# The best or worst debates/arguments on TC



## Dedalus

I love a good debate, especially one that gets heated, though without degenerating into (too many) insults. Instead of searching through to find them, does anybody remember some really good threads, perhaps ones that you have participated in? Debates about particular composers, about modern classical, you name it. I'm not a veteran listener, but I find debates to be both very entertaining and often enough very educational. So there is my request. Any good, classic, and epic argument threads from TC?

If anybody is curious it was the "Do you care? How much?" thread about tone, arguments, and such on TC that made me think of this. I was reading all the different opinions about whether or not people are civil on here, and I was just thinking "You know what, I want to see some examples!"


----------



## Albert7

I haven't been here all that long but I think that the sexuality of women in classical music thread is the most memorable to me so far. It wasn't the most philosophical however but it was entertaining.


----------



## Dedalus

Yeah! I have actually read through a fair bit of that one, and I also thought it was pretty entertaining. Let me just say that I disagreed VERY strongly with one side of that debate, but I'm glad there was a forum for them to speak none-the-less.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

My favorite debate thus far has been, "Cereal and Serial: Connections and Contrasts". Some said Webern, others said Wheaties. Either way, despite all the infractions incurred, it was not to be missed.


----------



## brotagonist

Check out any of numerous threads started by millionrainbows, some guy and ArtMusic, as well as threads on dissonance, atonality, modern or contemporary or avant garde music, etc. I cannot point out an exact thread, but, if you scan the lists for the aforementioned posters and topics and, often, watch for high page counts, you will likely come cross heated debate. Oh, also, look in the politics and religion sub-forum, too.


----------



## Ukko

One of the most contentious debates was in Area 51 - about TC. It was before your time here, and you won't find it if you look. That's probably just as well, because it came to nothing.

Among the threads that are probably still findable are several on the subject of 'tonality'. Dunno what reading them would do for your edification about music, but about human frailties maybe some.


----------



## opus55

There was a user named after the composer Myaskovsky. It could've been just coincidence but every thread I see him in, he was at odds with the other members. One particular thread I remember is where he claimed that Naxos recordings were cheap because they are bad?!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

http://www.talkclassical.com/28338-should-women-conduct.html was a very heated debate and http://www.talkclassical.com/13778-what-point-atonal-music.html is a timeless classic


----------



## science

All debates are good as long as they are friendly and respectful even to the people who know the least about the topic.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

My favorite debates are Woodduck's: he plays the TC Socrates to some of the post-modernist Glaucons and Thrasymachuses.

He patiently, politely, and _devastatingly_ deconstructs the deconstructors.


----------



## Dustin

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> http://www.talkclassical.com/28338-should-women-conduct.html was a very heated debate and http://www.talkclassical.com/13778-what-point-atonal-music.html is a timeless classic


That atonal thread led me to a Sciarrino sonata on Youtube, which was hilariously referred to as "Sonata for Forehead and Sledgehammer":lol:


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Dustin said:


> That atonal thread led me to a Sciarrino sonata on Youtube, which was hilariously referred to as "Sonata for Forehead and Sledgehammer":lol:







That is_ so _choice. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Dedalus said:


> I love a good debate, especially one that gets heated, though without degenerating into (too many) insults.


Me? I hate a bad debate, especially those which cool off too fast, especially when they generate insults galore ... Wish I could say more, but I've said enough, I'm sure.

By the way, I prefer Icarus to Dedalus, even if Icarus was the foolish one who crashed into the sea. Hey, he was only a kid. Cut him a break.

I gotta go now and fight with my dog.


----------



## hpowders

The debate on Lang Lang's ability provided the most amusing sparks for me.


----------



## scratchgolf

Marschallin Blair said:


> My favorite debates are Woodduck's: he plays the TC Socrates to some of the post-modernist Glaucons and Thrasymachuses.
> 
> He patiently, politely, and _devastatingly_ deconstructs the deconstructors.
> 
> View attachment 58315


I'd call him the TC Robin Hood. Defender of the little guy. He usually says what I'm thinking, with a more expansive vocabulary.


----------



## hpowders

"People Who Dislike Glenn Gould" brought out some heated debates among loyalists and detractors.


----------



## elgar's ghost

opus55 said:


> There was a user named after the composer Myaskovsky. It could've been just coincidence but every thread I see him in, he was at odds with the other members. One particular thread I remember is where he claimed that Naxos recordings were cheap because they are bad?!


Ah, yes - I remember he had a real downer on Naxos heh heh...

I like any debate that revolves around Shostakovich, even if it covers well-worn ground.


----------



## Dedalus

SONNET CLV said:


> Me? I hate a bad debate, especially those which cool off too fast, especially when they generate insults galore ... Wish I could say more, but I've said enough, I'm sure.
> 
> By the way, I prefer Icarus to Dedalus, even if Icarus was the foolish one who crashed into the sea. Hey, he was only a kid. Cut him a break.
> 
> I gotta go now and fight with my dog.


This has to be the single only time anybody has ever known the origin of my name, or at least the first time somebody has done so and mentioned it to me. But no, no, no, Icarus is far worse than Dedalus. First off, it's Dedalus who invents the wings, and it's Dedalus who even warns Icarus not to fly too close to the sun and does he listen? No! Icarus flies too close to the sun and plummets to the earth while Dedalus lives to tell his tale. Clearly the father is far superior to the son.

The name is also a reference to James Joyce's character Stephen Dedalus from The Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man, and Ulysses. Double reference!


----------



## hpowders

"Mozart, God or Garbage?", even though set up as a purposeful provocation, elicited spirited debate, though the correct response, IMHO, would have been simply to ignore this ridiculous OP, yet the debate went on and on, ad nauseam.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Dedalus said:


> This has to be the single only time anybody has ever known the origin of my name, or at least the first time somebody has done so and mentioned it to me. But no, no, no, Icarus is far worse than Dedalus. First off, it's Dedalus who invents the wings, and it's Dedalus who even warns Icarus not to fly too close to the sun and does he listen? No! Icarus flies too close to the sun and plummets to the earth while Dedalus lives to tell his tale. Clearly the father is far superior to the son.


'Why, what a peevish fool was that of Crete, that taught his son the office of a fowl!' (Henry VI pt. III - Act V, Scene VI) :lol:


----------



## Nereffid

I actually enjoy the Wagner/Nazism threads, not because it's a subject that needs to be brought up again and again, but for the frisson of excitement I get when the anti-Semites on the boards come very close to actually saying something anti-Semitic. On the last occasion someone did actually "go there" and started channeling the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Obnoxious views, but the faux-pas was hilarious. Deleted now, of course.


----------



## scratchgolf

Then there was the Mother, Spider, Brick guy who used to drool over Brandenburg 5. If my memory serves me correctly, he returned numerous times with multiple screen names. The last time was an extremely vulgar post and I haven't seen him since.


----------



## hpowders

If you really want to find the best TC debates use the search function for "atonal".

"What is the Point of Atonal Music?" provoked a lot of strong responses, pro and con.


----------



## Guest

Nah - the best threads have been the ones debating the connections between classical and metal.

That, and bellbottom's threads. I love seeing architecture in India.

I also enjoy the ones that put forward the superiority of music recorded pre-stereo over all that has come since.


----------



## hpowders

Russian Music vs German Music provided me with a few laughs.


----------



## Figleaf

Marschallin Blair said:


> My favorite debates are Woodduck's: he plays the TC Socrates to some of the post-modernist Glaucons and Thrasymachuses.
> 
> He patiently, politely, and _devastatingly_ deconstructs the deconstructors.
> 
> View attachment 58315


Well at least the TC Socrates always argues in good faith and is scrupulously polite. It's been a while since I read Plato (resting on my academic laurels since graduation) but his Socrates tends to lay traps for the unwary and be infuriatingly smug: no wonder those he bested were tempted to murderous revenge. Plus, going by their respective avatars, our Socrates is considerably handsomer than the historical one!


----------



## millionrainbows

Admit it, the best threads are those which contain some element of conflict.


----------



## Ludric

millionrainbows said:


> Admit it, the best threads are those which contain some element of conflict.


Just like how a good piece of music or a story needs some element of conflict.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

millionrainbows said:


> Admit it, the best threads are those which contain some element of conflict.


Apart from threads by Bellbottom, of course.


----------



## Albert7

Good that we talked about the best threads. But what about the worst threads? I can't think of any.


----------



## Xaltotun

Figleaf said:


> Well at least the TC Socrates always argues in good faith and is scrupulously polite. It's been a while since I read Plato (resting on my academic laurels since graduation) but his Socrates tends to lay traps for the unwary and be infuriatingly smug: no wonder those he bested were tempted to murderous revenge. Plus, going by their respective avatars, our Socrates is considerably handsomer than the historical one!


Socrates is a bit annoying sometimes when he is being Socrates; he is breathtaking when he is being Plato.

But any thread with Woodduck or millionrainbows posting is a good thread IMO.


----------



## Guest

albertfallickwang said:


> Good that we talked about the best threads. But what about the worst threads? I can't think of any.


The Fetish thread, I think, was perhaps the worst.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Xaltotun said:


> Socrates is a bit annoying sometimes when he is being Socrates; he is breathtaking when he is being Plato.
> 
> But any thread with Woodduck or millionrainbows posting is a good thread IMO.


Same for me, but the reverse-- as Socrates was an individualist interested in truth whereas Plato was a collectivist interested in power.

Its no question to me where Woodduck would stand.


----------



## Musicforawhile

'Should women conduct' thread - this 'argument' shouldn't even be given the time of day. And the current one about why are there more men on TC, which seems to be an opportunity for men to bash women.


----------



## clavichorder

DrMike said:


> The Fetish thread, I think, was perhaps the worst.


Ha, I wasn't aware you were aware of that hilarious and frightening thread. The mods will probably try to silence any mention of it. It didn't exist.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Musicforawhile said:


> 'Should women conduct' thread - this 'argument' shouldn't even be given the time of day. And the current one about why are there more men on TC, which seems to be an opportunity for men to bash women.


I have not seen anything that looks like bashing there.

The Alma Deutscher thread was pretty epic, it grew to over 50 pages in a week. Also, the "Why do you NOT like Wagner thread" that gets resurrected every once in a while, was a lot of fun to read and participate in. As my man said after reading it, it contains everything from Valhalla to bratwurst.


----------



## violadude

clavichorder said:


> Ha, I wasn't aware you were aware of that hilarious and frightening thread. The mods will probably try to silence any mention of it. It didn't exist.


Woah...I just realized how much tougher the mods have gotten over the years considering the stuff we said on that thread :lol:

Contrary to Dr. Mike's opinion, I had a lot of fun on that thread.


----------



## Crudblud

I think the fetish thread was rather good, and in any case I don't recall it being much of an argument or debate. Come to think of it, it's probably the most unforcedly peaceful and open thread I can recall seeing here.

We've had lots of really bad arguments/debates here, most recently perhaps being the currently locked Alma Deutscher thread. Of course, the question, to me at least, is by what criteria should I make the judgement? For instance: is length by page count an important factor, and if so: is a debate over something stupid that goes on 50 pages worse than a debate over something worthwhile that lasts only two?

I recall a Shostakovich debate of some sort which was turned into an absolute trainwreck by a certain Stalin apologist, and I'm not sure if that thread is one of the worst or one of the best... The same poster, in another thread, tried to convince myself and others that electric guitars were invented to mimic brass sections and that rock music had nothing to do with the blues etc. But were those really bad threads, or was it just bad that one person said some dumb stuff? There are always going to be idiotic posts - and tangential arguments spawned from them - in any debate, but while they may stand out, are they perhaps all we remember of the thread?

I don't even know why I'm thinking so much about this, though perhaps if my post takes this thread in a particular direction, we may find that it answers its own question via formal demonstration.

P.S.: On the subject of "bad threads": _Ahhhh, the darkness!_ (mysteriously disappeared) springs to mind, but is unfortunately unavailable to newcomers.


----------



## millionrainbows

Crudblud said:


> P.S.: On the subject of "bad threads": _Ahhhh, the darkness!_ (mysteriously disappeared) springs to mind, but is unfortunately unavailable to newcomers.


If you remember it, it must have had some redeeming quality of interest.


----------



## DeepR

I forgot his name but whatever happened to that guy who made all those "symphonies" with what seemed like general midi or cheap keyboard sounds. He ignored all advice and I guess he was really naive (or joking) somehow, but I did admire his creative drive.


----------



## Guest

Crudblud said:


> [...] On the subject of "bad threads": _Ahhhh, the darkness!_ (mysteriously disappeared) springs to mind, but is unfortunately unavailable to newcomers.


You couldn't, perchance, give us an extreme _synthèse_ of this thread could you, Crud?


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

violadude said:


> Woah...I just realized how much tougher the mods have gotten over the years considering the stuff we said on that thread :lol:
> 
> Contrary to Dr. Mike's opinion, I had a lot of fun on that thread.


 I can't believe I missed it all


----------



## Crudblud

millionrainbows said:


> If you remember it, it must have had some redeeming quality of interest.


In a so-bad-it's-good kind of way, yes, I suppose it did.



TalkingHead said:


> You couldn't, perchance, give us an extreme _synthèse_ of this thread could you, Crud?


It would be quite difficult for me to do it justice, trust me on this, but perhaps someone with better recall of the finer details might explain for your benefit(?).


----------



## Guest

That bad, was it?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

DrMike said:


> The Fetish thread, I think, was perhaps the worst.


Oh the infamous fetish thread! I didn't post much at all there I don't think....perhaps I was just a little wary of the mods! But yeah, as violadude stated, the mods have _really_ become stricter since....

:lol:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Does anyone remember the time Couchie was drunk?


----------



## PetrB

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Does anyone remember the time Couchie was drunk?


LOL. I thought that state is frequent enough there, if I read things right.


----------



## PetrB

Nothing in particular:

But I will "Name" just about all those threads which take hold of modern / contemporary, dis it to smithereens.

These are those threads where many seem to take a stance akin to "The Moral Majority" i.e., a number of posts from the anti modern-contemporary begin to congeal into some more than dubious pudding of "owning the high moral ground," just because those who post in that manner are not much capable or interested in hearing / listening to rep post common practice tonality.

These POV's are all similar, i.e. as if the posters are cloaking and glamorizing their inability (or preference), which is I suppose a common enough self-defense when one's self-conceit has it that you know and love all music, but in reality have a very large blank area 

Sometimes, the tone of smugness in those "moral high ground" posts is near to _awesome!_


----------



## millionrainbows

Crudblud said:


> It would be quite difficult for me to do it justice, trust me on this, but perhaps someone with better recall of the finer details might explain for your benefit(?).


The basic premise of _"Ahh, the Darkness"_ was based on the Jungian notion of "The Shadow" or "dark side" of the psyche. Since, in Jung's view, the Shadow is a basic component of Man's psyche, then the "problem" arises when people try to suppress or deny the existence of their own shadow, while at the same time retaining the ability to easily see this Shadow manifest in others. Thus, the "darkness" becomes a projection on to others, a distancing of their own psyche from "evil" or the Shadow, much in the same way Christians have developed the idea of The Devil.

Ironically, the result of such denial creates its own autonomous, unconscious manifestation of The Shadow, resulting in it becoming an uncontrolled, unassimilated force of the psyche. Examples: The Inquisition, McCarthyism, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, etc.

_"Ahh, the Darkness" _was an attempt to invite members into confronting their own shadows, using music as the vehicle. I believe the first example I used was a piece by Mozart, which seems to have been overshadowed by the Schubert Quartet No. 15, which is nonetheless an interesting later work by him, harmonically restless, with agressive dotted rhythms.


----------



## Woodduck

Having come to TC too late to participate in it, and not wishing to provoke cries of "Oh no! Is this thread still alive?", I recently read from beginning to end "What is the point of atonal music?", a thread begun in 2011, but chose to let a sleeping dog lie. I'd hoped that in 132 pages the subject would have been covered pretty thoroughly, and there was indeed plenty of good discussion in addition to the usual pointless tit-for-tatting and entertaining goofing around. But, left with an unscratched itch to get a little more deeply into the meaning of "tonal" and "atonal" music, I went to some of the threads started by millionrainbows on the subject of tonality, which I'd recommend to anyone with a little (well, maybe more than a little!) understanding of/tolerance for theoretical terminology. 

Having been at this for a while now, I've noticed that the subject of tonality, being apparently impossible to define to everyone's satisfaction, inevitably winds up mired in a swamp of technicalities. I've also noticed that that it's a lightning rod for "conservative/modernist" (to put it crudely) debate; those who openly express the feeling that tonality in music is a source of meaning and expressiveness the like of which they cannot find in non- or post-tonal musics don't get a lot of sympathy from the generally more musically educated people who regard a strong preference for what is locally called "common practice tonality" as perhaps a regrettable prejudice or hang-up, a symptom of musical immaturity and/or stubbornness. Sometimes this is an understandable reaction to a crudely expressed intolerance for contemporary music, but often it seems to carry with it a basic assumption that there are no aspects of music which "ought" to be problematic for anyone willing to get over ingrained habits and biases. While I believe that all forms of music have artistic validity, and that most attempts to argue the superiority of one's tastes are uninformed, I can't be satisfied with this easy dismissal of tonality's prominence as an apparently primal aspect of humanity's musical instincts. Accordingly, I've been searching the forum, so far without success, for any informed discussion of tonality from the standpoints of neuropsychology, anthropology, and evolution - in other words, from the standpoint of tonality's origins and functions in human consciousness and behavior, and of any reasons, beyond the "accidents" of cultural conditioning, why the organization of pitches around a tonal center has such a widespread and compelling force in the world's (not only the western world's) music. (Such an inquiry, obviously, is but a subcategory of the biological-cultural study of music in general). I've begun to do some independent investigating of the subject myself, but if any TC members have any suggestions about how to proceed with this inquiry I would greatly appreciate hearing from them.


----------



## Mahlerian

Woodduck said:


> if any TC members have any suggestions about how to proceed with this inquiry I would greatly appreciate hearing from them.


By not defining tonal so arbitrarily.

Define "tonal" and "tonal center" in a meaningful, straightforward way, that is not dependent on the individual listener's perception. In what way is "the world's music" tonal that Schoenberg's Pierrot lunaire is not? Why is a chromatic scale categorically unable to generate a center (this is one of Millionrainbows' repeated assertions)? Why do those of us who enjoy this music not hear it as atonal at all, and conversely, why do those who dislike atonal music often claim that music that is unambiguously based on centers and triadic harmonies (Schoenberg's Chamber Symphony, Shostakovich's Fourth, some Hindemith) call this music atonal as well?

For those who think I am glib and dismissive surrounding this particular issue, I apologize. I am frustrated mostly because I care about music, and these debates rarely if ever result in any increased understanding of music stricken with the atonal label, let alone of the many ways in which it is connected to music that has not been so defined.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> ...the generally more musically educated people who regard a strong preference for what is locally called "common practice tonality" as perhaps a regrettable prejudice or hang-up, a symptom of musical immaturity and/or stubbornness.


Holy guacamole but this is a persistent notion.

A preference for common practice tonality is nothing more than a preference for common practice tonality. It is not a prejudice, regrettable or otherwise, nor a hang-up nor a symptom of musical immaturity nor stubbornness. It is a preference, like any other preference.

Where the reaction enters into it is when the preference is made normative, where the preference is stated as some sort of proof of the superiority, musical and moral, of tonal music. That kind of silliness is given short shrift, as it deserves.

A preference though? Just the preference itself? Nah. People can prefer whatever they want. Obviously. Who's gonna stop 'em? Come on Woodduck. Who's gonna stop 'em?

Truly, there is no one who thinks that a preference for common practice tonality is anything like what Woodduck has made up here. No one. Well, maybe someone. But they'd be wrong.

Practically anyone with an ounce of sense can reject the notion that that preference is somehow normal or even superior. Yeah. That can happen. That _should_ happen. The other stuff? Poppycock.



Woodduck said:


> I can't be satisfied with this easy dismissal of tonality's prominence as an apparently primal aspect of humanity's musical instincts.


That's because there's no "humanity"; there are only humans. And some humans don't find tonality to be prominent or primal. And easy dismissal? You have got to be kidding!! Easy. Tonality's prominence is the idea that just won't die. Easy? It's the most difficult notion to dismiss of all.



Woodduck said:


> Accordingly, I've been searching the forum, so far without success, for any informed discussion of tonality from the standpoints of neuropsychology, anthropology, and evolution


Now there's funny. Why would you search this forum for that kind of thing? Would you search the kitchen for a tube of toothpaste? That's in another room entirely.



Woodduck said:


> ...from the standpoint of tonality's origins and functions in human consciousness and behavior


Weii, that's key right there, if I may permitted the bad pun. There's no stand point about it. You are stretching tonality's meaning and importance way beyond what is verifiable historically, anyway. Common practice tonality is a dateable thing, and it's from not that long ago. Songs that go I V I are not "tonal" in any but the crudest sense. And maybe not even that.



Woodduck said:


> I've begun to do some independent investigating of the subject myself, but if any TC members have any suggestions about how to proceed with this inquiry I would greatly appreciate hearing from them.


My suggestion would be to give this one over and listen to some music. You might surprise yourself. All this energy into high-powered philosophical ideas about tonality could be put to so much better use just listening to a lot of different kinds of music, not for how well they can illustrate forgone conclusions about the putative superiority of this or that system, but for how they sound.

And if you don't like how something sounds, don't take that dislike as meaning anything except that you don't like that particular thing. Go beyond that and you'll get some pushback, yeah. Go beyond that, and you _should_ get some pushback.


----------



## dgee

Aren't there heaps of claims supporting the "natural order" of "tonality" etc - whole books written about the subject? Consonance, overtones, brain scans all that sort of stuff. I'm sure the matter has even been on TC loads. Anyhow, I think it's a well-traversed subject so shouldn't be hard to find summaries of the latest and greatest thoughts about it extensively referenced

Good luck, if that's your thing


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

"World's music" isn't tonal. It's *modal*.

Modality works by taking a collection of notes and working with them according to certain melodic (intervallic) formulae.

For example, the Karelians work with the first five notes of the Dorian mode (D, E, F, G, A) using the rest (B and C) for expressive melodic development. Meanwhile, the Japanese work with their Yo scale which coincides with 'degrees' I, II, IV, V, Vl of the Dorian (D, E, G, A, B) using 'degrees' III and VII (E and C) for ornamentation and modulation.

This can lead to ambiguity for tonal ears as the mannerisms at play often do not coincide with the grammar of tonality and the notes in use can appear to have equal importance or meaning (thus suggesting more than one tonal centre to tonal ears).

'Tonal function' is merely another arbitrary concept of our western culture, perhaps inspired by some of the folk music of northern Italy and Germany.


----------



## aleazk

Amoral, mean, ivory-tower intellectuals, who like music which is _against_ nature and science.

I guess I will have to return my physicist degree then. 

Well, I guess I still can compose, I can reasume that Webern influenced piece... uh, wait!...  again

Well, I'm still alive, I guess that counts... uh, wait!...  again

Hoy cow! I'm a non-person!


----------



## SeptimalTritone

some guy said:


> My suggestion would be to give this one over and listen to some music. You might surprise yourself. All this energy into high-powered philosophical ideas about tonality could be put to so much better use just listening to a lot of different kinds of music, not for how well they can illustrate forgone conclusions about the putative superiority of this or that system, but for how they sound.


I agree 100%. This is essential. A thorough exploration of modern music, from Schoenberg/Berg/Webern, to late Stravinsky, to Varese and Stockhausen, to Cage, to Boulez and Xenakis, to Messiaen and Dutilleux, to Carter and Babbitt, to Berio and Nono and Dallapiccola and Scelsi, etc. Any philosophical discussion of the merits of modern music must start with a solid grounding of an intuitive realization of its emotional power.

Remember that people rioted at the Rite of Spring premier, but nowadays everybody on TC likes the Rite of Spring. If you did a "psychological analysis" in the 1910s or 1920s of the "inherent" unlikeableness of the Rite of Spring's harmonic language... it would be a total waste.

Entering a deep psychological or philosophical investigation is useless without having an intuitive grasp of the variety of expression of modern music, and listening to it. It would be like doing philosophy of physics without knowing any relativity or quantum mechanics.


----------



## aleazk

SeptimalTritone said:


> It would be like doing philosophy of physics without knowing any relativity or quantum mechanics.


:lol: this reminded me those new agy 'collective quantum energy' and the likes. You are defnitely right there!


----------



## Blake

aleazk said:


> :lol: this reminded me those new agy 'collective quantum energy' and the likes. You are defnitely right there!


It seems it's the sappy presentation of the "new age" types that is the most turn off. Because it doesn't seem far out to think that the cosmos is just one big collage of interacting energies. Even in an apparent vacuum of "nothing" there is still energy there. I remember hearing Krauss talking about that.

Amazing stuff. I'm sure you've explored pretty deep into that.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Woodduck said:


> Having come to TC too late to participate in it, and not wishing to provoke cries of "Oh no! Is this thread still alive?", I recently read from beginning to end "What is the point of atonal music?", a thread begun in 2011, but chose to let a sleeping dog lie. I'd hoped that in 132 pages the subject would have been covered pretty thoroughly, and there was indeed plenty of good discussion in addition to the usual pointless tit-for-tatting and entertaining goofing around. But, left with an unscratched itch to get a little more deeply into the meaning of "tonal" and "atonal" music, I went to some of the threads started by millionrainbows on the subject of tonality, which I'd recommend to anyone with a little (well, maybe more than a little!) understanding of/tolerance for theoretical terminology.
> 
> Having been at this for a while now, I've noticed that the subject of tonality, being apparently impossible to define to everyone's satisfaction, inevitably winds up mired in a swamp of technicalities. I've also noticed that that it's a lightning rod for "conservative/modernist" (to put it crudely) debate; those who openly express the feeling that tonality in music is a source of meaning and expressiveness the like of which they cannot find in non- or post-tonal musics don't get a lot of sympathy from the generally more musically educated people who regard a strong preference for what is locally called "common practice tonality" as perhaps a regrettable prejudice or hang-up, a symptom of musical immaturity and/or stubbornness. Sometimes this is an understandable reaction to a crudely expressed intolerance for contemporary music, but often it seems to carry with it a basic assumption that there are no aspects of music which "ought" to be problematic for anyone willing to get over ingrained habits and biases. While I believe that all forms of music have artistic validity, and that most attempts to argue the superiority of one's tastes are uninformed, I can't be satisfied with this easy dismissal of tonality's prominence as an apparently primal aspect of humanity's musical instincts. Accordingly, I've been searching the forum, so far without success, for any informed discussion of tonality from the standpoints of neuropsychology, anthropology, and evolution - in other words, from the standpoint of tonality's origins and functions in human consciousness and behavior, and of any reasons, beyond the "accidents" of cultural conditioning, why the organization of pitches around a tonal center has such a widespread and compelling force in the world's (not only the western world's) music. (Such an inquiry, obviously, is but a subcategory of the biological-cultural study of music in general). I've begun to do some independent investigating of the subject myself, but if any TC members have any suggestions about how to proceed with this inquiry I would greatly appreciate hearing from them.


Okay Woodduck brings up this, and I don't know if I have actually ever put forward my own opinion as to the definition of "tonality" yet! :lol:

Just for the record, I've always understood tonality broadly as _a formal system in which pitch and chord functionality (including implied harmony) adhere to the theoretical rules of dissonance and resolution and their perceived affect on other pitches/chords in that context._ Anything with non-functional harmony, whether the harmony be triadic, make use of note clusters or be built on other less usual intervallic structures is what I think I would have to define as "non-tonal." But this label of "non-tonal" is _so_ broad that we are better off describing what the harmonic-melodic treatment in any given "non-tonal" piece is rather than what it isn't.


----------



## Woodduck

If anyone has any doubt that there are certain ideas and subjects which are best not brought up around here, and whether there are any ideological biases dominating discussion on TC, this pile-up of scornful responses to my perfectly reasonable inquiry should be proof enough.

The closest I came to defining "tonality" was to call it "the organization of pitches around a tonal center." I did not identify it with Western music or what is hereabouts called "common practice." In fact, a broad and very general concept of "tone-centeredness" is precisely the subject of my interest, with no implication that any particular style of music is or is not included in this. What I asked was simply whether anyone could direct me in pursuing an inquiry into the existence and undeniable force, for human beings in various cultures, of "tonal centering" in music from the standpoints of neurobiology, anthropology, and evolution. I have not investigated these things in the past and have become interested in them. Why does "tonal centering" - the tendency to sense the attractive force of certain pitches (or, in Western music, harmonies), and the tendency to relate other pitches to them in particular ways, exist? Does it exist in the most primitive musical cultures? Does it have any relationship to other aesthetic expressions, or to brain functions in general? Does it, possibly, serve any significant physical, psychological, or social purpose in the history of human existence?

For some reason, I don't find these questions strange or offensive, or completely outside of the potential interests of those interested in music. But apparently they are considered foreign here, as in some guy's response, best described as a rude blow-off, _"Why would you search this forum for that kind of thing? Would you search the kitchen for a tube of toothpaste?" _And this bit of presumptuousness: _"My suggestion would be to give this one over and listen to some music. You might surprise yourself. All this energy into high-powered philosophical ideas about tonality could be put to so much better use just listening to a lot of different kinds of music, not for how well they can illustrate forgone conclusions about the putative superiority of this or that system, but for how they sound. And if you don't like how something sounds, don't take that dislike as meaning anything except that you don't like that particular thing. Go beyond that and you'll get some pushback, yeah. Go beyond that, and you *should* get some pushback."_

Pushback indeed. Or just a push that says, very clearly, "Your way of speaking and questioning shows clearly that you are not one of the people whose ideas matter here, so get lost."

Believe me: confronted more than once with attitudes like this, I've considered it.


----------



## Guest

SeptimalTritone said:


> Remember that people rioted at the Rite of Spring premier, but nowadays everybody on TC likes the Rite of Spring. If you did a "psychological analysis" in the 1910s or 1920s of the "inherent" unlikeableness of the Rite of Spring's harmonic language... it would be a total waste.


I'm not sure that the Stravinsky is a good example, since what is on offer is what sounds to me like a transitional piece, with enough that is familiar (whatever the folks in the early 20thC made of it) for it not to be too off-putting.

I am, like Woodduck, interested in the idea that there may be some validity in the reason that the widespread popularity of "tonal" music is accounted for by its physiological/biological impact - closer to what humans naturally prefer, subconsciously, than music which moves away from the "natural" (all terms that are loaded with potential for dispute). I have posted often enough on the subject in a number of threads.

But being interested in the idea is not the same as wishing to propagate or enforce either an orthodoxy or a heresy or a superiority. For me, it's to do with wanting to explore my own reactions to various music stimulus, with wanting to not merely listen and enjoy, but to analyse and account for my response.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

MacLeod said:


> I am, like Woodduck, interested in the idea that there may be some validity in the reason that the widespread popularity of "tonal" music is accounted for by its physiological/biological impact - closer to what humans naturally prefer, subconsciously, than music which moves away from the "natural" (all terms that are loaded with potential for dispute). I have posted often enough on the subject in a number of threads.


Fair enough... but I think that the issue is almost 100% _cultural_. We basically never are exposed to atonal music in daily life. If you somehow made a child listen to equal amounts of tonal and atonal music from birth to 10 years old, there would be no "natural/innate" preference for tonal music.

In fact, if our society somehow listened to mostly atonal music, then if some composer discovered tonality, we would probably be appalled by how boring/cold/dead and overly consonant it is! It would probably be labeled unemotional/mathematical, and people would criticize the restrictiveness of functional progressions.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

SeptimalTritone said:


> Fair enough... but I think that the issue is almost 100% _cultural_. We basically never are exposed to atonal music in daily life. If you somehow made a child listen to equal amounts of tonal and atonal music from birth to 10 years old, there would be no "natural/innate" preference for tonal music.
> 
> In fact, if our society somehow listened to mostly atonal music, then if some composer discovered tonality, we would probably be appalled by how boring/cold/dead and overly consonant it is! It would probably be labeled unemotional/mathematical, and people would criticize the restrictiveness of functional progressions.


The first piece of music my children will ever hear is Mycanae Alpha by Xenakis


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure that the Stravinsky is a good example, since what is on offer is what sounds to me like a transitional piece, with enough that is familiar (whatever the folks in the early 20thC made of it) for it not to be too off-putting.


There's some evidence that the "riot" at Sacre's premier was orchestrated, or at least welcomed, by Stravinsky, Diaghilev, and others. Wonderful publicity! But Sacre's music seems to have been popular from the first with audiences (the choreography perhaps less so).

The riot became _de rigueur _in Paris after that. At one of Antheil's premieres there a few years later, the usual riot was filmed for a later cinema release. After it was over, the producer asked the audience to repeat the riot for retakes and close-ups. They happily obliged.


----------



## Guest

SeptimalTritone said:


> Fair enough... but I think that the issue is almost 100% _cultural_. We basically never are exposed to atonal music in daily life. If you *somehow *made a child listen to equal amounts of tonal and atonal music from birth to 10 years old, there would be no "natural/innate" preference for tonal music.
> 
> In fact, if our society *somehow *listened to mostly atonal music, then if some composer discovered tonality, we would probably be appalled by how boring/cold/dead and overly consonant it is! It would probably be labeled unemotional/mathematical, and people would criticize the restrictiveness of functional progressions.


You may be right, but that 'somehow' is all important. The difficulty of putting a child to such a test means that what we can do is weigh what evidence we have, not what we haven't (by 'we' I mean those who are interested in the proposition, not including those who might think it a fruitless and worthless exercise.)

One source of possible evidence is that among those who have expressed preferences here, the smallest number seems to be those who like _only _'modern' or 'atonal'. Cultural conditioning may have passed them by!


----------



## science

SeptimalTritone said:


> It would be like doing philosophy of physics without knowing any relativity or quantum mechanics.


This is the situation of all of us here except the professional musicians and especially the professional academics whose field is music.


----------



## Woodduck

SeptimalTritone said:


> Fair enough... but I think that *the issue is almost 100% cultural*. We basically never are exposed to atonal music in daily life. *If you somehow made a child listen to equal amounts of tonal and atonal music from birth to 10 years old, there would be no "natural/innate" preference for tonal music.*
> 
> In fact, if our society somehow listened to mostly atonal music, then *if some composer discovered tonality, we would probably be appalled by how boring/cold/dead and overly consonant it is! It would probably be labeled unemotional/mathematical, and people would criticize the restrictiveness of functional progressions.*


A few questions.

Is there a single shred of evidence for any of your statements? If they were true, why would tonality - either in the general sense of tone-centeredness, or in the specific sense of our Western harmonic system - ever have arisen, much less evolved? And where have the arts ever existed without "restrictive" principles of construction? Have you ever considered the idea that it is formal "restrictions," i.e. principles and boundaries - whether culturally accepted or self-imposed - which make significant artistic expression, in fact meaningful communication of any kind, possible? (Stravinsky and G.K.Chesterton had some words to say on that subject, and I have a suspicion that Schoenberg did too. You might want to check them out, though I'm sorry I can't recall specific sources).

I think the notion that tonal, or tone-centered, or modal music, of Europe or india or anywhere you please, is appallingly boring, cold, and dead, would come as a great surprise to a fair number of people who thought they were having some of the most moving and meaningful and valuable experiences of their lives. Would they all be suffering from some sort of cross-cultural delusion?


----------



## mmsbls

Woodduck said:


> I've begun to do some independent investigating of the subject myself, but if any TC members have any suggestions about how to proceed with this inquiry I would greatly appreciate hearing from them.


There have been a few threads that begin to touch on tonality from the standpoints of neuropsychology, anthropology, and evolution. As far as I can tell, there are no TC members who have any particular expertise in those areas, but there have been several who have a modest interest.

One member, Polednice, posted a list of books and articles here. I have only read a couple of these and don't know if they would similar to your interests.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Woodduck said:


> A few questions.
> 
> Is there a single shred of evidence for any of your statements? If they were true, why would tonality - either in the general sense of tone-centeredness, or in the specific sense of our Western harmonic system - ever have arisen, much less evolved?


My hypothesis for this comes from the point of view of an ability to make judgments of sound based on aural perceptions of the harmonic overtone series and how certain wavelengths, when combined, produce certain ratios which we have been conditioned to think of as more "pleasing to the ear" over time. Pythagoras worked out all these ratios and Millionrainbows is more of an expert in this than me.

Please note, I mentioned the word "conditioned," as in we have been indirectly influenced by our own past to come up with the music that we have now. It's really a matter of customs which have evolved over time. If Western classical music had evolved from the instruments in a gagaku orchestra, our sense of harmonic function will be completely different.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> this pile-up of scornful responses to my perfectly reasonable inquiry


"Scornful" is your interpretation. It was certainly not my intent. And if I get to count my interpretations as fact, too, then I would say that all the scorn is on the other side, for sure. As for perfectly reasonable, well I did not find it to be so. And I explained why.



Woodduck said:


> pursuing an inquiry into the existence and undeniable force, for human beings in various cultures, of "tonal centering" in music from the standpoints of neurobiology, anthropology, and evolution.


I cannot speak for the others who have responded to you, but I can say for myself that I perceive disingenuousness here. That comes from your putting two incompatible things together in the same sentence as if they were compatible: "pursuing an inquiry" and "undeniable." Why, if it's undeniable, would you pursue an inquiry into it? You've already concluded that it is undeniable. (And possibly even scorn people who would deny it?) So pursuing an inquiry into the existence of something that you not only assume but that you have already concluded is undeniable just doesn't seem quite the thing.



Woodduck said:


> I have not investigated these things in the past and have become interested in them.


OK, here's where I can explain why I react to you the way I react. So at least you can understand my reactions as something other than scornful. What I read here, based on how you have argued in many other posts, is that you have not found any solid proof that your own impressions about what is good and valuable in music are actually valid. And you want to find some solid proof. As well, this will give you solid proof that the people you disagree with are wrong. As one of those people, I of course cannot see anything good in your attempt to prove that I'm wrong. To prove that my responses to musics that you dislike are invalid somehow.

Don't immediately think "but that's not what I'm doing." I'm saying what I perceive so that you can better understand why I react.



Woodduck said:


> Why does "tonal centering" - the tendency to sense the attractive force of certain pitches (or, in Western music, harmonies), and the tendency to relate other pitches to them in particular ways, exist? Does it exist in the most primitive musical cultures? Does it have any relationship to other aesthetic expressions, or to brain functions in general? Does it, possibly, serve any significant physical, psychological, or social purpose in the history of human existence?


And here, I find the questions that you do not ask even more revealing than the ones you do. Their absence reveals a decided agenda, an ideological purpose, as it were. Those questions would be something like this: is tonal centering the only way to organize pitches that is musically and aesthetically satisfying? Are there other ways equally pleasant and fulfilling?

Remember, you're not just asking if those ways are satisfying or pleasant to you. You have already said that they aren't. The questions are whether those ways can satisfy or please.

And obviously, they can.



Woodduck said:


> For some reason, I don't find these questions strange or offensive, or completely outside of the potential interests of those interested in music.


I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that no one else finds them strange or offensive either. I could be wrong about that. I don't find the questions you asked strange or offensive. I found the exclusion of other questions that should have been asked to be strange, yes. And maybe a little bit offensive.

I find the apparent desire to invalidate the experiences that asking those excluded questions would reveal to be strange and offensive. Hence my response to you.



Woodduck said:


> a rude blow-off


Well, I found this remark to be rude. I did indeed.



Woodduck said:


> "Your way of speaking and questioning shows clearly that you are not one of the people whose ideas matter here, so get lost."


Best to let me speak for myself. I can do it, you know. And this thing that you have put in my mouth (into several mouths, actually) is not at all what I am saying.

You have made some assertions about music and about listening that I disagree with. It's that that's apparently what's forbidden. In fact, I recall you saying to me in another thread that I shouldn't still be responding to you as you already had told me to stop. That sounds like you telling me to get lost, not the other way around.

A conversation is not one person making assertions and everyone else agreeing. That's just not gonna happen.


----------



## Mahlerian

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure that the Stravinsky is a good example, since what is on offer is what sounds to me like a transitional piece, with enough that is familiar (whatever the folks in the early 20thC made of it) for it not to be too off-putting.


One somewhat prominent book, written by a composer in the 1930s, claimed that the harmony of Rite of Spring was in places completely arbitrary and that the music only made sense at all in light of its rhythm.

Numerous studies of the music in the decades since have shown the exact opposite; the harmony and rhythm are equal partners in making the work the masterpiece it is.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Woodduck... it would be a cosmic disaster if this amazing, beautiful Webern Cantata (one of his last few works) were somehow "inherently" inferior. Please listen Woodduck and tell us what you think: it's only 8 minutes.


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> I cannot speak for the others who have responded to you, but I can say for myself that I perceive disingenuousness here. That comes from your putting two incompatible things together in the same sentence as if they were compatible: "pursuing an inquiry" and "undeniable." Why, if it's undeniable, would you pursue an inquiry into it? You've already concluded that it is undeniable. (And possibly even scorn people who would deny it?) So pursuing an inquiry into the existence of something that you not only assume but that you have already concluded is undeniable just doesn't seem quite the thing.


As someone who has also indicated interest in 'enquiry', I would like to make clear that my enquiry is not into the existence of x, which is, IMO, undeniable, but the reasons behind x. I can't speak for Woodduck of course, but I don;t see the problem that you describe here.


----------



## aleazk

some guy said:


> I cannot speak for the others who have responded to you, but I can say for myself that I perceive disingenuousness here. That comes from your putting two incompatible things together in the same sentence as if they were compatible: "pursuing an inquiry" and "undeniable." Why, if it's undeniable, would you pursue an inquiry into it? You've already concluded that it is undeniable. (And possibly even scorn people who would deny it?) So pursuing an inquiry into the existence of something that you not only assume but that you have already concluded is undeniable just doesn't seem quite the thing.


"_He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times_"

-Bertrand Russell on Thomas Aquinas.


----------



## science

Language warning, but funny if you don't mind a little vulgarity: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2939#comic


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> But, left with an unscratched itch to get a little more deeply into the meaning of "tonal" and "atonal" music, I went to some of the threads started by millionrainbows on the subject of tonality, which I'd recommend to anyone with a little (well, maybe more than a little!) understanding of/tolerance for theoretical terminology.


Thank you, Woodduck.



Woodduck said:


> Having been at this for a while now, I've noticed that the subject of tonality, being apparently impossible to define to everyone's satisfaction, inevitably winds up mired in a swamp of technicalities...I've begun to do some independent investigating of the subject myself, but if any TC members have any suggestions about how to proceed with this inquiry I would greatly appreciate hearing from them.


To really understand the difference in tonality and 12-tone/serialism, you must first have a firm concept of what tonality is, and what it's based on; only then, by comparison, can you proceed.

Inevitably, this leads to technicalities. But much of this is simplified when one understands the harmonic model, and how our ears hear.

Tonality is based on a harmonic model; an hierarchy based on a fundamental/tonic note, and its subservient harmonics/functions. To further prove and solidify this understanding (which can remain intuitive if one wishes not to proceed further), it helps to see the pure math behind intervals, and understand how intervals are expressed as fractions; because the hierarchy of tonality is based on relationships of notes to a "tonic" or fundamental note.

There's no "easy" answer. Just as in any technical field, like electronics, the more you study the schematics of amplifiers, the more you begin to accept as "givens" those things that seem so hard to grasp at first; then one can go back and examine these "givens" in isolation, for a deeper understanding.

A main concept to understand is the difference between tonal and serial inversion. Then one begins to understand the "directional" or recursive nature of tonality, and the difference in the circle of fifths and the number line.

Good luck. Who knows when the "eureka" moment will come. On the other hand, some people are content to have a "utilitarian" version of these things, without questioning or delving in to the "givens," but simply accepting them. I'm not that way; I want to understand something to its very core. This is why I read 2 or 3 books on the number "zero," because I was dissatisfied with merely accepting clocks and calendars with no zero.


----------



## Blake

aleazk said:


> "_He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times_"
> 
> -Bertrand Russell on Thomas Aquinas.


Haha, I thought you had put that it was Russell on himself. I was thinking... wow, what humility. Self-deprecation, maybe...

Regardless, that is a clean insight into how many debates go - I'm just waiting for the chance to prove my theory correct. I don't really care about the truth of the matter.


----------



## Guest

Nothing wrong in the idea of forming a hypothesis and checking for evidence to support it. Not all enquiry must be open-ended - though it should be open-minded.


----------



## Woodduck

some guy said:


> "Scornful" is your interpretation. It was certainly not my intent. And if I get to count my interpretations as fact, too, then I would say that all the scorn is on the other side, for sure. As for perfectly reasonable, well I did not find it to be so. And I explained why.
> 
> I cannot speak for the others who have responded to you, but *I can say for myself that I perceive disingenuousness here.* That comes from your putting two incompatible things together in the same sentence as if they were compatible: "pursuing an inquiry" and "undeniable." Why, if it's undeniable, would you pursue an inquiry into it? You've already concluded that it is undeniable. (And possibly even scorn people who would deny it?) So pursuing an inquiry into the existence of something that you not only assume but that you have already concluded is undeniable just doesn't seem quite the thing.
> 
> OK, here's where I can explain why I react to you the way I react. So at least you can understand my reactions as something other than scornful. What I read here, based on how you have argued in many other posts, is that *you have not found any solid proof that your own impressions about what is good and valuable in music are actually valid. And you want to find some solid proof. As well, this will give you solid proof that the people you disagree with are wrong. As one of those people, I of course cannot see anything good in your attempt to prove that I'm wrong. *To prove that my responses to musics that you dislike are invalid somehow.
> 
> Don't immediately think "but that's not what I'm doing." I'm saying what I perceive so that you can better understand why I react.
> 
> And here, *I find the questions that you do not ask even more revealing than the ones you do. Their absence reveals a decided agenda, an ideological purpose, as it were. Those questions would be something like this: is tonal centering the only way to organize pitches that is musically and aesthetically satisfying? Are there other ways equally pleasant and fulfilling?*
> 
> Remember, you're not just asking if those ways are satisfying or pleasant to you. You have already said that they aren't. The questions are whether those ways can satisfy or please.
> 
> And obviously, they can.
> 
> I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that no one else finds them strange or offensive either. I could be wrong about that. I don't find the questions you asked strange or offensive. I found the exclusion of other questions that should have been asked to be strange, yes. And maybe a little bit offensive.
> 
> *I find the apparent desire to invalidate the experiences that asking those excluded questions would reveal to be strange and offensive.* Hence my response to you.
> 
> Well, I found this remark to be rude. I did indeed.
> 
> Best to let me speak for myself. I can do it, you know. And this thing that you have put in my mouth (into several mouths, actually) is not at all what I am saying.
> 
> You have made some assertions about music and about listening that I disagree with. It's that that's apparently what's forbidden. In fact, I recall you saying to me in another thread that I shouldn't still be responding to you as you already had told me to stop. That sounds like you telling me to get lost, not the other way around.
> 
> A conversation is not one person making assertions and everyone else agreeing. That's just not gonna happen.


It really is pathetic that you cannot resist adding insult to injury when taken to task for your appalling manners. It is no one's proper business here to pychoanalyze people and tell them when they are being "disingenuous" and therefore deserving of censure and condescension.

We are here to exchange ideas. _The first requirement in that process is that we give each other presumptive credit for saying what we mean and meaning what we say._ If I were actually looking, as you claim I am, for "proof" that "my" music is better than "your" music, and that your responses to the music you like were "invalid," I would be quite capable of saying, and willing to say, that that is what I thought and was trying to prove. But that is not what I think, and that is not what I'm trying to prove. You have merely assumed it. You have made it up. You have attributed to me purposes and motives, and attacked me for them. And as for not asking, in a very preliminary inquiry, all the questions you think I should ask, and the "agenda" you think this reveals, I ask you bluntly: who do you think you are to tell me what questions I should be asking, and when and why I should be asking them, and what my choice of questions says about me or my "agenda"? As it happens, I find the questions you think I ought to be asking utterly obvious and elementary, simple corollaries of the main line of inquiry I've posed. I don't need you to bring them to my attention.

I'm not going to embarrass myself, as you have embarrassed yourself, by offering interminable reams of amateur psychologizing and convoluted self-justifications that purport to "explain" and discredit your motives, as you have tried with utter lack of grace - and lack of success - to "explain" and discredit mine. Your motives are your own business. I can only remark on your overt behavior. I find it uncivilized and inexcusable. And, if it means anything to you - which I fear it doesn't - so do a goodly number of other members of this forum.


----------



## hpowders

"What is the Greatest Musical Work of the Twentieth Century?" was rather enlightening. Sorry to see it peter out.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> ...I can't be satisfied with this easy dismissal of tonality's prominence as an apparently primal aspect of humanity's musical instincts. Accordingly, I've been searching the forum, so far without success, for any informed discussion of tonality from the standpoints of neuropsychology, anthropology, etc.....


Don't be mistaken into thinking that an "apparently primal aspect of humanity's musical instincts" means that you have to be an "anti-modernist" or that you are "pro-tonal." Get past the negative/positive implications of this, and see things for what they are.

I like both tonal and serial music, but _I do think_ that tonality is based on a more "natural" (read: sensual) premise than "atonal"(non-harmonically based) or serial music is.

That means that tonality is based on *sensual* principles (the way our ears hear harmonics), and that more modern music is based more on *mathematical/geometric principles.

*For this to make sense, one has to understand the_ inherent shortcomings and flaws_ of the tonal model (Pythagoras' division of the octave into 12 parts in search of a perfect fifth and to close the octave), as well as to understand that symmetry and division of the 12-note octave is essentially a geometric/mathematical way of seeing things.

But, in the end, both approaches are translated into sounds. This is where Mahlerian and I have had such a hard time in coming to a consensus;* because the ear will hear as it always has, from the bottom up, meaning harmonically. *This will inevitably cause our ear/brains to seek a tonic, or tonality, even in the most hard-core serial music...if we wish.

This is all justified by the Greeks' view of music as part of the Quadrivium: part mathematics, part sound.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> As someone who has also indicated interest in 'enquiry', I would like to make clear that my enquiry is not into the existence of x, which is, IMO, undeniable, but the reasons behind x. I can't speak for Woodduck of course, but I don;t see the problem that you describe here.


The problem is simply that x is not undeniable. Which is not, strictly speaking something you can have an opinion about. That is, you can have an opinion that x is true, but not that it's undeniable. All it takes to illustrate that is somebody denying it. Easy. Surely you were able to see _that_ in my post.

Given that the existence of x is in question, it seems premature to engage in an inquiry into the reasons behind it.

It may still be deniable once you're done, but at least put some effort into demonstrating the existence of x first, not just starting with an assumption or an opinion. Then maybe it won't seem, as it seemed to me in Woodduck's post, a matter of treating incompatible ideas as compatible.


----------



## Bellinilover

Discussions having to do with Maria Callas all seem to turn unpleasant. Personally, I avoid them.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Don't be mistaken into thinking that an "apparently primal aspect of humanity's musical instincts" means that you have to be an "anti-modernist" or that you are "pro-tonal." Get past the negative/positive implications of this, and see things for what they are.
> 
> I like both tonal and serial music, but _I do think_ that tonality is based on a more "natural" (read: sensual) premise than "atonal"(non-harmonically based) or serial music is.
> 
> That means that tonality is based on *sensual* principles (the way our ears hear harmonics), and that more modern music is based more on *mathematical/geometric principles.
> 
> *For this to make sense, one has to understand the_ inherent shortcomings and flaws_ of the tonal model (Pythagoras' division of the octave into 12 parts in search of a perfect fifth and to close the octave), as well as to understand that symmetry and division of the 12-note octave is essentially a geometric/mathematical way of seeing things.
> 
> But, in the end, both approaches are translated into sounds. This is where Mahlerian and I have had such a hard time in coming to a consensus;* because the ear will hear as it always has, from the bottom up, meaning harmonically. *This will inevitably cause our ear/brains to seek a tonic, or tonality, even in the most hard-core serial music...if we wish.
> 
> This is all justified by the Greeks' view of music as part of the Quadrivium: part mathematics, part sound.


In bringing this subject up - merely by virtue of bringing it up - we can be accused of a lot of things around here, as I'm sure you've noticed. I don't think an inquiry into the principle of the hierarchical organization of pitches in music automatically implies that we dismiss the validity of music which rejects this principle. I merely question whether the principle is purely an "accident" of culture (whatever that might mean), and whether and why human beings originated it in the first place. I suspect the question has abundant ramifications and implications.

Whether we're talking about the evolving elaboration of functional harmony in Europe, or the audible constant of the drone and the ragas superimposed on it in the classical music of India, the designation of certain tones (whether single or multiple) as predominant or basic, as centers of gravity, or as points of departure and return, appears to be something that humans worldwide find compelling. I've found your posts provocative and informative, I've enjoyed the debates between you and Mahlerian, I know enough of harmonic theory and acoustics to follow much of the argumentation. But I haven't seen much from current members on the neuropsychology and anthropology of it all. And there is now apparently a field called evolutionary musicology, which considers the ways in which music and musical structures may have figured into the development of human consciousness.

Having been more or less accused of being out to discredit music since 1900, I'm not too likely to broach this subject again on this forum. I have better things to do than fend off personal attacks. But I'll always enjoy remarks by others, including you, on the fascinating subject of tonality.


----------



## Albert7

I really enjoy the threads where people are promoting their favorite of a particular composer's oeuvre such as Beethoven symphonies or Bruckner symphonies. It's not as analytical and one can see personal taste coming through which is really cool since you get a flavor of each person's personality here.


----------



## Blake

Woodduck said:


> Whether we're talking about the evolving elaboration of functional harmony in Europe, or the audible constant of the drone and the ragas superimposed on it in the classical music of India, the designation of certain tones (whether single or multiple) as predominant or basic, as centers of gravity, or as points of departure and return, appears to be something that humans worldwide find compelling. I've found your posts provocative and informative, I've enjoyed the debates between you and Mahlerian, I know enough of harmonic theory and acoustics to follow much of the argumentation.* But I haven't seen much from current members on the neuropsychology and anthropology of it all. And there is now apparently a field called evolutionary musicology, which considers the ways in which music and musical structures may have figured into the development of human consciousness.*


That would be an interesting thread to have. I may not have much to offer outside of my own experience, but I'd definitely read and participate where I can.


----------



## Woodduck

mmsbls said:


> There have been a few threads that begin to touch on tonality from the standpoints of neuropsychology, anthropology, and evolution. As far as I can tell, there are no TC members who have any particular expertise in those areas, but there have been several who have a modest interest.
> 
> One member, Polednice, posted a list of books and articles here. I have only read a couple of these and don't know if they would similar to your interests.


Thank you. This is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for.

And thank you for your respectful attention to my actual words. I do choose them carefully. :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

SeptimalTritone said:


> Woodduck... it would be a cosmic disaster if this amazing, beautiful Webern Cantata (one of his last few works) were somehow "inherently" inferior. Please listen Woodduck and tell us what you think: it's only 8 minutes.


Your posts always inspire questions. I notice that you've chosen not to answer my previous ones.

What do you mean by "inherently," with the word in quotes like that? I know the word, but I don't know what you mean by quoting it.

Inferior... to what?

Who are you referring to when you say "us"? Are there more than one of you? Is someone besides you interested in what I think of this piece? Why? Of what use would that information be?

I don't think we, or Webern, need fear any cosmic disasters, whatever the merits of his work.

Don't think I'm being coy. I've already been attacked and misrepresented on this thread, and when I receive something as strangely worded as your post, something clearly not a response to anything I've said, I have to wonder about its purpose.


----------



## Autocrat

Good to see the tonality horse being given another thorough postmortem whipping.

I lurked on TC for a few months, occasionally reading this, occasionally reading that, occasionally throwing something at the monitor. Then a short time ago someone started a thread titled "Why is classical music better than all of the other musicks?" or some such question. I thought to myself, if that thread goes the way I think it will, I'm not coming back because I'm not interested in concern trolling. But to my surprise and pleasure the vast majority of responses were along the lines of


> It Isn't.


Whereupon I signed up.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

In the same lines of my*previous post, there was this best or worst debate/argument on TC:

Do You Hear Early Chant as being tone-centric?

*proudfully ignored


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Woodduck...

what I'm saying is that any aversion to atonality is cultural, not inherently physiological/biological, like you and MacLeod have claimed below:



MacLeod said:


> I am, like Woodduck, interested in the idea that there may be some validity in the reason that the widespread popularity of "tonal" music is accounted for by its physiological/biological impact - closer to what humans naturally prefer, subconsciously, than music which moves away from the "natural" (all terms that are loaded with potential for dispute).


What is the "single shred of evidence" that the issue is almost 100% cultural? I'd say... most lovers of modern music are living evidence! For me especially, I thought a year ago that any classical music post-1900 (especially 12-tone music) simply sucked and was unnatural, detached, inhuman, and innately a wrong direction. But when I joined TC and was encouraged to give modern music a more open and careful listen... I realized that it was super natural and super welcoming, loving, and beautiful! Believe it or not, I find Schoenberg very romantic and very sweeping, lush, human, and even... dare I say it... a little bit on the sentimental side! Especially the violin concerto, 4th string quartet, etc. And I'm not alone. Go ask Mahlerian, or some guy, or anyone else who loves Schoenberg.

I initially had a hard time with Schoenberg because I wasn't comfortable. It was so different I didn't know what to think. But... with more time and effort spent you'll gradually begin to get it. You just have to get past your unfamiliarity with it. It isn't inherently unlikable due to some "natural" physiological/biological reasons. It's simply that you've been in a culture that hardly listens to atonal music due to historical circumstances.

And BTW the reason why I asked to listen to the Webern Cantata is: I think you haven't given modern classical music a fair listen. In the Alma Deutscher thread... you didn't even listen to Abrahamsen's Schnee for more than 2 minutes, and it isn't even atonal! You dismissed it as being "drone music" when it totally isn't (it's a hugely varied and exciting piece). I'm going to repeat myself: "Entering a deep psychological or philosophical investigation is useless without having an intuitive grasp of the variety of expression of modern music, and listening to it. It would be like doing philosophy of physics without knowing any relativity or quantum mechanics."


----------



## Marschallin Blair

SeptimalTritone said:


> Woodduck...
> 
> what I'm saying is that any aversion to atonality is cultural, not inherently physiological/biological, like you and MacLeod have claimed below:
> 
> What is the "single shred of evidence" that the issue is almost 100% cultural? I'd say... most lovers of modern music are living evidence! For me especially, I thought a year ago that any classical music post-1900 (especially 12-tone music) simply sucked and was unnatural, detached, inhuman, and innately a wrong direction. But when I joined TC and was encouraged to give modern music a more open and careful listen... I realized that it was super natural and super welcoming, loving, and beautiful! Believe it or not, I find Schoenberg very romantic and very sweeping, lush, human, and even... dare I say it... a little bit on the sentimental side! Especially the violin concerto, 4th string quartet, etc. And I'm not alone. Go ask Mahlerian, or some guy, or anyone else who loves Schoenberg.
> 
> I initially had a hard time with Schoenberg because I wasn't comfortable. It was so different I didn't know what to think. But... with more time and effort spent you'll gradually begin to get it. You just have to get past your unfamiliarity with it. It isn't inherently unlikable due to some "natural" physiological/biological reasons. It's simply that you've been in a culture that hardly listens to atonal music due to historical circumstances.
> 
> And BTW the reason why I asked to listen to the Webern Cantata is: I think you haven't given modern classical music a fair listen. In the Alma Deutscher thread... you didn't even listen to Abrahamsen's Schnee for more than 2 minutes, and it isn't even atonal! You dismissed it as being "drone music" when it totally isn't (it's a hugely varied and exciting piece). I'm going to repeat myself: "Entering a deep psychological or philosophical investigation is useless without having an intuitive grasp of the variety of expression of modern music, and listening to it. It would be like doing philosophy of physics without knowing any relativity or quantum mechanics."


Is this said as a cognitive neurobiologist or merely _ex cathedra_?


----------



## arpeggio

*"Do you care? How Much?" Thread.*

There is a good one going on in the "Do you care? How Much?" Thread.

At first I thought I understood the objective of the original discussion. Now I really have problems trying to understand most of the points that some of the various members are trying to make. Many of posts are extremely lengthy and difficult for me to read.


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> The problem is simply that x is not undeniable.


First, I took the term 'undeniable' to mean that x exists, not that, literally, it can't be denied. Everything and anything _can _be denied, even gravity, if one is wilful enough.

Second, I took 'x' to be this:



Woodduck said:


> "tonal centering" - the tendency to sense the attractive force of certain pitches


The general preference among the classical-music-listening-population for music of one type over another is, it seems to me, well established. One may wish it were otherwise, and many may wish to assert that they, personally, do not have such a preference, or that their preference is in fact the reverse of the general. But this one, and Woodduck, and a few others are willing to accept not just that such a preference exists, but that the reasons for this are worthy of enquiry.

A couple of years ago, I foolishly invited members to consider a book I had read which touched a little on this subject, though it didn't go far enough. The thread didn't take off - boring subject perhaps - but the boorishness of some respondents was another reason - something else that is, IMO, undeniable.

http://www.talkclassical.com/22137-anthony-storrs-music-mind-post375952.html#post375952

In relation to the OP, I guess as long as we stick to easily contestible subject matter, or a poll, perhaps, we have a successful thread which might be mistaken for a 'best' debate.


----------



## Guest

SeptimalTritone said:


> what I'm saying is that any aversion to atonality is cultural, not inherently physiological/biological, like you and MacLeod have claimed below


I haven't _claimed _any such thing - I am asking, wondering, pursuing the possibility that such might be the case.

As for the rest of your post, it is insufficient to cite the fact that some posters here like 'atonal' as a rebuttal to the idea Woodduck and I are interested in enquiring into. I'm sure that if I were to assert that I don't like Schoenberg (I'm not about to assert such a thing) you wouldn't accept it as evidence on my side of the argument, and you would be right to reject it.


----------



## dgee

I would ask, as a starting point, not: "which music has 'tonal centreing'" BUT: "which music does not have 'tonal centreing'" - of course, for whatever definition of 'tonal centreing' one subsequently wishes to choose

I think an attempt to establish this by trawling through some 20th century and contemporary music with ears at the ready, and access to scores and critical writing where practical, would soon throw up some interesting challenges and may invite new questions about other matters of musical legibility (a term I've seen somewhere, but can't remember where) that go beyond the usual obsession with harmony

Saying this as Sur Incises pops up on a playlist and (surprise, surprise) the start is very tone centred!


----------



## Woodduck

SeptimalTritone said:


> Woodduck...
> 
> what I'm saying is that any aversion to atonality is cultural, not inherently physiological/biological, like you and MacLeod have claimed below:
> 
> What is the "single shred of evidence" that the issue is almost 100% cultural? I'd say... most lovers of modern music are living evidence! For me especially, I thought a year ago that any classical music post-1900 (especially 12-tone music) simply sucked and was unnatural, detached, inhuman, and innately a wrong direction. But when I joined TC and was encouraged to give modern music a more open and careful listen... I realized that it was super natural and super welcoming, loving, and beautiful! Believe it or not, I find Schoenberg very romantic and very sweeping, lush, human, and even... dare I say it... a little bit on the sentimental side! Especially the violin concerto, 4th string quartet, etc. And I'm not alone. Go ask Mahlerian, or some guy, or anyone else who loves Schoenberg.
> 
> I initially had a hard time with Schoenberg because I wasn't comfortable. It was so different I didn't know what to think. But... with more time and effort spent you'll gradually begin to get it. You just have to get past your unfamiliarity with it. It isn't inherently unlikable due to some "natural" physiological/biological reasons. It's simply that you've been in a culture that hardly listens to atonal music due to historical circumstances.
> 
> And BTW the reason why I asked to listen to the Webern Cantata is: I think you haven't given modern classical music a fair listen. In the Alma Deutscher thread... you didn't even listen to Abrahamsen's Schnee for more than 2 minutes, and it isn't even atonal! You dismissed it as being "drone music" when it totally isn't (it's a hugely varied and exciting piece). I'm going to repeat myself: "Entering a deep psychological or philosophical investigation is useless without having an intuitive grasp of the variety of expression of modern music, and listening to it. It would be like doing philosophy of physics without knowing any relativity or quantum mechanics."


Septimal, I do, and always did, appreciate your passion for the music you love. That said, not everyone is capable of loving, or even liking, everything - and, quite contrary to your unfounded belief that this is entirely a matter of habituation, there are pronounced temperamental differences between people which, as even you must be well aware, will make things which seem beautiful and exciting to some seem vapid and boring, if not repellent, to others. It's called individual taste; and although tastes are not always or necessarily immutable, they are far from being infinitely flexible. We are, quite simply, all different - sometimes incredibly different.

Would it really surprise you to learn that many people who have listened extensively to certain music and come to understand perfectly well how it is made still have no sympathy with it? It is usually, I would guess, possible to overcome through sufficient exposure the outright aversion which often accompanies the shock of the unfamiliar. Certainly there is for most of us music which we now tolerate, like, even love, which we strongly disliked at first. Much of Stravinsky was in that category for me; so, in fact, were Brahms and Schubert, who subsequently came to be among my favorite composers. But these "conversion experiences" do not always happen, no matter what efforts we make.

So, to your 100% acculturation theory, I must say: no. No one's enjoyment of Webern or Xenakis or Birtwistle, no matter how or when acquired, constitutes any evidence at all that dislike of their music is 100% - or 80%, or 50%, or any percent - a result of acculturation. And there is good evidence to the contrary. I, for example, was immediately captivated by north Indian classical music as a college student, despite the fact that I had never heard any music remotely like it - despite the fact that in our culture, the working class, New Jersey culture I knew growing up, there simply _was_ no music remotely like it. "Acculturation" had 0% to do with my fascinated response. On the other hand, I grew up immersed in the culture of rock and roll and its descendents through the '50s, '60s and '70s, and I pretty much loathed every bit of it and took refuge in the deep chromatic harmony of Wagnerian opera, to which I had had absolutely no exposure until I discovered it at the age of 14 and felt, with the blinding force of revelation, that I had "come home" musically. Such things cannot be glibly explained as "acculturation."

If it gives you any comfort, I have done a fair amount of listening to 20th century music over the course of 65 years. I don't force myself to endure repeatedly things I strongly dislike, and by now I am pretty sure about what kinds of music resonate with me or not. Life is short. None of us has time for everything. Music has, I am certain, been as important to me as it has to you. I smile when you speak of your discovery of contemporary music in the tone of a religious convert who is sure that the final revelation has been vouchsafed him and sure that if only everyone would open their hearts and minds wide enough they too could taste of salvation. But your god is not everyone's god - never can or should be. And if the deity who brings you to your knees repels someone else or bores him senseless? Well, that's life!

I can't terminate this without saying that I completely disagree with your assertion that a thorough knowledge and appreciation of modern classical music is essential to the scientific psychological or anthropological study of music. Modern classical music is an immensely diverse phenomenon which no one can encompass. You might as well say that one cannot study biology without knowing all the living species on the planet. In both cases a grasp of principles is what's needed, and that doesn't require exhaustive acquaintance with special manifestations.


----------



## Guest

I dislike the taste of Pernod ,cannot drink it or force myself To like it.It is realy quite simpel.It is the same with music,I do not love all music and that I think is quite natural.I am Always eager to explorere and discover .


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> First, I took the term 'undeniable' to mean that x exists, not that, literally, it can't be denied. Everything and anything _can _be denied, even gravity, if one is wilful enough.


Gravity is undeniable.



MacLeod said:


> The general preference among the classical-music-listening-population for music of one type over another is, it seems to me, well established.


Yes, it is.



MacLeod said:


> the reasons for this are worthy of enquiry.


Indeed.



MacLeod said:


> the boorishness of some respondents


Yes. I've noticed this too, though, as I mentioned to Ken awhile back, my list of respondents would very probably differ from yours.

Whose list is correct? is, I think, the fundamental question underlying most if not all of these kinds of discussions. Which partly explains why mere disagreement is so quickly and persistently interpreted as boorish or rude or scornful or even injurious. Personal investment in the validity of one's perspective. Belief that one's perspective is the only possible valid one. In that situation, and I hope that by positing that I haven't irreversibly embarrassed myself, it is clear that any disagreement is not only wrong but actually kinda icky.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> _ took refuge in the deep chromatic harmony of Wagnerian opera, to which I had had absolutely no exposure until I discovered it at the age of 14 and *felt, with the blinding force of revelation*, that I had "come home" musically._


_



Woodduck said:



I smile when you speak of your discovery of contemporary music in the tone of a religious convert who is sure that the final *revelation* has been vouchsafed him and sure that if only everyone would open their hearts and minds wide enough they too could taste of salvation.

Click to expand...

TC won't let this stand on its own without some commentary from me, aside from the bolding. Unnecessary, I think. I did the bolding already, sheesh. But as long as I type enough characters, the daemon will let me post._


----------



## science

Have we yet come around to the position that one should be able to listen to any music one wants and enjoy it as much or as little as one happens to and say so without suffering any scorn?


----------



## dgee

some guy said:


> TC won't let this stand on its own without some commentary from me, aside from the bolding. Unnecessary, I think. I did the bolding already, sheesh. But as long as I type enough characters, the daemon will let me post.


But of course, some guy, one of those is a fine, natural and ennobling thing to occur to a young man, while the other is regrettably loaded, ultimately misguided, but can be magnanimously shrugged off by the more enlightened as the head strong delusion of youth

Now, if only other Wagner fans could understand that stuff is simply not for everyone!


----------



## Stavrogin

It is quite clear to me that Woodduck's negative comment was not about the revelation itself, but about the belief that "if only everyone would open their hearts and minds wide enough, they too could taste of salvation".


----------



## Mahlerian

Taste is not 100% acculturation, it is true.

However, many of the propositions which are often offered are not about taste. I am often told, not that people dislike Schoenberg/Boulez/Webern/Nono, but that Berg/Cage/Carter/Stockhausen are destroying music or discarding tradition or care nothing about how their music sounds or whatever else. I would assume that, no matter what else, a decent amount of exposure to and understanding of modernist music, even if it never results in enjoyment, will lead to at least some understanding of its aesthetic goals and means that proves the above assertions false.

Will everyone like everything? No. There is much music that leaves me personally cold, in any era or style. I understand that, and I respect the differences between people.

Do you know ahead of time whether or not you could come to like something? I don't think so. I know that I don't myself know when I'm going to have an aesthetic epiphany.


----------



## Ukko

You folks have managed to discuss tonal <-> atonal for 8 pages now, without getting closed down. Very impressive, people; congratulations.

:tiphat:


----------



## Stavrogin

Mahlerian said:


> Taste is not 100% acculturation, it is true.
> 
> However, many of the propositions which are often offered are not about taste. I am often told, not that people dislike Schoenberg/Boulez/Webern/Nono, but that Berg/Cage/Carter/Stockhausen are destroying music or discarding tradition or care nothing about how their music sounds or whatever else. I would assume that, no matter what else, *a decent amount of exposure to and understanding of modernist music, even if it never results in enjoyment, will lead to at least some understanding of its aesthetic goals and means that proves the above assertions false*.
> 
> Will everyone like everything? No. There is much music that leaves me personally cold, in any era or style. I understand that, and I respect the differences between people.
> 
> Do you know ahead of time whether or not you could come to like something? I don't think so. I know that I don't myself know when I'm going to have an aesthetic epiphany.


Why would the understanding of their aesthetic goals prove those opinions wrong?

(Sincere, open question).


----------



## Mahlerian

Stavrogin said:


> Why would the understanding of their aesthetic goals prove those opinions wrong?
> 
> (Sincere, open question).


Because the things in question are not opinion.

It is not the aesthetic goal of the mentioned composers to destroy music, discard tradition (despite a few of Boulez's pronouncements, his music admits of numerous predecessors), or create something regardless of how it sounds.

It is opinion how you or I feel about the music personally (some of it I like, some of it I don't), but these things are of a different kind.


----------



## Stavrogin

Mahlerian said:


> Because the things in question are not opinion.
> 
> It is not the aesthetic goal of the mentioned composers to destroy music, discard tradition (despite a few of Boulez's pronouncements, his music admits of numerous predecessors), or create something regardless of how it sounds.
> 
> It is opinion how you or I feel about the music personally (some of it I like, some of it I don't), but these things are of a different kind.


I see. But couldn't one still think that, _despite their (praiseworthy) goals_, the final effect of their ideas is harmful to a fruitful development of musical art?

(I do not, to make it clear).


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Woodduck said:


> _ took refuge in the deep chromatic harmony of Wagnerian opera, to which I had had absolutely no exposure until I discovered it at the age of 14 and felt, with the blinding force of revelation, that I had "come home" musically._


_



Woodduck said:



I smile when you speak of your discovery of contemporary music in the tone of a religious convert who is sure that the final revelation has been vouchsafed him and sure that if only everyone would open their hearts and minds wide enough they too could taste of salvation.

Click to expand...




some guy said:



TC won't let this stand on its own without some commentary from me, aside from the bolding. Unnecessary, I think. I did the bolding already, sheesh. But as long as I type enough characters, the daemon will let me post.

Click to expand...

Wait, are you implying you really can't discern the difference between those two? Is it that he used the word revelation twice? :lol:

I'm not addressing what SeptimalTritone has said, he's been one of the most cordial people I've met on this forum (among many others). However, you replied to Woodduck's post, not ST's. You're an English teacher, some guy, c'mon! I'm a teacher, too. Therefore, I won't let this stand on its own without some commentary from me. ;-)

The difference is that one is a *personal* testimony of revelation, of finding something *personally* important to him.

The other is reported to be a sort of prophet trying to convert not just himself, but others, thereby removing the personal aspect of the aforementioned revelation. Furthermore, Woodduck never said his personal revelation was vouchsafed and that everyone should open their hearts and minds to taste the salvation of Wagner.

Once again, I'm not commenting on ST and this post doesn't mean I'm entirely endorsing what he said about ST, *but *if you're going to reply to someone's post, some guy, you should really learn how to not mischaracterize and distort their words and reply to them on their own. It seems to be a recurring thing._


----------



## Guest

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Wait, are you implying you really can't discern the difference between those two?
> ...
> 
> The difference is that one is a *personal* testimony of revelation, of finding something *personally* important to him.
> 
> The other *is reported to be* a sort of prophet trying to convert not just himself, but _others_, thereby removing the personal aspect of the aforementioned revelation. Furthermore, Woodduck never said his personal revelation was vouchsafed and that everyone should open their hearts and minds to taste the salvation of Wagner.


My very dear Dies, I invite you to look at the post in question by SeptimalTritone. As my bolding indicates, you have already gotten halfway to my point, which was that ST did not present himself as any sort of prophet, nor did he claim that his personal revelation was vouchsafed.

That is all my grandmother's eye.

Hence my humorous juxtaposition of two comments by the same person in the same post, one of which presents a personal revelation as valuable, one of which presents a personal revelation as an attempt to proselytize.

In their original contexts, each of them is equally valuable. And neither is an attempt to proselytize. Where they differ is that SeptimalTritone used his personal revelation to suggest what Mahlerian went on a bit later to say explicitly, which is that "a decent amount of exposure to and understanding of modernist music, even if it never results in enjoyment, will lead to at least some understanding of its aesthetic goals and means...."

Of course, ST said more, too, namely that it would be a great pity if Woodduck were unable to appreciate Webern's cantata after listening to it. And of course that is true. It would be a great pity. But "oh well." At least he tried to get someone who is resisting even giving music a try to give music a try. Just that. Give it a try before pronouncing on it. And I would add to that to resist pronouncing on it simply on the basis of one's single, individual, and unsympathetic experience that just happens to have been negative.


----------



## Mahlerian

Stavrogin said:


> I see. But couldn't one still think that, _despite their (praiseworthy) goals_, the final effect of their ideas is harmful to a fruitful development of musical art?
> 
> (I do not, to make it clear).


Yes, one could make an argument to that effect.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> If anyone has any doubt that there are certain ideas and subjects which are best not brought up around here, and whether there are any ideological biases dominating discussion on TC, this pile-up of scornful responses to my perfectly reasonable inquiry should be proof enough.


Ha ha! I know how you feel! Serves you right for being logical!


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> Yes. I've noticed this too, though, as I mentioned to Ken awhile back, my list of respondents would very probably differ from yours.
> 
> Whose list is correct? is, I think, the fundamental question underlying most if not all of these kinds of discussions. Which partly explains why mere disagreement is so quickly and persistently interpreted as boorish or rude or scornful or even injurious. Personal investment in the validity of one's perspective. Belief that one's perspective is the only possible valid one. In that situation, and I hope that by positing that I haven't irreversibly embarrassed myself, it is clear that any disagreement is not only wrong but actually kinda icky.


I don't maintain a list. I merely observe the way others post and, of course subjectively, express aan opinion on whether I think their post is 'boorish' (etc). In the case of the thread I linked to, I found the comment, "Sounds like a very boring book. I won't be reading nor buying a copy" and "Sounds incredibly banal and uninteresting (to me)" to be boorish things to say. Doubtless, they didn't mean to be, and that is only my perception. That doesn't make them boorish people to be added to a list.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Septimal, I do, and always did, appreciate your passion for the music you love. That said, not everyone is capable of loving, or even liking, everything - and, quite contrary to your unfounded belief that this is entirely a matter of habituation, there are pronounced temperamental differences between people which, as even you must be well aware, will make things which seem beautiful and exciting to some seem vapid and boring, if not repellent, to others. It's called individual taste; and although tastes are not always or necessarily immutable, they are far from being infinitely flexible. We are, quite simply, all different - sometimes incredibly different.
> 
> Would it really surprise you to learn that many people who have listened extensively to certain music and come to understand perfectly well how it is made still have no sympathy with it? It is usually, I would guess, possible to overcome through sufficient exposure the outright aversion which often accompanies the shock of the unfamiliar. Certainly there is for most of us music which we now tolerate, like, even love, which we strongly disliked at first. Much of Stravinsky was in that category for me; so, in fact, were Brahms and Schubert, who subsequently came to be among my favorite composers. But these "conversion experiences" do not always happen, no matter what efforts we make.
> 
> So, to your 100% acculturation theory, I must say: no. No one's enjoyment of Webern or Xenakis or Birtwistle, no matter how or when acquired, constitutes any evidence at all that dislike of their music is 100% - or 80%, or 50%, or any percent - a result of acculturation. And there is good evidence to the contrary. I, for example, was immediately captivated by north Indian classical music as a college student, despite the fact that I had never heard any music remotely like it - despite the fact that in our culture, the working class, New Jersey culture I knew growing up, there simply _was_ no music remotely like it. "Acculturation" had 0% to do with my fascinated response. On the other hand, I grew up immersed in the culture of rock and roll and its descendents through the '50s, '60s and '70s, and I pretty much loathed every bit of it and took refuge in the deep chromatic harmony of Wagnerian opera, to which I had had absolutely no exposure until I discovered it at the age of 14 and felt, with the blinding force of revelation, that I had "come home" musically. Such things cannot be glibly explained as "acculturation."
> 
> If it gives you any comfort, I have done a fair amount of listening to 20th century music over the course of 65 years. I don't force myself to endure repeatedly things I strongly dislike, and by now I am pretty sure about what kinds of music resonate with me or not. Life is short. None of us has time for everything. Music has, I am certain, been as important to me as it has to you. I smile when you speak of your discovery of contemporary music in the tone of a religious convert who is sure that the final revelation has been vouchsafed him and sure that if only everyone would open their hearts and minds wide enough they too could taste of salvation. But your god is not everyone's god - never can or should be. And if the deity who brings you to your knees repels someone else or bores him senseless? Well, that's life!
> 
> I can't terminate this without saying that I completely disagree with your assertion that a thorough knowledge and appreciation of modern classical music is essential to the scientific psychological or anthropological study of music. Modern classical music is an immensely diverse phenomenon which no one can encompass. You might as well say that one cannot study biology without knowing all the living species on the planet. In both cases a grasp of principles is what's needed, and that doesn't require exhaustive acquaintance with special manifestations.


A grasp of principles is the best thing _anyone_ can hope to go by, certainly. . . but with a caveat.

In a perfectly-Aristotelian,_ inductivist _universe that would be forever and inalterably true, I would of course agree with what you are saying . . . but then the discovery of just one black swan, or even a few, will disprove the inductivist fallacy and show that not all swans are white--- "black swans" in this case being the musically rule-breaking_ Tristan and Isolde _or _The Rite of Spring_, for instance.

Whether its scientific progress or musical evolution-- knowledge of 'what fits' is very largely educated guess work and not something that can be formulated with precise, logarithmic, inductivist finality. Could Bach's musical principles possibly have anticipated the _Rite of Spring_? Could Newton's_ Principia _possibly have anticipated Einstein's _General Theory_?

Well-tested and currently unrefuted theories are provisionally true, but certainly not forever and inalterably so.

All that said though-- and to put a caveat on my caveat-- just how much 'plasticity' there is to meaningful musical expression I believe is very largely confined to the physiological limitations of the human ear.


----------



## Woodduck

some guy said:


> My very dear Dies, I invite you to look at the post in question by SeptimalTritone. As my bolding indicates, you have already gotten halfway to my point, which was that ST did not present himself as any sort of prophet, nor did he claim that his personal revelation was vouchsafed.
> 
> That is all my grandmother's eye.
> 
> Hence my humorous juxtaposition of two comments by the same person in the same post, one of which presents a personal revelation as valuable, one of which presents a personal revelation as an attempt to proselytize.
> 
> In their original contexts, each of them is equally valuable. And neither is an attempt to proselytize. Where they differ is that SeptimalTritone used his personal revelation to suggest what Mahlerian went on a bit later to say explicitly, which is that "a decent amount of exposure to and understanding of modernist music, even if it never results in enjoyment, will lead to at least some understanding of its aesthetic goals and means...."
> 
> Of course, ST said more, too, namely that *it would be a great pity if Woodduck were unable to appreciate Webern's cantata after listening to it. And of course that is true. It would be a great pity. But "oh well." At least he tried to get someone who is resisting even giving music a try to give music a try. Just that. Give it a try before pronouncing on it.* And I would add to that to *resist pronouncing on it *simply on the basis of one's single, individual, and unsympathetic experience that just happens to have been negative.


How would you know whether I have or have not "resisted" giving Webern's cantata, or anything else, a try? And where have I "pronounced" on it? It seems to me that I'm doing an admirable job of "resisting pronouncing" on it.

If I did not like Webern's cantata after listening to it, it would _not_ be a "great pity." It would be of no consequence whatever to anyone.

My post was addressed primarily to SeptimalTritone, and only secondarily to others. It might put your mind at ease to know that I have had several exchanges with him in which he has enthusiastically and confidently assured me, in language colorful and extravagant, not only that contemporary music contained wonders unequaled by music of the past, but that if I or others would expose ourselves sufficiently to it we would come to appreciate these wonders as he does. His theory that dislike of this music is "almost 100% acculturation" is consistent with this conviction. The reference to his "proselytization" was a response not to his latest post alone but to the tone of past communications as well. In any case my main point was to show that his "100% acculturation" theory is unfounded.

That clarified, let me thank DiesIraeVIX and Stavrogin for sparing me the trouble of explaining the not very subtle distinction between a personal revelation, of which we have all had our share, and the urge to evangelize. The distinction was apparently also missed by one of your "friends" who was eager to share in your "gotcha" experience.

But then, what are "friends" for?


----------



## Woodduck

Marschallin Blair said:


> A grasp of principles is the best thing _anyone_ can hope to go by, certainly. . . but with a caveat.
> 
> In a perfectly-Aristotelian,_ inductivist _universe that would be forever and inalterably true, I would of course agree with what you are saying . . . but then the discovery of just one black swan, or even a few, will disprove the inductivist fallacy and show that not all swans are white--- "black swans" in this case being the musically rule-breaking_ Tristan and Isolde _or _The Rite of Spring_, for instance.
> 
> Whether its scientific progress or musical evolution-- knowledge of 'what fits' is very largely educated guess work and not something that can be formulated with precise, logarithmic, inductivist finality. Could Bach's musical principles possibly have anticipated the _Rite of Spring_? Could Newton's_ Principia _possibly have anticipated Einstein's _General Theory_?
> 
> Well-tested and currently unrefuted theories are provisionally true, but certainly not forever and inalterably so.
> 
> All that said though-- and to put a caveat on my caveat-- just how much 'plasticity' there is to meaningful musical expression I believe is very largely confined to the physiological limitations of the human ear.


Thank you, Professor MacPherson.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Thank you, Professor MacPherson.


That's "Mac_-FIERCE_-son," Doll. _;D_


----------



## Woodduck

Marschallin Blair said:


> That's "Mac_-FIERCE_-son," Doll. _;D_


Legs don't scare me.


----------



## aleazk

Woodduck said:


> My post was addressed primarily to SeptimalTritone, and only secondarily to others. It might put your mind at ease to know that I have had several exchanges with him in which he has enthusiastically and confidently assured me, in language colorful and extravagant, not only that contemporary music contained wonders unequaled by music of the past, but that if I or others would expose ourselves sufficiently to it we would come to appreciate these wonders as he does. His theory that dislike of this music is "almost 100% acculturation" is consistent with this conviction. The reference to his "proselytization" was a response not to his latest post alone but to the tone of past communications as well. In any case my main point was to show that his "100% acculturation" theory is unfounded.


The reason why ST is insistent with this notion is because it happened to him. He thought in the past that modern music was vacuous intellectual noise. After more exposure and experience, he came to appreciate modern music. The same thing happened to me, I didn't like modern music either, I thought John Cage killed music, etc., you name it. I think the most happy experience I have had in music was when this music started to make sense to me and I discovered experiences that I never had with music before, so I pretty much agree with ST when he says that contemporary music contains wonders unequaled by music of the past. It also happened to Mahlerian (he confessed that even Debussy was a challenge when he was very young). It also happened to mmslbs, as he repeatedly mentions and is fascinated by his own changes. It also even happened to some guy to some extent (he commented he made fun of the Darmstadt guys because of the quirky names of their music, or something like that, when he was very young).

So, pretty much all of us come from the same experience, perhaps this will help you to understand where are we coming from with the things we say.

Does this prove that it's a 100% acculturation issue?. No, I don't want to be accused of the induction fallacy by MB . But I think it indeed proves that acculturation is a pretty important aspect.

I'm not going to venture into why you don't like this music, since I don't know you. But the acculturation issue is quite real, in my experience and in the experience of many others.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> But a salad always tastes better if somebody else makes it.


Wrong. Nobody can match my lambs' lettuce with diced Roquefort (or Compté) cheese with walnuts and raspberry vinaigrette.
In fact, most times I go to restaurants these days I tend to leave feeling a bit sour at the bill and thinking that I can cook food just as good, if not (sometimes) better.


----------



## millionrainbows

TalkingHead said:


> Wrong. Nobody can match my lambs' lettuce with diced Roquefort (or Compté) cheese with walnuts and raspberry vinaigrette.
> In fact, most times I go to restaurants these days I tend to leave feeling a bit sour at the bill and thinking that I can cook food just as good, if not (sometimes) better.


Yes, it's true. Only when I'm too tired to cook; or it's too cold to fry things outside on my propane burner (messy!). But definitely true of steakhouses.


----------



## Woodduck

aleazk said:


> The reason why ST is insistent with this notion is because it happened to him. He thought in the past that modern music was vacuous intellectual noise. After more exposure and experience, he came to appreciate modern music. The same thing happened to me, I didn't like modern music either, I thought John Cage killed music, etc., you name it. I think the most happy experience I have had in music was when this music started to make sense to me and I discovered experiences that I never had with music before, so I pretty much agree with ST when he says that contemporary music contains wonders unequaled by music of the past. It also happened to Mahlerian (he confessed that even Debussy was a challenge when he was very young). It also happened to mmslbs, as he repeatedly mentions and is fascinated by his own changes. It also even happened to some guy to some extent (he commented he made fun of the Darmstadt guys because of the quirky names of their music, or something like that, when he was very young).
> 
> So, pretty much all of us come from the same experience, perhaps this will help you to understand where are we coming from with the things we say.
> 
> Does this prove that it's a 100% acculturation issue. No, I don't want to be accused of the induction fallacy by MB . But I think it indeed proves that acculturation is a pretty important aspect.
> 
> I'm not going to venture into why you don't like this music, since I don't know you. But the acculturation issue is quite real, in my experience and in the experience of many others.


I never quarrel with people's experiences, only with their conclusions.

I don't doubt for a minute that many people have experienced profound changes in their appreciation of music. I have myself. And I'm not disputing that culture is a major determinant of people's artistic preferences. But no subjective artistic experience of any individual or group can, in itself, demonstrate the causes of that experience.

If I say I prefer Boulez to Webern, no one can with any assurance posit any percentage of nature or nurture among the possible causes of my preference. But this will be true even if I say I prefer Mozart to Webern, despite the apparent likelihood that this preference would be more culturally mediated than the preference for Boulez over Webern. It's very possible to prefer Mozart to Webern, or Webern to Mozart, regardless of one's cultural origins.

There could be put against the experiences you relate the many cases in which people take quite enthusiastically to things they have clearly _not_ been acculturated to like, such as my profound enjoyment of the classical music of India. I have often thought, and very largely believed, that my entire love of classical music (and of many other things) resulted far more from my personal intellectual/emotional constitution than from any substantial cultural preparation for it. Of course I can't prove this. In any individual case we may have reasons to suspect a certain relative influence of the two factors, but that's the best we can do.

I don't think we disagree very much here, do we?


----------



## Nereffid

Woodduck said:


> I have often thought, and very largely believed, that my entire love of classical music (and of many other things) resulted far more from my personal intellectual/emotional constitution than from any substantial cultural preparation for it. Of course I can't prove this.


Given that so much of who we are is determined, or at least influenced, by our genes, I don't see how it could be otherwise.

Humans are pattern-seekers. The culture we live in might encourage us to favour certain patterns over others, but we as individuals will differ in what patterns we can readily identify and what patterns we enjoy, and also in the degree to which we go along with the cultural norm. As far as I'm concerned much of our taste in music (in general terms, not specific) is already determined before birth.


----------



## Blake

Woodduck said:


> I don't think we disagree very much here, do we?


I certainly don't think you're of the close-minded type, as it's never really seemed like you're the "conservative" fighting against new art. And I don't know how these arguments consistently arise - as I only really notice them once the heat is on - and we all get wrapped up in it without really contemplating how this started.

It seems you and some guy have been consistently going at it... some guy's my man, and I've always appreciated your input. I actually think you and him are on similar grounds, but the way you guys express it are quite different. Again the downfall of being too literal in conversation. And that could be the source misapprehension of these long-winded feuds.

What one likes is their business, and they can't really help that. It's a collective of genetics, conditioning, environment, evolution, yada-yada. My tastes often goes into traditional stages where I only feel like listening to Mozart or Brahms, but I never adopt the "conservative" ideology of devaluing the other eras when I'm in these states. Again, I don't think that's what you're doing... it seems you may be pointing towards something a bit more subtle, and it could very well be misunderstood that it's ~bashing~ when it's really not.


----------



## Albert7

“Diversity and independence are important because the best collective decisions are the product of disagreement and contest, not consensus or compromise.” 
― James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds


----------



## DeepR

Yes, how tempting it is to think that others can be "converted" too, as long as they put effort into it, familiarize themselves with the music, learn about it, and keep listening. Don't we all like to think that of our favorite music from time to time? Being so convinced of the quality of the music we like, it can be very hard to grasp and accept that another person may not like it, even after putting serious effort into it. And even more so if that other person already has significantly similar preferences in music. But, there is never a guarantee. Not for a style, not for a composer, not for a single piece, not for an individual fragment of a piece. Another +1 for Woodduck for bringing the voice of reason to these forums.


----------



## Guest

DeepR said:


> Yes, how tempting it is to think that others can be "converted" too, as long as they put effort into it, familiarize themselves with the music, learn about it, and keep listening.


It's happened before. It could happen again.



DeepR said:


> Don't we all like to think that of our favorite music from time to time?


Yes, we all do. I agree.



DeepR said:


> _t can be very hard to grasp and accept that another person may not like it, even after putting serious effort into it._


_With this, however, not so much.

This keeps coming up as a thing, but I know I find it very easy to grasp that another person et cetera.

But that's not the real issue, not for me, anyway. So naturally, I see this issue as a red herring.

In spite of it being mentioned from time to time, I do not think that likes and dislikes have ever been the real issue. Turning one's likes and dislikes into descriptions, sure. Turning one's likes and dislikes into norms, you bet. Turning one's likes and dislikes into evidence for the inferiority or superiority of different types of music (or even for the superiority of one's own tastes--and the inferiority of the other guy's), those are the real issues as far as I am concerned.

Sure, it's natural to want other people to share one's passions. But I don't think anyone seriously believes that everyone will share those passions. But, again to reference the Mahlerian comment that keeps being ignored: "I am often told, not that people dislike Schoenberg/Boulez/Webern/Nono, but that Berg/Cage/Carter/Stockhausen are destroying music or discarding tradition or care nothing about how their music sounds or whatever else. I would assume that, no matter what else, a decent amount of exposure to and understanding of modernist music, even if it never results in enjoyment, will lead to at least some understanding of its aesthetic goals and means that proves the above assertions false."

We may want people to share our enjoyment, and why not? Of course we do.

We do not expect it, however, nor do we get too upset if it doesn't happen.

What we do expect is that assertions are supported not just stated. What we do expect is that a dislike for something not be presented as evidence that that something is in any way flawed._


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> We may want people to share our enjoyment, and why not? Of course we do.
> 
> We do not expect it, however, nor do we get too upset if it doesn't happen.
> 
> What we do expect is that assertions are supported not just stated. What we do expect is that a dislike for something not be presented as evidence that that something is in any way flawed.


Agree wholeheartedly. Also, that a _like _for something not be similarly presented. Also that non-specific criticisms ("People keep saying x, but I don't want to name names") about which we have all complained from time to time should not be aggregated and carried forward in a list of continuing grudges.

So as to avoid accusations of making my own generalised complaint, here's an example or two...

http://www.talkclassical.com/35330-best-worst-debates-arguments-post778043.html#post778043

http://www.talkclassical.com/35330-best-worst-debates-arguments-post778090.html#post778090

http://www.talkclassical.com/35330-best-worst-debates-arguments-post778805.html#post778805

To be clear - I'm not suggesting that any of these are examples of 'continuing grudges', only of non-specific criticisms of 'people'. ("Non-specific" = by person or persons unnamed)


----------



## Blake

some guy said:


> What we do expect is that assertions are supported not just stated. What we do expect is that a dislike for something not be presented as evidence that that something is in any way flawed.


I just wanted to highlight this again. That's really the meat of it, right here. What one likes is up to their disposition, but let there be enough consideration and openness to understand that there is value in things one may not be particularly attracted to. I think this is the only thing a reasonable person expects.


----------



## millionrainbows

DeepR said:


> Yes, how tempting it is to think that others can be "converted" too, as long as they put effort into it, familiarize themselves with the music, learn about it, and keep listening. Don't we all like to think that of our favorite music from time to time? Being so convinced of the quality of the music we like, it can be very hard to grasp and accept that another person may not like it, even after putting serious effort into it. And even more so if that other person already has significantly similar preferences in music. But, there is never a guarantee. Not for a style, not for a composer, not for a single piece, not for an individual fragment of a piece. Another +1 for Woodduck for bringing the voice of reason to these forums.


No, no one can be "converted" until they are ready. But people change, and grow, and their horizons expand; Man is a restless animal. And when they are ready to come into the fold of modernism, we will be there for them, with lists of recommended CDs and explanations.

On the other hand, if someone's definition of "music" means *music that is harmonically conceived, structured, and created for the sensual delight of the ear in a tonal sense,* as all tone-centric or tonal "ear" music is, then I completely sympathize with their inability to relate.

No "conversion" is warranted; only the recognition, and admonition/warning that listening to "non-harmonic" music structured according to geometric or other methods must involve at least a _recognition_, if not an acquired skill, that* it is music which involves cerebral ear/brain cognition to a greater degree than simple, sensual tonal music demands.*

No "conversion" will be effective, because this is not simply a matter of belief; it is a task which requires a different skill set. If you want to get the benefit, do the work. If not, spare us the gory details.


----------



## RichterIsGod

Vesuvius said:


> I just wanted to highlight this again. That's really the meat of it, right here. What one likes is up to their disposition, but let there be enough consideration and openness to understand that there is value in things one may not be particularly attracted to. I think this is the only thing a reasonable person expects.


I signed up to this forum just so that I can comment on this assertion that a dislike for something should not be presented as evidence that that something is in any way flawed. This is the sort of relativism I cannot accept. There are absolutes in music just as there are absolutes in morals. Some performances are world class performances (such as any of Rachmaninoff's piano performances) and some are simply vulgar (such as LangLang's piano performances). In the music world, things can be flawed or just plain crap.


----------



## Guest

RichterIsGod said:


> I signed up to this forum just so that I can comment on this assertion that a dislike for something should not be presented as evidence that that something is in any way flawed. This is the sort of relativism I cannot accept. There are absolutes in music just as there are absolutes in morals.


I guess with a name such as yours, absolutes come easy! 

I just want to be clear what you're saying...that a dislike for something can be presented as evidence that something may, in some way (in many ways) be flawed?


----------



## millionrainbows

RichterIsGod said:


> I signed up to this forum just so that I can comment on this assertion that a dislike for something should not be presented as evidence that that something is in any way flawed. *This is the sort of relativism I cannot accept.* There are absolutes in music just as there are absolutes in morals. Some performances are world class performances (such as any of Rachmaninoff's piano performances) and some are simply vulgar (such as LangLang's piano performances). In the music world, things can be flawed or just plain crap.
> 
> View attachment 58905


This is art, not science or orthodox, inflexible belief systems which characterize religion. Of course, the two are intertwined in Western history, in which religion was the dominant power.

But now it is a secular era. The old standards do not apply, but it seems you are content to dwell in the past. So be it; go back to your time, and leave this century alone. See you at the museum snack bar.

My "relativistic" opinion is stated in absolute terms; your "absolute" opinion is stated in vague, undefined terms. You should work on that.


----------



## RichterIsGod

MacLeod said:


> I guess with a name such as yours, absolutes come easy!
> 
> I just want to be clear what you're saying...that a dislike for something can be presented as evidence that something may, in some way (in many ways) be flawed?


I am saying that a dislike for something might contain valid reasons and it might be true that whatever people dislike is flawed.


----------



## Mahlerian

RichterIsGod said:


> I am saying that a dislike for something might contain valid reasons and it might be true that whatever people dislike is flawed.


Lots of people dislike classical music. Is that in itself any proof or indication that classical music is flawed?


----------



## hpowders

RichterIsGod said:


> I signed up to this forum just so that I can comment on this assertion that a dislike for something should not be presented as evidence that that something is in any way flawed. This is the sort of relativism I cannot accept. There are absolutes in music just as there are absolutes in morals. *Some performances are world class performances (such as **any of Rachmaninoff's piano performances)* *and some are simply vulgar (such as LangLang's piano performances).* In the music world, things can be flawed or just plain crap.
> 
> View attachment 58905


The only absolute is there are no absolutes. Plenty of Lang Lang fans out there and plenty of Rachmaninov detractors out there like me.

Everybody is entitled to like whatever music they like without anyone else attempting to tell them what they should be listening to, or ridiculing them for listening to the "wrong" music.

Snobbism, by the way doesn't work very well on TC.


----------



## Guest

Artistic endeavour and reception involves absolutes?

You learn something new every day. But this wasn't it.


----------



## RichterIsGod

millionrainbows said:


> This is art, not science or orthodox, inflexible belief systems which characterize religion. Of course, the two are intertwined in Western history, in which religion was the dominant power.
> 
> But now it is a secular era. The old standards do not apply, but it seems you are content to dwell in the past. So be it; go back to your time, and leave this century alone. See you at the museum snack bar.
> 
> My "relativistic" opinion is stated in absolute terms; your "absolute" opinion is stated in vague, undefined terms. You should work on that.


You are right, this is not religion. This is traditional performance art and as all things traditional it has conventions and standards. Classical music is not Pop music in which anything goes and whatever that is popular can be considered "good". Classical music performance set its traditions and standards in the modern era when sound recording techniques were invented and perfected. So, my standards for classical music are relatively modern in origin. The only things needed are that one is not deaf and that one is familiar with the standards. Going to Youtube and listening to the recordings of old masters can help, unless one has no talent for music and lacks the sensibility required to distinguish bad music performance from good music performance. There are limitations to human intellect and physiology and at a certain point it is nearly impossible to reach and/or surpass the high standards set by the masters of the past. But if you want to play classical music, you pretty much have no choice but to go by traditional standards.

There is no such thing as Art, by the way.

I'll go back to my museum bar now.


----------



## RichterIsGod

Mahlerian said:


> Lots of people dislike classical music. Is that in itself any proof or indication that classical music is flawed?


It could be true. Classical music is not for everyone.


----------



## violadude

RichterIsGod said:


> You are right, this is not religion. This is traditional performance art and as all things traditional it has conventions and standards. Classical music is not Pop music in which anything goes and whatever that is popular can be considered "good". Classical music performance set its traditions and standards in the modern era when sound recording techniques were invented and perfected. So, my standards for classical music are relatively modern in origin. The only things needed are that one is not deaf and that one is familiar with the standards. Going to Youtube and listening to the recordings of old masters can help, unless one has no talent for music and lacks the sensibility required to distinguish bad music performance from good music performance. There are limitations to human intellect and physiology and at a certain point it is nearly impossible to reach and/or surpass the high standards set by the masters of the past. But if you want to play classical music, you pretty much have no choice but to go by traditional standards.
> 
> There is no such thing as Art, by the way.
> 
> I'll go back to my museum bar now.


So, are you only talking about performance being absolutely good or bad? Or the actual music too?


----------



## Guest

I don't listen to tradition, but thanks for the heads up on the Art delusion.


----------



## Art Rock

RichterIsGod said:


> There is no such thing as Art, by the way.


I'll inform my wife. Maybe she can still make a different career choice after 35 years. So glad you came along to help out.


----------



## RichterIsGod

hpowders said:


> The only absolute is there are no absolutes. Plenty of Lang Lang fans out there and plenty of Rachmaninov detractors out there like me.
> 
> Everybody is entitled to like whatever music they like without anyone else attempting to tell them what they should be listening to, or ridiculing them for listening to the "wrong" music.
> 
> Snobbism, by the way doesn't work very well on TC.


I know one thing for sure: I don't live in the universe where LangLang is considered better than Rachmaninoff.

I am not telling anyone what they SHOULD be listening to. You are hearing something that is not there.

Also, there are absolutes in performance art. Some music instrument players are simply better players and musicians than others.


----------



## RichterIsGod

violadude said:


> So, are you only talking about performance being absolutely good or bad? Or the actual music too?


I am only talking about performance.


----------



## EdwardBast

Wow! Who would ever have thought that a thread titled "The best or worst debates/arguments on TC" would manage to become one of the the best or worst debates/arguments on TC?


----------



## Guest

RichterIsGod said:


> I know one thing for sure: I don't live in the universe where LangLang is considered better than Rachmaninoff.
> 
> I am not telling anyone what they SHOULD be listening to. You are hearing something that is not there.
> 
> Also, there are absolutes in performance art. Some music instrument players are simply better players and musicians than others.


"Better" is a relative, not an absolute.


----------



## hpowders

RichterIsGod said:


> I know one thing for sure: I don't live in the universe where LangLang is considered better than Rachmaninoff.
> 
> I am not telling anyone what they SHOULD be listening to. You are hearing something that is not there.
> 
> Also, there are absolutes in performance art. Some music instrument players are simply better players and musicians than others.


I didn't equate Lang Lang with Rachmaninov.

I'm just implying that those who do like Lang Lang shouldn't be ridiculed for it. For many people, he's as close to classical music as they will ever get. He serves a "mainstream" need. However it is true that many folks will never ever experience classical music at its very best.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> Wow! Who would ever have thought that a thread titled "The best or worst debates/arguments on TC" would manage to become on of the the best or worst debates/arguments on TC?


We need to send out for more popcorn NOW!


----------



## Wood

C'mon! The guy's a new member. Give him some slack.


----------



## Crudblud

EdwardBast said:


> Wow! Who would ever have thought that a thread titled "The best or worst debates/arguments on TC" would manage to become on of the the best or worst debates/arguments on TC?


It was bound to happen.


----------



## Guest

The "Book of Mormon Classical" thread should go down as one of the worst.

I will apologize here and then excuse myself from that discussion. I apologize for rude comments I have made, and for insults I have flung. But I don't apologize for defending my beliefs. I have never been good at turning the other cheek. I apologize for anything I might have said that was worthy of an infraction. 

In a thread asking for classical music inspired by the Book of Mormon, the topic veered toward a musical - not classical music - that was not inspired by the Book of Mormon, rather inspired by the desire to mock Mormons. I made note that there were many inaccuracies in it. That, apparently, was the signal to launch this debate. To the point now that we have people tossing in ridiculous cartoons that are pure anti-Mormon propaganda. 

As I leave that thread to whatever Mormon bashing should continue, I have only this to say: I work in an environment (science) where I am surrounded by people who are atheist or agnostic. They all know I am Mormon. And I have never felt uncomfortable because someone felt the need to mock my beliefs. I have served a mission for my church, and never been ridiculed as much as my beliefs are here on this site, by classical music enthusiasts - supposedly a more civilized bunch.

I'm out of here for a while. I don't think that thread should have every gone on like it did. It had been off track for a long time. True, I probably shouldn't have kept feeding the fire, but if it wasn't going to be shut down, then I don't apologize for defending my religious doctrines in the face of no action by moderators, even though the thread has been in violation of the TOS for a long time. My desire to discuss classical music is now being stymied by my lack of desire to converse with quite a few individuals in this forum.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

I just hope one day there will be a _The best or worst 'best or worst debates/arguments on TC'_ and the whole superstructure will collapse.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

RichterIsGod said:


> This is the sort of relativism I cannot accept. There are absolutes in music just as there are absolutes in morals.


Gosh, after nearly thirty years of work with the most disturbed and distressed individuals, some of whom have done terrible things, I wish I could say that I still believe in 'absolutes in morals'. As for 'absolutes in music'...



RichterIsGod said:


> I am saying that a dislike for something might contain valid reasons and it might be true that whatever people dislike is flawed.


Which seems a rather more relativist position, if you don't mind me saying so.



RichterIsGod said:


> There is no such thing as Art, by the way.
> 
> I'll go back to my museum bar now.


Here you have me. Would you like to elucidate your assertion further, or have you already ordered?


----------



## EdwardBast

RichterIsGod said:


> There is no such thing as Art, by the way.


Did Clapton die or something?


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> The "Book of Mormon Classical" thread should go down as one of the worst.


I don't know about 'worst', but it wasn't great, for sure. I feel compelled to respond to your complaint about this thread, lest a lopsided view form that you and your religion were being unfairly maligned. Having re-read the thread, I see little that constitutes an attack on Mormonism itself.



DrMike said:


> I will apologize here and then excuse myself from that discussion. I apologize for rude comments I have made, and for insults I have flung. But I don't apologize for defending my beliefs.


Nor should you have to. Yet, as you acknowledge, your wish to do so led you to make vague counters about others and their beliefs.



DrMike said:


> the topic veered toward a musical [...] inspired by the desire to mock Mormons.


From my point of view, it was this opinion that was debatable, yet you steadfastly refused to allow for any other perspective.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> Did Clapton die or something?


God is deathless.


----------



## RichterIsGod

gog said:


> "Better" is a relative, not an absolute.


I guess I feel it differently. To me there are good, better, and best performers in the history of music performance. A piece of music is only as good as the interpretation of the performer, and I hope you would agree that not all interpretations should be considered equally good. In that sense sometimes music will sound flawed either due to technical issues or an inability to understand music and produce good music on the part of the performer(s).


----------



## RichterIsGod

TurnaboutVox said:


> *Gosh, after nearly thirty years of work with the most disturbed and distressed individuals, some of whom have done terrible things, I wish I could say that I still believe in 'absolutes in morals'. As for 'absolutes in music'...*
> 
> I feel somethings are absolutely bad. You can't convince me that gassing 6 million Jews to death during WWII is a good thing, because the Nazis felt that way. (The same applies to the Nanking massacre in China and many other such events.)
> 
> *Which seems a rather more relativist position, if you don't mind me saying so.*
> 
> Not at all. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinions.
> 
> *Here you have me. Would you like to elucidate your assertion further, or have you already ordered?*


I think the common belief is that there is an element of Art in the works that made them into artworks. But such an element cannot be defined, isolated or found at all, by anyone in the history of human kind. It does not mean that if there is a word such as Art (or God, for that matter), therefore it exists in the physical world as in the artworks themselves. It might be an interesting concept to massage the mind with, but since the human mind is essentially crazy we really don't have to take our thoughts too seriously.

As for myself, I only use the word art in the classical way, as in "art of painting", "art of violin playing", etc. So I feel Art with a capital case "A" does not exist, but art with a lower case "a" does exist. In any case, "Art" should not be a measure for the quality of artworks.


----------



## DeepR

I would agree that a dislike shouldn't be presented as evidence that modern music is in any way inferior. But from what I've seen on this forum, dislikes are usually nothing more than strong expressions of personal preference. Even if a dislike for modern music is worded in a rude or distasteful way, it's still freedom of speech. I can see how dislikes can be easily interpreted as unfouded attacks. But you know, half of the internet seems to be about expressing mere like or dislike without further argument. Not very useful, but quite harmless most of the time. Someone who is truly convinced of his beliefs (in this case: taste in music) cannot be easily offended in those beliefs. 
What do I think would help "the cause" of the modernists? Not to put negative energy in questioning people's attitudes all the time, but to put positive energy in presenting the music to others. Best thing you can do to increase appreciation. And the negativity? Well, just laugh it away.


----------



## Mahlerian

MacLeod said:


> I don't know about 'worst', but it wasn't great, for sure. I feel compelled to respond to your complaint about this thread, lest a lopsided view form that you and your religion were being unfairly maligned. Having re-read the thread, I see little that constitutes an attack on Mormonism itself.


Most of the worst comments were removed by forum staff. The topic was closed down because it did end up in criticism of the Mormon religion as a whole and in personal attacks.


----------



## Ukko

Mahlerian said:


> Most of the worst comments were removed by forum staff. The topic was closed down because it did end up in criticism of the Mormon religion as a whole and in personal attacks.


There was absolutely no chance that the thread would 'end well', but your pruning may have camouflaged its acridity. There was no way for DrMike to ignore the innuendos, even when you were able to. The thread did not belong in "Religious Music"; there was a bullseye embedded in its title.


----------



## Mahlerian

Ukko said:


> There was absolutely no chance that the thread would 'end well', but your pruning may have camouflaged its acridity. There was no way for DrMike to ignore the innuendos, even when you were able to. The thread did not belong in "Religious Music"; there was a bullseye embedded in its title.


The initial intent was fine, but the thread did derail very quickly.


----------



## Itullian

Very sad...........


----------



## Torkelburger

RichterIsGod said:


> I guess I feel it differently. To me there are good, better, and best performers in the history of music performance. A piece of music is only as good as the interpretation of the performer, and I hope you would agree that not all interpretations should be considered equally good. In that sense sometimes music will sound flawed either due to technical issues or an inability to understand music and produce good music on the part of the performer(s).


Those are opinions, not facts. None of that is absolute. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That's why it is relative. What is good, better, and best is relative to the observer. It's purely subjective. Take the concept of beauty. There are cultures where elongated necks, elongated earlobes, and pierced lips are signs of beauty but not in other cultures. Some cultures prefer heavier body types, some don't, and so forth. But there is no ultimate, objective, absolute truth that these preferences could be right or wrong when compared to. To us, Jabba the Hutt is an ugly and disgusting sluggish Hutt, but to Mrs. Jabba, he's a total hunk and heart-throb. And there is no ultimate fact out there that states the truth of which one he "really is".


----------



## Ukko

Torkelburger said:


> Those are opinions, not facts. None of that is absolute. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That's why it is relative. What is good, better, and best is relative to the observer. It's purely subjective. Take the concept of beauty. There are cultures where elongated necks, elongated earlobes, and pierced lips are signs of beauty but not in other cultures. Some cultures prefer heavier body types, some don't, and so forth. But there is no ultimate, objective, absolute truth that these preferences could be right or wrong when compared to. To us, Jabba the Hutt is an ugly and disgusting sluggish Hutt, but to Mrs. Jabba, he's a total hunk and heart-throb. And there is no ultimate fact out there that states the truth of which one he "really is".


Good, better, best are 'relative' comparisons of course. Beauty can be subjected to qualitative argument in some disciplines though, e.g. engineering and mathematics. Efficiency for purpose sometimes can be measured, and efficiency > elegance > beauty is a progression with some markers.


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> Most of the worst comments were removed by forum staff.





Ukko said:


> There was absolutely no chance that the thread would 'end well', but your pruning may have camouflaged its acridity. There was no way for DrMike to ignore the innuendos, even when you were able to.


An interesting point, Ukko. I wonder whether it's better to remove a thread altogether, rather than bowdlerise it. I was following it mostly as it was being posted, but obviously missed something, or have a different level of tolerance for what is acceptable. Consequently, I've developed a mistaken view of the discussion and if DrMike was directly attacked, and Mormonism mocked, then this was unacceptable. I hope that I'm not misremembering my own posts - I noticed that at least one was removed as part of the pruning, but I don't recall its being inappropriate.


----------



## Guest

I've mentioned this to some moderators before, with no response, but I think the biggest problem with removing posts is that the perpetrators then get to keep a pearly white reputation. If that's what they want. That is, evidence for all sorts of misbehavior is just gone.

Biggest does not mean only. It is also very difficult to remove items from a conversation and have that conversation retain any continuity. 

It is also true that appropriate posts are removed.

It is just generally true that moderators have no one moderating them, which is maybe too complex for a simple classical music discussion forum, but it's also true that no one has any recourse when posts are removed or when infractions are earned. Removed posts can result in posters simply leaving. What's the incentive to keep posting if your posts are going to vanish? Sure, there are people I'd rather never read again, but those people have to be able to speak and speak freely, even if I think they are stupid or their mother dresses funny. And their posts should stand for all time for all to see, whether to damn them or as evidence of their superior intelligence, either one.

I was recently reminded that I have received several infractions. True. I only acknowledge one of them, though. Does that (accompanied by support for my conclusions, just btw) carry any weight? Not even an ounce. And it's interesting, that once I'd received one, I started receiving more and more, for awhile. It's easier to target someone who's already been hit, I guess. But my posting style had not suddenly changed. And it has stayed pretty much the same my entire time here. It is pretty much the same in the other boards I participate on, too, where I have never received even so much as a warning.

Constantly looking over one's shoulder is tiresome, though. And for what? The privilege of posting to TC? Constantly having certain people sniping at one is tiresome, too. And seeing distortions and false accusations get no response from moderators is tiresome, too. And having the snipers and distorters accuse perfectly genial and pleasant people of being snipers and distorters (with no support, of course) without any response from moderators is tiresome. And for what? The privilege of posting to TC?

Well, the world of classical music is very small. The likelihood of meeting someone in "the real world" who also listens to classical music is very small. The likelihood of finding anyone who likes even a few of the specific things that really float one's own boat is even smaller. I guess that's the chief advantage of an online classical music discussion board--the likelihood of finding someone there who also listens to classical music is close to 100%. That's the attraction. Is it enough?


----------



## ptr

some guy said:


> That's the attraction. Is it enough?


More then enough!

/ptr


----------



## Blake

some guy said:


> Well, the world of classical music is very small. The likelihood of meeting someone in "the real world" who also listens to classical music is very small. The likelihood of finding anyone who likes even a few of the specific things that really float one's own boat is even smaller. I guess that's the chief advantage of an online classical music discussion board--the likelihood of finding someone there who also listens to classical music is close to 100%. That's the attraction. Is it enough?


I'd say so. Of course, the idiosyncrasies around here are hardly that faulty. I've also been infracted quite a few times, and had posts deleted that I thought shouldn't have been. But I never expect perfection out of people, because I'm not perfect myself... so my expectations will always be twisted by my own imperfection.

For what it's worth, this forum is a slice of apple pie in comparison to some of the other forums I've frequented.


----------



## Guest

I also think that, by and large, most posts should be left up. If there is truly offensive material, by all means, remove that - put in asterisks where profanity is used (the software already seems to catch most of this - it won't even let me use the abbreviation for Bachelors of Science), remove offensive pictures. But if it is just rude or nasty, leave it up, so people don't get a clean slate. I think some do post things, knowing they will quickly (or more slowly) be removed by a moderator. I know I have said some rude, unpleasant, and unconsidered things on here - I think it best people to see me, warts and all.


----------



## BillT

DrMike said:


> But if it is just rude or nasty, leave it up, so people don't get a clean slate. I think some do post things, knowing they will quickly (or more slowly) be removed by a moderator. I know I have said some rude, unpleasant, and unconsidered things on here - I think it best people to see me, warts and all.


As an inconsistent poster, I'm glad that rude and nasty posts are deleted. (I hope it's not rude to say that, ha ha ha ).

BTW, there are lots and lots of very funny posts that I love on TC !

- Bill


----------



## Guest

BillT said:


> I'm glad that rude and nasty posts are deleted. (I hope it's not rude to say that, ha ha ha ).


That was so rude. How dare you?

(BTW, if you watch _Workaholics,_ you know exactly how to pronounce "rude." If you don't, you probably should.)


----------



## DiesIraeCX

some guy said:


> That was so rude. How dare you?
> 
> (BTW, if you watch _Workaholics,_ you know exactly how to pronounce "rude." If you don't, you probably should.)


The most important thing that I learned from _Workaholics_ is that Katherine Zeta Jones, well, she dips beneath lasers, woah oh oh. She has entrapped me, and Sean Connery, woah oh oh.


----------



## mmsbls

some guy said:


> I've mentioned this to some moderators before, with no response, but I think the biggest problem with removing posts is that the perpetrators then get to keep a pearly white reputation. If that's what they want. That is, evidence for all sorts of misbehavior is just gone.





DrMike said:


> I also think that, by and large, most posts should be left up. ....But if it is just rude or nasty, leave it up, so people don't get a clean slate.


We delete posts for several reasons. First, a post might troll or otherwise inappropriately distract from the thread. More relevant to the comments above, a post may insult or chide another member, and we remove the comment for the insulted member's sake. An important further reason to delete posts is that people besides the posters or targeted members read threads. Threads with insulting or otherwise inappropriate posts can cause members (or guests) to feel uncomfortable. Those threads can result in others choosing not to participate in that thread or in similar threads. We wish all members to feel comfortable and happy to participate so we try to create an environment relatively free of such posts.



some guy said:


> Biggest does not mean only. It is also very difficult to remove items from a conversation and have that conversation retain any continuity.
> 
> It is also true that appropriate posts are removed.
> 
> It is just generally true that moderators have no one moderating them...


Yes, it is sometimes difficult to remove items from a conversation and have that conversation retain full continuity. We prefer not to delete posts and try to keep as many posts or parts of posts as possible given our concerns stated above. Sometimes threads are just full of inappropriate posts and we feel compelled to delete many.

Appropriate posts may be deleted if they contain quotes from other deleted posts. And of course, a member may feel their post was appropriate when moderators did not.

Actually the moderators do have someone "moderating" them - Frederik Magle.


----------



## PetrB

some guy said:


> I've mentioned this to some moderators before, with no response, but I think the biggest problem with removing posts is that the perpetrators then get to keep a pearly white reputation. If that's what they want. That is, evidence for all sorts of misbehavior is just gone.
> 
> Biggest does not mean only. It is also very difficult to remove items from a conversation and have that conversation retain any continuity.
> 
> It is also true that appropriate posts are removed.
> 
> It is just generally true that moderators have no one moderating them, which is maybe too complex for a simple classical music discussion forum, but it's also true that no one has any recourse when posts are removed or when infractions are earned. Removed posts can result in posters simply leaving. What's the incentive to keep posting if your posts are going to vanish? Sure, there are people I'd rather never read again, but those people have to be able to speak and speak freely, even if I think they are stupid or their mother dresses funny. And their posts should stand for all time for all to see, whether to damn them or as evidence of their superior intelligence, either one.
> 
> I was recently reminded that I have received several infractions. True. I only acknowledge one of them, though. Does that (accompanied by support for my conclusions, just btw) carry any weight? Not even an ounce. And it's interesting, that once I'd received one, I started receiving more and more, for awhile. It's easier to target someone who's already been hit, I guess. But my posting style had not suddenly changed. And it has stayed pretty much the same my entire time here. It is pretty much the same in the other boards I participate on, too, where I have never received even so much as a warning.
> 
> Constantly looking over one's shoulder is tiresome, though. And for what? The privilege of posting to TC? Constantly having certain people sniping at one is tiresome, too. And seeing distortions and false accusations get no response from moderators is tiresome, too. And having the snipers and distorters accuse perfectly genial and pleasant people of being snipers and distorters (with no support, of course) without any response from moderators is tiresome. And for what? The privilege of posting to TC?
> 
> Well, the world of classical music is very small. The likelihood of meeting someone in "the real world" who also listens to classical music is very small. The likelihood of finding anyone who likes even a few of the specific things that really float one's own boat is even smaller. I guess that's the chief advantage of an online classical music discussion board--the likelihood of finding someone there who also listens to classical music is close to 100%. That's the attraction. Is it enough?


You last paragraph is the reason, in volumes, why sane people remain while there is such constant, and relatively consistent _inconsistency_ on the part of the mods. These mods are _very_ human, i.e. they have tics and biases they do not recognize (or acknowledge) -- just like many another of our species. Too often, while nothing at all offensive has been written, the air of priggishness or prudery which whooshes in to clean up 'the offense' I usually find far more offensive than the imagined offense!

The sad part -- if not sad I think _regrettable_, as you have also mentioned, is the sort of whitewash effect of much of their handiwork. That behavior, and the ToS being what it is, has it that I believe many here, the lesser and the greater, feel -- and do -- edit themselves, via tempering what is said _and via complete abstention where they otherwise had something well worth saying,_ in a way which would be completely unnecessary in the real world.


----------



## Bulldog

I don't have any complaints. TC has a site owner who appropriately has total control. If I don't like what's being done through that control, I can always leave; I'm staying.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> We delete posts for several reasons. First, a post might troll or otherwise inappropriately distract from the thread. More relevant to the comments above, a post may insult or chide another member, and we remove the comment for the insulted member's sake.


Threads take on a life of their own. Whenever I start a thread, part of my enjoyment comes from seeing how it develops in ways I would not have expected. Besides, this particular rule is applied completely inconsistently.

In any case, I'd like to see an example of an _appropriate_ distraction, yes indeedy!!

In any case, if you were truly to have _my_ sake in mind--and you actually know my sake, no guessing, because I've told you, explicitly--you would leave the putative insults and chidings intact. So it's only for the sake of some members. As I have said, it doesn't suit me at all.



mmsbls said:


> An important further reason to delete posts is that people besides the posters or targeted members read threads. Threads with insulting or otherwise inappropriate posts can cause members (or guests) to feel uncomfortable. Those threads can result in others choosing not to participate in that thread or in similar threads. We wish all members to feel comfortable and happy to participate so we try to create an environment relatively free of such posts.


Wait. So you're trying to trick people? "Look, we're cool!" and then, inevitably, an insulting post will occur, surprising and shocking the innocent member with the reality you have tried to deny.

Well, of course I doubt anyone seriously thinks that there won't be any insulting. That person would have to be naive in the extreme.

But, again, you are not making all members comfortable or happy.* You are making me quite uncomfortable and unhappy. And I'm apparently not the only one. There are others here who do not like feeling that their posts are going to be deleted, at any time, and with no warning or recourse. Or that you're going to get infractions for the most innocuous comments, simply because a couple of malcontents have complained about you. Where's the incentive to post if you think your wise and carefully crafted words are simply going to vanish, eh? Or going to get you a nice slap on your virtual hand? You have made other people uncomfortable and unhappy in the past with this very policy. And they have left. Some of my very favorite posters of years past simply do not post on TC any more. It's of course very nice that new posters come to take their places, but I can't help feeling that my current favorites are simply going to get fed up and leave as well.



mmsbls said:


> Actually the moderators do have someone "moderating" them - Frederik Magle.


ToS says no baiting, Marshall!:lol:

*Is this even possible?


----------



## Ukko

Personally, I have found that serious debate is fraught with peril here. If the subject has any potential for disagreement, we must speak as strangers gathered in an inhospitable hall, one guarded by truncheon-bearers. That atmosphere is apparently the one Mr. Magle desires. Keep it light, people. Type with a smile.

This thread has transmogrified into something that should exist only in Area 51, if at all; there is soiled underwear in public view here.


----------



## RichterIsGod

Torkelburger said:


> Those are opinions, not facts. None of that is absolute. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That's why it is relative. What is good, better, and best is relative to the observer. It's purely subjective. Take the concept of beauty. There are cultures where elongated necks, elongated earlobes, and pierced lips are signs of beauty but not in other cultures. Some cultures prefer heavier body types, some don't, and so forth. But there is no ultimate, objective, absolute truth that these preferences could be right or wrong when compared to. To us, Jabba the Hutt is an ugly and disgusting sluggish Hutt, but to Mrs. Jabba, he's a total hunk and heart-throb. And there is no ultimate fact out there that states the truth of which one he "really is".


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. It is an issue of context. I don't think Western classical music and the concept of beauty in different cultures are the same thing. Relativism might be proper when applied to all forms of music and beauty in general terms, but it does not apply to a narrowly defined entity such as Western classical music. We are talking about judgments based on facts (recordings of the same score). And we are also talking about Western classical music within the same cultural and historical context. You can't convince me (or anyone who has ears), for instance, that Barenboim's interpretation of Chopin nocturne op.55 no.2 is as good as (or better) than Ignaz Friedman's interpretation of the same piece. It is not easy to produce good classical music and some people are simply better at it than the others. Friedman had more profound things to say in his performance. His music feels deeper and more cultured. Barenboim's interpretation in comparison is boring, dull and lifeless.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

RichterIsGod said:


> I feel somethings are absolutely bad. You can't convince me that gassing 6 million Jews to death during WWII is a good thing, because the Nazis felt that way. (The same applies to the Nanking massacre in China and many other such events.)


This is something of a 'straw man' argument. I wasn't, of course, suggesting that genocidal actions are 'a good thing'. That would be absurd. However, genocides are comparatively rare, and don't establish that the majority of situations involve 'absolutes', in morals or in music.



RichterIsGod said:


> I think the common belief is that there is an element of Art in the works that made them into artworks. But such an element cannot be defined, isolated or found at all, by anyone in the history of human kind. It does not mean that if there is a word such as Art (or God, for that matter), therefore it exists in the physical world as in the artworks themselves. It might be an interesting concept to massage the mind with, but since the human mind is essentially crazy we really don't have to take our thoughts too seriously.


What are we meant to take seriously, then? They're all we have. We necessarily perceive everything via the 'filter' or 'prism' of our minds, the subjectively experienced 'user interface' of our brains. If there's a 'common belief [...] that there is an element of Art in the works that made them into artworks', then it is so believed. You can't prove or disprove this.



RichterIsGod said:


> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. It is an issue of context. I don't think Western classical music and the concept of beauty in different cultures are the same thing. Relativism might be proper when applied to all forms of music and beauty in general terms, but it does not apply to a narrowly defined entity such as Western classical music. We are talking about judgments based on facts (recordings of the same score). And we are also talking about Western classical music within the same cultural and historical context. *You can't convince me (or anyone who has ears), for instance, that Barenboim's interpretation of Chopin nocturne op.55 no.2 is as good as (or better) than Ignaz Friedman's interpretation of the same piece. *


No, I shouldn't think that I can convince you of that, should I wish to, but the same argument applies. You're acting as prosecution, defence counsel, judge and jury. That's fine in your inner world, but it doesn't establish any 'fact' or truth in the world (external to you) of shared experience and opinion.


----------



## Bulldog

Ukko said:


> Personally, I have found that serious debate is fraught with peril here. If the subject has any potential for disagreement, we must speak as strangers gathered in an inhospitable hall, one guarded by truncheon-bearers. That atmosphere is apparently the one Mr. Magle desires. Keep it light, people. Type with a smile.


"Light" is an excellent quality for a music board as is posting with a smile. Some members here take themselves way too seriously. I prefer an entertaining board; if I want serious discussion with my leisure time, well, I don't want it.


----------



## science

Ukko said:


> Personally, I have found that serious debate is fraught with peril here. If the subject has any potential for disagreement, we must speak as strangers gathered in an inhospitable hall, one guarded by truncheon-bearers. That atmosphere is apparently the one Mr. Magle desires. Keep it light, people. Type with a smile.
> 
> This thread has transmogrified into something that should exist only in Area 51, if at all; there is soiled underwear in public view here.


Well, there are certainly places on the internet where one can go if one really wants an unmoderated discussion.

So there's nothing wrong with attempting to create a safer place here and there.


----------



## Piwikiwi

science said:


> Well, there are certainly places on the internet where one can go if one really wants an unmoderated discussion.
> 
> So there's nothing wrong with attempting to create a safer place here and there.


I agree. I personally found that the most heavily moderated places on the internet were often the nicest as well.


----------



## Ukko

Piwikiwi said:


> I agree. I personally found that the most heavily moderated places on the internet were often the nicest as well.


You must be right. The meaning of the word has changed quite a bit over time. One of the now obsolete meanings fits both TC and your statement well. Even so...


----------



## PetrB

Ukko said:


> You must be right. The meaning of the word has changed quite a bit over time. One of the now obsolete meanings fits both TC and your statement well. Even so...


_Nice!_  :lol: :tiphat:
------------------------------------


----------



## Bulldog

Piwikiwi said:


> I agree. I personally found that the most heavily moderated places on the internet were often the nicest as well.


Agreed. Until a few years ago, Classical Net had a discussion site. All postings were first reviewed by the owner Dave Lampson before distribution. Of course, since the spirit of our times is SPEED, the site passed away.


----------



## Blake

As long as we feel that our personal opinions give us warrant to be callous to others, we need babysitters. 

It's pretty obvious that many threads would've turned into complete trash if there weren't people around to put a stop to it. Of course moderators are people too, and their biases do surface, but their job is to be personally detached and make decisions that benefit the integrity of the whole. And aside from some slips here and there, they're doing okay.

They aren't the Buddha... give some slack.


----------



## science

Ukko said:


> You must be right. The meaning of the word has changed quite a bit over time. One of the now obsolete meanings fits both TC and your statement well. Even so...


I guess we all know what you mean by "one of the now obsolete meanings," and I guess you're confident that you're safe both to insult the community and to distort Piwikiwi's words thus unkindly, so the mods obviously aren't so tyrannical after all.


----------



## science

some guy said:


> And for what? The privilege of posting to TC?


Yes!

You have a relatively large audience here because many people have been made comfortable and safe here.


----------



## science

hpowders said:


> I'm just implying that those who do like Lang Lang shouldn't be ridiculed for it.


Yes! This is true, and this is the point!

Not only Lang Lang, but Andre Rieu. And Karl Jenkins and Strauss waltzes and the 1812 Overture.

And even the teenie-bopper pop sensation du jour.


----------



## Woodduck

I'm perfectly happy with the balance of liberty and decorum here. I've been taken to task twice and understood why, and I've complained a couple of times about post removal, but such is simply inevitable. I'm not exactly shy about holding my ground in an argument, and I don't feel seriously inhibited in saying what I want to say. On the whole I don't think the moderators ask anything of us in the matter of civility that we shouldn't ask of ourselves.


----------



## Woodduck

RichterIsGod said:


> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. It is an issue of context. I don't think Western classical music and the concept of beauty in different cultures are the same thing. Relativism might be proper when applied to all forms of music and beauty in general terms, but it does not apply to a narrowly defined entity such as Western classical music. We are talking about judgments based on facts (recordings of the same score). And we are also talking about Western classical music within the same cultural and historical context. You can't convince me (or anyone who has ears), for instance, that Barenboim's interpretation of Chopin nocturne op.55 no.2 is as good as (or better) than Ignaz Friedman's interpretation of the same piece. It is not easy to produce good classical music and some people are simply better at it than the others. Friedman had more profound things to say in his performance. His music feels deeper and more cultured. Barenboim's interpretation in comparison is boring, dull and lifeless.


Anyone who thinks beauty is _solely_ in the eye of the beholder is missing an eye - or an ear. One either hears it or one doesn't. Listening to these pianists side by side is a lesson in what it means to make music.

Thank you.


----------



## science

I've got to agree with the "eye of the beholder" view, until proven otherwise. If there are objective standards for beauty, I'm open to see the proof. But the fact that I perceive beauty in some things and not others, and that someone who seems cool to me agrees with me, doesn't constitute proof that my perception is objective. 

One thing that comes to my mind all the time in this discussion is how a hen feels about an egg. I think it might've been Sagan who first thought of this example, but I can't remember. Anyway, for a hen, I guess, a fresh egg must seem objectively beautiful to sit upon, objectively horrible to eat. How do we prove that the hen's perspective is objectively wrong? And if the hens disagree about which egg is most delightful to sit upon, how do we prove which is right? 

And so on for as many beings as exist. Even if there is a monotheistic God who declares that X is beautiful and Y is not, as far as I can tell, yeah well that's just like his opinion man.


----------



## Figleaf

Actually Science, I believe hens do enjoy eating eggs. If an egg is cracked they will try eating it, and thus learn to deliberately crack and eat eggs- or so I'm told. Chickens are cannibals! Other than that, I'm sure your analogy works fine 

PS I'm sure the worst discussions feature people indulging in pedantic, pernickety point scoring about stuff that isn't even on topic. Whoops


----------



## science

Figleaf said:


> Actually Science, I believe hens do enjoy eating eggs. If an egg is cracked they will try eating it, and thus learn to deliberately crack and eat eggs- or so I'm told. Chickens are cannibals! Other than that, I'm sure your analogy works fine
> 
> PS I'm sure the worst discussions feature people indulging in pedantic, pernickety point scoring about stuff that isn't even on topic. Whoops


Wow! Nature is ruthless. Evidently this kind of cannibalism is fairly common - not that animals will eat their own young very often, but quite a few will eat their neighbor's if they can get away with it.


----------



## ahammel

I guess the opposing viewpoint would be that there seems to be a distinction between statements of taste (I like X) and aesthetic judgements (X is beautiful) that people understand.

If all aesthetic judgements are statements of taste, then sentences like "I like listening to Mozart more than I like listening to Beethoven, but I think Beethoven was the better composer" are nonsense, but people make and seem to understand statements like that all the time.

When people say something like "this work of art, X, is beautiful", they don't mean "X has properties P, Q, and R which I find pleasing", but nor do they mean "P, Q, and R are _the_ set of properties which objectively make X's pleasing, as ordained by God". I think what they mean is "P, Q, and R are properties which _people in general_ value in X's". Or if not people in general, than at least X fans.


----------



## science

ahammel said:


> I guess the opposing viewpoint would be that there seems to be a distinction between statements of taste (I like X) and aesthetic judgements (X is beautiful) that people understand.
> 
> If all aesthetic judgements are statements of taste, then sentences like "I like listening to Mozart more than I like listening to Beethoven, but I think Beethoven was the better composer" are nonsense, but people make and seem to understand statements like that all the time.
> 
> When people say something like "this work of art, X, is beautiful", they don't mean "X has properties P, Q, and R which I find pleasing", but nor do they mean "P, Q, and R are _the_ set of properties which objectively make X's pleasing, as ordained by God". I think what they mean is "P, Q, and R are properties which _people in general_ value in X's". Or if not people in general, than at least X fans.


I'm not sure "people in general" can equate to objective truth, even if we could agree about what we value.


----------



## ahammel

science said:


> I'm not sure "people in general" can equate to objective truth, even if we could agree about what we value.


I'm not sure what you mean. The statement "X is a property that most music fans value" is either true or false for any X (give it take some vagueness about what is meant by "most"). There's no subjective judgement in there.


----------



## Woodduck

The "eye of the beholder" theory of artistic excellence makes all statements of aesthetic value mere rationalizations of "I like this better than that." Why do I like it better? Any reason will do except "because it's better." That reason is not allowed.

Beauty may require an eye to exist in, but that eye can deepen and refine it's vision. It can learn to see in its object what it couldn't see before. And seeing more, it discovers, not creates, a more beautiful object.

The refined eye can say "I recognize that A is finer, but I prefer B." Aesthetic judgment exists. Symphonies and paintings are not just flavors of ice cream.

That beauty can't be measured "scientifically," i.e. quantified, does not prove it purely a projection of the mind. It's possible that aesthetic qualities are measurable, but only qualitatively, as love and truth are measurable. We take for granted that qualities of the inner life, states of mind, spirit, and emotion, including logical certainty when we perceive a truth, can be grasped by direct perception and examined for validity by a process of intuition which is subject to deepening and refinement with practice. Yet we will not accept that aesthetic value can also be grasped intuitively and our perception of it developed in a similar way; and if we can't have "proof" of its existence or quantity, as we would have if it were an object or substance to be weighed in ounces or measured in inches, we deny its existence.

Why? Just because we differ with each other? When were differences of opinion proof or disproof of anything? As my aesthetic judgment grows, I will come to differ with myself. Meanwhile the object will be there, satisfied in its qualities, waiting unconcerned as I develop the ability to see its beauty.


----------



## Piwikiwi

Ukko said:


> You must be right. The meaning of the word has changed quite a bit over time. One of the now obsolete meanings fits both TC and your statement well. Even so...


Haha well played


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> The "eye of the beholder" theory


has become corrupted to justify 'anything goes' in any field open to judgement, and has consequently become a discredited aphorism.

I'm not about to listen to the two versions of the Chopin posted earlier to find out which of the two is the 'real' beauty, since the gauntlet being thrown down seems to me to say more about the poster offering a definition of personal superiority and refinement than about any qualitative difference between the two performances (and in any case, I'll always pick the one that doesn't crackle, and that says more about my prejudice than beauty!)

Rather like the 'what is classical music?' question, the 'which is more beautiful?' question is somewhat redundant in everyday life. The last time I compiled my desert island discs, I chose no classical. If I were a refined and superior being, I would now, of course, choose only classical, and probably only works composed between 1700 and 1827. As I'm not, I'll pick a combination of what I most like and what will be of most use to me. This is because musical choices are not just about seeking and selecting only that which is objectively beautiful - not an unreasonable pursuit in itself, provided you don't triumphantly inflict your findings on the rest of us - but also about where you first heard it, who you were with, what you were doing and what it meant at the time, why you listened to this and not that, and, perhaps most important of all, what kind of a person you are.

As some guy never tires of telling us, music is not about the listener, nor about the music, but about what is created when the two combine. If _Happy/Das Lied Von Erde _is what you like to listen to because it means the most to you in your life, then that is what is 'beautiful' for you, because it is about more than a song by Pharrell Williams/work by Mahler. I see no real value in trying to justify that one is more beautiful than the other, unless I'm in a competition where I want to prove that I have the better taste, or I am a scientist wanting to find whether there are any neuropsychological reasons behind musical choices - neither of which have any place in my day-to-day living (assuming that seeking superiority over others is a failing that shouldn't have any place, whatever the field of competition).

I'm quite happy to join an argument about angels and pins for a while, but I'd probably prefer to watch my favourite movie or listen to Wyatt's _Sea Song_ or Mahler's _Symphony No. 6_ than pursue a pointless debate until I've defeated the absolutists/relativists.


----------



## science

ahammel said:


> I'm not sure what you mean. The statement "X is a property that most music fans value" is either true or false for any X (give it take some vagueness about what is meant by "most"). There's no subjective judgement in there.


If you really embrace this theory, the best music is pop.

In the not-so-recent past it was universally implicit (and remains widely so today) that only the opinions of some sort of elite were valued. And then we have a nice circular system, whose purpose can only be to sustain the reputation and self-image of the elite.

But either way we have the problem, why do "most humans" or even some elite among us get to decide the objective truth? Are the opinions of all other sentient beings (including other humans) a priori worthless?



Woodduck said:


> The "eye of the beholder" theory of artistic excellence makes all statements of aesthetic value mere rationalizations of "I like this better than that." Why do I like it better? Any reason will do except "because it's better." That reason is not allowed.


Maybe so, but so what?



Woodduck said:


> We take for granted that qualities of the inner life, states of mind, spirit, and emotion, including logical certainty when we perceive a truth, can be grasped by direct perception and examined for validity by a process of intuition which is subject to deepening and refinement with practice.


I don't take that for granted; I don't see how anyone in the age of neuroscience could take this for granted.



MacLeod said:


> I'll always pick the one that doesn't crackle, and that says more about my prejudice than beauty!


All of our perceptions are prejudiced. I see woman A as more attractive than woman B, and even if every other heterosexual human male that ever existed agreed with me, it would merely be a matter of our prejudices happening to align in this case. A bat or a god or the women's children or a baboon could disagree, and there would be no way to prove who is right.

That's not how, say, the Pythagorean theorem or the shape of the orbit of Mars works.


----------



## EdwardBast

science said:


> All of our perceptions are prejudiced. I see woman A as more attractive than woman B, and even if every other heterosexual human male that ever existed agreed with me, it would merely be a matter of our prejudices happening to align in this case. A bat or a god or the women's children or a baboon could disagree, and there would be no way to prove who is right.


Scientific studies have shown that judgments of human beauty seem to be based on objective qualities of symmetry, proportion and texture that are consistent and stable across cultures. Some have speculated that these preferences are innate, primordial and due to evolutionary pressures to choose healthy, fit and capable mates, qualities perceived to correlate with symmetry and pleasing proportion.


----------



## science

EdwardBast said:


> Scientific studies have shown that judgments of human beauty seem to be based on objective qualities of symmetry, proportion and texture that are consistent and stable across cultures. Some have speculated that these preferences are innate, primordial and due to evolutionary pressures to choose healthy, fit and capable mates, qualities perceived to correlate with symmetry and pleasing proportion.


I don't doubt any of that, and there's more along those lines (such as waist/hip ratios and other indicators of fertility), but it's not the same thing as objectivity. I mean, bull walruses must find cows more attractive when they're in estrus, but do any other sentient beings share their aesthetic preferences?

Anyway, even all that is very vague - not like whether a particular woman looks better with short or long hair, straight or curly, or with pink or red or no lipstick, and so on. The devil would be in the details.

And again, are we really willing to concede that the mass of humanity are better able to decide what music is objectively good? I doubt many of us would agree with the results.


----------



## science

If I win this objectivity debate/argument, it will be objectively the best debate/argument on TC.


----------



## ahammel

science said:


> If you really embrace this theory, the best music is pop.


 I think you misunderstand the theory. I'm not saying that we should decide questions of aesthetic judgement by taking a vote.



> In the not-so-recent past it was universally implicit (and remains widely so today) that only the opinions of some sort of elite were valued. And then we have a nice circular system, whose purpose can only be to sustain the reputation and self-image of the elite.


I am also very much not saying that the tastes of some people are more valuable than others. Some people (experienced music critics, for instance) might be better at making aesthetic judgements than others. "Mahler fans will love this album" (an aesthetic judgement) means something very different from "I love this album" (a statement of taste), and they both mean something very different from "I love this album and so should you."



> But either way we have the problem, why do "most humans" or even some elite among us get to decide the objective truth? Are the opinions of all other sentient beings (including other humans) a priori worthless?


Again, not saying that some people's tastes are more valuable than others. I'm saying that music has properties that cause it do be valuable to listeners, and we can make aesthetic judgements about whether a particular piece of music has those properties to a greater of lesser degree. Obviously there will be differences in taste among listeners, but that's neither here nor there.

As for non human intelligences: I would say that aesthetic judgements are made with a particular audience in mind. Obviously aesthetic judgements intended for humans will not apply to gods and chickens and robots.



> All of our perceptions are prejudiced. I see woman A as more attractive than woman B, and even if every other heterosexual human male that ever existed agreed with me, it would merely be a matter of our prejudices happening to align in this case. A bat or a god or the women's children or a baboon could disagree, and there would be no way to prove who is right.


I don't like the example at all (human beings are not works of art), but in this case I think most people would accept that the statement "this woman is attractive to straight men" is true.


----------



## Ukko

EdwardBast said:


> Scientific studies have shown that judgments of human beauty seem to be based on objective qualities of symmetry, proportion and texture that are consistent and stable across cultures. Some have speculated that these preferences are innate, primordial and due to evolutionary pressures to choose healthy, fit and capable mates, qualities perceived to correlate with symmetry and pleasing proportion.


Hah! Another sop to my Sense Of Superiority (which is always in need of sops). I believe that pretty, handsome, and beautiful are not close synonyms, and that beautiful is the most distant of the three.


----------



## EdwardBast

Ukko said:


> Hah! Another sop to my Sense Of Superiority (which is always in need of sops). I believe that pretty, handsome, and beautiful are not close synonyms, and that beautiful is the most distant of the three.


They are closer when applied to men than to women.


----------



## science

ahammel said:


> Some people (experienced music critics, for instance) might be better at making aesthetic judgements than others. "Mahler fans will love this album" (an aesthetic judgement) means something very different from "I love this album" (a statement of taste), and they both mean something very different from "I love this album and so should you."


Ah, I see. Essentially you don't mean that there are objective aesthetic values, but that some people are better at figuring out what people who like X probably like about it, and therefore at anticipating whether they will like Y too. It doesn't mean that anyone is right or wrong to like X or Y, but finding the relationships between X and its audiences.

If I've got that right, you're not actually saying anything about whether aesthetic values are objective or subjective (nothing about "you should like this because it's objectively good"), just that some people are good at finding patterns in people's tastes.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> Scientific studies have shown that judgments of human beauty seem to be based on objective qualities of symmetry, proportion and texture that are consistent and stable across cultures. Some have speculated that these preferences are innate, primordial and due to evolutionary pressures to choose healthy, fit and capable mates, qualities perceived to correlate with symmetry and pleasing proportion.


Apparently babies from various cultures have been presented with human faces considered more or less beautiful, and they have responded most positively, by staring for a longer time, at beautiful ones. This is apparently an innate sense of what is aesthetically attractive. We might argue that this concerns only faces, but there are also substantial areas of agreement among people about abstract qualities of design. An art student studying composition learns design principles which have evolved over centuries and still seem sound to most people despite radical changes in artistic styles. The perception of beauty seems more than arbitrary convention. Would it not be very surprising, given the more or less consistent structure and function of the human body and brain and the universally applicable physical laws under which we all operate, if beauty had no objective basis?


----------



## MoonlightSonata

I think this thread has gone a bit off-topic.


----------



## ahammel

science said:


> Ah, I see. Essentially you don't mean that there are objective aesthetic values, but that some people are better at figuring out what people who like X probably like about it, and therefore at anticipating whether they will like Y too. It doesn't mean that anyone is right or wrong to like X or Y, but finding the relationships between X and its audiences.
> 
> If I've got that right, you're not actually saying anything about whether aesthetic values are objective or subjective (nothing about "you should like this because it's objectively good"), just that some people are good at finding patterns in people's tastes.


Yeah, something like that. I'm not sure what you mean by "objective aesthetic values", exactly, but if it means that there is some property of the universe independent of people's minds that makes some thing beautiful and other things ugly, then no, I don't think that.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Would it not be very surprising, given the more or less consistent structure and function of the human body and brain and the universally applicable physical laws under which we all operate, if beauty had no objective basis?


It would. What we are presented with here, however, is a biological explanation; an objective absolute has been reduced to animal programming. This is far from what _some _of those who seek objective beauty have been looking for. What the elite seek is either confirmation of their superior taste - only they have the refined judgement to see it - or confirmation that 'beauty' is something gifted by god, and that their is an additional moral imperative that insists what must and must not be listened to.


----------



## Guest

Here's the universals: humans like being pleased. Different things please different people. Some people want to privilege the things that please them.


----------



## hpowders

My favorite debate? Ma Vlast is better than your Vlast!


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> It would. What we are presented with here, however, is a biological explanation; an objective absolute has been reduced to animal programming. This is far from what _some _of those who seek objective beauty have been looking for. What the elite seek is either confirmation of their superior taste - only they have the refined judgement to see it - or confirmation that 'beauty' is something gifted by god, and that their is an additional moral imperative that insists what must and must not be listened to.


Perhaps "animal programming" is what everything human comes down to, and maybe we shouldn't think of it as a reduction. It seems reasonable to think that understanding the biological bases of aesthetic perception could demystify those "objective absolutes" by showing where they do and don't have roots in reality.

If there are qualities we human animals are "programmed," or predisposed by nature, to perceive as beautiful - and I mean, specifically, "beautiful," not just pleasurable - should we be surprised if we are all programmed similarly? Or surprised if, to a significant extent, our fundamentally similar programming is highly modifiable by experience? I suspect that, as with most genetic programming at levels more complex than basic biological functioning, both are true. But, if there are objective parameters for the aesthetic sense, should we be offended at the thought that some of us perceive qualities of beauty more easily or fully than others - that the "taste" of some is more developed or refined ? And if that should offend us, shouldn't we also be offended at the thought that we ourselves might become more perceptive than we are at present, and that with greater knowledge our own "taste" might develop and change?

Snobbery and moralizing are not all on the side of the "absolutists." "Absolute relativism" - the belief that all aesthetic value is a matter of "taste," that artistic excellence is defined as "whatever I like" - is also a dogma. We are offended when anyone claims superior perception or aesthetic taste, but our offendedness needs a theory to defend it as much as their "offense" does. And if in fact their only offense is to believe in their ability to discern beauty or its lack, have they offended at all? We need to believe that they have. Our pride depends upon denying that anyone's taste can be superior to our own, and on blaming them for looking down on us as inferior beings, whether or not they actually do. Snobbery, or even the presumption of it, meets reverse snobbery, and if the latter wins we have a perfect recipe for enforcing conformity and producing mediocrity. American culture specializes in reverse snobbery: watch the treatment of gifted children by their schoolmates. Some of those children will survive the mockery, the ostracism and the bullying with their self-esteem more or less intact. Others will not.

Art is about much more than beauty, and personal taste involves more than the perception of beauty. But a taste _for_ beauty - an ability to discern and enjoy aesthetic qualities in a work of art or music, apart from the individual qualities which mark its provenance and style and which may or may not appeal to our _personal_ taste - is a value in itself, and valuing it doesn't mark us as snobs or "elitists." I find "elitism" a curious term, and suspect it was invented by those with a need to justify feeling inferior and feeling offended by those who don't. When I was growing up, long, long ago, I never heard the word. I merely observed, and was not offended by, the fact that some people knew more than I did, and I assumed that if I worked hard at my music and my studies I would become one of them. I'm still working at it, but - alas! - there are still vast numbers of people who know more than I do.

Damned elitists.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Perhaps "animal programming" is what everything human comes down to, and maybe we shouldn't think of it as a reduction. It seems reasonable to think that understanding the biological bases of aesthetic perception could demystify those "objective absolutes" by showing where they do and don't have roots in reality.


I'm with you on your first paragraph: a reasonable proposition. Not the rest. Your succession of rhetorical questions are aimed at carrying the unchallenging reader unquestioningly to your conclusion that we should side with an exclusive elite because if we don't, we side with the bullies of gifted children. So, I'll just challenge your first assertion (beginning your second para) that we can be programmed for 'beauty'. Sure, that programme that causes us to respond biologically to the golden mean in the human face can be called 'beauty', but I'd prefer to use a different term that doesn't already carry with the loading of a history of aesthetic judgement, just so we can be clear we are sticking with the animal.

I'm mildly 'offended' by the rhetorical trick of "Should we be offended by...?" .

If I assert that Mozart excelled at producing work that conformed to generally accepted norms of musical beauty, it doesn't follow that I must also assert that my being able to recognise this puts me in a position of intellectual and moral superiority. The elite that I referred to _does _choose to make such an assertion.

As for the list of objections to 'absolute relativism', you might like to consider the list of potential objections to 'absolutism'. But we've both failed in this, by choosing extremes to write about. For the moment, I like the idea that we are biologically programmed to spot the beauty in the 'Moonlight' Sonata, but that, as you say, that programming is plastic, and can be changed to embrace the beauty in X, where X is the work by a composer who is less instantly recognised by the public that acknowledges Beethoven's greatness, but nevertheless has a dedicated following.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> I'm with you on your first paragraph: a reasonable proposition. Not the rest. Your succession of rhetorical questions are aimed at carrying the unchallenging reader unquestioningly to your conclusion that we should side with an exclusive elite because if we don't, we side with the bullies of gifted children. So, I'll just challenge your first assertion (beginning your second para) that we can be programmed for 'beauty'. Sure, that programme that causes us to respond biologically to the golden mean in the human face can be called 'beauty', but I'd prefer to use a different term that doesn't already carry with the loading of a history of aesthetic judgement, just so we can be clear we are sticking with the animal.
> 
> I'm mildly 'offended' by the rhetorical trick of "Should we be offended by...?" .
> 
> If I assert that Mozart excelled at producing work that conformed to generally accepted norms of musical beauty, it doesn't follow that I must also assert that my being able to recognise this puts me in a position of intellectual and moral superiority. The elite that I referred to _does _choose to make such an assertion.
> 
> As for the list of objections to 'absolute relativism', you might like to consider the list of potential objections to 'absolutism'. But we've both failed in this, by choosing extremes to write about. For the moment, I like the idea that we are biologically programmed to spot the beauty in the 'Moonlight' Sonata, but that, as you say, that programming is plastic, and can be changed to embrace the beauty in X, where X is the work by a composer who is less instantly recognised by the public that acknowledges Beethoven's greatness, but nevertheless has a dedicated following.


I was trying to be even-handed here about this concept of an "elite" and its reprehensible snobbery. As I said, every position on these questions implies certain assumptions, and the assumptions - and behavior - of "relativists" can be as arrogant and moralistic as those of "absolutists." The relativists just don't recognize it - which, if I have to choose a brand of snob, tends to make me prefer the more overt ones. At least you know where they stand, and where you stand with them.

I didn't assert that humans are programmed for beauty. I hypothsized it: "If...then." If you'd rather just leave it at babies and faces, well - OK. I like the broader subject better myself.

Since extreme relativism (and not only in aesthetics) seems a dominant characteristic of our age, I rather enjoy poking at it. Nothing personal, truly. My thoughts were more inspired by yours than directed at them.

I do personally believe that there are criteria of beauty rooted in physical nature and in the functions of the body and mind, criteria which transcend culture and style and are recognized universally, though of course not equally by all people. The perception of beauty as such is not experienced in isolation from other feelings, perceptions, ideas, and culture, and the influence of all these factors account for the immense variety in the way humans experience, and express themselves through the making of, beautiful things.


----------



## Guest

The terms "relativism" and "absolutism" are both of them equally static.

It's easier to talk about static things, it's true. They don't move around much, you know. And there is a certain utility to looking at a dynamic situation as if it were static. Slow things down, even stop them, temporarily, so we can see certain things and talk about them before they move and change into something else.

Eventually, though, we have to go back to the real world, which is dynamic, not static. In these discussions, I have chosen the notion of where to place beauty as the way back in to the real world. This has been a real hard-sell, I have found. Everyone is determined to keep the conversation firmly attached to stasis. Beauty is either in the object or in the (eye of the) beholder. Period. The former is for the "absolutists," the latter is for the "relativists." And we have very conveniently separated the static world up into two static camps.

But the world is dynamic. Really. And none of the above about beauty really captures what happens in a dynamic world. 

Finding biological imperatives for aesthetic responses is all well and good, except that biology is not any more "real" than anything else. Nor is biology static, for that matter. Nor is biology the only thing nor even the most important thing. (Even calling it a "thing," as I just did, is to use the vocabulary of stasis, you'll have noticed.)

Algebra and geometry are good and valuable ways of understanding certain things. What these conversations really need, however, is a calculus of aesthetics. There are just some things that our algebras and our geometries of aesthetics just cannot account for.


----------



## Figleaf

'Elitism' is a rather question begging word, which is used to conflate certain aesthetic or intellectual tastes or pursuits with social snobbery or the membership of a hostile, exploitative overclass. These two facets of 'elitism' are quite different things, and only overlap to the extent that the wealthy and privileged (in the UK at any rate) do enjoy better schooling than the rest of us, and may or may not develop a taste for high art as a consequence. People who use 'elitism' in the intentionally ambiguous way I have described are indeed siding with the bullies of (working class) gifted children by insisting that those children should know their place, and that anyone who develops tastes less debased than the majority is effectively a class traitor who deserves to be ostracised or worse. The fact that absolutely nobody these days would use an expression like 'class traitor' leaves us with weaselly code words like 'elitism'. It must suit the social elite- the 'one percent' or whatever we choose to call them- that the rest of us are happy to channel our legitimate frustration (with our lack of prospects or with our comprehensive school induced sense of intellectual and cultural inferiority) into bullying those from our own background who dare to take an interest in those arts and academic disciplines which have somehow become the preserve of the privately educated.

I am of course speaking from experience of growing up in the UK. Woodduck paints a depressingly familiar picture of the usage of 'elitism' and the assumptions behind it in the US. I would hope that in continental Europe, it is possible for a young person from a humble or merely ordinary background to listen to symphonies or learn ancient Greek without encountering overwhelming disapproval from those who not only consider intellectual 'levelling down' to be an honourable endeavour but who take it on themselves to enforce it.


----------



## science

Just for scorekeeping purposes, I want to be sure everyone realizes that I have won five out of three of the best debates on TC and lost zero out of negative two of the worst debates on TC, giving me a score of 7.3 on the Ibert-Rastakov CMP Scale (original version of 1934). In other words, according to the official statistics (which admittedly only go back to 2007), I have won talkclassical.


----------



## Torkelburger

ahammel said:


> I guess the opposing viewpoint would be that there seems to be a distinction between statements of taste (I like X) and aesthetic judgements (X is beautiful) that people understand.
> 
> If all aesthetic judgements are statements of taste, then sentences like "I like listening to Mozart more than I like listening to Beethoven, but I think Beethoven was the better composer" are nonsense, but people make and seem to understand statements like that all the time.
> 
> When people say something like "this work of art, X, is beautiful", they don't mean "X has properties P, Q, and R which I find pleasing", but nor do they mean "P, Q, and R are _the_ set of properties which objectively make X's pleasing, as ordained by God". I think what they mean is "P, Q, and R are properties which _people in general_ value in X's". Or if not people in general, than at least X fans.


There is no need to discuss meanings or the number of people who hold an opinion, or a scientific reason for people having an opinion. We are deciphering between facts and opinions. It's as simple as that.

"I like X" is a statement of a fact.

"X is beautiful" is a statement of an opinion.

"I like listening to Mozart more that I like listening to Beethoven, but I think Beethoven was the better composer" is the statement of a fact followed by a statement of an opinion.

"This work of art, X, is beautiful" is a statement of an opinion whether they mean "P, Q, and R are properties which _people in general_ value in X's" or not.


----------



## Torkelburger

> The "eye of the beholder" theory of artistic excellence makes all statements of aesthetic value mere rationalizations of "I like this better than that." Why do I like it better? Any reason will do except "because it's better." That reason is not allowed.


Yes, it is.



> The refined eye can say "I recognize that A is finer, but I prefer B." Aesthetic judgment exists. Symphonies and paintings are not just flavors of ice cream.


When judging and labeling them with a descriptive sentiment, which this discussion is about, then yes, they are.


----------



## ahammel

Torkelburger said:


> There is no need to discuss meanings or the number of people who hold an opinion, or a scientific reason for people having an opinion. We are deciphering between facts and opinions. It's as simple as that.
> 
> "I like X" is a statement of a fact.
> 
> "X is beautiful" is a statement of an opinion.
> 
> "I like listening to Mozart more that I like listening to Beethoven, but I think Beethoven was the better composer" is the statement of a fact followed by a statement of an opinion.
> 
> "This work of art, X, is beautiful" is a statement of an opinion whether they mean "P, Q, and R are properties which _people in general_ value in X's" or not.


What's an opinion?

Obviously it's not just a personal taste or preference, since your last paragraph doesn't contain one of those.


----------



## Chronochromie

The Alma Deutscher thread that became half as long as the Current Listening in a couple of weeks is the worst I've seen. But it seems this thread has now turned into another debate. Oh, the humanity!


----------



## Torkelburger

ahammel said:


> What's an opinion?
> 
> Obviously it's not just a personal taste or preference, since your last paragraph doesn't contain one of those.


X is beautiful is a personal taste and preference. The fact that you've arbitrarily correlated with something else doesn't change the fact that "X is beautiful" is still an opinion.


----------



## Albert7

Some of the best debates and discussions have happened in the tinychat room for TC. Very vivid and interactive.


----------



## ahammel

Torkelburger said:


> X is beautiful is a personal taste and preference. The fact that you've arbitrarily correlated with something else doesn't change the fact that "X is beautiful" is still an opinion.


Oh, so an opinion is a personal taste or preference? Am I understanding you correctly?

If so, then the problem I have with your theory is that it makes your third statement a contradiction ("[I prefer Mozart] and not [I prefer Mozart]").


----------



## Torkelburger

There is nothing contradictory about it at all.
"I like Mozart's music better than Beethoven's music." is a statement of a fact about my preference.
"Beethoven was a better composer than Mozart." is a statement of an opinion and is not about my preference.


----------



## ahammel

Torkelburger said:


> There is nothing contradictory about it at all.
> "I like Mozart's music better than Beethoven's music." is a statement of a fact about my preference.
> "Beethoven was a better composer than Mozart." is a statement of an opinion and is about nobody's preference.


Ok, so opinions _ aren't_ statements of preference? Then I repeat my question about what exactly an opinion is.


----------



## Torkelburger

I re-edited. Please re-read.


----------



## ahammel

Torkelburger said:


> I re-edited. Please re-read.


Sorry, but I still don't know what you mean by "opinion" in this context.


----------



## Torkelburger

I don't see how it could be any more clear. "Beethoven was a better composer than Mozart." is a statement of an opinion and is not about my preference. That statement could easily be the preference of anybody else. Not the person talking. It is not a statement of a fact. There is no reason to be so obtuse.


----------



## Mahlerian

Isn't it rather a statement of belief? "I believe that Beethoven was a better composer than Mozart."

If there is no such thing as a "better composer," it would be a false statement of belief, but that doesn't make it an opinion.


----------



## ahammel

Torkelburger said:


> I don't see how it could be any more clear. "Beethoven was a better composer than Mozart." is a statement of an opinion and is not about my preference. That statement could easily be the preference of anybody else. Not the person talking. It is not a statement of a fact.


The word "opinion" can be used in a number of different ways. If I say "in my opinion, X is better than Y", I might mean "I prefer X to Y", as in " chocolate is better than vanilla, in my opinion". Or I might mean "I am making an educated guess that X is superior in some objective way to Y", as in " in my opinion, Father's Moustache is a faster horse than Two For the Road". [EDIT: or, to use Mahlerian's wording, "I believe that in a race this horse will run faster than that horse "] Note that this second kind if opinion can either be right or wrong: some horses really are faster than others.

It is not clear to me whether by "opinion" you mean one of these, or some other meaning. The fact that you contrast opinions with facts suggests the first definition, but your insistence that opinions are not about personal preferences suggests the second. Hence my confusion.


> There is no reason to be so obtuse.


It's a personal failing, I'm sure.


----------



## Guest

I recall seeing a conversation of this sort somewhere else, on the large South American river forum. Or perhaps the large female warrior one.

Same thing happened there. Two statements of opinion were presented. One was called a statement of fact. One was called an opinion. But they were both opinions. "I like Mozart" is no less an opinion than "Beethoven is a better composer." Facts have no element of preference about them, no element of valuation. "The sun is made of ice" is a fact. It is also false. Facts coming in two flavors as it were, false and true. "I like to sunbathe" is a statement that may indeed be true, but it is still a statement of opinion because it expresses a preference, which facts simply do not do. "A square has four equal sides." "I like trapezoids." Different kinds of statements.


----------



## Torkelburger

Mahlerian said:


> Isn't it rather a statement of belief? "I believe that Beethoven was a better composer than Mozart."
> 
> If there is no such thing as a "better composer," it would be a false statement of belief, but that doesn't make it an opinion.


See definition #1 from here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion


----------



## Torkelburger

ahammel said:


> The word "opinion" can be used in a number of different ways. If I say "in my opinion, X is better than Y", I might mean "I prefer X to Y", as in " chocolate is better than vanilla, in my opinion". Or I might mean "I am making an educated guess that X is superior in some objective way to Y", as in " in my opinion, Father's Moustache is a faster horse than Two For the Road". [EDIT: or, to use Mahlerian's wording, "I believe that in a race this horse will run faster than that horse "] Note that this second kind if opinion can either be right or wrong: some horses really are faster than others.
> 
> It is not clear to me whether by "opinion" you mean one of these, or some other meaning. The fact that you contrast opinions with facts suggests the first definition, but your insistence that opinions are not about personal preferences suggests the second. Hence my confusion.
> 
> It's a personal failing, I'm sure.


It is a personal failing then, as I can only take your words at face value. There is no confusion when you use your modifiers, therefore you should use them as you did in your examples.


----------



## ahammel

Torkelburger said:


> It is a personal failing then, as I can only take your words at face value. There is no confusion when you use your modifiers, therefore you should use them as you did in your examples.


Ok, here's another guess: you're saying that I'm more or less correct about what people mean when they say "X is beautiful" as an aesthetic judgement, with the proviso that is meant as an educated guess our statement of belief, rather than something that they're certain about.

Am I getting close?


----------



## Torkelburger

ahammel said:


> Ok, here's another guess: you're saying that I'm more or less correct about what people mean when they say "X is beautiful" as an aesthetic judgement, with the proviso that is meant as an educated guess our statement of belief, rather than something that they're certain about.
> 
> Am I getting close?


No, I'm saying if you mean for something to say something other than it's face value, or more complex, or in addition to it's face value that needs explaining, then explain it and don't assume the person you are speaking to understands your complex meaning.


----------



## ahammel

Torkelburger said:


> No, I'm saying if you mean for something to say something other than it's face value, or more complex, or in addition to it's face value that needs explaining, then explain it and don't assume the person you are speaking to understands your complex meaning.


What in particular do you want me to clarify?


----------



## Torkelburger

Umm, you've BEEN clarifying "X is beautiful".


----------



## ahammel

Torkelburger said:


> Umm, you've BEEN clarifying "X is beautiful".


Yes, have.

I guess we're not communicating today. Have a good one.


----------



## OlivierM

Torkelburger said:


> I don't see how it could be any more clear. "Beethoven was a better composer than Mozart." is a statement of an opinion and is not about my preference. That statement could easily be the preference of anybody else. Not the person talking. It is not a statement of a fact. There is no reason to be so obtuse.


To say that Beethoven is a better composer than Mozart is so obvious it can't really be an opinion 
An understatement at best


----------



## Blake

OlivierM said:


> To say that Beethoven is a better composer than Mozart is so obvious it can't really be an opinion
> An understatement at best


No one is greater than the Wolf. Fact.


----------



## Ukko

Blake said:


> No one is greater than the Wolf. Fact.


He was more a Coyote (Navaho version) handicapped by having a dog ancestor somewhere.


----------



## Woodduck

Ukko said:


> He was more a Coyote (Navaho version) handicapped by having a dog ancestor somewhere.


You mean the one whose Bach was worse than his bite?


----------



## Blancrocher

Woodduck said:


> You mean the one whose Bach was worse than his bite?


This thread has had its ups and downs, but this is the first time I've felt that I should make use of the "report" button.


----------



## Tristan

The stupid modern vs. non-modern classical debates. It's the same thing over and over. We have some users who seem to like post threads that goad these arguments and yet they all have 10 pages, so obviously people buy into it each time. And they're always rated 1 star too. Don't see the appeal in them, but I guess it's entertaining for some of us.


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> The terms "relativism" and "absolutism" are both of them equally static.


I don't understand what you mean by 'static'. Can you elaborate?



Woodduck said:


> I didn't assert that humans are programmed for beauty. I hypothsized it: "If...then." If you'd rather just leave it at babies and faces, well - OK. I like the broader subject better myself.


Fair enough. My sentence should therefore read, "So, I'll just challenge your hypothesis (beginning your second para) that we can be programmed for 'beauty'." (My objection is not to 'programming', but to 'beauty'.)



Figleaf said:


> 'Elitism' is a rather question begging word, *which is used* to conflate certain aesthetic or intellectual tastes or pursuits with social snobbery or the membership of a hostile, exploitative overclass. These two facets of 'elitism' are quite different things,


Who is doing the 'using'? Us, society at large, a specific poster?

You're right that the term is being used to carry differences in meaning that I don't recognise. If that's my fault, then I'd need some qualifier, to make sure that the kind of elitism I was referring to back in post #213 is 'exclusivity' and not mere 'excellence'.


----------



## violadude

Tristan said:


> The stupid modern vs. non-modern classical debates. It's the same thing over and over. We have some users who seem to like post threads that goad these arguments and yet they all have 10 pages, so obviously people buy into it each time. And they're always rated 1 star too. Don't see the appeal in them, but I guess it's entertaining for some of us.


Many people find it hard to resist a good old fashioned train wreck.


----------



## mtmailey

I say the worst one was about who is the greatest composer.I think there is no one great composer but many great composers dead or alive.They say BEETHOVEN is the greatest composer I say that is their opinion.


----------



## ahammel

mtmailey said:


> I say the worst one was about who is the greatest composer.I think there is no one great composer but many great composers dead or alive.They say BEETHOVEN is the greatest composer I say that is their opinion.


Oh, he's somewhere in the top 1000, to be sure.


----------



## science

ahammel said:


> Oh, he's somewhere in the top 1000, to be sure.


Let's say 5000 just to be on the safe side, and clarify that we mean in the German or at least the European tradition.


----------



## Blake

Beethoven? No one greater. Fact.


But really... "greatest" only exist in an individual mind. There is nothing objective about it. We should be past this by now, but as someone else pointed out - we love playing in the slop.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

ahammel said:


> Oh, he's somewhere in the top 1000, to be sure.


You're being too liberal with that number, let's say top 5,000. Maybe.


----------



## science

DiesIraeVIX said:


> You're being too liberal with that number, let's say top 5,000. Maybe.


Great minds, like the saying goes. Great minds.


----------



## trazom

science said:


> Great minds, like the saying goes. Great minds.


They also say that fools seldom differ.


----------



## science

trazom said:


> They also say that fools seldom differ.


Well, I have bad news for you: I agree with that saying too.


----------



## trazom

science said:


> Well, I have bad news for you: I agree with that saying too.


Hey, I never said I agreed with it I was just throwing it out there for instance. I'm impartial!


----------

