# Not by Reason but By Faith



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

The passionate few only have their way by reason of the fact that they are genuinely interested in literature, that literature matters to them. They conquer by their obstinacy alone, by their eternal repetition of the same statements. Do you suppose they could prove to the man in the street that Shakespeare was a great artist? The said man would not even understand the terms they employed. But when he is told ten thousand times, and generation after generation, that Shakespeare was a great artist the said man believes - not by reason, but by faith. - Arnold Bennett

Are there any composers that you dare not hold in contempt because of faith? 
I answer in the negative. Anyone who has seen my posts on Schumann, Tchaikovsky, and Shostakovich can surely attest to that.

People are far more obstinate about their personal taste in music than their personal taste in literature. Most people who have never appreciated Shakespeare would be unwilling to challenge Shakespeare's merits, but Bach gets made fun of all the time, Mozart is heinously mistreated, and Wagner, well, the Wagner case is self-evident.

This entire essay is fascinating.

http://grammar.about.com/od/classicessays/a/Why-A-Classic-Is-A-Classic-By-Arnold-Bennett.htm

*What causes the passionate few to make such a fuss about literature? There can be only one reply. They find a keen and lasting pleasure in literature. They enjoy literature as some men enjoy beer. *The recurrence of this pleasure naturally keeps their interest in literature very much alive. They are for ever making new researches, for ever practising on themselves. They learn to understand themselves. They learn to know what they want. *Their taste becomes surer and surer as their experience lengthens. They do not enjoy to-day what will seem tedious to them to-morrow. When they find a book tedious, no amount of popular clatter will persuade them that it is pleasurable; and when they find it pleasurable no chill silence of the street-crowds will affect their conviction that the book is good and permanent.* They have faith in themselves. What are the qualities in a book which give keen and lasting pleasure to the passionate few? *This is a question so difficult that it has never yet been completely answered. You may talk lightly about truth, insight, knowledge, wisdom, humour, and beauty. But these comfortable words do not really carry you very far, for each of them has to be defined, especially the first and last.* It is all very well for Keats in his airy manner to assert that beauty is truth, truth beauty, and that that is all he knows or needs to know. I, for one, need to know a lot more. And I never shall know. Nobody, not even Hazlitt nor Sainte-Beuve, has ever finally explained why he thought a book beautiful.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I'm not sure "faith" is the right word to use. I think a piece becomes elevated above the ordinary by the considered judgment of scholars and others who have dedicated themselves to a particular art and also the work's lasting value through its connection with its audience. A scholar _can_ make a general statement that a particular work has merit, but if you ask why, he also will be able to give you the _reasons_. This goes beyond the idea of blind faith and uninformed opinions.

The only reason to accept a work as great on faith alone is when a person is too lazy to explore the scholar's reasons for a piece's greatness.

So the question is, am I afraid to disregard the greatness of a piece/composer because I feel he/it is not as good as everyone says it is? I wouldn't say I'm afraid; I would say I'm careful. If I were considering disregarding a piece/composer which has stood the test of time, I would first try to find out the things which made it/them considered worthy of consideration. I've done that quite a few times and discovered I was the one who was wrong.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

At the risk of generalising, literature is open to less interpretative scope than music. "Every time I listen to Bach's _Brandenburg Concertos_, I get the feeling that I am on board a green alien's spaceship travelling at the speed of light with beautiful alien looking creatures all around me, and I feel great". Now if this listener was normally of sound mind, he was simply having his interpretative joy out the piece. Perhaps eccentric but valid. But with literature, if he said the same of _Hamlet_ you would probably question whether he really had any comprehension of the work. As you wrote above, folks "are far more obstinate about their personal taste in music than their personal taste in literature". That's because music is often far more personal in one's sense of interpretation and enjoyment. That's all good - it leads to tonnes of bickering right here at TC, for example.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

While I do think that there are some vague objective qualities to music across time periods that we have not (and cannot?) properly define, I only care about and write about and argue about my subjective experiences.

With that in mind, of course I will openly state that I detest listening to Bach. Do I think Bach was a bad composer? That question does not appear on the radar of things I wish to consider in my lifetime.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

*The article -*

What that guy said in 1909 or whenever may have been true then, but not now. Back then, books would have been very expensive, or more expensive than now. Now we have paperbacks, it's often not long before new books go to paperback (cheaper) and of course reprints of the classics are cheap as chips (not to speak of secondhand bookshops, etc.). Then also things like there are more public libraries now too.

Shakespeare is also taught in schools now (in high school). So are the many other writers, from old times till now. Then there's how films - which were only in their infancy in 1909, eg. with no sound - popularise many novels and plays, etc.

So it's not just a minority of people who enjoy, and can enjoy, great literature of the various canons from ancient to modern and beyond.

*The issue of liking things "not by reason but by faith" -*

I think some people do it, but I just give credit where credit is due, even if I don't like a composer.

I recognise Wagner's innovations and significance for music history. Eg. he influenced some of my favourite composers like Schoenberg and Messiaen. They were Wagnerites, esp. Schoenberg, who saw Wagner's operas each about three times before he left Europe to go to America in the 1930's.

By the same token, I think Wagner today is still controversial. Many people I've talked to don't like him at all and don't even acknowledge him. The usual things, eg. the length and heavyness of his works, or most typical ones. His politics, of course, although this may well have faded a bit. He's also an atypical opera composer when compared to other opera composers of the 19th century. Less common is the old saying that he stole the thunder of various earlier composers - esp. Berlioz & maybe also Weber. I don't fully agree with that, I think Wagner was his own man. But he is not universally, or near that, as loved like J.S. Bach is, or Mozart, the two other B's, or maybe to strech the point, Stravinsky, Bartok, those types of guys.

Many people like Arvo Part, I do like him - even did a thread on him ages ago on this forum - but his work of last 20 years, just about, I find to be rehash. Him rehashing himself, applying the carbon paper. Just because various people think that he's the greatest living composer, or one of them, doesn't influence what I think of him. I don't know if that's exactly relevant but anyway...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> At the risk of generalising, literature is open to less interpretative scope than music... That's because music is often far more personal in one's sense of interpretation and enjoyment...


I think that view does have a fair deal of validity, it matches a lot of my experience.

Eg. a few years back a friend and I were attending a concert, which included a contemporary piece. My friend thought it was wonderful in terms of sound, the composer's command of the orchestra and instruments, stuff of the sort. Eg. a more formal level appreciation. I on the other hand, connected with the emotions of the work, which I heard as dark and quite horrifying. The piece is Aussie Brett Dean's _Ampitheatre_, reflecting on relics of the past in our cities, which could be abandoned warehouses in our modern cities, or in ancient cities, real ampitheatres as they have in Greece or Rome.

This has happened a number of times. It's actually why I prefer to hear music with other people to get another view of the piece. & of course on this forum, it can also bring interesting discussions, as you say...


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I think the essay still has some philosophical value, but it's practicality waned long ago. 

Re books and music of high intellect, the former take considerably longer to absorb, digest, reflect. I suppose "the few" involved may very well be spurred on by both requirement and a talent for great patience.

Books and music are apples and oranges, really, and that's likely why there's been no answer.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> At the risk of generalising, literature is open to less interpretative scope than music. "Every time I listen to Bach's _Brandenburg Concertos_, I get the feeling that I am on board a green alien's spaceship travelling at the speed of light with beautiful alien looking creatures all around me, and I feel great". Now if this listener was normally of sound mind, he was simply having his interpretative joy out the piece. Perhaps eccentric but valid. But with literature, if he said the same of _Hamlet_ you would probably question whether he really had any comprehension of the work. As you wrote above, folks "are far more obstinate about their personal taste in music than their personal taste in literature". That's because music is often far more personal in one's sense of interpretation and enjoyment. That's all good - it leads to tonnes of bickering right here at TC, for example.


Is it really? Because I think that there are many poems, or at least sections of poems, that are for more ambiguous than music, and I'm not going to pull the dirty trick of comparing the best, most ambiguous poetry with a mediocre film score.

Here is a few lines of Yeats that touches me where I want to be touched.

But flame on flame, and deep on deep,
Throne over throne where in half sleep,
Their swords upon their iron knees,
Brood her high lonely mysteries.

I find these lines majestically beautiful, but also perplexing and inviting.

While the "meaning" of this Puccini aria is pretty self-evident, even if you didn't know the story at all.






Many detractors of Wagner speak their hostility to the meaning of the music! If the meaning isn't at least somewhat stable, why do I see the word "pretentious" hurled against him again and again? This isn't an adjective that's used for every composer. Mozart is never labeled pretentious, nor Verdi or Puccini.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

It might be more productive to compare your literary example with a piece of music that doesn't have a libretto.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Polednice said:


> It might be more productive to compare your literary example with a piece of music that doesn't have a libretto.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

What that guy said in 1909 or whenever may have been true then, but not now. Back then, books would have been very expensive, or more expensive than now. Now we have paperbacks, it's often not long before new books go to paperback (cheaper) and of course reprints of the classics are cheap as chips (not to speak of secondhand bookshops, etc.). Then also things like there are more public libraries now too.

Shakespeare is also taught in schools now (in high school). So are the many other writers, from old times till now. Then there's how films - which were only in their infancy in 1909, eg. with no sound - popularise many novels and plays, etc.

So it's not just a minority of people who enjoy, and can enjoy, great literature of the various canons from ancient to modern and beyond.

Yes, great art, music, and literature are more accessible in the physical sense than they have ever been. Coupled with an increase in education and literacy they are made even more accessible still. Yet just as classical music remains a passion to but a limited audience, serious literature, for the most part, remains a limited passion as well. The greatest artistic achievements quite often place greater demands upon the audience... and only a limited portion of the audience is willing to put forth the effort. If the "fine arts" were in the past reserved to an elite by right of birth, class, and wealth, the "fine arts" remain reserved to an "elite"... but an "elite" by choice... by elective affinity.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> Yes, great art, music, and literature are more accessible in the physical sense than they have ever been. Coupled with an increase in education and literacy they are made even more accessible still...


That's what I'm saying.



> ...
> Yet just as classical music remains a passion to but a limited audience, serious literature, for the most part, remains a limited passion as well. The greatest artistic achievements quite often place greater demands upon the audience... and only a limited portion of the audience is willing to put forth the effort. If the "fine arts" were in the past reserved to an elite by right of birth, class, and wealth, the "fine arts" remain reserved to an "elite"... but an "elite" by choice... by elective affinity.


It doesn't quite match my experience.

You probably have colleagues, friends, acquaintances, people in your local community, etc. that read and read widely. I know I do. You don't have to have a university degree to read widely, and read many things worth reading.

Eg. I know a guy who's a tradesman and he's most likely better read than I am. Certainly in the last decade or more. He has read the classics but also reads a lot of recent stuff, incl. non-fiction (eg. history, politics).

Then there's things like the _Harry Potter_ series which has ignited reading by young people across the world. Kids who thought it was boring and irrelevant. It's not "serious" literature but so what? I don't think of it as any less serious than things like _Winnie the Pooh_, which is by now a classic, or Exuprey's_ The Little Prince_.

The Jane Austen films done in the 1990's also spawned a resurgence of reading of her novels, seeing them in new light by man people. I was one of those who tried to read her, but I had to stop (found it very boring). But others will beg to differ.

Here, in regards to visual arts, our large art galleries are more attended - much more - than our stadiums for sports matches, etc. on the weekends. There has been a huge resurgence of interest in history in this country in recent decades, esp. family histories.

The borrowings from public libraries here has grown exponentially over the last few decades. A lot of people are still buying hard copy books, although like cd's, pundits have predicted the end of this for ages. The various reprints like Penguins with those bland covers, everything from ancient things to modern classics, I understand they sell quite well too, a number of people I know buy these, very cheap at like $10. The market is serving people's need for literature, incl. "fine" literature.

Don't underestimate the intelligence of the "ordinary person."

Speaking for myself, I have read a number of Shakespeare's plays, both in high school and after. Esp. if a new film of one of his plays came up, I sometimes read the play before seeing it in the cinemas. But it's up to taste, I'm not a regular reader of him. I mostly read things about music, also history, and to much lesser degree novels...


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

brianwalker said:


> Do you suppose they could prove to the man in the street that Shakespeare was a great artist? The said man would not even understand the terms they employed.


I'll just address this one point, because it's very close to my heart. The quote above is EXACTLY why we need critics and aficionados who can talk to "the man in the street" in terms that he CAN understand, and explain why Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Beethoven, any of the classics in the canon of art, ARE so great. Of course people cannot (and should not) be convinced (truly convinced, in their hearts) by words alone, but they can be given... clarifications, hints, signs that point, paths that lead somewhere, words that excite the imagination... that can be proven _personally_ true when "the man in the street" in question next delves in the classics himself.

Actually, I hope that I can be that critic some day myself.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

brianwalker said:


>


Are you suggesting that the "meaning" of the Brahms is less elusive than the Yeats?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Are you suggesting that the "meaning" of the Brahms is less elusive than the Yeats?


No, I'm saying that the third movement of the third symphony is less elusive in meaning than the last four lines in "He Remembers Forgotten Beauty".


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> No, I'm saying that the third movement of the third symphony is less elusive in meaning than the last four lines in "He Remembers Forgotten Beauty".


Hahahaa, which is precisely what I said, isn't it?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Hahahaa, which is precisely what I said, isn't it?


Well, I took your question as literally as possible, since I didn't want to misrepresent anything you said.

In no way am I implying that "all of Yeats" is more elusive than "all of Brahms". If I had to judge by complete output I would pick Brahms; he definitely has many moments that I can't grasp/describe with language; then again, there are many passages in Yeats that I cannot even begin to summarize.

I'm just saying that it's not *always the case* that absolute music is always more ambiguous than poetry.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> Well, I took your question as literally as possible, since I didn't want to misrepresent anything you said.
> 
> In no way am I implying that "all of Yeats" is more elusive than "all of Brahms". If I had to judge by complete output I would pick Brahms; he definitely has many moments that I can't grasp/describe with language; then again, there are many passages in Yeats that I cannot even begin to summarize.
> 
> I'm just saying that it's not *always the case* that absolute music is always more ambiguous than poetry.


Ah right, sorry, I see. I was just using "the Brahms" and "the Yeats" as short-hand for the particular pieces you mentioned. All clear now!


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> The passionate few only have their way by reason of the fact that they are genuinely interested in literature, that literature matters to them. They conquer by their obstinacy alone, by their eternal repetition of the same statements. Do you suppose they could prove to the man in the street that Shakespeare was a great artist? The said man would not even understand the terms they employed. But when he is told ten thousand times, and generation after generation, that Shakespeare was a great artist the said man believes - not by reason, but by faith. - Arnold Bennett
> 
> Are there any composers that you dare not hold in contempt because of faith?
> I answer in the negative. Anyone who has seen my posts on Schumann, Tchaikovsky, and Shostakovich can surely attest to that.
> ...


Just sounds like a bunch of Romantic philosophy to me. Of course, it was an important period of thinking, but how long will we still have stragglers in philosophy and the masses in art cling on to these subjective, experiential philosophies?

I would say that a book is good inasmuch as it has value for the reader. "Good" I would take to mean value to the reader, so the question is quite simple. The reader values what he/she values. Now, give the question more context and things get interesting, and we go beyond listless, experiential (by that I mean "sensual" when I use the philosophic word "experience" that Romantic philosophers have so loved) jargon: is the literature constructive, does it express a culture, does it have historical value, does it make astute observations?

Why criticize Romantic philosophy the way I do from time to time here? Well, they make very interesting assertions and there is some merit and potential in their work. However, they don't qualify any of their "smuggled premises".

For example: "It's right because you feel it's right. That's the only confirmation you need."

These two statements have smuggled in a premise that hasn't been qualified. The smuggled premise is that our feelings are a confirmation of reality. What makes that hidden premise problematic is that different people feel different things. According to those philosophers, two plus two doesn't necessarily equal four. Reality isn't consistent. Appealing to probability alone, the idea of common perception (which is naturalism when at it's most rationally limited) has to beat out this inconsistent view. Every argument made for Romanticism (that I know of) has been circular, has smuggled premises, and has used informal fallacies.

You guys catch my drift, or am I chasing my tail?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> Just sounds like a bunch of Romantic philosophy to me. Of course, it was an important period of thinking, but how long will we still have stragglers in philosophy and the masses in art cling on to these subjective, experiential philosophies?
> 
> I would say that a book is good inasmuch as it has value for the reader. "Good" I would take to mean value to the reader, so the question is quite simple. The reader values what he/she values. Now, give the question more context and things get interesting, and we go beyond listless, experiential (by that I mean "sensual" when I use the philosophic word "experience" that Romantic philosophers have so loved) jargon: is the literature constructive, does it express a culture, does it have historical value, does it make astute observations?
> 
> ...


And the fact value distinction is a god-given truth no?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> And the fact value distinction is a god-given truth no?


I don't take that to be a true criticism. Most philosophical arguments, aside from ones given through propositional and modal logic, take a look at a state of affairs and argue for probability merits. There is much more merit in common perception reality than a fragmented and inconsistent subjective experience reality.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> I don't take that to be a true criticism. Most philosophical arguments, aside from ones given through propositional and modal logic, take a look at a state of affairs and argue for probability merits. There is much more merit in common perception reality than a fragmented and inconsistent subjective experience reality.


"common perception reality" = empirical reality no?

So the whole project of Kant's Third Critique is superfluous yes?

Tell me Lukecash12, how do we derive a system of ethics from "common perception reality"?

Or are you a nihilist? Because that's perfectly fine too, totally in line with the scientific interpretation of all things that is predominant today.

Before you decide to cop out of the question it must be affirmed that since reality is a totality if something is a criterion for reality it must be a criterion of reality for all aspects of life. If your thinking is as rigorous as the pretense you give in your post above, then you must have some thoughts on a system of ethics which may be derived from "common perception reality", since that is the measure of all things in your view.

If you want to attribute some vague "Romantic philosophy" to me you'll have to me more specific; is it English romanticism, that of Coleridge and Wordsworth, German Romanticism, German Idealism, or perhaps even American Transcendentalism?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

This might be a little bit late in the game, but can someone please summarize just what on earth this thread is about?? I've read the OP like 10 times and still don't know.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

violadude said:


> This might be a little bit late in the game, but can someone please summarize just what on earth this thread is about?? I've read the OP like 10 times and still don't know.


The reputation of [your favorite composers here] is as precarious as the reputation of Shakespeare, and in the public consciousness is founded upon faith and inculcation, not reason.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

brianwalker said:


> The reputation of [your favorite composers here] is as precarious as the reputation of Shakespeare, and in the public consciousness is founded upon faith and inculcation, not reason.


Hah. So now you know, _dude_. Ain't you glad you read the OP ten times?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Hah. So now you know, _dude_. Ain't you glad you read the OP ten times?


One incidental deduction is that it's completely irrational for most people to think highly of Beethoven or Mozart.

Relevant anecdote from Roger Ebert.

"Is it possible to forget that "The Artist" is a silent film in black and white, and simply focus on it as a movie? No? That's what people seem to zero in on. They cannot imagine themselves seeing such a thing. At a sneak preview screening here, a few audience members actually walked out, saying they didn't like silent films. *I was reminded of the time a reader called me to ask about an Ingmar Bergman film. "I think it's the best film of the year," I said. "Oh," she said, "that doesn't sound like anything we'd like to see."*"


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> The reputation of [your favorite composers here] is as precarious as the reputation of Shakespeare, and in the public consciousness is founded upon faith and inculcation, not reason.


Hmm in the public consciousness...I suppose so if you mean that the general public knows absolutely nothing about the music of Mozart or Beethoven but still think they are great just because everyone says so. Is that what you mean?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

violadude said:


> Hmm in the public consciousness...I suppose so if you mean that the general public knows absolutely nothing about the music of Mozart or Beethoven but still think they are great just because everyone says so. Is that what you mean?


No; they listen to it, and to them it's pleasant, but they believe it's great when they hear it because they are told that it is great.

It's like the example of the man who goes and sees King Lear.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

That sounds like the same thing I said.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Shakespeare's reputation may be precarious in some sense, but it is not entirely arbitrary. Knowledgable readers can explain why he is so admired, both in historical and literary terms.



brianwalker said:


> No; they listen to it, and to them it's pleasant, but they believe it's great when they hear it because they are told that it is great.
> 
> It's like the example of the man who goes and sees King Lear.


I may not be the man on the street, but _King Lear_ is my favorite Shakespeare play, tied perhaps with _Romeo & Juliet_, and I *know* it is good. You will not find many other plays with such rich thematic material, such thoroughly-imagined characters. Nearly every line rewards analysis. Besides that, it is as moving a play as you'll ever see.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

This thread annoys me. I don't like it when people try to talk about how some music isn't really that great. We can't get too fixated on what "great," all the time. Most classical music that has survived throughout the centuries yields insights into a variety of unique and creative minds and entertains with unique sets of patterns, and probably a high number of these, when you get to focusing on them if they don't jump out at you at the start, will be able to move you.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

clavichorder said:


> This thread annoys me. I don't like it when people try to talk about how some music isn't really that great. We can't get too fixated on what "great," all the time. Most classical music that has survived throughout the centuries yields insights into a variety of unique and creative minds and entertains with unique sets of patterns, and probably a high number of these, when you get to focusing on them if they don't jump out at you at the start, will be able to move you.


I wonder if some people want to demonstrate their debonair approach to music by trying to kill sacred cows.

I would advocate saying things like "Enescu's _Oedipe_ is unfairly neglected" rather than things like "Britten's operas stink and people only like them because they think they're supposed to."


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

science said:


> I would advocate saying things like "Enescu's _Oedipe_ is unfairly neglected" rather than things like "Britten's operas stink and people only like them because they think they're supposed to."


You totally get it!

I thought about this and tell me if its a little off: We all have an ego about our tastes and some prefer to express their individual tastes in saying what's good that you might not expect, others in saying what isn't good that you might not expect. If one is to be guilty of that, the constructive variant is much more...constructive, than the destructive variant.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

clavichorder said:


> You totally get it!


I have in the past been extremely annoyed by people's attitudes to things like Vivaldi, Chopin, J. Strauss, Tchaikovsky, Schoenberg, Cage, Glass, Stockhausen.

I don't have that kind of audacity. I freely admit that I don't get Bruckner and R. Strauss, but I am sure the fault lies in myself.

I consider it something like an ethical imperative to try to understand music that I don't initially understand. I've succeeded with Bartok, minimalism, and free jazz, for instance. I'm making progress on Bruckner and Strauss.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

@ Science, I always supected that you were a better man than me; now I am sure of it!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

clavichorder said:


> You totally get it!
> 
> I thought about this and tell me if its a little off: We all have an ego about our tastes and some prefer to express their individual tastes in saying what's good that you might not expect, others in saying what isn't good that you might not expect. If one is to be guilty of that, the constructive variant is much more...constructive, than the destructive variant.


Something like that seems right to me.

I suspect it's about showing off. As if we imagine ourselves impressing each other by saying things like, "Mozart. Pah! [Blows smoke.] So overrated. Clementi is where it's at."

I've been in the society of that kind of people. Lawyers and doctors blowing cigarette smoke, discussing whether Kundera or Grass or Nabokov is a better novelist, whether Russian is a more literary language than Italian, whether Bloom is a greater intellectual than Deleuze, whether Bach was a better composer than Beethoven. All in vague terms, without getting down to details - that would be uncool. And anything popular or modern - Harry Potter, hip hop, Salinger, Proulx, Twilight - _must_ not be good.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

samurai said:


> @ Science, I always supected that you were a better man than me; now I am sure of it!


Well, it's nice of you to think so, but I'd be very surprised if it's true!


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> This thread annoys me. I don't like it when people try to talk about how some music isn't really that great. We can't get too fixated on what "great," all the time. Most classical music that has survived throughout the centuries yields insights into a variety of unique and creative minds and entertains with unique sets of patterns, and probably a high number of these, when you get to focusing on them if they don't jump out at you at the start, will be able to move you.


My post wasn't about how cultural relativism is right, but rather that it's wrong.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

science said:


> Something like that seems right to me.
> 
> I suspect it's about showing off. As if we imagine ourselves impressing each other by saying things like, "Mozart. Pah! [Blows smoke.] So overrated. Clementi is where it's at."
> 
> I've been in the society of that kind of people. Lawyers and doctors blowing cigarette smoke, discussing whether Kundera or Grass or Nabokov is a better novelist, whether Russian is a more literary language than Italian, whether Bloom is a greater intellectual than Deleuze, whether Bach was a better composer than Beethoven. All in vague terms, without getting down to details - that would be uncool. And anything popular or modern - Harry Potter, hip hop, Salinger, Proulx, Twilight - _must_ not be good.


I'm not sure why they have to be intellectually rigorous in their small talk among friends in an intimate setting.

Casual praise/dismissals of things lubricates friendship. Not sure why it's evil.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> My post wasn't about how cultural relativism is right, but rather that it's wrong.


Wait I'm confused. Did my post express to you being for cultural relativism or against it?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

brianwalker said:


> I'm not sure why they have to be intellectually rigorous in their small talk among friends in an intimate setting.
> 
> Casual praise/dismissals of things lubricates friendship. Not sure why it's evil.


It's no more evil than kids doing tricks on skateboards to impress each other.

What is evil is the equivalence of praise and dismissal. Also evil is the presentation of personal preferences as objective facts. As evils go these may not matter much, but don't be surprised to find that rather than "lubricating friendship" they ignite intense anger and hatred.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

science said:


> It's no more evil than kids doing tricks on skateboards to impress each other.
> 
> What is evil is the equivalence of praise and dismissal. Also evil is the presentation of personal preferences as objective facts. As evils go these may not matter much, but don't be surprised to find that rather than "lubricating friendship" they ignite intense anger and hatred.





> To find The Magic Mountain beautiful is to imagine that the novel is the focus of a community to which I want to belong, a community I want partially to form by my interpretation of the work and by whose views I want in turn to be formed. That is certainly not society as a whole-no one would want the whole world to like the same things even if that were possible. Its concerns are not social but personal, something between the strictly private and the fully public. Beauty requires communication. Harold Bloom describes a solitary encounter, but like everyone who is in love with a book or a picture, he can't wait to tell us about it. In telling us about it, he participates in a community he is in the very process of creating. And those who are moved by his sense of the beautiful will respond in turn, in a never-ending conversation.





> When you choose anything, you reject everything else. That objection, which men of this school used to make to the act of marriage, is really an objection to every act. Every act is an irrevocable selection and exclusion. Just as when you marry one woman you give up all the others, so when you take one course of action you give up all the other courses. If you become King of England, you give up the post of Beadle in Brompton. If you go to Rome, you sacrifice a rich suggestive life in Wimbledon. It is the existence of this negative or limiting side of will that makes most of the talk of the anarchic will-worshippers little better than nonsense. For instance, Mr. John Davidson tells us to have nothing to do with "Thou shalt not"; but it is surely obvious that "Thou shalt not" is only one of the necessary corollaries of "I will." "I will go to the Lord Mayor's Show, and thou shalt not stop me." Anarchism adjures us to be bold creative artists, and care for no laws or limits. But it is impossible to be an artist and not care for laws and limits. Art is limitation; the essence of every picture is the frame. If you draw a giraffe, you must draw him with a long neck. If, in your bold creative way, you hold yourself free to draw a giraffe with a short neck, you will really find that you are not free to draw a giraffe. The moment you step into the world of facts, you step into a world of limits. You can free things from alien or accidental laws, but not from the laws of their own nature. You may, if you like, free a tiger from his bars; but do not free him from his stripes. Do not free a camel of the burden of his hump: you may be freeing him from being a camel. Do not go about as a demagogue, encouraging triangles to break out of the prison of their three sides. If a triangle breaks out of its three sides, its life comes to a lamentable end. Somebody wrote a work called "The Loves of the Triangles"; I never read it, but I am sure that if triangles ever were loved, they were loved for being triangular. This is certainly the case with all artistic creation, which is in some ways the most decisive example of pure will. The artist loves his limitations: they constitute the THING he is doing. The painter is glad that the canvas is flat. The sculptor is glad that the clay is colourless.


And what is the proper place of dismissal, the proper place of praise?

Or rather, what is the proper form of praise? "Hey! I like this, but the other stuff is just as good?"

And what do you do when forming a curriculum? One vote per person?


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Can't people just say "I don't like Mozart, but it's fine that you do" or whatever?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Crudblud said:


> Can't people just say "I don't like Mozart, but it's fine that you do" or whatever?


That's what almost everyone does. It's democratic decency.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

brianwalker said:


> And what is the proper place of dismissal, the proper place of praise?
> 
> Or rather, what is the proper form of praise? "Hey! I like this, but the other stuff is just as good?"
> 
> And what do you do when forming a curriculum? One vote per person?


The quotes you offered both spoke of love, not of rejection. So they don't seem to me to relate to your first three questions.

As far as I can tell, "I like this" doesn't logically imply anything at all about anything else. I'm listening to Fats Domino right now and enjoying it. What do you think this implies about my enjoyment of Elvis, Coltrane, Stockhausen, Glass, Mozart, Indian classical music, or whatever?

You seem determined to pick a fight. No one has said that there's anything wrong with saying "I like this more than that," or "I like this but not that." It is only wrong when it becomes "That is objectively not good. You shouldn't like that. You're wrong to like that. Your tastes are invalid, you are inferior." Look how people were criticized for enjoying the Strauss family music around New Years. That was arrogance. I will never forgive the people who judged me or my wife for that. It is probably impossible to express my opinion of them within the terms of service of this site. It wasn't merely "I like Bruckner more than the Strauss family." It was, "Your enjoyment of that music is in bad taste. You are idiots. We are superior to you in our ennui toward that repertoire." Not everyone did that; a few people just said they didn't enjoy it, which was fine. But other people couldn't stop there: they had to proceed to condemn the music as objectively bad and, implicitly, the people who enjoy it as objectively inferior. You have the Constitutional right to talk like that, but do not expect me to be your friend. The same thing takes place on this site all the time with Tchaikovsky, Glass, Stockhausen, and so on.

Or, if you want assert the superiority of one thing to another, you have to give specific reasons (details) rather than assert a snobbish superiority. Then we can have an enlightening discussion rather than merely establish a mutual admiration society with scorn for outsiders.

I don't know what your last two rhetorical questions have to do with the discussion. Are you asking about my real-life job as a teacher?


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

In that case, I must have missed the point of this discussion.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

science said:


> The quotes you offered both spoke of love, not of rejection. So they don't seem to me to relate to your first three questions.


To love is to reject. There is no loving without rejecting, or else it wouldn't be love.

As far as I can tell, "I like this" doesn't logically imply anything at all about anything else. I'm listening to Fats Domino right now and enjoying it. What do you think this implies about my enjoyment of Elvis, Coltrane, Stockhausen, Glass, Mozart, Indian classical music, or whatever? 


I also listen to Katy Perry on a weekly basis. It doesn't _necessarily_ imply anything, but if that's *all* you listen to or something you hold in *the highest esteem*, then yes, that would be quite telling.

You seem determined to pick a fight. No one has said that there's anything wrong with saying "I like this more than that," or "I like this but not that." It is only wrong when it becomes "That is objectively not good. You shouldn't like that. You're wrong to like that. Your tastes are invalid, you are inferior." Look how people were criticized for enjoying the Strauss family music around New Years. That was arrogance. I will never forgive the people who judged me or my wife for that. It is probably impossible to express my opinion of them within the terms of service of this site. It wasn't merely "I like Bruckner more than the Strauss family." It was, "Your enjoyment of that music is in bad taste. You are idiots. We are superior to you in our ennui toward that repertoire." Not everyone did that; a few people just said they didn't enjoy it, which was fine. But other people couldn't stop there: they had to proceed to condemn the music as objectively bad and, implicitly, the people who enjoy it as objectively inferior. You have the Constitutional right to talk like that, but do not expect me to be your friend. The same thing takes place on this site all the time with Tchaikovsky, Glass, Stockhausen, and so on. 

I have no clue what you're alluding to, or in what manner you and your wife were criticized or the nature of the incident unless you're referring to a thread I've not read before. I've a lover of Strauss and have many VPO New Year concert CDs.

Or, if you want assert the superiority of one thing to another, you have to give specific reasons (details) rather than assert a snobbish superiority. Then we can have an enlightening discussion rather than merely establish a mutual admiration society with scorn for outsiders.

I don't know what your last two rhetorical questions have to do with the discussion. Are you asking about my real-life job as a teacher?
I think an order of rank is necessary because such a rank is implicit in the making of recommendation lists and the ordering of the curriculum and what passes on from the past generation to the next.

We only live so long, we only have so much spare time, and to me it's a tragedy that people of my generation are not blasting the Pastoral and the Grosse Fugue from their speakers, because people who do really love the Pasotoral and the Grosse fugue are too timid to assert its sublimity and superiority. I'm not referring to your status as a teacher but referring instead to the implicit "objective" ranking that we all participate in when making choices in our art-consumption behavior and in the formation of the curriculum and the canon.

Reading Henry James has been one of the great joys of my life, and if not for his arrogant champions that would not be possible.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204257504577150881748541906.html

Is it possible that even a great writer's work can be lost, slipping through the net of commerce and the cracks of criticism and vanishing altogether? *Such was nearly the case with Henry James, who in the 1920s, not long after his death in 1916, was out of print, out of readers and out of luck. *From this slough of despond, James ascended to become a central figure in the canon of American and English literature. In the great unwritten history of literary reputation, the chapter on Henry James would make one of the most fascinating of all.

The fact of the matter is that most people can't bear Henry James, and if the taste of the people were the measure of all things, then Henry James would've been long forgotten.

It's important for us to force James down the throats of everyone so that the few who can appreciate him don't miss out on it since it's impossible for everyone to explore everything everyone has ever written; 99.5% of Victorian Literature is out of print, and even among extant literature it will take a lifetime to even "sample" one representative work by each other; we only have so much spare time and reading a difficult book takes a lot of effort; sometimes we only get the opportunity to finish one book a month, or maybe every two weeks; will it be The Recognitions or The Ambassadors? This problem is just as acute for music; Animal Collective and Fish or Beethoven? Priorities, priorities.

I was raised in an unmusical family and how I raged that I didn't discover Bach and Ravel earlier, that no one ever told me that they were the greatest, for if someone had told me I would've had an incentive to learn to play the piano, and I would never get board exploring the beauty of the old masters. I wished that someone incredibly condescending had told me when I was young that I was a philistine and needed to dive into the great works of the past. I discovered everything too late, and remember the fury at having discovered Stendhal from a recommendation for Camille Paglia at 17 and wondering where literature had been all my life, and then I looked back on my English classes and saw third rate work being taught for political reasons, works by minority authors and works that were "progressive" and whatnot, and I raged, I howled in the depth of my soul, I wanted blood.

Every child should be forced to listen to Bach so that the few who can appreciate him never miss out; it should be subsidized by the state; a CD of Richter's or whomever you prefer's recording of the WTC for every child at 4, 5, etc.

Werner Herzog said he'd give up 10 years of his life to be able to play an instrument; I hold my culture and relativists like you responsible for NOT asserting the absolute superiority of the old masters and making sure that those who can appreciate them don't miss out.

When I first discovered Mahler I wondered, where have you been all my life? My love, my dearest, why has no one told me of you! And her reply? Buried under the mountain of dung that passes for "good music" nowadays.

*For every person who's dislike of Wagner ("Wagner" is a metonym for the tradition going from Bach to Berg) is made acceptable the chances of someone who has the ability to appreciate Wagner missing out on Wagner increases because the priority that Wagner-listening in the grand-scheme of things decreases, and for someone who can love Wagner but misses out on that, especially during the essential years of youth when music is the most important for various reasons, for various fundamental needs, that is a great tragedy, for someone who has the great soul that is receptive to the great work miss out on it, like soulmates who never meet because of a minor accident. *

Human beings are social animals and we want to listen to what other people listen to because popular art forms the common discourse - reference to what other people know by way of examples forms the common culture and the common tongue, which is why everyone who wants to be social wants to "keep up" with the latest trends, fashions, music, film, literature, etc, because common arts forms the common tongue and the lubricant for social interaction, and when great art isn't championed the social cost of consuming great art increases and the great souled listener has to choose between works that allow him access to the common discourse or greats that are genuinely greater and give him pleasure, and no one should have to make that choice; the pleasure of those who are low ought to be sacrificed because the works that they can't appreciate can still elevate them, while the works of the low will never elevate the soul of the high.

Appreciating Wagner shouldn't be a token of nerdiness but a badge of honor, and "society" and those in power should make it so for the sake of common elevation and the liberation of those who can appreciate him from choosing between great art and sociability in the same way that goods with positive externality are subsidized by the government, the status demand for great music ought to be artificially raised.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm sorry, man, I can't tell whether some of that is meant to be ironic. I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly. Like, do you mean "force down the throats"? Do you realize that might actually be the most effective way of making someone hate the music or literature in question?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

science said:


> I'm sorry, man, I can't tell whether some of that is meant to be ironic. I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly. Like, do you mean "force down the throats"? Do you realize that might actually be the most effective way of making someone hate the music or literature in question?


If it's good, they won't hate it. I detested my education because bad things were forced down my throat, the good things I enjoyed immensely (Jane Eyre, for instance).

So what if they hate great art? They should learn to hate themselves for their own inferiority and try to change themselves and not find excuses for their own failure.

http://kristinsbookblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/i-hate-henry-james-and-im-not-afraid-to.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2007/feb/09/icantbearhenryjames

http://bigother.com/2011/03/31/reader-rage-henry-james-hate/

http://www.sheilaomalley.com/?p=2750

Their hatred is a small price to pay for the insurance that soulmates meet and meet early on and not too late.


Kurt Vonnegut, writing in response to Jonathan Franzen's April Folio on American novelists, "Perchance to Dream," claims that "Novelists are people who believe they can dampen their neuroses by writing make-believe. We will keep on doing that no matter what, while offering loftier explanations." This makes Vonnegut look humble and lovable, but as a response to the stuff Franzen was talking about is total horseshit. If Vonnegut's sound bite were the whole truth, nobody at all would read novels - who would want to devote hours of brain work to something somebody had written just to dampen his own neuroses?

*Good art is a kind of magic. It does magical things for both artist and audience. We can have long polysyllabic arguments about how to describe the way this magic works but the plain fact is that good art is magical and precious and cool. It's hard to make good art, and it seems to me wholly reasonable that a good artist should be concerned with their work's cultural reception.* I thought it was brave of Franzen to offer not only "lofty explanations" but honest and intimate descriptions of how it feels to try to make good, serious art in a culture that doesn't seem to value it much. And I was disappointed that the Harper's Letters editor chose to run only sneery, disparaging letters about the essay. I've spoken with way too many readers and writers who admired Franzen's piece to believe disparaging letters were all that Harper's got. I suppose one reason it was brave of Franzen to publish his essay is that it made it easy for other writers to look humble and adorable at his expense.

*Invariably, culture forces something down our throats; be it via social pressure or the high hand of an educator or anthology volumes. *

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/nov/24/are-these-poems-remember/?pagination=false

*When selecting the poems for an anthology, you are already forcing something down someone's throat; books are expensive, people don't have to time to survey everything ever written and decide what's good for them, most rarely survey anything.*

*Not forcing anything down anyone's throat is not freedom but giving the instrument of force feeding to the masses. *

Multicultural inclusiveness prevails: some 175 poets are represented. No century in the evolution of poetry in English ever had 175 poets worth reading, so why are we being asked to sample so many poets of little or no lasting value? Anthologists may now be extending a too general welcome. Selectivity has been condemned as "elitism," and a hundred flowers are invited to bloom. People who wouldn't be able to take on the long-term commitment of a novel find a longed-for release in writing a poem. And it seems rude to denigrate the heartfelt lines of people moved to verse. It is popular to say (and it is in part true) that in literary matters tastes differ, and that every critic can be wrong. But there is a certain objectivity bestowed by the mere passage of time, and its sifting of wheat from chaff: Which of Dove's 175 poets will have staying power, and which will seep back into the archives of sociology?

*Anthologies are wonderful for the young: a single page catches fire, and a new attachment-sometimes a lifelong one-takes hold. And since space is limited, the famous poems understandably end up being the chosen ones: for Robert Hayden, "Mourning Poem for the Queen of Sunday," "Those Winter Sundays," "Frederick Douglass," and "Middle Passage"; for Robert Lowell, "'To Speak of Woe That Is in Marriage,'" "Skunk Hour," and "For the Union Dead"; for Marianne Moore, "The Fish" and "Poetry." Coming as a young person to this anthology, I would have loved finding such poems. But I would still have been hungry for more than the six pages here of Wallace Stevens, more than the single poem by James Merrill.*


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Are you a teacher?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

science said:


> Are you a teacher?


No, I'm not a teacher, nor do I plan to teach. I speak for the students as a student who feels that their culture has robbed them of what is the most precious.

Force feeding great art doesn't make you hate art, force feeding bad art does and school is essentially force feeding. How many noble minded youths turned away from literature because they had to read Toni Morrison and Maxine Hong Kingston in high school and college?

For a young person to exhaustively survey literature is ludicrous, and it's also absurd to assume that he has trustworthy friends and teachers who will recommend to him or her the great work that is the key, one of many keys, that opens the lock of his soul. For a long time art has been arraigned ceaselessly before the court of practical use, and unless in the first few encounters a young person feels the throbbing ecstasy of the great work, the "magic" that Wallace speaks of, he may be lost forever or not return to it for years, decades even.

Even if 99 out of 100 students hate James, that one person who develops a lifelong passion would be worth it. People can read Morrison on their own time.

I was not about to say that I do, but I do say that I especially wanted to teach Henry James well. As a graduate student once said to me of another student in a different class who was floundering and about whose fate she was worried, so I now say about Henry James: "I love him, you see." James seems to me the most artistically intelligent, the most subtle, finally the greatest American writer. No other writer has given me so much pleasure nor, I believe, taught me so much about literature and life. I wanted ardently to get my appreciation for James across.* I wanted converts, not to my precise views, but to at least a rough recognition of Henry James's immense achievement.
*

*Before this could be done, I suspected, there was a need to scrape free the barnacles of cliché that have clung to the vessel of James's reputation.* The cliché that he was a very great snob-"an effete snob," into the bargain, in Theodore Roosevelt's phrase-must be chipped away. So, too, the notion that Henry James's subject was an impossibly rarified one, that he wrote almost exclusively about people who could really never have existed: unanchored in work, nationally rootless, without financial concern, detached in nearly every way, sheer engines of pure and apparently inexhaustible cerebration. Although Henry James was an immitigably highbrow writer-some would say the first American modernist writer, given his tireless interest in the formal properties of his art-he also happens to have been an extraordinary comedian, in my opinion one of the funniest writers going. The cliché of Henry James as a great square stiffo, the ultimate stuffed shirt, this, too, had to be quickly swept away.


If a single person misses out on the greatness of Wagner because of the barnacles of scorn surrounding his reputation, then that is a tragedy indeed, and to prevent that tragedy certain people have to be silenced, ridiculed, attacked, and have their dignity and worth arraigned, for I was a victim.

Why did no one tell me that Wagner was so awesome? Why didn't I have a *Couchie in my life? *

*Perhaps I did have a Couchie in my life but that person was too terrified of being crucified as an elitist and for social reasons remained silent.*

And I don't blame him. How can I expect him to sacrifice prestige and respect out of selfless love?

Looking back, I can't help wishing that I had spent more of my seemingly infinite free time reading actual books, instead of books that denied the existence of books. Although I was nominally an English literature major, I emerged from college with huge gaps in my knowledge of the canon, and since then I've been trying to catch up. *Not until my mid-twenties did I crack open a novel of Henry James, and subsequently I went through nearly all of James's books, in a bout of post-poststructuralist remedial education. *In a way, though, I'm thankful that I waited before plunging into James. The majestically chilling final sentence of "The Wings of the Dove"-no spoilers here, for the benefit of young people who are reading Slavoj Žižek instead-wouldn't have blindsided me at age twenty the way it did some years later, when I had lived a bit, felt a few shudders of the real, and seen the infinite horizon of possibility begin to shrink.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2011/10/worst-college-essays-1989.html#ixzz1rxKjdWqZ

What is "good art"? It's art worth remembering and worth holding again in the highest esteem.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Well, we disagree, but I doubt we're going to make any progress toward agreement.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

science said:


> Well, we disagree, but I doubt we're going to make any progress toward agreement.


Why not have a harmless duel for the sake of the readers? Most of the readers are guests. Can't you be selfless?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Not politely. Your whole thing about people should learn to hate themselves for their inferiority told me all I need to know about you, and the terms of service here forbid me from elaborating the point.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

science said:


> Not politely. Your whole thing about people should learn to hate themselves for their inferiority told me all I need to know about you, and the terms of service here forbid me from elaborating the point.


I. Try and circumvent them, there are plenty of euphemisms for that, there are plenty of ways to be insinuating. "Terms of service" is an excuse. Try. I'm sure you can.

II. Do you think people so simple, that a few statements are enough to know all about them? That you can infer the whole of a person from a few hyperbolic lines, or really, in this case, from a two or three words?

III. Let's not quibble over semantics - "hate" was a poetic turn of phrase.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Well, let's put it this way. If we were having a dispassionate discussion, it would be worth my time. But you're angry, unwilling (or unable?) to tone down the hyperbole, and interested most of all in legitimizing your condescension toward people who do not share your tastes. That's who you are, and it is evident in many of your posts, though that single line did express it unusually pithily. In a case like this, a productive, mutually-enriching conversation is impossible.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

science said:


> Well, let's put it this way. If we were having a dispassionate discussion, it would be worth my time. But you're angry, unwilling (or unable?) to tone down the hyperbole, and interested most of all in legitimizing your condescension toward people who do not share your tastes. That's who you are, and it is evident in many of your posts, though that single line did express it unusually pithily. In a case like this, a productive, mutually-enriching conversation is impossible.


I. The hyperbole is plumage, designed to provoke, and it did yield something; it yoked out of you your own condescending attitude towards those who do not share *your view on why* there exist different perceptions of the same work. The supremely telling phrase "told me all I need to know about you".

II. I can be dispassionate when civility yields, but most of the time it doesn't, hence the universal usage of hyperbolic thread titles - "Mozart, God or Garbage", etc. You'll see in the neuroscience thread that when provocation was not needed I did not provoke.

Let me rephrase; people who have poor taste in music should be humble about their taste in the same way that people who are bad at math are humble about their mathematical capabilities.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> "common perception reality" = empirical reality no?
> 
> So the whole project of Kant's Third Critique is superfluous yes?
> 
> ...


1. You weren't specific enough. That you have ascribed the value of literature to experiential confirmation, links you with Romanticism. It's a Romantic perspective. Who knows what philosophy you primarily align with? You haven't given us enough substance. In order to attribute things to other people, one must be provided with specific information. However, by definition my attribution was correct, unless you didn't mean what you said.

Oh yes, and by the way: Bravo! Your little display there, what with the name dropping and philosophical movement references, made you look rrreaaaallll smart... So congrats, you can make a few references, even though you can't even seem to understand the label I gave your thinking. How quaint...

I guess you don't mind my poking fun at you either, considering the type of discussion you like to have. Good show, sir, good show! Why, we'll have to let you know when we're about to have our next browbeating session!

2. Why is it relevant for me to answer your questions? The OP is yours. You made claims that you haven't qualified. If we are going to concern ourselves with who is or isn't copping out, then it behooves us to recognize who the burden of proof lays with. I pointed out what it is that Romanticism doesn't support. You appealed to Romanticism. Now, if you truly do want to have a back and forth, you have the burden of proof. This thread wasn't made to establish my views. You established your own views in the OP.

Of course, you're free to have your own opinion. But let's not mistake who has the burden of proof, if we are going to have this type of discussion.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> Let me rephrase; people who have poor taste in music should be humble about their taste in the same way that people who are bad at math are humble about their mathematical capabilities.


In response to no 2 here, I think I peed myself a little bit. This is you rephrasing yourself? It's more like you shooting yourself in the foot. Jesus Christ, don't give me a heart attack, bro!

But seriously, I'm just giving you a hard time. Seeing as you haven't really established what is and isn't good musical taste, why should someone with taste you deem inferior humble himself to you? Because you said so? Interesting... If your logic is any different from that, do go ahead and explain it, monsieur.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> Let me rephrase; people who have poor taste in music should be humble about their taste in the same way that people who are bad at math are humble about their mathematical capabilities.


I've read all the posts in this thread, but several confused me so I may not be responding with a full understanding of your position.

Math and music are significantly different in that "experts" in math will agree in all cases except 1) when one has made a mistake that she can later correct or 2) in cases of new works which the math community has not fully understood. In music "experts" can disagree on many issues; for example, few "experts" will agree on an ordered list of top 10 composers. There is a subjective aspect to music that does not exist in math.

It's true that people ought to know when they have relatively little knowledge about a work or composer. They may realize that others know significantly more about the structure, harmonies, instrumentation, etc. of a work, but their level of enjoyment (their taste) is no better or worse than other people's. You may define taste differently from how I do. I know what it means to say that I calculated an integral incorrectly, but I do not know what it means to say that my enjoyment of Tchaikovsky's violin concerto is wrong.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

brianwalker said:


> I. The hyperbole is plumage, designed to provoke, and it did yield something; it yoked out of you your own condescending attitude towards those who do not share *your view on why* there exist different perceptions of the same work. The supremely telling phrase "told me all I need to know about you".
> 
> II. I can be dispassionate when civility yields, but most of the time it doesn't, hence the universal usage of hyperbolic thread titles - "Mozart, God or Garbage", etc. You'll see in the neuroscience thread that when provocation was not needed I did not provoke.
> 
> Let me rephrase; people who have poor taste in music should be humble about their taste in the same way that people who are bad at math are humble about their mathematical capabilities.


Alright, you got the last word. What I actually said (as opposed to your dishonest portrayal of it) stands. I invite you to, in the great words of a character on a show which is no doubt beneath you, attach yourself to an inclined plane wrapped helically around an axis.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

science said:


> Alright, you got the last word. What I actually said (as opposed to your dishonest portrayal of it) stands. I invite you to, in the great words of a character on a show which is no doubt beneath you, attach yourself to an inclined plane wrapped helically around an axis.


Ah, let's not be so hard on him... He gave us a good show after all.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Lukecash12 said:


> Ah, let's not be so hard on him... He gave us a good show after all.


Like I said, his project is to legitimize his arrogance and anger. Well, I have my own anger. I've been condescended to more than enough, whether for enjoying Bach or Stockhausen or the Vienna new years concerts. There are people on this site I would probably punch in the face as soon as I met them, assuming I could meet them in the US where I don't have to worry about things like deportation. When your whole point is to establish how superior you are to me because of the music I like or don't like, you don't deserve better. I'm here to find out more about the music that I love, not to be told how or why I'm inferior.

You and mmsbls can question his philosophical assumptions all you like. You might examine the motives behind his educational program as well. Knock yourselves out.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

science said:


> Like I said, his project is to legitimize his arrogance and anger. Well, I have my own anger. I've been condescended to more than enough, whether for enjoying Bach or Stockhausen or the Vienna new years concerts. There are people on this site I would probably punch in the face as soon as I met them, assuming I could meet them in the US where I don't have to worry about things like deportation. When your whole point is to establish how superior you are to me because of the music I like or don't like, you don't deserve better. I'm here to find out more about the music that I love, not to be told how or why I'm inferior.
> 
> You and mmsbls can question his philosophical assumptions all you like. You might examine the motives behind his educational program as well. Knock yourselves out.


Well, I generally try not to knock myself out, but I guess I'll give it a try. As for our friend Brian, I don't mind humoring him. I can see why you're done doing this sort of stuff on the community forum, if this is what you've been putting up with. As for me, I've just been keeping up with the threads here that entertain me. Dunno who brought this one back up.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

science said:


> Alright, you got the last word. What I actually said (as opposed to your dishonest portrayal of it) stands. I invite you to, in the great words of a character on a show which is no doubt beneath you, attach yourself to an inclined plane wrapped helically around an axis.


I quoted you verbatim, like you quoted me verbatim. What the plane and axis and helix imagery is about I don't have the privilege of explaining but you obviously mean a great deal by it.



science said:


> Like I said, his project is to legitimize his arrogance and anger. Well, I have my own anger.


Is my project to legitimize my arrogance or your project to legitimize your inferiority? Which is it?



> I've been condescended to more than enough, whether for enjoying Bach or Stockhausen or the Vienna new years concerts.


And I've been condescended to more than enough for my condescension.



> There are people on this site I would probably punch in the face as soon as I met them, assuming I could meet them in the US where I don't have to worry about things like deportation.


Aren't you a gentleman. I credit myself with never having mentioned anywhere the desire to physically assault anyone. I hope you're being hyperbolic and rhetorical and facetious in this post, for if not that would say quite a great deal about your character.



> When your whole point is to establish how superior you are to me because of the music I like or don't like, you don't deserve better. I'm here to find out more about the music that I love, not to be told how or why I'm inferior.


Check my posts again, I never said that the ability to identify g in music makes one a "better person" or a "superior person" in any way whatsoever in the sense of "personhood"; Stalin was extremely fond of Mozart and Lenin of Beethoven, and so forth and so on, many monsters and brutes have been gifted with that ability; top Nazi officials played Beethoven's late quartets in their spare time.

And my account of your posts are dishonest? And I'm condescending and yet you imply that I deserve being beaten? Who's the real hypocrite here?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ironic, isn't it? The intolerant want to be tolerated, the condescending don't want to be condescended to. 

Yes, dude, your tastes in music and literature are objectively correct, people who don't share them ought to be made aware of their inferiority at a young age, and the state should sponsor it. You've proven your points and I concede.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Wow, convoluted this thread is (some Yoda-speak there). I have just been listening to Wagner's antithesis, Erik Satie, his _Cabaret Songs_ on the weekend. In one of them, it's about a bus laden with bags of cement ploughing through the streets of Paris, laying to waste dozens of pedestrians, a symbol of the senselesness of war (_L'Omnibus automobile_).

What would Satie make of threads like this? Or the other trainwreck threads of a few weeks ago? He could probably do a really good whimsical-sacrastic-absurd song of the near lunacy of arguing with a person you've never seen or never will see who's halfway across the world about something as personal as musical taste or appreciation, etc. I've been too long too active on this forum, and learned this kind of thing is not worth it. People don't want real history, they just want to make it up as they go along. Provide these pseudo intellectual explanations, when going by real experience - both read/"listened" and lived - would be far better, far more interesting on a FORUM - WHICH IS TO DISCUSS IDEAS NOT (necessarily) CONVINCE PEOPLE.

Anyway, Mr. Satie is smiling from the grave, the internet has increased absurdity in the world 100 fold.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

science said:


> Ironic, isn't it? The intolerant want to be tolerated, the condescending don't want to be condescended to.


Not at all. I am bothered by your hypocrisy, not your condescension or intolerance.



> Yes, dude, your tastes in music and literature are objectively correct, people who don't share them ought to be made aware of their inferiority at a young age, and the state should sponsor it. *You've proven your points and I concede.*


Thanks!



Sid James said:


> Wow, convoluted this thread is (some Yoda-speak there). I have just been listening to Wagner's antithesis, Erik Satie, his _Cabaret Songs_ on the weekend. In one of them, it's about a bus laden with bags of cement ploughing through the streets of Paris, laying to waste dozens of pedestrians, a symbol of the senselesness of war (_L'Omnibus automobile_).
> 
> What would Satie make of threads like this? Or the other trainwreck threads of a few weeks ago? He could probably do a really good whimsical-sacrastic-absurd song of the near lunacy of arguing with a person you've never seen or never will see who's halfway across the world about something as personal as musical taste or appreciation, etc. I've been too long too active on this forum, and learned this kind of thing is not worth it. People don't want real history, they just want to make it up as they go along. Provide these pseudo intellectual explanations, when going by real experience - both read/"listened" and lived - would be far better, far more interesting on a FORUM - WHICH IS TO DISCUSS IDEAS NOT (necessarily) CONVINCE PEOPLE.
> 
> Anyway, Mr. Satie is smiling from the grave, the internet has increased absurdity in the world 100 fold.


You take this too seriously! Why can't arguing be fun?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> ...
> 
> You take this too seriously! Why can't arguing be fun?


I probably do take it too seriously. But presenting false dichotomies (eg. black and white thinking) is the worse form of argument. To me, it's not even an argument or source of good debate. Then there's other bad ways like assuming some form of superiority above others (arrogance, hubris). Also, not going by consensus, or aiming at more unbiased views, but making things up as you go along, just presenting distortions. Or not talking to the topic, or answering the person's question/point, but veering off and presenting something totally unrelated as "evidence." Then ramming it home with a sledgehammer.

In short, if one applies basic critical thinking (that anyone can learn, it's not hard) to a lot of so-called _arguments_ or _debates _that go on around here, they cease being those but rather opportunities for people to push various agendas and ingrained dogmas, etc.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Sid James said:


> I probably do take it too seriously. But presenting false dichotomies (eg. black and white thinking) is the worse form of argument. To me, it's not even an argument or source of good debate. Then there's other bad ways like assuming some form of superiority above others (arrogance, hubris). Also, not going by consensus, or aiming at more unbiased views, but making things up as you go along, just presenting distortions. Or not talking to the topic, or answering the person's question/point, but veering off and presenting something totally unrelated as "evidence." Then ramming it home with a sledgehammer.
> 
> In short, if one applies basic critical thinking (that anyone can learn, it's not hard) to a lot of so-called _arguments_ or _debates _that go on around here, they cease being those but rather opportunities for people to push various agendas and ingrained dogmas, etc.


*He had all the prejudices of his time. He had, for instance, that dislike of defined dogmas, which really means a preference for unexamined dogmas.*

G. K. Chesterton on Charles Dickens.

Sir James your "tolerance" is far more dogmatic than my intolerance.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^I answered you fairly impartially. Talking to general issues of this forum, not what I judge to be your attitude. You come back with an accusation of me being dogmatic. Oooooookay. I won't go down to that level and add a put down, we have enough on this forum as it is.

As for Chesterton, don't know what he did, but Dickens set up the public education system in Britain in late 19th century. Dickens actually worked in a factory as a child, he was born on the wrong side of the tracks. Chesterton was an upper class toff spinning philosophy of little real use or effect, I'd say. So you can do with his philosophy what you want. I will take Dicken's humanity, and so called _dogma_, any day of the week.

Anyway, forget it. I'll leave this forum to the writers of philosophy. Do what you like. I am only putting real effort in my blog here now. So good day to you and all other upper crust philosophers of history. I think I'll just stick to music (& not Wagner, by the way, so obviously I'm beyond the pale).


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Sid James said:


> ^^I answered you fairly impartially. Talking to general issues of this forum, not what I judge to be your attitude. You come back with an accusation of me being dogmatic. Oooooookay. I won't go down to that level and add a put down, we have enough on this forum as it is.


_Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance._ - G. K. Chesterton



> As for Chesterton, don't know what he did, but Dickens set up the public education system in Britain in late 19th century. Dickens actually worked in a factory as a child, he was born on the wrong side of the tracks. Chesterton was an upper class toff spinning philosophy of little real use or effect, I'd say. So you can do with his philosophy what you want. I will take Dicken's humanity, and so called _dogma_, any day of the week.


Dickens set up the public education system in England? What a brute he must be, that devil, putting millions of kids through drudgery and toil and bullying and depression and suicidal terror! If he really is responsible for the public education system in England he is one of the most evil persons in all of English history, worse than Cromwell even!



> Anyway, forget it. I'll leave this forum to the writers of philosophy. Do what you like. I am only putting real effort in my blog here now. So good day to you and all other upper crust philosophers of history. I think I'll just stick to music (& not Wagner, by the way, so obviously I'm beyond the pale).


I didn't say you were beyond the pale. Also, Chesterton isn't a philosopher. He never called himself one or presented himself as book. He's a writer, he wrote books.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I won't use fancy words, you're a *******, and I hope I get banned for this, I've had enough.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Sid James said:


> I won't use fancy words, you're a ****wit, and I hope I get banned for this, I've had enough.


You're an impartial tolerant gentleman.

Good day to you sir!


----------

