# trusting authority



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

How much do you trust authority on musical matters? Is it bad to trust authority? Or sometimes inevitable and necessary?

I trust authorities who've earned my trust - not blindly. For example, Charles Rosen has certainly earned my trust, so when he vouches for Boulez's second piano sonata, I trust there's something there, even though it's not accessible to me right now.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

If it's a technical matter, I trust anyone who apparently knows more than I do, and trust them more depending on how much they seem to know. But if it's a matter of taste, everyone is equal and I feel free to disagree with anyone.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I consider the collective voice of the people on the forum an "authority" worthy of trust. Except when it differs from my own strongly-held opinions, in which case I can only wonder how wrong-headed some people can be.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> How much do you trust authority on musical matters? Is it bad to trust authority? Or sometimes inevitable and necessary?
> 
> I trust authorities who've earned my trust - not blindly. For example, Charles Rosen has certainly earned my trust, so when he vouches for Boulez's second piano sonata, I trust there's something there, even though it's not accessible to me right now.


I think if a musician with established authority - serious accreditation from major universities, prizes, that sort of thing - performs something in a certain way which you find disorienting, then the last thing you should do is dismiss it as no good. Much better to try and understand why.

This came up recently in a discussion of Schoonderwoerd's orchestration for Beethoven concertos.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

It is my civic duty to question authority and conventional wisdom alike. That doesn't mean I always disagree however, it's just that some claims take a lot of 'splainin'.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> For example, Charles Rosen has certainly earned my trust, so when he vouches for Boulez's second piano sonata, I trust there's something there, even though it's not accessible to me right now.


It's interesting that he didn't record the second piano sonata, but he did record the other two. Does he discuss it at length?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

There are degrees of trust or belief from zero probability to metaphysical certitude (as John McLaughlin would say). I think all of us trust experts in some things and at some level. We simply can't know enough about the world not to trust others. Even in areas close to our expertise others will know much more. 

Since I have very little expertise in music, I will generally defer to those I consider experts. The real difficulty is determining who is such an expert. We all know composers make silly comments about other composers. Many here on TC have much more knowledge than I do, but it's very difficult to know if their knowledge is truly expert enough to trust in all aspects of their posts. I often ask my wife or daughter (both were or are professional musicians) about comments or views I read on TC because I know that they will tell me if they are uncertain and not try to comment unless they have high confidence.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> I think if a musician with established authority - serious accreditation from major universities, prizes, that sort of thing - performs something in a certain way which you find disorienting, then the last thing you should do is dismiss it as no good. Much better to try and understand why.
> 
> This came up recently in a discussion of Schoonderwoerd's orchestration for Beethoven concertos.


When it comes to recorded performances, I trust that any set of world-class performers with a team of engineers know what they're doing. The question for me in that case is not one of evaluation but of comprehension.


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

i don't trust authority very much, because the supposed authorities often differ a great deal. For instance, here's Ritter's "Third Ear" review of Zinman's take on Beethoven's 9th symphony: 

"Zinman's joke of a recording should never haver been released. Like Norrington he strives for metronomic accuracy at the expense of any sense of natural rhythm and flow. The choral work is excellent, but part of the same misguided sludge."

Yet the (anonymous) Penguin reviewer flags it up as a key recording with three stars and calls it "magnificent"!

I agree with Ritter, so he goes up my estimation, and Penguin goes down. But I'm still wary. For instance, Ritter says the first two movements of Bohm's Beethoven 8 make him prime candidate for top spot, with which I agree. But he then dismisses it because he found the last two movements too slow - but they seemed fine to me.

All in all, I would take their views "under consideration" (otherwise where do you start!) but expect them to let you down; either through having totally different tastes, or a bad day at the reviewing desk.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

I don't find the need to trust any authority. At best, for me, they provide context or background information. 

If a performer / director does something different to the norm, like say GG or Regie, it is not a question of trusting that it is high art, ie that it is or it isn't, rather it is a matter of absorbing it and reacting to it.

i just like to listen really, and discern and inform myself as much or as little as I feel like doing at the time.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

science said:


> If it's a technical matter, I trust anyone who apparently knows more than I do, and trust them more depending on how much they seem to know. But if it's a matter of taste, everyone is equal and I feel free to disagree with anyone.


Yes, that's it for me too.
Nobody's an "authority" when it comes to taste. Some people's tastes may be more typically representative of majority opinion, but majority opinion doesn't cut it when it comes to personal taste either.
I might place greater trust in someone who's demonstrated over time that their taste is similar to mine, but still there's a reasonable chance that on any given issue we'll have utterly different opinions. So, "trust, but verify".


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

You trust a plumber to properly clean your drains. And you trust a heart surgeon to clean out your veins. 

But you wouldn't trust a musical authority? Depending on the specifics, I think that might be wise.

I trust an expert on orchestration to correct me on matters of orchestration, and tell me which composers are the best at orchestration. I trust a theory expert to correct my harmonic analysis of a passage of Wagner, and render a judgement on the harmonic skill of a composition (using common practice harmony of course). Dittos counterpoint. I would trust a first rate performer to tell me what can and can not be done on their instrument (or voice) and how difficult or easy a passage might be. I would trust a musicologist regarding the facts of musical history.

Having fifty-four years of experience listening to classical music, a music degree, and a lifetime of musical study, I do not trust any experts opinion regarding aesthetics above my own judgement. I enjoy reading or listening to the ideas of experts regarding the relative merits of composers and their works, and sometimes experts have opened my eyes to something unexpected, and that is always a joy. But strange things like the hatred of the Brahms and Wagner camps in the 19th century cause me to always be cautious about believing an "expert" about values and aesthetics.


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2016)

isorhythm said:


> How much do you trust authority on musical matters? Is it bad to trust authority? Or sometimes inevitable and necessary?


It depends what the matter is. I trust "authority" that can tell me about the technical attributes of a piece. The only authority on what I like is me. The authority on what I should give consideration to lies somewhere between the two.

It depends too on the "authority". There are some members here who, I believe, have earned the right to be considered an "authority" and if they suggest that I might try this or that, I'm inclined to give it a go. The contrary is also the case.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I authorize the authorities that are trustworthy to me. First and foremost, I trust the composers and the performers, pretty much equally. Other authorities, such as professional reviewers, personal and group opinions &c... if they are telling me what my gut instinct, my ears and my already made-up opinion are telling me  then I trust them, but if they are contradicting what I have determined, then I take them with a grain of salt—but not to the point of discounting them altogether.

Even if Charles Rosen were to tell me that a composer I'm not keen on is a master, I wouldn't buy that composer's complete works, although I might give a couple of pieces a few listens; likewise, if he said a composer I love is bombastic, derivative, cliché or second-rate, I'd still love that composer's works (it happens to me regularly with Shostakovich and Tchaikovsky, for example). Sure, if the critic is of wide renown, I might be momentarily discomfitted, but I won't be shaken from my convictions. Such authorities are guides that can point me to attractions I might have missed, but I determine where I am going.

If I really ended up buying a recording that doesn't appeal to me over the duration, I can always get another one. It's a gain, not a loss.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

KenOC said:


> I consider the collective voice of the people on the forum an "authority" worthy of trust. Except when it differs from my own strongly-held opinions, in which case I can only wonder how wrong-headed some people can be.


This, and the fact they are bullying others which won't and don't except their _self chosen_ authority:devil:


----------



## rspader (May 14, 2014)

I trust my ears. If I like the music that I hear then, for me, it is good music. All the discussion by all of the "authorities" won't change that.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

rspader said:


> I trust my ears. If I like the music that I hear then, for me, it is good music. All the discussion by all of the "authorities" won't change that.


Good one you, keep it that way :tiphat:


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Trust is something that is earned not by self-declaration. I trust a cardiac surgeon when I know about that person and his accomplishments and NOT because of the M.D. behind the name. I trust a reviewer because I have read reviews about things that I have personal opinions about and so know how that reviewer's views fit with my own. Likewise with musicians. The fact that orchestra X hired you to play means little. With regard to this forum, I also trust people who have demonstrated thoughtful and insightful understanding and not because they demonstrate passive-aggressive behaviour.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

I'm happy to take on board everyone's interpretations and opinions but I reserve the right to snigger afterwards. :lol:


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2016)

Becca said:


> I trust a cardiac surgeon when I know about that person and his accomplishments and NOT because of the M.D. behind the name.


Having had minor heart surgery, I recall that I trusted that the surgeon was what they claimed they were. I made no effort to find out about their accomplishments. They worked in a hospital, didn't they?

I might take more care now!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

If trust means believing what one is told in the absence of any reason other than the title or position of "authority," I trust nothing and no one. But I accept a great deal provisionally, as we all must to survive. Ultimately, though, everything is subject to verification, which is sought, not randomly or compulsively, but as needed. This general philosophy applies to musical matters as well as to everything else.

"Authorities" have biases and make mistakes, sometimes whoppers. Common conceptions and basic assumptions are often based on some widely accepted "authority." If so-and-so thinks such-and-such, it's probably true, or more likely to be true than what some dissenting individual thinks, isn't it? No.There is no such metaphysical likelihood. But so-and-so knows more about such-and-such, right? Quantity of information is not necessarily useful or relevant. Knowledge does not equate to understanding, and incomplete knowledge derived from authorities may lead to errors and illusions as easily as one's own intuition - sometimes more easily. If I'm going to be wrong, I'd rather my error be my own, since intuition is more likely to lead me out of it without the weight of some presumed authority holding me back.

I like to know what authorities think, but mainly as a stimulus to think for myself. I find that some people concur with this approach to life, while others are made uncomfortable by it. They are welcome to their authorities.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Having had minor heart surgery, I recall that I trusted that the surgeon was what they claimed they were. I made no effort to find out about their accomplishments. They worked in a hospital, didn't they?
> 
> I might take more care now!


I recall some years ago when I was being wheeled into the operating room for some major abdominal surgery. I'm usually a complainer about high medical costs, but when I saw the surgeon standing there already scrubbed and masked, I thought, "I hope they pay this guy a lot!" :lol:


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> If trust means believing what one is told in the absence of any reason other than the title or position of "authority," I trust nothing and no one. But I accept a great deal *provisionally*, as we all must to survive.


Absolutely .


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> How much do you trust authority on musical matters? Is it bad to trust authority? Or sometimes inevitable and necessary?
> 
> I trust authorities who've earned my trust - not blindly. For example, Charles Rosen has certainly earned my trust, so when he vouches for Boulez's second piano sonata, I trust there's something there, even though it's not accessible to me right now.


There are academic/musicology authorities and they are specialized in their areas. I find these types of authority perfectly respectable. Books and articles must have been written by them in quality and quantity.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

There's no danger in trusting musical authority so why not. Sure, I trust them, but I'm never led by their opinion.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> Having had minor heart surgery, I recall that I trusted that the surgeon was what they claimed they were. I made no effort to find out about their accomplishments. They worked in a hospital, didn't they?
> 
> I might take more care now!


An aside ... having done my PhD work in a medical school alongside medical students and residents, that only reaffirmed my belief that an M.D. does not a professional make.
- A Physician knows everything and does nothing.
- A Surgeon knows nothing and does everything.
- A Pathologist knows everything and does everything ... but too late.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> How much do you trust authority on musical matters? Is it bad to trust authority? Or sometimes inevitable and necessary?
> 
> I trust authorities who've earned my trust - not blindly. For example, Charles Rosen has certainly earned my trust, so when he vouches for Boulez's second piano sonata, I trust there's something there, even though it's not accessible to me right now.


I think in any given field, most people will not have researched, or do not have enough experience, to form their own, independent opinion and do not have enough information to evaluate critically. So we really on people of a scholarly or elite class to condense what needs to be known about any given issue into a few readable paragraphs so the rest of us can have a working knowledge of what it is. Even people who go on to become advanced in whatever field will first be exposed to this streamlined and mainstream working paradigm and it can shape much of their thinking as much as it is shaped by the predominant thinking in the field.

Maybe this would be okay, but the fact is that, the people who frame these ideas for us are just people. Just because someone has a few degrees does not mean they are a critical thinker. It doesn't mean their judgement is the best that humankind has to offer, and it doesn't mean that whatever human qualities that might aid one in their field were bestowed upon them.

Just look at the fiscal meltdown. If the big-shot economists were saying that it was going to happen, they said it much too late and much too meekly. They are obviously the best educated and some of the most technically intelligent people in our society, but at the end of the day, all they could do was group-think and worship Milton Friedman.

There are even more controversial issues that I think this could be said of.

So in that sense, I don't trust authority, I think I have keen enough sensibilities that I don't feel the need to rely on them. It's different if you're a student, because then I think you should submit yourself to your teachers - otherwise, why be a student at all. For someone to teach you an ability doesn't mean they have to be right about everything, they just have to know what to do to gain it.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> So in that sense, I don't trust authority, I think I have keen enough sensibilities that I don't feel the need to rely on them. It's different if you're a student, because then I think you should submit yourself to your teachers - otherwise, why be a student at all. For someone to teach you an ability doesn't mean they have to be right about everything, they just have to know what to do to gain it.


The primary qualification for a good teacher is that they know how to teach you to think and learn. The details of what you learn is a secondary, albeit significant job.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Under some circumstances I'll trust the "wisdom of crowds", or if not _trust_ it, at least use it as a pointer. Generally speaking, the greater the consensus about whether a composition or recording is good, the greater the chance that I might like it. But in practice it's never as clearcut as that sounds. And one of the many things I've learned from all those polls I've done is that sometimes the crowd is just not sufficiently informed to be of value.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

I trust the opinion of other people--of everyone else--far more than my own.

Right now I'm pretty anxious as I wait for them all to agree.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I trust musical authorities based on how sympathetic their writing is. If their writing suggests that this one is a sympathetic person, I'm inclined to trust him/her, even if our tastes differ.

One thing I don't trust is my own ears. I'm their most severe critic, unless I'm having a completely cathartic experience or something.


----------

