, the choice of instrumentation and textures, use of counterpoint, and so forth - there are indeed 'skills' that composers develop and hone over time, and they do show through in the final product, whether you're talking about old music or modern, popular or classical or any other, for that matter.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Thomyum2 said:


> No, I certainly don't mean virtuosity (which I call 'technique'), but I agree perhaps 'skill' isn't the word I would use - I personally like 'craftsmanship'. But whichever word you choose, a good composition stands out from a mediocre one in much the same way - through seamless transitions, balance, the choice of instrumentation and textures, use of counterpoint, and so forth - there are indeed 'skills' that composers develop and hone over time, and they do show through in the final product, whether you're talking about old music or modern, popular or classical or any other, for that matter.


I don't agree that there is any sort of objectivity in art in terms of appreciation. It can objectively fit Sonata form well, or be a pinnacle example of a fugue; in other words, it can objectively meet theoretical rules proficiently. However, in terms of appreciation, there is no objective good and bad.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> It's not quite as hard when there's an album with one person as the figurehead and all they did was sing or rap the words that ten other people wrote, along with music that ten other people made (by the way, when I say pop music, I'm not referring to any music that isn't classical or folk, which might be the technical definition). That's not why I subjectively dislike it in general though, but it is the main reason why I avoid it. I love a lot of rap and electronic music, so it's also not just because I don't like those styles.
> 
> The difference between what I'm saying and what others have said that you agreed with is that I'm not trying to say that any style of music is more proper to like or dislike because of objective factors. That's the definition of pretentious snobbery, so it's ironic to see people use those words to slight music they don't enjoy while claiming that what they like is what's proper to enjoy.


I've lost some faith in you, but I carry your initial spirit that no music is objectively bad or good. It's impossible to gage, objectively, the motivations of another, but if you sense something you dislike in conversation about music/art, walk away.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

I would say there are objective skills and factors of an artist that can be discussed, but it doesn't have much or any bearing on the subjective enjoyment. I wouldn't try to compare the value of different artists or styles in an objective way, but sometimes when talking about a specific artist you can see/hear how they became more efficient at expressing their ideas.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I don't agree that there is any sort of objectivity in art in terms of appreciation. It can objectively fit Sonata form well, or be a pinnacle example of a fugue; in other words, it can objectively meet theoretical rules proficiently. However, in terms of appreciation, there is no objective good and bad.


Do you think that

1. Good and bad are just meaningless concepts in the context of art appreciation, they look meaningful but appearances are deceptive and in fact sentences using them are just mumbo jumbo.

Or

2. Good and bad mean "I like it" or "I don't like it", so, for example, "it's good but I don't like it" is in fact a contradiction.

Or some third thing.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> I would say there are objective skills and factors of an artist that can be discussed, but it doesn't have much or any bearing on the subjective enjoyment. I wouldn't try to compare the value of different artists or styles in an objective way, but sometimes when talking about a specific artist you can see/hear how they became more efficient at expressing their ideas.


Ya, it's like watching Mozart get better and better at composing The Classical Symphony Form. That doesn't mean someone can't prefer an early Symphony, for The Classical Symphony Form doesn't have anything to do with subjective enjoyment.

Likewise, whatever the criteria is for "Harsh Music", an Artist can get better and better at achieving that criteria, or worse in some cases.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> Do you think that
> 
> 1. Good and bad are just meaningless concepts in the context of art appreciation, they look meaningful but appearances are deceptive and in fact sentences using them are just mumbo jumbo.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure I follow what you're saying, but allow me to attempt to elucidate my meaning.

I think Art can meet objective criteria by which to judge it. For example, we can compare Mozart's 41st Symphony, and see how well it meets Sonata form.

We can also asses Mozart's 41st Symphony in terms of theoretical concepts such as harmony.

In both these examples, we can say, objectively, if the work successfully meets the criteria or not and further, if this is your means of judgement of quality, you can state that b/c it meets these objective standards, I enjoy it.

However, another listener can say they don't like it, b/c they don't enjoy the melody, or something like that, or simply that it just doesn't do it for them.

To summarize, you can base how you rate a piece in terms of subjective appreciation on several different criteria and none are right or wrong, or the objectively correct set of criteria.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I've lost some faith in you, but I carry your initial spirit that no music is objectively bad or good. It's impossible to gage, objectively, the motivations of another, but if you sense something you dislike in conversation about music/art, walk away.


What do you disagree with? If there is a piece of music that is labeled with a person's name who had nothing to do with creating the music, that person never had any expressive artistic motivation in the first place. It's like hearing a piece of classical music performed and crediting the musicians as the creative ones.

And that's one of my points: if you don't like something that other people enjoy, you should just ignore it and not try to rain on people's parades. This thread and others are full of people broadly insulting all modern art and people who enjoy it, such as myself. They're not simply disagreeing or stating an opposite opinion. It's vindictive and wrong.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> To summarize, you can base how you rate a piece in terms of subjective appreciation on several different criteria and none are right or wrong, or the objectively correct set of criteria.


I think I understand, you're saying that there is a list (finite?) of non-evaluative criteria c1, c2 . . . cn which (in some way) are the "basis" for a value judgement, like "it's good"

In the case of music the list would include formal considerations (you mentioned sonata form), harmonic ones etc.

Where does the list come from? It would be nice to spell out the list for some type of art, painting say. Or even music. Where do I go to find this list?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> What do you disagree with? If there is a piece of music that is labeled with a person's name who had nothing to do with creating the music, that person never had any expressive artistic motivation in the first place. It's like hearing a piece of classical music performed and crediting the musicians as the creative ones.
> 
> And that's one of my points: if you don't like something that other people enjoy, you should just ignore it and not try to rain on people's parades. This thread and others are full of people broadly insulting all modern art and people who enjoy it, such as myself. They're not simply disagreeing or stating an opposite opinion. It's vindictive and wrong.


Ah, I guess there was just some miscommunication/misinterpretation on my part. You don't like that they don't create their own music, and that's why you don't like it, right?

I agree, if you enjoy modern art, that is all fine, no one should rain on your parade.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> I think I understand, you're saying that there is a list (finite?) of non-evaluative criteria c1, c2 . . . cn which (in some way) are the "basis" for a value judgement, like "it's good"
> 
> In the case of music the list would include formal considerations (you mentioned sonata form), harmonic ones etc.
> 
> Where does the list come from? It would be nice to spell out the list for some type of art, painting say. Or even music. Where do I go to find this list?


I'm having a hard time following what you are saying. I'm saying there are SEVERAL ways to evaluate Art and none are better or worse than any other.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Ah, I guess there was just some miscommunication/misinterpretation on my part. You don't like that they don't create their own music, and that's why you don't like it, right?
> 
> I agree, if you enjoy modern art, that is all fine, no one should rain on your parade.


That isn't entirely why I dislike the music, but it's the main why I have a problem with the "artists" being so popular when they're basically a mascot or public figure. It's one of the ways that art can be objectively silly, but, as is apparent, it doesn't have an effect on how well-liked and popular it is. For that reason, I might argue against someone saying that a pop star like that is a creative genius, but I wouldn't have a problem with them liking the music itself. Maybe a good way to put it is that there are objective and subjective factors of art, but they're separate, and the objective factors shouldn't be used as an argument for or against subjective enjoyment.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> That isn't entirely why I dislike the music, but it's the main why I have a problem with the "artists" being so popular when they're basically a mascot or public figure. It's one of the ways that art can be objectively silly, but, as is apparent, it doesn't have an effect on how well-liked and popular it is. For that reason, I might argue against someone saying that a pop star like that is a creative genius, but I wouldn't have a problem with them liking the music itself. Maybe a good way to put it is that there are objective and subjective factors of art, but they're separate, and the objective factors shouldn't be used as an argument for or against subjective enjoyment.


I think it's unfair to call it objectively silly. I think you should open your mind to having songwriters for you; even Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead had a lyricist. I don't think that aspect alone makes it silly, at least.

But I agree with your second half, completely.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think it's unfair to call it objectively silly. I think you should open your mind to having songwriters for you; even Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead had a lyricist. I don't think that aspect alone makes it silly, at least.
> 
> But I agree with your second half, completely.


What I'm talking about is on a completely different level than that. If I thought that having a lyricist was silly, then I'd think that most operas and art songs are silly. It's like if Jerry Garcia had a lyricist as well as someone who writes the melodies and used pre-recorded music made by others and then called his group Jerry Garcia to take all the credit. A pseudo-band like The Monkees would be more comparable.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> What I'm talking about is on a completely different level than that. If I thought that having a lyricist was silly, then I'd think that most operas and art songs are silly. It's like if Jerry Garcia had a lyricist as well as someone who writes the melodies and used pre-recorded music made by others and then called his group Jerry Garcia to take all the credit. A pseudo-band like The Monkees would be more comparable.


I know what you are saying, I get it. But I think the mainstream population knows these Artists have ppl writing their music for them, it's not a big secret or anything.

They are the performers, justl ike Michael Jackson (who did write some of his own stuff though).

I agree, they aren't the creative ones, but as I said above, I think the audience knows this.

In Indian culture (my heritage), the songwriter is the main star and has the singers performing for him. During performances, he/she is on stage with the singers doing something or another.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I know what you are saying, I get it. But I think the mainstream population knows these Artists have ppl writing their music for them, it's not a big secret or anything.
> 
> They are the performers, justl ike Michael Jackson (who did write some of his own stuff though).
> 
> ...


I don't think the average listener even knows enough about music to think about the process of making it. They're listening to it because it's the cool thing to do, not because they have a vested interest in music. That causes a vicious cycle which pop producers are milking, and it's causing the concept of music to deteriorate. These pop star public figure people are the role models of the average person, at least in America. Music as a whole is now vastly dominated by mass produced pop music, which brings down all other kinds of music.

What kind of Indian music are you talking about? I love Indian classical music and qawwali, and the people involved in those styles seem to be very creative and important. American-influenced pop music is made in many/most countries now seemingly because they see how big of a cash cow it is.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Fredx2098 said:


> Music as a whole is now vastly dominated by mass produced pop music, which brings down all other kinds of music.


It's been the dominant force my entire life, although I don't believe it has brought down other types of music.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> It's been the dominant force my entire life, although I don't believe it has brought down other types of music.


I meant that it's brought down the average opinion of other kinds of music. For example, arguing about whether tonal music or atonal music can draw larger crowds (which is meant to imply that it's better and more natural to enjoy) is pointless because no other music has ever been as popular as pop music is now.


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> Music as a whole is now vastly dominated by mass produced pop music, which brings down all other kinds of music.





Bulldog said:


> It's been the dominant force my entire life, although I don't believe it has brought down other types of music.


I agree, I don't think it brings anything down, in fact, in many instances popular music has been the 'raw material' that classical composers have used to create many great works throughout the tradition (think of Haydn, Dvorak, Bartok, Stravinsky, Ives, Gershwin - I'm sure the list could go on). I've always thought that comparing classical and popular music is like comparing apples and oranges - they're just too different in too many ways to make a comparison meaningful.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Fredx2098 said:


> I meant that it's brought down the average opinion of other kinds of music.


Yes, the popularity of Feldman's music took a big hit.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> I don't think the average listener even knows enough about music to think about the process of making it. They're listening to it because it's the cool thing to do, not because they have a vested interest in music. That causes a vicious cycle which pop producers are milking, and it's causing the concept of music to deteriorate. These pop star public figure people are the role models of the average person, at least in America. Music as a whole is now vastly dominated by mass produced pop music, which brings down all other kinds of music.
> 
> What kind of Indian music are you talking about? I love Indian classical music and qawwali, and the people involved in those styles seem to be very creative and important. American-influenced pop music is made in many/most countries now seemingly because they see how big of a cash cow it is.


I'm talking about Bollywood Film Music. Artists such as A.R. Rahman, he's the big one right now and has been for quite some time.

I think people who care about Art and music will invest time to dig beneath the surface and do a bit of searching. Most people are ok with what is popular, and just don't care enough to dig deeper.

It's the job of ppl like us to expose those with less inclination to search on their own to other options, and help them find something that hits home a little stronger than mainstream music.

And, they will be more receptive the more kind and non-judgmental you are with them. If you have the attitude of what you are listening to is crap, it will push them away.

I also conquer with the above, it doesn't bring other music down. And I'm actually a fan of Michael Jackson's album, Thriller! Off The Wall is really solid as well.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> Yes, the popularity of Feldman's music took a big hit.


The average person of my age who I've interacted with thinks that classical music, jazz, anything except pop is a joke. Some of them see value in it as background music or as a trite joke made with instruments. Feldman would be pure torture.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It's the job of ppl like us to expose those with less inclination to search on their own to other options, and help them find something that hits home a little stronger than mainstream music.


You sound like a misguided missionary. There's no reason for you to think that the music that others prefer is of less value than yours. When missionaries show up at my door, I politely ask them to back off and hit the road. There is no point in all involved wasting their time. If they don't back off, I sic the dogs on them. :devil:


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

I think it should be obvious that I didn't mean that the existence of pop music means that everyone thinks less of all other types of music.....


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Fredx2098 said:


> I think it should be obvious that I didn't mean that the existence of pop music means that everyone thinks less of all other types of music.....


I don't find anything obvious about you, for you are an unusual dude.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> You sound like a misguided missionary. There's no reason for you to think that the music that others prefer is of less value than yours. When missionaries show up at my door, I politely ask them to back off and hit the road. There is no point in all involved wasting their time. If they don't back off, I sic the dogs on them. :devil:


No, I didn't mean that. I just think most mainstream fans haven't looked much at underground music; it's possible they may be turned on to something that hits home on a more personal level than mainstream music. It's also possible they won't.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> The average person of my age who I've interacted with thinks that classical music, jazz, anything except pop is a joke. Some of them see value in it as background music or as a trite joke made with instruments. Feldman would be pure torture.


And that's ok...:tiphat:


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> No, I didn't mean that. I just think most mainstream fans haven't looked much at underground music; it's possible they may be turned on to something that hits home on a more personal level than mainstream music. It's also possible they won't.


I love showing people new Art that I think they may like, even if I don't enjoy it.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> I don't find anything obvious about you, for you are an unusual dude.


This whole forum is unusual. It's unusual to enjoy classical music or music besides pop now. I hoped it would be less frowned upon to be unusual here.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> This whole forum is unusual. It's unusual to enjoy classical music or music besides pop now. I hoped it would be less frowned upon to be unusual here.


I don't think anyone is frowning, you are contributing wonderful thoughts to this thread! Great discussion.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I don't really get how the charge of pretentiousness can be leveled at an artist who is struggling to find an audience. Pretentiousness is much more likely to be present when an artist is milking a cash cow. So, to me, pretentiousness in its more epic forms is more likely to be found in mass media works than in obscure avant garde art. I suppose within the small world of avant garde art there may be some who are relatively more pretentious than others - novelists have chronicled many - but such examples are surely so far from what is important in that small world that we don't need to get excited about it. It is the epic pretentiousness found in so much mass media that rattles me.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> I don't really get how the charge of pretentiousness can be leveled at an artist who is struggling to find an audience. Pretentiousness is much more likely to be present when an artist is milking a cash cow. So, to me, pretentiousness in its more epic forms is more likely to be found in mass media works than in obscure avant garde art. I suppose within the small world of avant garde art there may be some who are relatively more pretentious than others - novelists have chronicled many - but such examples are surely so far from what is important in that small world that we don't need to get excited about it. It is the epic pretentiousness found in so much mass media that rattles me.


The irony is palpable, to argue that the art one likes or that is the most popular is what is proper to enjoy and anything else is pretentious. That is a true pretentious attitude. The difference is they're backed up by the majority.


----------



## asiago12 (May 2, 2019)

Sophisticated Art (Such as Classical Music)


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

How about this, is this sophisticated?









https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/459202


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Picasso failed to express tragedy without having context and knowledge that that is what he was going for. I blame Picasso for not making me feel turmoil when viewing that painting.


Yikes Captain! To say it is Picasso's fault and not a 2-way street is going to shut you down from a lot of art (not just paintings but other forms). I think the difficulty is much more likely to be your (assumed) lack of experience in assimilating and evaluating Picasso, expressionist and cubist art, which is the audience he is painting for (and that he had already painted many such works for), not someone looking to have it all laid out for him/her at face value or lacking this knowledge/insight. The turmoil in the painting is a cross-cutting, cross-referencing calamity of expressionist metaphor and visual "montage", clear and in abundance, particularly to someone familiar with the above and other visual art that leans in this direction (such as the Soviet/montage/1920s filmmaking: Eisenstein, Dohvzhenko, Lang...), and is very likely to be understood and felt and explored by such a viewer/audience.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> Yikes Captain! To say it is Picasso's fault and not a 2-way street is going to shut you down from a lot of art (not just paintings but other forms). I think the difficulty is much more likely to be your (assumed) lack of experience in assimilating and evaluating Picasso, expressionist and cubist art, which is the audience he is painting for (and that he had already painted many such works for), not someone looking to have it all laid out for him/her at face value or lacking this knowledge/insight. The turmoil in the painting is a cross-cutting, cross-referencing calamity of expressionist metaphor and visual "montage", clear and in abundance, particularly to someone familiar with the above and other visual art that leans in this direction (such as the Soviet/montage/1920s filmmaking: Eisenstein, Dohvzhenko, Lang...), and is very likely to be understood and felt and explored by such a viewer/audience.


I don't like that I have to do research to understand it. Art can be subtle, yet have enough clues to get you to feel the work in the way the Artist intends.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

‘You're so analytical! Sometimes you just have to let art... flow... over you.’ 

The Big Chill 1983. (William Hurt)


----------

