# Rubbery logics which can prevent good music appreciation...



## Sid James

I decided to make this thread following some rather heated discussion in the thread below -

http://www.talkclassical.com/13778-what-point-atonal-music.html

Here are some thoughts of mine regarding some of the issues raised in that thread & other relevant things. I'm kind of exaggerating some to make a strong point. *Please be aware that I'm addressing issues regarding all types of music* (esp. classical music) not just "atonal" or "contemporary" or "modern" music (of course, since my thread title doesn't have these kinds of "sexed up" words in it, it's not likely to run to 30 pages! :lol: God I hate these labels!) :

*"Us" versus "them" mentality between fans/groupies of various musics*

- including the need to convice "the other side" that they are right & the other is wrong (black & white thinking, etc.)

*Catch-all cliches about any type of music the individual listener doesn't like
*
Eg. [insert music here you don't like] 
- has no emotion, or too much emotion
- doesn't/can't possibly make sense
- rambles on and on
- is boring
- is too highbrow, or is too lowbrow
- is too simple, is too complex
- is too technically perfectionist, or shows a complete lack of technical knowledge
- has limited artistic value
- is rubbish 
- cannot possibly appeal to anyone who is "normal," it is of "fringe" interest/value only

*
If you don't "get" or "understand" or "like" a certain type of music you -*
- haven't tried hard enough
- haven't listened to/collected enough recordings
- haven't listened to the "right" composer/s, piece/s, recording/s, etc.
- haven't got an open mind
- it is your fault
- obviously don't have a clue about the basics of music appreciation
- are maybe too "highbrow" or "lowbrow"
*
If you listen to some types of music, but not others, then -*
- you are limited or limiting yourself
- you have blinkers on
- you can't have a good general appreciation of the musical arts

*If composers or musicians do things in a way you don't like then -*
- they are worthless
- they don't know what they are doing
- they are a "sell out," pandering to the "masses"
- they can only be understood by the "highbrows" and "elites"
- it is simply not logical for anyone else, or many other listeners, to like them (eg. have an opposite opinion)
*
The value of music depends upon*
- how long it's been in the repertoire
- who thinks it's "good," & who doesn't
- whether it's older or newer 
- older music is better because it's been around for a long time, newer music can't be as good because it is too recent to be understood properly
- older music is not relevant to today's listeners, newer music is more relevant to today's listeners

*So, what do people think about these "rubbery logics" that is very easy to fall in a trap of doing/thinking* (I'm no saint in this regard, I've said things here in the past that were far from "logical" but I'm trying to reassess those things all the time now)...


----------



## Delicious Manager

How very interesting! I suspect I have used most of the above 'rubbery logic' to people at some time or another. The main objects of my venom (and I have plenty if stirred-up in the right way) is what I call 'lazy listeners' - those people who snuggle-up in their comfy armchairs and listen to the same half-dozen or so popular classical pieces over and over again, then purport to be an expert on classical music (I know they exist, I see them nearly every day in other contexts). I know we are all different (and thank goodness for that!), but I can't understand some people's lack of curiosity and adventure that causes them to live their lives this way. I almost feel I have failed if I DON'T hear a piece of music I have never heard before every day (and I've been exploring for over 40 years!). Not everyone is as **** as me, I know, but I DO know that many questions posted in here and other forums like it are borne of ignorance and laziness.

One of the classics is the attack on 'modern' music. Did you know that every piece of modern music is tuneless, atonal and unnecessarily complex? This is the sort of ridiculous claim made by some people who have accidentally heard a piece of 'modern' music they don't like on first listening and have decided that ALL modern music is like that; it certainly doesn't warrant any further investigation or detailed listening, oh no!

To ask 'What is the point of atonal music?' is like asking 'What is the point of TONAL music?' or 'What is the point of a novel?' The stupidity, ignorance and bigotry behind the question is mind-numbing. That's why (as far as I can remember) I haven't bothered posting an answer to that question. 'What's the point?'

Every one of your 'rubbery logics' will apply to some people or music (sometimes several will apply). Another thing that irritates me is gross generalisation, and I would say that, although the statements above CAN be true, they quite often WON'T be true either. We need to be discerning in how we use words and phrases and THINK about what we are saying(/writing), lest we fall into an inescapable quagmire of platitudes, generalisations and empty rhetoric.


----------



## Vesteralen

I tried logic once, but the results were mixed, to say the least. It seems easiest to eschew logic - even the rubbery kind. I think I'm going to follow the lead of other people I've read on this forum and just write the first thing that comes into my head...

Actually, there are a lot of dicussions here that I read with great interest all the time resisting the urge to get involved. I've often found myself in the position of defending a statement I've made without a whole lot of original conviction in the first place. But, once I've said it, I feel an obligation to stand by it to some degree. So, I soon find myself taking a stand on something I never intended to take a stand on in the first place, just to avoid appearing wishy-washy. (And, anybody who knows me well, knows I'm a pretty wishy-washy guy.) 

_Alice thought the whole thing very absurd, but they all looked so grave that she did not dare to laugh; and, as she could not think of anything to say, she simply bowed, and took the thimble, looking as solemn as she could._


----------



## Art Rock

Logic and taste are natural enemies.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Sid James said:


> So, what do people think about these "rubbery logics" ...


Rubbery logics? Who? Not me, surely.


----------



## Ukko

None of those things are 'rubbery logics', because they aren't logics. They are opinions, mostly biased opinions.

Nothing wrong with opinions; they probably are required for survival (when they resemble hazardous reality closely enough).

When discussing music, even the damnedest of damn fools ought to be able to express his opinions safely. Conversely, it ought to be socially acceptable to state: "I have come to the conclusion that you are a damn fool."

Or a whippersnapper.


----------



## haydnfan

Good list Sid. I think that whenever someone is about to start posting on that atonality thread, they should look over that list, and if there post would include those phrases they should not post because they will be simply repeating what has been said 10x over on that very thread!

I swear if you look over that atonality discussion you'll see people new to the thread join the debate to rehash the argument using the same phrases, and the cycle begins again. I just don't see the point. What is accomplished? I don't think that anyone has argued so persuasively as to convince the other side to change their mind.

If anyone had anything interesting and unique to say, it could only be so if it didn't use anything from Sid's list. Else it is guaranteed to be ssdd.


----------



## Polednice

Delicious Manager said:


> To ask 'What is the point of atonal music?' is like asking 'What is the point of TONAL music?' or 'What is the point of a novel?' The stupidity, ignorance and bigotry behind the question is mind-numbing. That's why (as far as I can remember) I haven't bothered posting an answer to that question. 'What's the point?'


It depends whether someone is asking the question genuinely or just being passive-aggressive, but I think "what is the point of tonal music?" and "what is the point of a novel?" can actually be worthwhile, thought-provoking discussions.


----------



## Guest

Here's the aspect of the situation that will guarantee that it will be perpetuated eternally: some people hate unfamiliar things so much that they will take any and every opportunity to demonstrate that the unfamiliar things they hate are bad and that the people who like them are bad and that if any of the bad people who like them dare to defend those bad things then they are ipso facto being arrogant and pretentious and will be for the rest of the discussion attacked for being the kind of people who attack people simply for disagreeing with them.

This is not something that can be solved. Read any biography of practically any composer from any era, and you will find this pattern. The irony, of course, is that the composers and pieces that the current haters (in any era) hate are largely the composers and pieces that were hated in a previous era. When confronted with this irony, the haters will claim that the bad people think that if something is hated then it is automatically a great work of genius.

So what's the point of rebutting the haters? What is the point of defending music that is new? Well, it is not to convince the haters. Like the dwarfs in the stable in _The Last Battle,_ they have removed themselves so far from reality that nothing will convince them. The point is that not everyone who is unfamiliar with new music is a hater. Not everyone who is initially put off by a new piece is a hater. The point is to connect with the Andres and the Elgarians and encourage them to continue exploring. Additionally, the point is to encourage ones' colleagues. To remind the Vazgens and the Violadudes and the Argus's that they're not alone, that in a world of fallaciousness and spite and envy, there are still a few pockets of logic and love and camaraderie in the world.

Whenever we get caught up in these circular and pointless quarrels with people who _will_ not be convinced, it is salutary to remind ourselves of the point of all this pointless bickering.


----------



## Delicious Manager

Hilltroll72 said:


> None of those things are 'rubbery logics', because they aren't logics. They are opinions, mostly biased opinions.
> 
> Nothing wrong with opinions; they probably are required for survival (when they resemble hazardous reality closely enough).
> 
> When discussing music, even the damnedest of damn fools ought to be able to express his opinions safely. Conversely, it ought to be socially acceptable to state: "I have come to the conclusion that you are a damn fool."
> 
> Or a whippersnapper.


I like opinions. But I don't like 'opinions' which are in truth little more than brainless rants fed by ignorance, prejudice and bad received knowledge. I know I am opinionated, but I make sure I am familiar with a subject, piece of music or musician before I submit an 'opinion' about them. I have just come across another idiot in another forum who states quite proudly "I have deep dislike for modern music..., few exceptions" and then posts a YouTube link to a truly abysmal composition of his which is no more and no less than poor _ersatz _Mozart.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Delicious Manager said:


> I have just come across another idiot in another forum who states quite proudly "I have deep dislike for modern music..., few exceptions" and then posts a YouTube link to a truly abysmal composition of his which is no more and no less than poor _ersatz _Mozart.


I'm no modern hater, but really, this makes them an idiot? It's not like they called it trash by stating a preference.

The world is full of bad logic, but there's a deep anti-intellectualism in seeking faulty logic in any critical examination of music you like. Let's try to be above 11 year old Justin Bieber fans who type rants on youtube about "haters" and chill.


----------



## Argus

Like I said in that atonality thread, opinions presented as opinions are fine, no one's going to get annoyed by them, but opinions presented as facts causes problems.

Even though you may _know_ something is just someone's opinion it's annoying when they themselves don't know it's just their opinion.

Or a whippersnapper.


----------



## mmsbls

Certainly Sofronitsky's thread veered off to the point where many (maybe all) of the statements or opinions in Sid's list became prevalent. I do think that most of those types of statements generally do not lead to very interesting discussions (although perhaps exciting at times). The OP and most initial responses did not resort to things in Sid's list. Unfortunately, I think sometimes people like arguing and confrontation over exploring ideas.



Delicious Manager said:


> To ask 'What is the point of atonal music?' is like asking 'What is the point of TONAL music?' or 'What is the point of a novel?' The stupidity, ignorance and bigotry behind the question is mind-numbing. That's why (as far as I can remember) I haven't bothered posting an answer to that question. 'What's the point?'


The OP actually had specific interesting statements and focused questions. For example:

"Studying composition myself, I have always been told by teachers and professors that Atonal music or near atonal music (sorry I don't have a better term for this genre) is the only way to push forward with music." Others here have wondered why this view appears to dominate the academic compositional focus.

"It's true that good music should stimulate and challenge it's audience, but how challenging should it be to enjoy an artist's expression?" I find this a fascinating question.

"Have you ever heard an atonal work that expressed joy, or another emotion other than sorrow or violence, that you could relate to?" Several responded to this very specific question.

The final question, "What is the point of writing without tonality?" seemed to be a general summary of the OP rather than a question based on little thought or information. In fact, several of the responses indicated to me that some people feel that atonal music appeals (often, sometimes, mostly?) to a distinctly different musical sensibility. Maybe there is a somewhat different point to atonal music.


----------



## Delicious Manager

regressivetransphobe said:


> I'm no modern hater, but really, this makes them an idiot? It's not like they called it trash by stating a preference.
> 
> The world is full of bad logic, but there's a deep anti-intellectualism in seeking faulty logic in any critical examination of music you like. Let's try to be above 11 year old Justin Bieber fans who type rants on youtube about "haters" and chill.


My point was the narrow-mindedness of the statement. My guess is that the person concerned has actually heard very little 'modern' music (and I don't know how he defined it). I would defy ANYONE not to find a lot of 'modern' music they liked if they only looked.


----------



## mmsbls

some guy said:


> So what's the point of rebutting the haters? What is the point of defending music that is new? ...The point is that not everyone who is unfamiliar with new music is a hater. Not everyone who is initially put off by a new piece is a hater. The point is to connect with the Andres and the Elgarians and encourage them to continue exploring.
> 
> Whenever we get caught up in these circular and pointless quarrels with people who _will_ not be convinced, it is salutary to remind ourselves of the point of all this pointless bickering.


I think perhaps one problem is that some of those who defend new music sometimes too quickly _assume_ that posts, which they perceive as negative toward new music, clearly come from a "hater". I have been admonished for posting an insulting comment because I supposedly hate modern music. Actually, as I have said many times, the reason for joining TC was to learn to appreciate modern music, and many of my posts reflect that.

I empathize with much of some guy's feelings. I would just suggest that those who defend new music might try a less confrontational approach when they're not certain someone is a "hater" or possibly try not to jump to conclusions so quickly about posts that you _think_ show hatred or disdain toward new music.


----------



## Klavierspieler

The only thing that really bugs me about atonal music is that (some) people almost try to make me feel like a fool because I don't enjoy it, otherwise I could easily ignore it. Another thing is my composition teacher tries to force me to compose this way. I have nothing against atonal music as long as people don't try to force it upon me.

Or an Old Fart.


----------



## violadude

Klavierspieler said:


> The only thing that really bugs me about atonal music is that (some) people almost try to make me feel like a fool because I don't enjoy it, otherwise I could easily ignore it. Another thing is my composition teacher tries to force me to compose this way. I have nothing against atonal music as long as people don't try to force it upon me.
> 
> Or an Old Fart.


Well as a composition student myself, I think it's good to write at least one thing in every style. When you're a pro composer of course you can write whatever you want, but as a student, having experience with every compositional tool (including atonality) is...well good experience.


----------



## Polednice

Delicious Manager said:


> My point was the narrow-mindedness of the statement. My guess is that the person concerned has actually heard very little 'modern' music (and I don't know how he defined it). I would defy ANYONE not to find a lot of 'modern' music they liked if they only looked.


I think that statement comes under the third item in Sid James's list of rubbery logic. Perhaps you could explain why you think it's not rubbery at all?


----------



## Argus

Rubbery Logics is a quality name for a band.

'Please welcome to the Hammersmith Apollo, Sid James and the Rubbery Logics'

They'll play a fusion of atonal freeform improvisations and doo-***.


----------



## World Violist

God knows I've been guilty of these in the past. Thankfully, though, I've come to realize that it's just whatever is [person]'s cup of tea.

I agree with DM about the "lazy listener" thing though, as I have been told about the wonders of Pachelbel's Canon many a time. And I also know a few cellists.

I also think the question "What's the point of atonal music?" is a total moot point, dead end, whatever you want to call it. Some guy wrote it, some other guys listen to it...so what? Crusading isn't going to do anyone any good. Recommendations are great. Crusading is not. Unless it's crusading in the cause of recommending.

Strangely, my new philosophy in music is making me rethink Mozart. I don't want any snide remarks if I start exemplifying his music in the next couple of weeks.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

An observation, at least here at TC, is that avant-garde listeners tend to be relatively sensitive to negative reactions to that music. Perhaps they have seen it all too often and quickly assume that negative reactions mount to attacks. 

Regardless, I'm of the view that if one does not enjoy a piece of music, one should be encouraged to expressed his/her opinion (qualified or not). Likewise, the reader is equally free to assess whether the expressed opinion is worth a moment's consideration or not. 

Finally, I don't believe all art is good, or at least no sense of relativity of merit can be productively expressed.


----------



## Guest

Avant garde music seems to be seen so often as something to take cheap shots at. As something that _deserves_ cheap shots.

The reported level of experience with it seems so often to be so terribly low.

Sometimes, its detractors take on the guise of supporters. This is to lend some sort of credence to the negative remarks, I guess.

Negative remarks about any music* are less useful than positive ones. (A corollary, no one needs to be encouraged to make negative remarks--people seem to find that to be incredibly easy.)

Listening to music is way more fun, for me at least, than bickering about the merits of things that its detractors have no real interest in save for the purpose of taking cheap shots at.

Taking part in pointless discussions is deeply embarrassing.

*thing


----------



## Sid James

violadude said:


> Well as a composition student myself, I think it's good to write at least one thing in every style. When you're a pro composer of course you can write whatever you want, but as a student, having experience with every compositional tool (including atonality) is...well good experience.


I think I'm on the same wavelength as you regarding that issue - musician's training. I think that when we diss a composer or performer we often forget of the "hard yards" they have done to get their degree (& often they do post-graduate study as well). I personally know a number of these people, but even if you don't know any of them, you have all heard their work, whether recorded or live. So I often think that when people say things like "[insert performer] doesn't understand or know how to perform [insert a piece of music or composer]" then I think what they're really reflecting on is the fact that they, as a listener, for whatever reason/s don't like that particular performance, the way it's done, how it rubs them up the wrong way, or whatever. Then it gets really "rubbery" when they say performer x does composer y's music much "better." It's okay to compare performances or composers or whatever, but when we're doing that, it doesn't help if you're kind of reflecting on the overall professionalism of a musician, which in most if not all cases, is very solid. They make their conclusions based on years of study & experience. Funny how we like to diss the most qualified & experienced musicians today, but there were many composers now considered "great" of the past who had little or no formal musical training. Eg. we know next to nothing about guys from way back like Josquin des Prez, but what he has left to us is undoubtedly of a very high level. Similar with Elgar & Schoenberg, they were largely self-taught. It does seem that the farther back we go, composers/musicians develop an "untouchable" status, whereas people just love "pulling down" musical creators who are alive & breathing today...


----------



## Sid James

Thanks for everyone's comments. I can't reply to you all as I'd like to. *Please note that I'm not aiming to "neutralise" interesting or more contentious debates, or anything like that.* I just think it's sometimes worth "reading between the lines" of people's opinions on music.



Delicious Manager said:


> I like opinions. But I don't like 'opinions' which are in truth little more than brainless rants fed by ignorance, prejudice and bad received knowledge. I know I am opinionated, but I make sure I am familiar with a subject, piece of music or musician before I submit an 'opinion' about them...


This I agree with strongly, informed opinion can be of very high value, although sometimes less informed opinion can also be interesting, provided there is a level of "balance."

Speaking to the "other" forum, it sounds very much like another classical forum I was previously a member of & deregistered because I was sick of people's negativity there. Even if it was them dissing a performer or composer I didn't know, I just couldn't stand it, composers & musicians are like my heroes. In any case, whatever musician you're talking about, they're generally doing something they love, with a fair or high degree of commitment, passion, knowledge, all that. They're making a positive contribution to our lives whatever they do, generally speaking. They do not deserve to be dragged down into a swamp into a primitive "ape level" morass of negativity.

To illustrate this point, here is one of the reasons I got out of that forum. Like here at TC, I often posted my ventures into listening of "lighter" musics. Once I posted that I'd just heard an Andre Rieu disc & a number of members got right into me, making indirect questioning of my "good taste," all this ****. I'm glad this kind of thing hasn't happened here. No one should have to justify what they're listening to (or not!). Too much time on that forum was spent on bickering about & questioning these kinds of things, rather than focussing on the actual music in question. & those members were judging me for listening to Rieu for various reasons - eg. how can you listen to things like Rieu & "serious" stuff like Beethoven & Boulez as well? Indirectly they were asking "are you normal?" Even worse, some of them didn't take time to check out what other things I listen to - which is a fairly good variety of things. Often online, we don't really know, can't understand where the person is kind of "coming from." Without that knowledge, people make assumptions & this leads to a lot of "rubbery" & "dodgy" things happening. So, in other words, without as much knowledge if we actually know a person well, it's better to focus on the positive, or at least try reach "middle ground," rather than just lashing out at people for things that simply may not even be there in the first place, only in the "naysayer's" mind...

** Again, I'm not trying to "preach" here, I've probably done some "rubbery" things myself *- that's life - but I don't remember dissing someone for listening to the music of a composer/performer I'm not a huge fan of (correct me if I'm wrong), or questioning "rubbery" things like their musical taste or judgement, which is very hard to quantify in the first place...


----------



## jurianbai

Klavierspieler said:


> ........... Another thing is my composition teacher tries to force me to compose this way. I have nothing against atonal music as long as people don't try to force it upon me.
> 
> Or an Old Fart.


is it very hard to write something atonal??? ;p


----------



## graaf

What OP noted by starting this topic is, obviously, very true, but if we would see those as the guidelines and try to stick to them, that would decrease the amount of text written on this board down to 10-20% (and even lower on other forums). But nevertheless, the notions are good to be alert when reading any post.


----------



## Philip

what i have learned over the years is that anything written on an internet forum should be taken very lightly..


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

jurianbai said:


> is it very hard to write something atonal??? ;p


Especially the pieces that require the pianist to perform with his/her elbow instead of fingers. I wonder how that is noted down on the page. Anybody know?


----------



## violadude

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Especially the pieces that require the pianist to perform with his/her elbow instead of fingers. I wonder how that is noted down on the page. Anybody know?


Why yes, I do know.  Usually the composer will just write a large "blockish" note head that encompasses the general area of the keyboard that he/she wants the performer to strike, and then an asterisk and a note at the bottom that says what part of their body to play it with.


----------



## Vazgen

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> An observation, at least here at TC, is that avant-garde listeners tend to be relatively sensitive to negative reactions to that music. Perhaps they have seen it all too often and quickly assume that negative reactions mount to attacks.




So we shouldn't assume that your comparing a piece of music to the sound of bowel movements constitutes an attack? And we should believe that your constant, tiresome cheap shots at John Cage indicate what a mature, fair-minded listener you are? Wow, I had you figured all wrong there.

My apologies.

-Vaz


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

violadude said:


> Why yes, I do know.  Usually the composer will just write a large "blockish" note head that encompasses the general area of the keyboard that he/she wants the performer to strike, and then an asterisk and a note at the bottom that says what part of their body to play it with.


Thanks, I guessed it would along those lines. Here's Pollini playing _Klavierstücke X_ by Stockhausen. Whatever you might think of the music, it does seem an intensive physical activity to perform the piece.


----------



## Vazgen

Sid James said:


> Speaking to the "other" forum, it sounds very much like another classical forum I was previously a member of & deregistered because I was sick of people's negativity there. Even if it was them dissing a performer or composer I didn't know, I just couldn't stand it, composers & musicians are like my heroes. In any case, whatever musician you're talking about, they're generally doing something they love, with a fair or high degree of commitment, passion, knowledge, all that. They're making a positive contribution to our lives whatever they do, generally speaking. They do not deserve to be dragged down into a swamp into a primitive "ape level" morass of negativity.


Hear, hear, Sid.

I keep saying people should listen to whatever music they want, for whatever reason they like it. I don't go out of my way to trash composers I dislike, or criticize people for liking their music. And there's plenty of music I dislike, believe me.

However, the cynicism and immaturity involved in attacking any music as "crap," particularly the music of composers I consider unjustly underrated or frequently misunderstood, simply offends me. The implication that certain composers are making deliberately bad music, or are mere hoaxers, is too foolish for words. The people who've done that here are trolls, judging by their reluctance (or inability) to defend their opinions in a reasonable manner.

I believe everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, and I also believe I'm entitled to engage people in a discussion about their opinions. Isn't that why they share their opinions in the first place?

-Vaz


----------



## Polednice

HarpsichordConcerto said:


>


I wonder what the reaction to that spectacle would have been if he didn't have the sheet music in front of him when he played. It seems that the mystique added by a score is necessary to take it seriously.


----------



## Ukko

Vazgen said:


> [...]
> I believe everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, and I also believe I'm entitled to engage people in a discussion about their opinions. Isn't that why they share their opinions in the first place?
> -Vaz


I believe you are right to believe in your entitlement. There are 'rules of engagement' of course, usually more strict in a moderated forum than in a pub. I think you understand both sets.

Be , that's the clue.


----------



## Vesteralen

Vazgen said:


> I believe everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, and I also believe I'm entitled to engage people in a discussion about their opinions. Isn't that why they share their opinions in the first place?
> 
> -Vaz


I was going to press "Like" on this post, but in the final analysis I can't subscribe to the idea that people who have posted before me on this thread are "trolls" (except Hilltroll72, of course, but that's his own label ).

But, I do wholeheartedly endorse your sentiments expressed in the section I quoted above.


----------



## Curiosity

HarpsichordConcerto said:


>


Wow, I can't stop humming this piece.


----------



## Vazgen

Vesteralen said:


> I was going to press "Like" on this post, but in the final analysis I can't subscribe to the idea that people who have posted before me on this thread are "trolls"


Then you're a lot nicer than I am.

This really isn't a discussion, obviously, it's just picking easy targets and pretending there's something brave or creative about hatin' on them. All I see on this page, even, is a backslapping trollfest. It's like a bunch of dumb jocks high-fiving each other over their shared lack of any imagination or humor.

It's not what you'd call _groupthink_, but there is at least a group.

-Vaz


----------



## Vesteralen

Vazgen said:


> Then you're a lot nicer than I am.


Well, one person's "niceness" is another person's colorlessness. Let's face it - I'd never make it on talk radio.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

HC-An observation, at least here at TC, is that avant-garde listeners tend to be relatively sensitive to negative reactions to that music.

Vazgen- the cynicism and immaturity involved in attacking any music as "crap," particularly the music of composers I consider unjustly underrated or frequently misunderstood, simply offends me. The implication that certain composers are making deliberately bad music, or are mere hoaxers, is too foolish for words. The people who've done that here are trolls, judging by their reluctance (or inability) to defend their opinions in a reasonable manner.

...All I see on this page, even, is a backslapping trollfest. It's like a bunch of dumb jocks high-fiving each other over their shared lack of any imagination or humor.

I think that one of the biggest problems a lot of us see here is the absolute humorless hypocrisy displayed by a number of those defenders of the faith... er, I mean Modernism. We've all read posts insinuating that Mozart was little more than a simpering, effete, wimp churning out lightweight entertainment for the aristocracy (there's even a thread: "Mozart: God or Garbage"), and how many times has it been suggested that the whole of Baroque music... especially Vivaldi... sounds the same? We even have one frequent poster (on a classical site, no less) who repeatedly argues that Black Sabbath and AC/DC are greater than Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart. In all of these situations other posters offer rebuttals, and they banter back and forth... without ever crying about "strawmen" or hypocritically attempting to claim the high ground in the debate while acting just as biased and opinionated as their opponents.

But I guess it is OK to make suggestions as to the "cynicism", "Immaturity", and "foolishness" of one's opponents in a debate... and to refer to them as "trolls" or compare them to "dumb jocks" (nothing judgmental in that term, eh?) as long as it is in defense of unjustly underrated or frequently misunderstood Modernist geniuses.

Again, the greatest strawman I see here is the repeated suggestion that anyone who makes the least negative comment concerning a Modern or Contemporary composer... or even a single work of "music" is somehow attacking the whole of Modern and Contemporary music. Has anyone insinuated that some composers are intentionally making bad music? I can't recall such a suggestion. Personally, I believe that almost every composer created at least some music of questionable merit... intentionally or not. Are some composers... or at least some works of music hoaxes? I won't deny the possibility.

While some may dislike... or have difficulty with a piece of music like this:






or this:






or this:






or this:






or this:






Few... if anyone... would suggest that such works are not music... that they are nothing more than some great hoax or pure garbage.

Continued...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

But then we have "music" like this:
















And amazingly we find that the same defenders of the faith jump to the defense of these pieces as well... while ironically arguing that these aren't the only works composed by said composers... or even representative of the majority of their music... and indeed they are not. So why the knee-jerk reaction?

My own discipline or area of study was in the visual arts. I am profoundly enamored of and well-versed in Modernism and beyond. I would surely count Picasso, Matisse, Paul Klee, Joseph Cornell, Chaim Soutine, Philip Guston, Robert Motherwell, Francis Bacon, and any number of others among my favorite artists. If someone were to proclaim that the whole of Modernism sucked and was but an anomaly, I would surely counter them in argument. If, however, they were to suggest that *certain* artists and *certain* art works were crap or little more than an elaborate hoax... I would quite agree. Piero Manzoni's can of artists's sh** which was just that: sh**. Vito Acconci's _Seedbed_... a "performance" in which the artist lay beneath a stage engaged in pleasuring himself for the whole of the exhibition was little more than sheer BS. Chris Burden having himself shot or Rudolf Schwarzkogler amputating his own manhood as an art work are examples of visual art that are little more than a pathetic attempt at shock as a means of grabbing the audience attention... but as art they are nothing more than a hoax. I have little problem with admitting as much without fear that I am selling out or undermining the whole of Modernism. I recognize that it is the inane defense of such juvenile attempts to shock... PhD dissertations arguing as to the genius of Robert Mapplethorpe's photos of a bullwhip shoved up his a**, or comparing Chris Ofili's glitter and elephant sh** paintings to Rubens that makes Modern and Contemporary art an easy target for those with little idea of the wealth of truly marvelous creations that exist along side of this crap.

But to suggest that there may be some equivalents to such "masterpieces" of late Modernist visual and performance art within the realm of music is akin to blasphemy to the faithful... and anyone who makes such accusations is immediately accused of dismissing or mocking the whole of Modern and Contemporary music. Some Guy continually paints himself as the patron saint of Modern and Contemporary music and repeatedly declares that these debates are a waste of time... and yet it seems the vast majority of his posts are involved in these debates as opposed to contributions to the thread concerning Modern and Contemporary music that individual members admire... or any suggestions as to worthy orchestral compositions of the last 30 years.

Perhaps this is a case of "do as I say, not as I do."?

In spite of this... I appreciate Sid/Andre's efforts as mediator... but more so his continued participation in posting links to Modern and Contemporary music as well as his personal thoughts/responses.

There was a highly opinionated member here some years back who was eventually banned due to his less-than-diplomatic manner. I disagreed with him on any number of occasion... but I also found myself coming around to his point of view on several composers as a result of his posting links to their music and offering some insight as to just what he thought was so special about it. I have him to thank for introducing me to Takemitsu, Tristan Murail, Jonathan Harvey, Julian Anderson, Giacinto Scelsi, and several others. I have Andre's posts to thank for introducing me to Harry Partch... and even just the other day... for reminding me of Roger Sessions. Again, I would like to see far more posts along this line... but I doubt it will happen. In spite of claims to the opposite, it seems many find far more pleasure in debate and insult.

:tiphat:


----------



## Curiosity

StlukesguildOhio said:


>


Beethoven eat your heart out.


----------



## Argus

StlukesguildOhio said:


> WE even have one frequent poster (on a classical site, no less) who repeatedly argues that Black Sabbath and AC/DC are greater than Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.


:lol:

That really gets your goat. Anyway, you're wrong. I'll give you the official rundown of my opinion of Black Sabbath and AC/DC in relation to Bach, Beethoven and Mozart:

Black Sabbath > Beethoven > AC/DC = Bach > Mozart

So in fact only Sabbath is better than Beethoven and Bach is the equal of AC/DC.

All the rest of your lengthy double post amounts to 'I like this music but I don't like that music'.

Just answer one question.

*Why are those pieces in your second post 'crap' or hoaxes, yet the ones in your first post aren't?*

Oh wait, I already know the answer: 'I don't like that second batch of pieces'.


----------



## Curiosity

Beethoven is objectively better than Black Sabbath, by a wide margin. Black Sabbath were a reasonably good metal band who tried too hard to be taken seriously to the point where they became a self-parody. Black Sabbath is good background music. That's all they will ever be.


----------



## Argus

Curiosity said:


> Beethoven is objectively better than Black Sabbath, by a wide margin. Black Sabbath were a reasonably good metal band who tried too hard to be taken seriously to the point where they became a self-parody. Black Sabbath is good background music. That's all they will ever be.


You seem to be a purveyor of wrongness lately.

Black Sabbath being better than Beethoven is my _opinion_. You're telling me I like Beethoven more than Black Sabbath even though I just said otherwise?


----------



## samurai

Curiosity said:


> Beethoven is objectively better than Black Sabbath, by a wide margin. Black Sabbath were a reasonably good metal band who tried too hard to be taken seriously to the point where they became a self-parody. Black Sabbath is good background music. That's all they will ever be.


When we start with these kinds of comparisions, isn't it somewhat akin to comparing apples and oranges? I mean, these are completely separate--obviously--genres of music. How can one then "objectively" set about comparing musicians who belong to completely different sub-sets. I can understand doing this vis a vis those within the same genre, but am at a loss to conceive of how one does it--again using that crucial word/concept* objectively*--as regards those "practicng" as it were, totally different styles and conceptions of music.
Perhaps, because I am not a musician, am I missing something here?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

samurai said:


> Perhaps, because I am not a musician, I am missing something here?


No, you're not missing anything. As I wrote earlier, anybody is entitled to their opinion and likewise, the reader is entitled to assess the expressed opinion. In this case, I don't think the opinion that Black Sabbath's music (*let's abbreviate Black Sabbath = BS*) is better than Beethoven's is worth a moment's consideration. And if you want to go further to test that, at least here at TC, do a BS music in a poll for example. Most here would easily say Beethoven's music is far better than BS music. That said, the expressed opinion is likely to be considered by many that is as good as the BS music itself.

Edit: But of course, in a BS Discussion Forum elsewhere, the outcome of the same poll would favour BS music. That's probably why and where most BS lovers prefer to hang out, the very home to discuss BS music.


----------



## Sid James

Thanks for your responses, it's become an intersting discussion. I'll try to reply to specific people, but talking about general points/ideas raised by all of you as well.



Vazgen said:


> This really isn't a discussion, obviously, it's just picking easy targets and pretending there's something brave or creative about hatin' on them. All I see on this page, even, is a backslapping trollfest. It's like a bunch of dumb jocks high-fiving each other over their shared lack of any imagination or humor.





Vazgen said:


> ...I keep saying people should listen to whatever music they want, for whatever reason they like it. I don't go out of my way to trash composers I dislike, or criticize people for liking their music. And there's plenty of music I dislike, believe me.


I agree about the "easy targets" thing, but these can really be virtually any composer/performer/musician, etc. As stlukes says, it can be the "traditional" composers as well who are targeted, as Argus in his reply, says it can be anything you personally don't like. It's okay for someone to criticise, but as you suggest, there should be some amount of reasoning behind that, some experience with the thing in question. I'm not saying, for example, that you have to go overboard & give a scholarly opinion - that's not the point of this forum, nor is it in our daily lives about music, usually. You don't necessarily have to listen to all of a composer's works or read all of their biographies to develop some amount of understanding of their music, place in the scheme of things, lives, etc. Even if you own say I or a couple/few cd's of a composer's work & maybe read about them on say wikipedia, you can form some sort of opinion (with quite a number of composers, that's actually where I am, esp. those "new" to me). But I think that if you actually "get off your backside" & do this, then a person even with this relatively small amount of experience doesn't become a "dumb jock" who says things that don't "add up" with a sort of reality, or a sort of more balanced view. These people (as I found on the other forum) can be highly qualified musicians & very experienced listeners. Some said they own like 10,000 cd's. I own about 400, but I haven't tended to sprout venom like they did when I "dared" to listen to things they disapproved of (eg. Andre Rieu). The false dichotomy between so-called "lowbrow" & "highbrow" musics reared it's ugly head too many times at that forum, so I bailed out. No matter whether they were "in the know" or not, a number of them said things that just soured my day. I don't need that bullsh*t in my life, regardless whether it's coming from a PHD in music or a person without any formal training in music. Attitude can be just as, or more (it depends) important than the "kudos" you have, or "expertise," whatever.



> It's not what you'd call _groupthink_, but there is at least a group.


Yes, Orwell's "Double-think" from his novel 1984 comes to mind. As I said, it's just ideology/dogma going over commonsense. No matter if you're talking about Andre Rieu, Isaac Stern or Ithak Perlman, to name three violinists (& some of the people on that site got stuck into all three equally, no matter how "low" or "highbrow" their work is). Could these people do what they do/did to such a level as those guys? Highly doubt it, they're just ideologues.



Polednice said:


> I wonder what the reaction to that spectacle would have been if he didn't have the sheet music in front of him when he played. It seems that the mystique added by a score is necessary to take it seriously.


Well, I've got that work on disc & the liner notes say Stockhausen actually invented new dynamic markings, among producing other innovations, in that very work. Is different than say what Monteverdi did, or Beethoven, or Stravinsky? I think that maybe even your favourite composer, while not strictly an "innovator" did do things like this - I heard Joshua Bell talk about Brahms' violin concerto, and he said that this is one of the few concertos from the period that kind of brings together, synthesises a lot or most of what was known about violin technique in Brahms' time. So in a way, that is unique, maybe even innovative. You don't have to like Stockhausen's (or anyone else's) music, but I think it's good to give him credit for what he did in that work at least, don't you think?



Hilltroll72 said:


> I believe you are right to believe in your entitlement. There are 'rules of engagement' of course, usually more strict in a moderated forum than in a pub. I think you understand both sets.


This is true. & I think there are some "unwritten" conventions that we adhere to all the time, in all areas. Sometimes, we can go overboard, in the heat of the moment. & it's also true that it's hard to find time to make posts that are always intersting, or balanced, sometimes it's easier to give a "clever" one-liner, shoot from the hip, that sort of thing. I've had some heated discussions myself, bordering on breaking the forum rules (with two members now gone, banned). One of the moderators at the time, privately said (warning me) that sometimes if you get in that situation, it's better not to give your "gut" reaction & just sleep on it, just chill out a bit, before you "pull the trigger" & reply. It's a wise thing to do, imo...

[More to come in a moment, I'm wading through the next posts, replying to them, next]...


----------



## Sid James

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I think that one of the biggest problems a lot of us see here is the absolute humorless hypocrisy displayed by a number of those defenders of the faith... er, I mean Modernism.


I suppose that's true, I often think of my favourite composers as really important to me, almost as if I know them. That's certainly true if I know their music better than I do of others, or know a bit more about their lives. It's a bit like if your partner or a friend was being joked about in some way. Even if it's meant to be harmless & for "fun," it's better not to do these things in life to avoid damage to our relationships, etc. & there's also the aspect of smoother social interaction being the "norm" (or at least not make fun of what/who people like in a way that is likely to cause major offence). Don't get me wrong in "real life" I'm a pretty "direct" person, I often say what's on my mind, but before doing that I consciously or unconsciously try to "filter" or "refine" it to some degree, to make it more "even-keeled." My aim depends on the context, sometimes I just leave the issue alone, sometimes I try to meet people on "middle ground." It's very rare - or never - that I try to convince them that they have to/we have to agree 100 per cent. This is a matter of "balance," as is the way you make jokes (or anything in life). I actually don't mind member Harpsichord Concerto's humour at times, we called it "Aussie Larrakinism" that is kind of dying out now here with all this corporatisation & blandness (maybe aspects of political correctness gone overboard?). Mind you, Harpsichord Concerto is NOTHING compared to what the "highbrows" said on the other classical forum. & even worse, sometimes they were not joking. One was eg. criticising Schumann's orchestration, an "issue" or "debate" that most contemporary scholars have put to bed - erring towards saying it was a matter of this composer's unique way of doing things - like all of them - rather than issues of ineptitude or psychological issues in his life. Brahms & Joachim withheld Schumann's violin concerto for similar reasons - they wanted to "protect" his reputation. History has proved their good intentions to be basically wrong, or at least based on shaky foundations, Sir Yehudi who I think premiered the work in about the 1950's or 60's certainly would have thought highly of it (& that was half a century ago). So there you go, some people are just not "up with the times" & I think that's often WAY WORSE than some people who make fart jokes, esp. if it's coming from the mouth of a PHD in music!!!



> But I guess it is OK to make suggestions as to the "cynicism", "Immaturity", and "foolishness" of one's opponents in a debate... and to refer to them as "trolls" or compare them to "dumb jocks" (nothing judgmental in that term, eh?) as long as it is in defense of unjustly underrated or frequently misunderstood Modernist geniuses.


I know that modern/contemporary area is more of a "hot topic" and has a kind of "sexiness" but I think the problem is some people's attitudes in general, not necessarily related to a specific type, era, style, whatever of music. As I said above, "rubbery" opinions can come from all along the spectrum of "experience" - from the most highly qualified musicians to those without them, from either/or levels of the listening experience spectrum - beginner, intermediate, advanced.



> Personally, I believe that almost every composer created at least some music of questionable merit... intentionally or not. Are some composers... or at least some works of music hoaxes? I won't deny the possibility.


Yes, this is true, & scholars, writers on music have had some things to say about this. A lot of composers, esp. the highly prolific ones (but not all of them) had a tendency to churn out music without revising it later or thinking it over. As a result, some of this music may well be worth listening to, but wouldn't reasonably considered as their "finest." I tend to judge all composers on their "best" works. Sometimes it's difficult to judge, as the prolific guys did a lot of things that haven't made it to record.

Another side issue is that there are undoubtedly some "lesser lights" from all eras of classical music, but they still deserve an airing, esp. to better understand the times/styles/whatever in general, or in more depth. I believe you have done this with many eras/genres you're interested in. I have to, to some degrees. I love going to a concert with a mix of the "big hits" & things I've never heard & are maybe more obscure. I don't see a reason to kind of "grade" or "quantify" which is "better" or "middling" or "bad." If I get something out of whatever piece is played, that's fine by me. Indeed, some composer's most innovative works are almost unknown. I was just listening to Bruckner's _Prelude in C_ for solo organ this week, the notes said it used chromatic - whole tone - harmonies. From what it actually sounded like, it kind of presaged what was to come later in the decade from the "young guns" of the time (1890's, Schoenberg would compose _Transfigured Night _before the decade was out). I'm not interested in a useless debate on whether that short 2 minute work by Bruckner is his "finest" or "just a random experiment" or "not his usual thing" or maybe even a "stunt." I don't compare it to his symphonies or masses, & why bother? I just fit it into the general scheme of things of what he & others were up to at the time & beyond. That's a type of critical thinking & I like to make these odd little "discoveries" - I don't often have the privelege to do that.

[More to come soon]...


----------



## Polednice

Sid James said:


> Well, I've got that work on disc & the liner notes say Stockhausen actually invented new dynamic markings, among producing other innovations, in that very work. Is different than say what Monteverdi did, or Beethoven, or Stravinsky? I think that maybe even your favourite composer, while not strictly an "innovator" did do things like this - I heard Joshua Bell talk about Brahms' violin concerto, and he said that this is one of the few concertos from the period that kind of brings together, synthesises a lot or most of what was known about violin technique in Brahms' time. So in a way, that is unique, maybe even innovative. You don't have to like Stockhausen's (or anyone else's) music, but I think it's good to give him credit for what he did in that work at least, don't you think?


I don't deny that there may be worthy innovations in that piece - I was making the more general comment (without regard to the originality of the piece) that if one were to see it performed in concert without the pianist using sheet music, it probably wouldn't appear to be anything more than the raving eccentricities of a performer gone mad. Should the audience now be expected to be able to read scores in order to appreciate the genius behind the elbow-slamming?


----------



## Sid James

> Few... if anyone... would suggest that such works are not music... that they are nothing more than some great hoax or pure garbage. [re murail, takemitsu, schoenberg, sesssions]
> 
> But then we have "music" like this: [ligeti, stockhausen, cage]
> 
> *And amazingly we find that the same defenders of the faith jump to the defense of these pieces as well... while ironically arguing that these aren't the only works composed by said composers... or even representative of the majority of their music... and indeed they are not. So why the knee-jerk reaction? *


The sentence I bolded makes sense to me. The "problem" is that it's difficult to compare your first "batch" of works with the next "batch." The first batch are for traditional forces - eg. orchestral, chamber, & I'm not sure - but i did listen to it ages ago, when you first posted it - the Murail may well be partly electronic? But even if it is, they are all more or less in a format that focuses more on the music itself, not ideas/debates/philosophies/concepts about music (eg. questioning what is music? does art equal life, are they the same?). The latter is what I know about the second "batch." They're more conceptual art pieces than anything else. They are like "happenings." But talking about the Ligeti metronome piece, he himself said it was just a kind of "one off" experiment for him. He disagreed with Cage's philosophies that art equals life. He just jumped on the bandwagon of all that for a minute & quickly got off. Even live performances of that metronome thing are rare - hard to find/get 100 of the damn things! I think one of the last performances of it in recent years was in London & musicians were asked to temporarily "donate" their metronomes so it could happen. I think this is an interesting work by Ligeti, but yes, it's not what I'd call "representative" of his general output.

Another idea would have indeed been to just note what works you think by guys like Cage, Stockhausen, Ligeti "work" for you, & I think you like some of their things. It's a bit tiring to be talking about these conceptual art things, as you suggest, these are not the only things they did, just maybe the most "controversial."

Re visual artists you talked about - I agree I don't like the "extreme" ones, but I think guys like Mapplethorpe & Ofali have a place in the scheme of things, the former for making the "gay" culture more kind of "unexposed" or "destigmatised," & Ofali for getting African art into the spotlight. I've seen exhibitions with both of their works, & I wouldn't say it was a waste of time, they added to my understanding of contemporary art (but it was ages ago, in the 1990's). It doesn't bother me whether they're "materpieces" or not. Not everyone's appreciation of art is like that. But I get your point in a way, but in other ways I wouldn't compare them directly to the more "extreme" examples of self-mutilation you gave.



> Indeed, I will gladly admit that the vast majority of all art is mediocre at best.


As I said above, it's still worth checking out some of the "lesser known" or to use a stronger word "mediocre" creators, they have something to add to how we appreciate things generally. I think you'd agree with this in some ways. & some people, discussing on the poll/thread I did on mainstream or off the beaten track music, say they do favour the lesser known composers.



> In spite of this... I appreciate Sid/Andre's efforts as mediator... but more so his continued participation in posting links to Modern and Contemporary music as well as his personal thoughts/responses...
> There was a highly opinionated member here some years back who was eventually banned due to his less-than-diplomatic manner. I disagreed with him on any number of occasion... but I also found myself coming around to his point of view on several composers as a result of his posting links to their music and offering some insight as to just what he thought was so special about it. I have him to thank for introducing me to Takemitsu, Tristan Murail, Jonathan Harvey, Julian Anderson, Giacinto Scelsi, and several others. I have Andre's posts to thank for introducing me to Harry Partch... and even just the other day... for reminding me of Roger Sessions. Again, I would like to see far more posts along this line... but I doubt it will happen. In spite of claims to the opposite, it seems many find far more pleasure in debate and insult.


Thanks for your compliments & I'm also starting to explore some composers in your "neck of the woods" - just got some of the music of Weiss & Hoffmann, whom I think you've talked about here some time ago. Also good that you say you've learnt positive things from other members who had kind of put you off a bit with the "antics" that went on between you, them & others. You're right, the best forcus is a positive one, or at least "middle ground." But I also enjoy debates here, but it's difficult if they become a bit too over the top (but granted, nothing that's happened here is a fraction as bad as what was going on - on a daily basis - on the other forum which I left a while back; the place was basically "pus," even if for a few of their many good members).



Argus said:


> ...All the rest of your lengthy double post amounts to 'I like this music but I don't like that music'.





> *Why are those pieces in your second post 'crap' or hoaxes, yet the ones in your first post aren't?*
> 
> Oh wait, I already know the answer: 'I don't like that second batch of pieces'.


It's okay for stlukes to make these kinds of conclusions, as he argued in much depth. But we don't have to agree with him, of course. Or the connections made there with other things/issues. & I also think that (echoing what he said) too much attention is given to say Cage's 4'33" & not enough (or zilch) to his "actual" musics. It is true though as you suggest, that there's nothing wrong with a person if they like 4'33" or things like that. There's no need to make judgements about their taste or validity of it, just as I found I was on the recieving end of negativity on the other forum for listening to Andre Rieu.



samurai said:


> When we start with these kinds of comparisions, isn't it somewhat akin to comparing apples and oranges? I mean, these are completely separate--obviously--genres of music. How can one then "objectively" set about comparing musicians who belong to completely different sub-sets. I can understand doing this vis a vis those within the same genre, but am at a loss to conceive of how one does it--again usingthat crucial word/concept* objectively*--as regards those "practicng" as it were, totally different styles and conceptions of music.
> Perhaps, because I am not a musician, I am missing something here?


Agreed. I see little use in comparing things like Beethoven & Black Sabbath, because they are so different. Heck, it's even "rubbery" to compare Beethoven with one of his contemporaries like Hummel, Spohr or Weber, because they're nothing like eachother (from what I've heard of their music & read about their philosophies/views/different directions they went). It's even a bit pointless to (say) compare _The Beatles _with _The Rolling Stones_. It basically boils down to what you like or what you don't. Undoubtedly, both bands made big contributions to popular music in their day. Some people like both, some neither, some one or the other. Same with Beethoven & Black Sabbath, or Beethoven & Hummel, Weber, Spohr. Yes, it's "rubbery" & it's a case of "apples & oranges" big time...


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> I don't deny that there may be worthy innovations in that piece - I was making the more general comment (without regard to the originality of the piece) that if one were to see it performed in concert without the pianist using sheet music, it probably wouldn't appear to be anything more than the raving eccentricities of a performer gone mad. Should the audience now be expected to be able to read scores in order to appreciate the genius behind the elbow-slamming?


I suspect that, between _Sid James_ and moi, I 'followed your drift' better than he did. The presence of the sheet music seems of exaggerated importance even, because Pollini appears to be sitting so low (reminds me of Gould).

I also have to ask, does an elbow slam have a different result_ 'soundwise'_, than, say, a slam by a closed fist?


----------



## Sid James

Polednice said:


> I don't deny that there may be worthy innovations in that piece - I was making the more general comment (without regard to the originality of the piece) that if one were to see it performed in concert without the pianist using sheet music, it probably wouldn't appear to be anything more than the raving eccentricities of a performer gone mad. Should the audience now be expected to be able to read scores in order to appreciate the genius behind the elbow-slamming?


Yes, the impression you have is probably something similar to what even some professional critics may well have said at the premiere of those kinds of works, back in the post-1945 period. Even now, on a certain CD review website (& yes, I'll name it, because I think that some of the opinions that go down there are far from balanced or even professional - classicstoday) these opinions are given by so-called "professional" reviewers - eg. one said the a Boulez piece sounded like an ape randomly hitting the keys of a piano. My first impression when listening to some of these kinds of things on a newly purchased disc are not exactly that negative, but I do agree it can sound random at first. But when I listen to it more, I get more of a sense of what's happening & sometimes I have to concentrate on aspects not much to do with traditional "melodies" or "tunes" but things like dynamics, tempos, spacing of notes, these kinds of things. I think that, at it's best (& I think Stockhausen & Boulez were undoubtedly among the "best of the best" of their generation in this area/style/technique whatever) this music can be rewarding, it can make you change the way you hear/approach/think about music, etc. On the other hand, if I'm not in the mood to listen to stuff like that, I just put on something different (which can be from the same post-1945 period, just from a composer with a totally different "take" or "angle" on piano technique/expression). So your opinion or reaction is not of no validity, you can "take or leave" this music, or put it on the "backburner" for possible future interest. I was just trying to point out that these kinds of criticisms can be countered by what's happened in history with other innovators in their time. Most of the works firmly in the "mainstream" repertoire today were well recieved by most audiences &/or critics as far as I know. Most reactions were in the "middle" part of the spectrum. There were extreme reactions from either side - eg. that it's "all totally good, no other view is valid" or those who said "it's like an ape playing piano." I think history has proved that these works have stood the test of time, true not for as many people as the "core" classical repertoire - eg. c.1750-c.1950 - but they have added in many other ways, eg. other composers/musicians have been able to take off & develop these "new" techniques, learned something from them, that sort of thing...


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> I suspect that, between _Sid James_ and moi, I 'followed your drift' better than he did. The presence of the sheet music seems of exaggerated importance even, because Pollini appears to be sitting so low (reminds me of Gould).


Indeed. And, though the piece is mildly physically demanding, it didn't look at all difficult to memorise. Having the sheet music there seems to me to serve the function of declaring This Is Art.

As for your other question, I'll beat up my piano in various ways in the morning and see what conclusions I come to.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Hilltroll72 said:


> I also have to ask, does an elbow slam have a different result_ 'soundwise'_, than, say, a slam by a closed fist?


I wanted to reply but you beat me to it by using that term, _soundwise_. I think that might be the key to answering member Polednice's question. _Sound_ - so does it matter if it was Pollini's elbow, his leg or even his forehead? Probably not, but at least it doesn't look as silly even if the sound produced might be of equal merit using his elbow versus his forehead.


----------



## Polednice

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I wanted to reply but you beat me to it by using that term, _soundwise_. I think that might be the key to answering member Polednice's question. _Sound_ - so does it matter if it was Pollini's elbow, his leg or even his forehead? Probably not, but at least it doesn't look as silly even if the sound produced might be of equal merit using his elbow versus his forehead.


Clearly, Stockhausen just wasn't daring enough to go beyond the forearm.


----------



## Sid James

*@ some guy *- I agree with the gist of your argument, we should aim to reach middle ground. Except maybe this (but difficult to make sense of your first long sentence/paragraph esp.) -



some guy said:


> ...This is not something that can be solved. Read any biography of practically any composer from any era, and you will find this pattern. The irony, of course, is that the composers and pieces that the current haters (in any era) hate are largely the composers and pieces that were hated in a previous era. When confronted with this irony, the haters will claim that the bad people think that if something is hated then it is automatically a great work of genius...


I think some of my respones to you in the other thread here & here is a good enough response, but not necessarily a riposte. Composer's popularity, whether they were "conservative" or "radical" or in-between, tended to wax and wane during their lifetimes, and often afterwards as well. Some like Mascagni & Leoncavallo only had one "big hit," while others like Puccini & Verdi had several. As I know it, most of what's in the standard "core" repertoire today (esp. in terms of symphonic/orchestral things) - eg. from c.1750-c.1950 - has been popular or at least "accepted" to some degree since the composers' lifetime. Sure there have been "revivals" etc. but even this doesn't talk to the full picture. Even though Mendelssohn "revived" the music of J.S.Bach (esp. the choral), Bach had been a kind of "composer's composer" known by those in the music industry, in the profession, his music was a point of reference for many composers (this can be detected by listening to many composers' music between Bach's death and Mendelssohn's time & also Mozart was said to have a well-thumbed copy of the _Well-Tempered Clavier _on his piano music stand right throughout his life). I think I have made my point, the kind of mythologised view of the composer as a largely misunderstood genius, whose music is neglected until after his death, is (in most cases) basically that - a myth - perhaps even a fallacy, imo. I expect better from people like yourself than to spread things that are simply not true esp. on forums like this where there are quite a few beginners in classical who may well take your word for it...


----------



## Sid James

Polednice said:


> Clearly, Stockhausen just wasn't daring enough to go beyond the forearm.


& he wasn't "daring enough" to do something likeTHIS!!!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Sid James said:


> & he wasn't "daring enough" to do something likeTHIS!!!


Of course Jerry Lee Lewis beat Jimmi to the punch... and with a piano, no less!!!


----------



## Curiosity

Argus said:


> You seem to be a purveyor of wrongness lately.
> 
> Black Sabbath being better than Beethoven is my _opinion_. You're telling me I like Beethoven more than Black Sabbath even though I just said otherwise?


Not at all. I'm telling you that Beethoven is objectively superior on an artistic level than Black Sabbath, in the same way that Shakespeare is objectively better than Stephenie Meyer. Feel free to prefer Black Sabbath/Stephenie Meyer, though...


----------



## Art Rock

I think if you state that A is objectively better than B, then you should be able to state why. I am curious to see what objective arguments you have.


----------



## Curiosity

I'm not one of those people who buys into the "all art is equal" nonsense. I'm sure Argus himself would concede that Black Sabbath are objectively better than say, Nickelback based on their relative accomplishments within their respective careers. In the case of Beethoven in relation to Black Sabbath - Beethoven is objectively greater due to his superior originality, innovation, artistic integrity and reputation among those who are actually "in the know" about music instead of those who listen to MP3's while browsing facebook. Etc etc. Beethoven is still being analysed and philosophised over 200 years on. Meanwhile Black Sabbath serves as background noise for metalheads all over the world because in the rock/metal scene it's cool to be retro.

Or you can just listen to the music and judge for yourself:

Solid background noise to bang your head to





Masterpiece


----------



## Couchie

Curiosity, I'm not sure if you know what "objective" means. For an objective comparison you're going to need to identify factual criteria on which to compare the two, and then argue, with quantitative evidence, that one is better than the other on each of these criteria. Objective comparisons are possible for stuff like quality control where two products undergo tightly controlled experiments and are judged for performance on a number of criteria in accordance with prescribed standards. For music however, two composers, or a composer and a band, this is simply impossible:

First of all, you're going to struggle to identify all the criteria on which music can be judged (ie. influence, harmonic complexity, originality, what sounds better, danceability, sexiness....?). Second, most of these are going to be hard to define well enough to be factually relevant, (what is 'influence'.... influence on other musicians, general public, academia, pop culture... ?). Third, you're going to struggle to come up with hard, quantitative evidence supporting any of this (research musicians' interviews and writings to determine their influences? Academic databases for who has the most literature on them? Perhaps normalize the results to account for the fact that Beethoven had a 150 years head start on Black Sabbath to spread influence?). You're going to hit snags on the fact that many of your criteria are purely subjective (ie. the quality of 'sounding good') and will be impossible to quantify. Lastly, there's no universally accepted standards on how any of this should be done: different criteria matter to different people, (you probably care highly about harmonic complexity and don't care if you can't dance to it, pop fans really don't give a damn about the harmonic complexity, they just want to dance), and therefore, by definition, this whole affair was doomed to be subjective from the start.


----------



## Curiosity

Well, first of all that post was intended to troll Argus, but oh dear, of course I know what "objective" means. I'm not thick. Of course nothing can be 100% objectively true in such a subjective topic, but simply put Beethoven is superior according to everything our perception of "art" and "expression" is built around. I'm not interested in breaking this down according to some kind of strict criteria. That only leads to the more intagible elements of artistic expression being overlooked. Though, I do suspect that anyone with legitimate musical knowledge will tell you there is far more of interest and originality in the score sheet for a single Beethoven symphony than in the entire Black Sabbath ouevre. As I've said, I don't buy the "no art is better" argument. Some art is better where it counts, i.e. in terms of originality, breadth of vision, depth of expression. In light of this, perks such as greater "danceability" and "sexiness" become irrelevant. Stating Beethoven objectively made better MUSIC than Black Sabbath is no different from saying that Beethoven's Ninth is superior to his first, objectively. It should be obvious. Now, I'm sure some individuals do think the 1st symphony is greater, but that is going against the consensus reached by generations of knowledgable folk who've dedicated a helluva lot of time and effort into seperating the wheat from the chaff. I suspect in time and with retrospection that Black Sabbath's status as chaff will become more obvious.


----------



## Curiosity

In other words, "subjective" conclusions reached by people with actual credibility and who know what they are talking about is the closest we can get to "objectivity" when discussing art. By that measure, Beethoven > BS.


----------



## Argus

Art Rock said:


> I think if you state that A is objectively better than B, then you should be able to state why. I am curious to see what objective arguments you have.


That's where their argument becomes unstuck, as expressed very thoroughly by Couchie.



Curiosity said:


> Though, I do suspect that anyone with legitimate musical knowledge will tell you there is far more of interest and originality in the score sheet for a single Beethoven symphony than in the entire Black Sabbath ouevre


I've got a big ring binder full of Beethoven scores I've analysed (about 25 pieces). I also learnt to play a load of Black Sabbath songs (most of their first 5 albums). Is that legitimate musical knowledge?

But, wait, legitimate musical knowledge doesn't hold any merit when we're discussing a persons taste. The fact is I'm more often in the mood to listen to Sabbath than I am Beethoven. I like them both, but I would say I like one more than the other, therefore making Black Sabbath better than Beethoven.

Danceability and sexiness are irrelevant to you. The people who believe in an objective way of evaluating the value of art are in effect theists. Only instead of religion they put their faith in some hokum imaginary system.


----------



## Couchie

Vazgen said:


> However, the cynicism and immaturity involved in attacking any music as "crap," particularly the music of composers I consider unjustly underrated or frequently misunderstood, simply offends me. The implication that certain composers are making deliberately bad music, or are mere hoaxers, is too foolish for words. The people who've done that here are trolls, judging by their reluctance (or inability) to defend their opinions in a reasonable manner.


Well I am sorry if any of my comments on Cage, Stockhausen et al have caused you offence; I'm not sorry for making them, I'm sorry you are so easily offended. Unless you have a personal relationship with any of them, it appears such comments graze your overextended ego. I love Wagner, but I also understand that his relentless seriousness and dramatics makes him an easy target for mockery and that he is simply not for everyone; I ignore them, or share a laugh if they're witty. The music exists, I think it's fabulous, and you can either take it or leave it. Frankly I find your overreaction gives an air of insecurity on your part that the music is unable to stand for itself.


----------



## Couchie

Curiosity said:


> Some art is better where it counts, i.e. in terms of originality, breadth of vision, depth of expression. In light of this, perks such as greater "danceability" and "sexiness" become irrelevant. Stating Beethoven objectively made better MUSIC than Black Sabbath is no different from saying that Beethoven's Ninth is superior to his first, objectively.


If you narrow your scope, you can draw more and more objective comparisons. You could probably build quite a good objective case that the harmony of the Ninth is more advanced than the harmony of the First. BUT you can't say, objectively:

1. The harmony of the Ninth is BETTER than the First: Other people may prefer the simpler classical harmony of the First to the Ninth's tedious complexities

2. The Ninth is better than the First: OK, I'll grant you that the Ninth has better harmony, and maybe that matters to YOU, but I find it way too long and really dislike the choir, things that matter to ME.

3. The Ninth is better than the First because more smart music critics agree by consensus: Each one of these critics came to this conclusion by their own opinions. Perhaps they're very good, educated opinions, but they remain subjective, it's not like once you gather enough of the same subjective opinions they topple over and become objective fact.

Now, nobody is saying you can't say Beethoven is better than Black Sabbath, I certainly do, and Argus the opposite, just don't delude yourself into thinking that such is objective fact that everybody has to live by.


----------



## violadude

Speaking of rubbery logics, I wan't to bring up a phrase I hear a lot in arguments about the merits of contemporary music. Many people accuse contemporary composers of composing music that's "different for the sake of being different". Well, what exactly does that mean? Don't you think Beethoven was certainly trying to be different when he composed the Grosse Fugue, among others. Debussy wasn't trying to be different when he wrote "Prelude to an afternoon of a Faun"? Wasn't Berlioz trying to be different when he wrote "Symphonie Fantastique?" Isn't the whole point of composing music trying to give people something new and *different* to listen to? If I, as a composer, wrote music that sounds like Beethoven or Mozart, then what's the point? We already have a Beethoven and Mozart that you might as well listen to instead. So ya... I'm going to compose music that tries to be different, to give people something new to listen to. That's exactly what Stockhausen, Xenakis and Cage did, tried to give us something new to hear. And they certainly did give us something new to listen to. Their music connects with some and doesn't with others of course, that can't be helped. But criticizing a composer for trying to be different is just downright silly.


----------



## clavichorder

violadude said:


> Speaking of rubbery logics, I wan't to bring up a phrase I hear a lot in arguments about the merits of contemporary music. Many people accuse contemporary composers of composing music that's "different for the sake of being different". Well, what exactly does that mean? Don't you think Beethoven was certainly trying to be different when he composed the Grosse Fugue, among others. Debussy wasn't trying to be different when he wrote "Prelude to an afternoon of a Faun"? Wasn't Berlioz trying to be different when he wrote "Symphonie Fantastique?" Isn't the whole point of composing music trying to give people something new and *different* to listen to? If I, as a composer, wrote music that sounds like Beethoven or Mozart, then what's the point? We already have a Beethoven and Mozart that you might as well listen to instead. So ya... I'm going to compose music that tries to be different, to give people something new to listen to. That's exactly what Stockhausen, Xenakis and Cage did, tried to give us something new to hear. And they certainly did give us something new to listen to. Their music connects with some and doesn't with others of course, that can't be helped. But criticizing a composer for trying to be different is just downright silly.


I think Berlioz, Beethoven and Debussy had beauty and emotions in mind, they wanted a new way to express that. Xenakis and even more so Cage, perhaps wanted a new way to express being new, or for benefit of the doubt, in the atonality thread, it was stated by one user whose name I can't spell off the top of my head, that modern music was not necessarily for the sake of emotion(through purely tonal means), but for other purposes, philosophical/political/scientific ect.

You have a point though, all I can really get away with saying to many people on this forum is that I don't like avante garde modern music, because I don't care to get to know it, and some might insert "its your loss due to your own laziness" or something like that. But I'm not lazy, it may be hard to me to justify it another way, and I've have indeed been on the net too much in the last three days, but I'm not lazy about music. As Sid says, there are other sides to it, I may not have much justification to criticize those who like avant garde music, and nor to they have much justification in criticizing me for not liking it.

Violadude, you should read definitely this thread that I made when I first joined this forum talking about how I wanted to compose music inspired by CPE Bach, but was accused of wanted to imitate. You will probably completely disagree with me, as did most people, and I made it tough on myself, but its at least very interesting to read.http://www.talkclassical.com/13147-where-current-composers-interested.html

That was back before I knew "some guy" and though I was arguing with reasonable people, and almost gave in.


----------



## violadude

clavichorder said:


> I think Berlioz, Beethoven and Debussy had beauty and emotions in mind, they wanted a new way to express that. Xenakis and even more so Cage, perhaps wanted a new way to express being new, or for benefit of the doubt, in the atonality thread, it was stated by one user whose name I can't spell off the top of my head, that modern music was not necessarily for the sake of emotion(through purely tonal means), but for other purposes, philosophical/political/scientific ect.
> 
> Violadude, you should read definitely this thread that I made when I first joined this forum talking about how I wanted to compose music inspired by CPE Bach, but was accused of wanted to imitate. You will probably completely disagree with me, as did most people, and I made it tough on myself, but its at least very interesting to read.http://www.talkclassical.com/13147-where-current-composers-interested.html


Well, I find a lot of beauty and emotion in many of Cage and Stockhausen's music so your comparison about older music focusing more on beauty and emotion is a bit subjective, but let's suppose it's true for the sake of argument. Is using music as a vehicle for philosophical, political or scientific ideas any less valid than using it as a vehicle for emotional or "beautiful" ideas? In any case, my point still stands that most composers are trying to be different, to give us something different to listen to. Whether it's considered emotional or beautiful is another matter entirely.

Thanks for the thread. I'll read that. I wouldn't shoot you down for wanting to compose music in the style of CPE Bach, that is your decision and if that's what makes you happy, go for it. However, I will tell you that if you choose to do that, you probably wont be influencing the direction of music in any particular direction. I'm not sure to what extant you would want to write in his style, but if you want to copy his style exactly, you probably won't be adding anything new to the table and people will probably just as well listen to CPE Bach. Don't worry though, I'll buy your first CD.


----------



## clavichorder

Missed my edit though, I was too slow. Thank you for wanting to buy my CD. I've been on and off about this ambition, but I love how ragtime has an active community, so why not the classical era? I just like variety man! I want to put my own flavor and life into an old style that I wish were regarded like a spoken language. Improvising and all. Yeah, I'm not interested in being a revolutionary, but that doesn't make me not an artist, I found that a harsh and bigotted statement from whoever said it. Not to mention, its a unique endeavor, if I may say so myself. Imagine if I inspired a wave of renewed interest in classical forms for various occasions, and improvisitory abilities. .. That's my gradiose vision.


----------



## violadude

clavichorder said:


> I think Berlioz, Beethoven and Debussy had beauty and emotions in mind, they wanted a new way to express that. Xenakis and even more so Cage, perhaps wanted a new way to express being new, or for benefit of the doubt, in the atonality thread, it was stated by one user whose name I can't spell off the top of my head, that modern music was not necessarily for the sake of emotion(through purely tonal means), but for other purposes, philosophical/political/scientific ect.
> 
> You have a point though, all I can really get away with saying to many people on this forum is that I don't like avante garde modern music, because I don't care to get to know it, and some might insert "its your loss due to your own laziness" or something like that. But I'm not lazy, it may be hard to me to justify it another way, and I've have indeed been on the net too much in the last three days, but I'm not lazy about music. As Sid says, there are other sides to it, I may not have much justification to criticize those who like avant garde music, and nor to they have much justification in criticizing me for not liking it.
> 
> Violadude, you should read definitely this thread that I made when I first joined this forum talking about how I wanted to compose music inspired by CPE Bach, but was accused of wanted to imitate. You will probably completely disagree with me, as did most people, and I made it tough on myself, but its at least very interesting to read.http://www.talkclassical.com/13147-where-current-composers-interested.html
> 
> That was back before I knew "some guy" and though I was arguing with reasonable people, and almost gave in.


Well, like myself and others have said before, it doesn't bother bother me that you or others don't like or care for contemporary/avant garde music. All you (general you, not "you" you) have to do is say "I don't care for this composers music because [insert logical, informed, understandable reasons here] and I would be a happy horse. I just don't like when people imply that the music is of less worth or is less valid as music. Or if they make blanket statements like "modern composers threw beauty and emotions out the window" as if because they can't find beauty, emotions or fulfillment in the music, no one can.


----------



## clavichorder

violadude said:


> Well, like myself and others have said before, it doesn't bother bother me that you or others don't like or care for contemporary/avant garde music. All you (general you, not "you" you) have to do is say "I don't care for this composers music because [insert logical, informed, understandable reasons here] and I would be a happy horse. I just don't like when people imply that the music is of less worth or is less valid as music. Or if they make blanket statements like "modern composers threw beauty and emotions out the window" as if because they can't find beauty, emotions or fulfillment in the music, no one can.


I'm in agreement, the criticism to defense ratio of various music in a lot of people is very high, and defense is probably more important. As long as defense doesn't involve criticizing the other person's tastes, but just stating the reasons why you like it and if the person tries to tell you your reasons are invalid, or makes you feel crummy for it, then maybe you can kindly recommend them the music and just don't let them spoil it for you.

I'm still vaguely annoyed at Aramis for telling me that beautiful Balakirev Mazurka was uninteresting as though it were some objective truth, but he really has a prejudice against Russian music it seems. I was so convinced as the accesibility of that piece and likability on first listen, it had a pathos to it.


----------



## violadude

clavichorder said:


> Missed my edit though, I was too slow. Thank you for wanting to buy my CD. I've been on and off about this ambition, but I love how ragtime has an active community, so why not the classical era? I just like variety man! I want to put my own flavor and life into an old style that I wish were regarded like a spoken language. Improvising and all. Yeah, I'm not interested in being a revolutionary, but that doesn't make me not an artist, I found that a harsh and bigotted statement from whoever said it. Not to mention, its a unique endeavor, if I may say so myself. Imagine if I inspired a wave of renewed interest in classical forms for various occasions, and improvisitory abilities. .. That's my gradiose vision.


Well that's great! If you're not worried about being revolutionary than I don't see anything wrong with what you want to do and I certainly don't think it makes you less of an artist. Maybe you made this clear and I just missed it, but I'm curious, are you going to take a classical style and add a modern-ish twist to it a la Prokofiev's 1st symphony? or do you wan't to stick closer to than the original style than that?


----------



## clavichorder

violadude said:


> Well that's great! If you're not worried about being revolutionary than I don't see anything wrong with what you want to do and I certainly don't think it makes you less of an artist. Maybe you made this clear and I just missed it, but I'm curious, are you going to take a classical style and add a modern-ish twist to it a la Prokofiev's 1st symphony? or do you wan't to stick closer to than the original style than that?


No, no modernist twists, its all about authenticity, but with a personal twist, as though I were a unique composer transported from that time.


----------



## violadude

clavichorder said:


> No, no modernist twists, its all about authenticity, but with a personal twist, as though I were a unique composer transported from that time.


I see. Well good luck to you, sir. :tiphat:


----------



## clavichorder

I'm an appreciator/musicologist/music historian type first, artistic innovator comes next. I'll be able to understand the music of the time far better if I know how to compose it and have my own twist to it.


----------



## Ukko

Art Rock said:


> I think if you state that A is objectively better than B, then you should be able to state why. I am curious to see what objective arguments you have.


I agree - maybe. I suppose it's a silly lower-class quibble, but 'better than' is too general. Needs be phrased 'better than [somebody] at [something measurable]' before you can get _objective_. Otherwise, the 'better than has the approximate value of "I'm better than you because my daddy's the Pope."


----------



## violadude

Sid James said:


> Thanks for everyone's comments. I can't reply to you all as I'd like to. *Please note that I'm not aiming to "neutralise" interesting or more contentious debates, or anything like that.* I just think it's sometimes worth "reading between the lines" of people's opinions on music.
> 
> This I agree with strongly, informed opinion can be of very high value, although sometimes less informed opinion can also be interesting, provided there is a level of "balance."
> 
> Speaking to the "other" forum, it sounds very much like another classical forum I was previously a member of & deregistered because I was sick of people's negativity there. Even if it was them dissing a performer or composer I didn't know, I just couldn't stand it, composers & musicians are like my heroes. In any case, whatever musician you're talking about, they're generally doing something they love, with a fair or high degree of commitment, passion, knowledge, all that. They're making a positive contribution to our lives whatever they do, generally speaking. They do not deserve to be dragged down into a swamp into a primitive "ape level" morass of negativity.
> 
> To illustrate this point, here is one of the reasons I got out of that forum. Like here at TC, I often posted my ventures into listening of "lighter" musics. Once I posted that I'd just heard an Andre Rieu disc & a number of members got right into me, making indirect questioning of my "good taste," all this ****. I'm glad this kind of thing hasn't happened here. No one should have to justify what they're listening to (or not!). Too much time on that forum was spent on bickering about & questioning these kinds of things, rather than focussing on the actual music in question. & those members were judging me for listening to Rieu for various reasons - eg. how can you listen to things like Rieu & "serious" stuff like Beethoven & Boulez as well? Indirectly they were asking "are you normal?" Even worse, some of them didn't take time to check out what other things I listen to - which is a fairly good variety of things. Often online, we don't really know, can't understand where the person is kind of "coming from." Without that knowledge, people make assumptions & this leads to a lot of "rubbery" & "dodgy" things happening. So, in other words, without as much knowledge if we actually know a person well, it's better to focus on the positive, or at least try reach "middle ground," rather than just lashing out at people for things that simply may not even be there in the first place, only in the "naysayer's" mind...
> 
> ** Again, I'm not trying to "preach" here, I've probably done some "rubbery" things myself *- that's life - but I don't remember dissing someone for listening to the music of a composer/performer I'm not a huge fan of (correct me if I'm wrong), or questioning "rubbery" things like their musical taste or judgement, which is very hard to quantify in the first place...


Was that "other forum" GMG classical? I was just browsing the internet and I think I just found your post about Rieu that caused so much negativity.


----------



## Polednice

On composers trying to be original: there are different kinds of originality, not to mention the fact that originality isn't necessarily something for an artist to strive for. But one of the key differences between contemporary and classical music that bothers me is that contemporary originality is about pushing, bending, and breaking boundaries in order to find something technically 'new', something never-before-heard, something alien to all previous experiences. The other kind of originality - which I prefer - is taking things said before, using well-worn methods, and adding a personal flavour, twist, perspective, or whatever you want to call it. _I think there is something to be said for staying within boundaries_. How you define those boundaries is up to you, but while I admit it takes a hell of a lot of imagination and craft to think of things never done before, there's something unattractive about the method and results of conjuring up new kinds of music. If you abandon the evolution of music and forge something completely new, you may occasionally hit upon something wonderful, but equally you're bound to create a lot of ugly monsters.

I think that one of the big misconceptions is that people underestimate how much originality there can be in a musical environment where people aren't always bending and breaking. People assume we'll just have pastiche - a Beethoven imitator; a Brahms copier; nothing new can be said with that kind of music. On the contrary, I think this attitude is akin to when people say that surely we are running out of new melodies and tunes, when the sheer mathematics shows that we can go on for millennia. To take Clavichorder's (I think) admirable approach to composition as an example, people will undoubtedly say that all he could achieve is second-rate classicism. He'll sound the same as the old masters, and it will be pointless. But, considering composers who lived in the same era, did Beethoven sound like Schubert? Did Brahms sound like Schumann? If, along with all the big names, you add a silhouette in your mind - a composer who never lived - it's perfectly possible to imagine that someone else could have lived at that time, composed using the same styles and methods, and yet have made as much a personal mark with their music as Beethoven or Brahms did. So why shouldn't we allow that to happen retrospectively? I think Clavichorder articulated it perfectly when he said that he wouldn't just sound like a rip-off of C.P.E Bach, _he would be like an alternative composer of that period transported to our time_.


----------



## haydnfan

I find it funny that this thread was started to provide some insight in order to stop the fighting... and it in turned turn into an argument thread! Ha! Can't we all just get along?


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> On composers trying to be original: there are different kinds of originality, not to mention the fact that originality isn't necessarily something for an artist to strive for. But one of the key differences between contemporary and classical music that bothers me is that contemporary originality is about pushing, bending, and breaking boundaries in order to find something technically 'new', something never-before-heard, something alien to all previous experiences. The other kind of originality - which I prefer - is taking things said before, using well-worn methods, and adding a personal flavour, twist, perspective, or whatever you want to call it. _I think there is something to be said for staying within boundaries_. How you define those boundaries is up to you, but while I admit it takes a hell of a lot of imagination and craft to think of things never done before, there's something unattractive about the method and results of conjuring up new kinds of music. If you abandon the evolution of music and forge something completely new, you may occasionally hit upon something wonderful, but equally you're bound to create a lot of ugly monsters.
> 
> I think that one of the big misconceptions is that people underestimate how much originality there can be in a musical environment where people aren't always bending and breaking. People assume we'll just have pastiche - a Beethoven imitator; a Brahms copier; nothing new can be said with that kind of music. On the contrary, I think this attitude is akin to when people say that surely we are running out of new melodies and tunes, when the sheer mathematics shows that we can go on for millennia. To take Clavichorder's (I think) admirable approach to composition as an example, people will undoubtedly say that all he could achieve is second-rate classicism. He'll sound the same as the old masters, and it will be pointless. But, considering composers who lived in the same era, did Beethoven sound like Schubert? Did Brahms sound like Schumann? If, along with all the big names, you add a silhouette in your mind - a composer who never lived - it's perfectly possible to imagine that someone else could have lived at that time, composed using the same styles and methods, and yet have made as much a personal mark with their music as Beethoven or Brahms did. So why shouldn't we allow that to happen retrospectively? I think Clavichorder articulated it perfectly when he said that he wouldn't just sound like a rip-off of C.P.E Bach, _he would be like an alternative composer of that period transported to our time_.


I don't think I was implying that you can't be innovative within certain styles of music. Of course you can. But if you are going to compose exactly in the same way composers of the past were then you aren't adding anything new to the history of music, that is an objective fact. And if you don't care about that sort of thing then great! More power to you. But many composers do care and don't wan't to sound like another composer. Another thing I want to mention is that composing is like a practice more than a profession. All a composer ever does is try new things out and see if they work. Composers experiment, and they never guaranteed a love of their music to the worlds population. They're just trying things and seeing if they work.

Also, I'm curious about your phrase "abandoned the evolution of music". Because I actually am not sure if that has ever been done before. What composer do you think has abandoned the evolution of music?


----------



## Ukko

violadude said:


> [...]
> Also, I'm curious about your phrase "abandoned the evolution of music". Because I actually am not sure if that has ever been done before. What composer do you think has abandoned the evolution of music?


I'll provide an alternative answer, via metaphor: evolution rejects 'sports' (aka 'mules').


----------



## Art Rock

Not surprised to see yet another claimer of objectivity fail to deliver the supporting logic.


----------



## clavichorder

Art Rock said:


> Not surprised to see yet another claimer of objectivity fail to deliver the supporting logic.


Lol, well I guess there's only one way to see what happens. Some mixed species animals CAN reproduce.


----------



## clavichorder

Polednice, you've articulated better my justification for this idea. I glad someone caught my drift, perhaps you've thought about it as well? Its a revolutionary idea disguised as the reactionary. Its so reactionary its off the map!


----------



## Ukko

Art Rock said:


> Not surprised to see yet another claimer of objectivity fail to deliver the supporting logic.


I was never afraid of work; are you? this particular task isn't difficult. Evolution requires fertile mutations. Mules are infertile. So are most 'wonderful new musics', meaning that they are neither the start nor the furthering of anything; they are mules.

See how easy that was?


----------



## violadude

Hilltroll72 said:


> I was never afraid of work; are you? this particular task isn't difficult. Evolution requires fertile mutations. Mules are infertile. So are most 'wonderful new musics', meaning that they are neither the start nor the furthering of anything; they are mules.
> 
> See how easy that was?


Plenty of music before the 20th century neither started nor furthered anything. My question was which composer abandoned the evolution of music?


----------



## clavichorder

Polednice said:


> On composers trying to be original: there are different kinds of originality, not to mention the fact that originality isn't necessarily something for an artist to strive for. But one of the key differences between contemporary and classical music that bothers me is that contemporary originality is about pushing, bending, and breaking boundaries in order to find something technically 'new', something never-before-heard, something alien to all previous experiences. The other kind of originality - which I prefer - is taking things said before, using well-worn methods, and adding a personal flavour, twist, perspective, or whatever you want to call it. _I think there is something to be said for staying within boundaries_. How you define those boundaries is up to you, but while I admit it takes a hell of a lot of imagination and craft to think of things never done before, there's something unattractive about the method and results of conjuring up new kinds of music. If you abandon the evolution of music and forge something completely new, you may occasionally hit upon something wonderful, but equally you're bound to create a lot of ugly monsters.


The great Nikolai Medtner wrote a book on this that I've yet to read, but my piano teacher told me my idea was similar to his. I love the phrase "when sheer mathematics says we could go on for a millenium". Shouldn't that boggle people's minds? There is no forseeable end(millenia!) to the possibilities of tonal music if only there was renewed interest. And Medtner was a someone who understood and wrote about tonal music theory better than anyone who ever lived. Though Medtner did bash some great composers who were falling out of tonality but I think that was a product of his fear for the direction of music. It does take away some of his credibility for me, since I love Bartok, and late Richard Strauss brilliant too, but Medtner may have had his blinders on because he was looking directly at serialism and he didn't like it.


----------



## Ukko

clavichorder said:


> Lol, well I guess there's only one way to see what happens. Some mixed species animals CAN reproduce.


Can mixed _genus_ animals reproduce? more to the non-point, if mixed species animals can reproduce, is the classification wrong? Drifting slightly back toward the point, are Baroque and Romantic designators for species, genus, or family?


----------



## violadude

Hilltroll72 said:


> Can mixed _genus_ animals reproduce? more to the non-point, if mixed species animals can reproduce, is the classification wrong? Drifting slightly back toward the point, are Baroque and Romantic designators for species, genus, or family?


Dude you totally lost me...


----------



## clavichorder

Hilltroll72 said:


> Can mixed _genus_ animals reproduce? more to the non-point, if mixed species animals can reproduce, is the classification wrong? Drifting slightly back toward the point, are Baroque and Romantic designators for species, genus, or family?


I misunderstood your analogy. I was thinking that you were referring to me attempting to genetically resurrect an extinct species. The jurassic park of music. He kind of lost me too the first time he brought in the metaphor, but I take it as agreement with me?


----------



## clavichorder

I actually don't like thinking of it that way. I'm just providing this joke for humor. No, "the possibilities of tonal music are endless"


----------



## Polednice

With regards to my evolution metaphor, I think some people got a little carried away.  Of course, from the beginning of music to today, all music exists on the same spectrum such that we can say it's all related - what I meant (and I see now that I should have gone for a Mary Shelley metaphor  ) was that some attempts, such as with the creation of serialism, were deliberate, intellectual constructs to break away with prior music as much as possible.



violadude said:


> I don't think I was implying that you can't be innovative within certain styles of music. Of course you can. But if you are going to compose exactly in the same way composers of the past were then you aren't adding anything new to the history of music, that is an objective fact. And if you don't care about that sort of thing then great! More power to you. But many composers do care and don't wan't to sound like another composer. Another thing I want to mention is that composing is like a practice more than a profession. All a composer ever does is try new things out and see if they work. Composers experiment, and they never guaranteed a love of their music to the worlds population. They're just trying things and seeing if they work.


Of course if you attempt to compose in the exact same style as a particular composer, you aren't going to add anything new to the history of music. But if someone were to compose in the style of Romanticism, but with their own compositional traits (not a copy of a particular composer) do you think that's pointless too?


----------



## Polednice

clavichorder said:


> Polednice, you've articulated better my justification for this idea. I glad someone caught my drift, perhaps you've thought about it as well? Its a revolutionary idea disguised as the reactionary. Its so reactionary its off the map!


I've thought about it a great deal in reference to the kind of music that I like to compose, and it was great to see you write it - it seemed as though you'd read my mind!


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> With regards to my evolution metaphor, I think some people got a little carried away.  Of course, from the beginning of music to today, all music exists on the same spectrum such that we can say it's all related - what I meant (and I see now that I should have gone for a Mary Shelley metaphor  ) was that some attempts, such as with the creation of serialism, were deliberate, intellectual constructs to break away with prior music as much as possible.
> 
> Of course if you attempt to compose in the exact same style as a particular composer, you aren't going to add anything new to the history of music. But if someone were to compose in the style of Romanticism, but with their own compositional traits (not a copy of a particular composer) do you think that's pointless too?


No, I don't think any music is pointless because any piece of music can provide enjoyment for someone. And I didn't disregard tonal music or anything like that. I merely was trying to make the point that composing for the sake of being different isn't a fair criticism because most composers are trying to be different and find their own musical voice and sometimes composing things that come off as very radical are their way of doing that. It's part of their quest to find their unique voice.


----------



## Curiosity

So the gist of most of the responses here is that posterity means nothing and anything can be as good as anything else just because any given individual can say or think it is. 

Mmmmmkay, keep drinking the Kool-aid chaps.

PS: **** out of my toilet > Black Sabbath. Because I say so.


----------



## violadude

Curiosity said:


> So the gist of most of the responses here is that posterity means nothing and anything can be as good as anything else just because any given individual can say or think it is.
> 
> Mmmmmkay, keep drinking the Kool-aid chaps.
> 
> PS: ***** out of my toilet > Black Sabbath. Because I say so.*


Well, if you're into that sort of thing....


----------



## Curiosity

Don't be condescending now. One piece of art is just as valid as another, afterall. If it looks like **** to you, it's 'cos ya'll don't understand it. It's really, honestly the fecal equivalent of Beethoven's Ninth symphony (because I say so) - a towering accomplishment. Nobody can disagree or challenge this because art is subjective and there are no higher nor lower forms. :tiphat: 

On a more serious note, a wise man once said a pile of bricks can never be anything more than a pile of bricks.


----------



## violadude

Curiosity said:


> Don't be condescending now. One piece of art is just as valid as another, afterall. If it looks like **** to you, it's 'cos ya'll don't understand it. It's really, honestly the fecal equivalent of Beethoven's Ninth symphony (because I say so) - a towering accomplishment. Nobody can disagree or challenge this because art is subjective and there are no higher nor lower forms. :tiphat:
> 
> On a more serious note, a wise man once said a pile of bricks can never be anything more than a pile of bricks.


No condescension here friend. If fecal matter means that much to you be my guest. However, this is a music forum, not a poo fetish support group, so how about we stick to comparing music to other music.


----------



## Curiosity

Any sound can be music buddy boy. If John Cage's 4:33 is music, bowel movements are music too (because I say so). Secondly, would I tell YOU that you need a support group for listening to the music you listen to? How dare you imply that I'm in need of "help" because of my art, and therefore by implication that my art is somehow "inferior". /PC liberal nonsense

Way to miss the point, by the way.


----------



## violadude

Curiosity said:


> Any sound can be music buddy boy. If John Cage's 4:33 is music, bowel movements are music too (because I say so). Secondly, would I tell YOU that you need a support group for listening to the music you listen to? How dare you imply that I'm in need of "help" because of my art, and therefore by implication that my art is somehow "inferior". /PC liberal nonsense
> 
> Way to miss the point, by the way.


When did I say anything about inferiority? I thought you were talking about actual fecal matter, not the sounds of bowel movements. My mistake, so again I say, if that's what you're into, no judgement here.

Oh and, I did understand you're point, I just didn't take it very seriously.


----------



## Curiosity

violadude said:


> When did I say anything about inferiority? I thought you were talking about actual fecal matter, not the sounds of bowel movements. My mistake, so again I say, if that's what you're into, no judgement here.
> 
> Oh and, I did understand you're point, I just didn't take it very seriously.


Then may I humbly suggest that you didn't understand it. S'all subjective afterall. :tiphat:

This the kind of retarded circular logic that characterises the "no art is greater" crowd. Anyone who harbours the idea that any cacophony of mindless noise or banal rock music designed to be serviceable background noise is equal to a painstakingly crafted, highly original, revolutionary symphony is frankly on crack. Don't get me wrong, people can subjectively prefer the former, but that's borne out of ignorance and inability to discern what is great and what is mediocre.

It's quite simple really:

Some things are objective, such as: Beethoven accomplished more than Black Sabbath musically, Beethoven achieved more, he was more ahead of his time, his music was more unique, more complex, required greater skill to create, is more highly respected among those with musical knowledge etc.

Some things are subjective, such as: "I prefer Black Sabbath"


----------



## violadude

Curiosity said:


> On a more serious note, a wise man once said a pile of bricks can never be anything more than a pile of bricks.


Ok, if you want to go down that road. So, does that then mean that a compilation of notes can never be anything more than a compilation of notes?


----------



## violadude

Curiosity said:


> Then may I humbly suggest that you didn't understand it. S'all subjective afterall. :tiphat:
> 
> This the kind of retarded circular logic that characterises the "no art is greater" crowd. Anyone who harbours the idea that any cacophony of mindless noise or banal rock music designed to be serviceable background noise is equal to a painstakingly crafted, highly original, revolutionary symphony is frankly on crack. Don't get me wrong, people can subjectively prefer the former, but that's borne out of ignorance and inability to discern what is great and what is mediocre.
> 
> It's quite simple really:
> 
> Some things are objective, such as: Beethoven accomplished more than Black Sabbath musically, Beethoven achieved more, he was more ahead of his time, his music was more unique, more complex, required greater skill to create, is more highly respected among those with musical knowledge etc.
> 
> Some things are subjective, such as: "I prefer Black Sabbath"


A lot of what you say is probably true. But my question is why on earth are you trying to compare music that was written to express profound emotion and spirituality to music that was written to entertain. Different goals begets different results.


----------



## Argus

violadude said:


> A lot of what you say is probably true.


False.

Just another elitist, trotting out the same elitist mumbo jumbo.

Question for the elitists:

Who decides which musical artist is better? The 'experts'? The public?


----------



## violadude

Curiosity said:


> So the gist of most of the responses here is that posterity means nothing and anything can be as good as anything else just because any given individual can say or think it is.
> 
> Mmmmmkay, keep drinking the Kool-aid chaps.
> 
> PS: **** out of my toilet > Black Sabbath. Because I say so.


Alright Curiosity, here's what I'm going to say. If you recorded the sounds of your bowel movements, called it art, and truly, genuinely and honestly found meaning in doing that, I would say that's great. You probably won't get many other people to find the same meaning in it that you do, but if other people do find meaning and enjoyment out of your bowel sounds, thats great too! That would be awesome. I would tell you that I don't particularly enjoy your bowel sounds, nor do I understand the meaning you find in it. And maybe if you explained to me why you find meaning in it, I might understand where you're coming from.

What I would NOT say, is thats not art, that's not meaningful, that's just trash. Ya know why I wouldn't say that? Because I respect the fact that you find meaning in that. So all I ask is that when discussing music, everyone has the same respect towards others in regards to their musical taste.

I just don't understand why so many people feel the need to "out-music" other peoples taste by getting into these "my music is more music than your music" arguments.


----------



## Polednice

Argus said:


> False.
> 
> Just another elitist, trotting out the same elitist mumbo jumbo.
> 
> Question for the elitists:
> 
> Who decides which musical artist is better? The 'experts'? The public?


We each decide it on our own subjective terms, but some people's subjective experiences are more objectively informed than others'.


----------



## Sid James

Oh no, the old "objective" versus "subjective" debate. The clash between the ideas/dogmas of "relativism" & "absolutism." I don't think any of the top cultural theorists or whoever have "solved" that debate, it's ongoing, neverending. I've read a few books on music with these things in mind, & the most enlightening writers approach this "debate" in balanced/reasonable ways. I esp. like the exchange between clavichorder & violadude, as it was a real "dialogue" meant to clarify eachother's thoughts (much like a "real" conversation).

*Re writing music in older styles* - I think this is already done, has been for ages, eg. many cadenzas (solos) in concertos of all eras provide space for this. I just went to an original instruments performance of "classical" era things & the keyboardist played his own cadenza where the composer had left a "gap" not composing one in that concerto. So there was an element of learning from the past & creating something in that way, to be played today. A lot of classical interpretation/performance was/is based on convention rather than things strictly put on the page. The original way of doing ornamentation in things like Allegri's_ Miserere _(a seminal Renaissance choral piece) have been lost in the mists of time. Performers have to rely on study of conventions of the time by scholars & specialised musicians to "resurrect" these works as best as could be done. I could go on an on but I won't. Basically there is a rubbery area between being a performer & composer, both can be "creators" & often are & sometimes they do need to imitate things from the past. But this is a general statement, not meant to apply to everything. So I agree with clavichorder that people who "ripped into" you on the thread you put up about these things were maybe thinking in absolutes (as often sadly happens). "Smart" one-liners like this do nothing to help -



some guy said:


> A serious artist is one who knows the difference between creation and imitation and chooses creation.


*As for comparing Beethoven & Black Sabbath*, what comes to my mind is the comparison between a horse & cart of the old days and a modern car. Or the use of candlelight compared to the use of electricity. Or the use of papyrus scrolls by the Egyptians compared to modern printing technology. Not everything from the past was "better" or "worse" than it is now. Not everything around now is "better" or "worse" than in the past. I kind of like to think of these things in shades of grey, not "black" versus "white." False dichotomies, all that. I'm basically thinking out aloud here.

Another thing is that some/a few major composers of their times, like Josquin Des Pres (Franco-Flemish Renaissance era composer), are no longer widely known (outside say choral music fans, church choirs, some musicians, some classical listeners, etc.) Scholars have compared the importance of this guy's contribution in his own time to that of Beethoven in his own time. But you'd be hard pressed to find a person around now who would recognise a "tune" from Josquin, or even maybe know about him by name (I'm talking about the general public here, the "man in the street.") Does that lack of recognition have anything to do with so-called "greatness?" & going out on a bit of a limb here, do you think it is possible that Beethoven will be just as almost forgotten in say 600 years from now, as Josquin has been today? It is possible, & it may have very little to do with "rubbery" notions of "greatness" or whatever. Just my thoughts...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Oh no, the old "objective" versus "subjective" debate. The clash between the ideas/dogmas of "relativism" & "absolutism."

The problem with cultural relativism... the notion that there is no "good" nor "bad" in art is that it is weak thinking based upon the individual's insecurity, envy, and need to justify or legitimatize his or her own taste. Any individual may prefer to listen to Lennie Tristano, Johnny Cash, or Black Sabbath to Mozart, but it takes a special brand of ignorance to argue that they are actually "greater than Beethoven and Mozart". One can get around this by insisting that all art is purely subjective and that there is no good nor bad. Anyone who denies this can be called an "elitist" as if this were a bad term. Of course all art is "elitist". All artist's strive toward achieving something of high merit... and toward continually surpassing their previous efforts... if not those of others. "Elitist" has become an insult akin to "snob", but what of the term "meritocracy"?

The elite, or the meritocracy in art are those individuals with intellect, training, education, or experience whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight. Opinions in art may ultimately be subjective... there is no possibility of absolutism... but some opinions are simply better than others. In the arts, the closest we come to an "objective" judgment is a collective opinion of those whose opinions hold the most weight... the individuals who have invested the most within a given artistic realm. This would include the critics, scholars, and other academics, as well as musicians, composers, and educated and experienced music lovers.

Of course I am not saying we must weight the opinions of the collective in making up our own opinions. I am saying that after an individual passes the teenage years (in most cases) they often begin to recognize that their own opinions and tastes may not be shared by others. They may even come to acknowledge (in most cases) that what they like or dislike is not necessarily the ultimate measure of "good" and "bad". There are TV shows, and movies, and songs, and other works of "art" that I take pleasure in in spite of recognizing that they are in no way artistic masterpieces.

But again, some individuals never reach this level. They need to feel that whatever they like MUST be "good"... no "GREAT"... and if this cannot be achieved, well then they will deny that there can even be a "good" nor "bad". Yet even within the oeuvre of a single artist, almost anyone who is at all honest with himself or herself can recognize works that are "better" and "worse"... and most artists will admit the same of their own work.

As the Art/Aesthetic Philosopher Denis Dutton suggested:

_Cultural relativism has been taught as the default orthodoxy in many university departments. Under this philosophy, aesthetic values have been widely construed by academics as merely contingent reflections of local social and economic conditions. 
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... (the individual)... or merely in the eyes of a given society. Such aesthetic relativism is decisively refuted by the cross-cultural appeal of certain art objects over centuries and across cultures: Mozart packs Japanese concerts halls, as Hiroshige does Paris galleries, while new productions of Shakespeare in every major language of the world are endless.

In a 1757 essay, philosopher David Hume argued that because "the general principles of taste are uniform in human nature" the value of some works of art might be essentially eternal. He observed that the "same Homer who pleased at Athens and Rome two thousand years ago, is still admired at Paris and London." The works that manage to endure over millennia, Hume thought, do so precisely because they appeal to deep, unchanging features of human nature._

There is a certain irony in referring to others as "elitists" or "snobs" while insisting that one's own tastes are the sole measure of artistic merit... or attempting to justify one's questionable opinions by embracing a philosophy of "sour grapes" and insisting that there is no "good" nor "bad".


----------



## Couchie

Curiosity said:


> Then may I humbly suggest that you didn't understand it. S'all subjective afterall. :tiphat:
> 
> This the kind of retarded circular logic that characterises the "no art is greater" crowd. Anyone who harbours the idea that any cacophony of mindless noise or banal rock music designed to be serviceable background noise is equal to a painstakingly crafted, highly original, revolutionary symphony is frankly on crack. Don't get me wrong, people can subjectively prefer the former, but that's borne out of ignorance and inability to discern what is great and what is mediocre.
> 
> It's quite simple really:
> 
> Some things are objective, such as: Beethoven accomplished more than Black Sabbath musically, Beethoven achieved more, he was more ahead of his time, his music was more unique, more complex, required greater skill to create, is more highly respected among those with musical knowledge etc.
> 
> Some things are subjective, such as: "I prefer Black Sabbath"


I really don't know why you're so bent on objectively establishing a classical composer is better than a heavy metal band, the comparison is absurd. Let's suppose for a minute that you're right and convince us all that Beethoven IS objectively better than Black Sabbath... what have you achieved? People who like Black Sabbath will go on liking Black Sabbath and people who like Beethoven will go on liking Beethoven. Nothing is different apart from the satisfaction that this turn of events has brought you, which suggests this whole affair is really just about your own egotism.


----------



## Sid James

StlukesguildOhio said:


> *The problem with cultural relativism... the notion that there is no "good" nor "bad" in art is that it is weak thinking based upon the individual's insecurity, envy, and need to justify or legitimatize his or her own taste*. ... *there is no possibility of absolutism*... but some opinions are simply better than others. In the arts, the closest we come to an "objective" judgment is a collective opinion of those whose opinions hold the most weight... the individuals who have invested the most within a given artistic realm. This would include the critics, scholars, and other academics, as well as musicians, composers, and educated and experienced music lovers.


You're probably right, my talking of "absolutism" was a bit of black & white, reductionist thinking. But then again, I think you are also boiling down "cultural relativism" as something talking to politics/polarities of "black" vs. "white." There are many grey areas, which I get into below -



> But again, some individuals never reach this level. They need to feel that whatever they like MUST be "good"... no "GREAT"... and if this cannot be achieved, well then they will deny that there can even be a "good" nor "bad". Yet even within the oeuvre of a single artist, almost anyone who is at all honest with himself or herself can recognize works that are "better" and "worse"... and most artists will admit the same of their own work.


Agreed with reference to the output of a single artist, but as I said above, what people are doing comparing the "horse & cart" with the modern automobile just doesn't hold water, doesn't make sense to me at all.

In term of who's "good" or "bad" it can just also be a matter of who's "in" or "out" of fashion. Social attitudes, histories, lost works/documents found, new research, etc. all this overturns or at least questions the "old ways." Eg. the HIP (historically informed performance) movement has proved this in a way, brought things to light that were previously "lost" or "obscure" or of only "fringe" value. Same with the "revivals" of a lot of things, composers, etc. Vivaldi's _Four Seasons _was only "discovered" in about the mid c20th. So the more "deep" issues (& I'm not talking of some of the spurious "comparisons" above) talk to me of flexibility & things in a constant state of flux/challenge (your Dutton quote alludes to this in some ways, I think).



> As the Art/Aesthetic Philosopher Denis Dutton suggested:
> 
> _Cultural relativism has been taught as the default orthodoxy in many university departments. Under this philosophy, aesthetic values have been widely construed by academics as merely contingent reflections of local social and economic conditions.
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... (the individual)... or merely in the eyes of a given society. Such aesthetic relativism is decisively refuted by the cross-cultural appeal of certain art objects over centuries and across cultures: Mozart packs Japanese concerts halls, as Hiroshige does Paris galleries, while new productions of Shakespeare in every major language of the world are endless.
> 
> In a 1757 essay, philosopher David Hume argued that because "the general principles of taste are uniform in human nature" the value of some works of art might be essentially eternal. He observed that the "same Homer who pleased at Athens and Rome two thousand years ago, is still admired at Paris and London." The works that manage to endure over millennia, Hume thought, do so precisely because they appeal to deep, unchanging features of human nature._


Well we can argue about this endlessly. Dutton does make strong points, but then it brings up the old "universal" thing (another ideology!). Shakespeare - yes, his works have been translated to heaps of languages. Mozart is as "universal" in terms of popularity/appeal as you can get, as well as highly admired from all quarters. But classical music is pretty big in Japan, has been since WW2, a tradition has developed there. Same with China since the "open door" policy, classical is getting some traction. But what about places like Thailand? Or Cambodia? Vietnam? Indonesia? I don't know about those. & is Mozart also big in Africa? Which brings up my thought, what about tribal musics which have limited scope/meaning/understanding to just people in those small tribes? What about Chinese/Peking opera - is that universal? Probably not, but does that affect it's meaning/s to certain peoples? Or validity/value? See where I'm going with this? Then as for Hiroshige, his art became popular when the arts were interested in "the other." Some call it appropriation, a thing like "the male gaze" turned into "the European gaze." Colonialist politics there? Eurocentrism? Similar thing with say the orientalist movt. of that time (c19th). The popularity of guys like Hiroshige may well come off the bat of these things, not much to do with whether he's "universal" or not. Maybe it's just politics?


> There is a certain irony in referring to others as "elitists" or "snobs" while insisting that one's own tastes are the sole measure of artistic merit...


Well I aim not to do that kind of thing, which is the "point" of this thread, or part of it, make people to question how they evaluate music, arts, read between the lines, question assumptions/values, etc.



> ...or attempting to justify one's questionable opinions by embracing a philosophy of "sour grapes" and insisting that there is no "good" nor "bad".


Well what do you think of what I said above re Josquin's disappearance from the "grand narrative" of who's "great" / "popular" / "of value" & who "isn't" despite him being seen as a "big fish" in his time, as well as otday (after a small scale "revival") by many scholars/music professionals, etc. It's having little impact to the "man on the street" who can't recognise his name or if you hum one of his "tunes," but would most likely know Beethoven's name or a popular tune of his.? Maybe, as I mused above, the likes of Beethoven will disappear into the shadows in 600 years, just as Josquin has the 600 years past? Nothing to do with "greatness" or what's thier "objective" value, or not. Maybe 600 years later, a guy like Stravinsky will have overshadowed Beethoven???...


----------



## Couchie

StlukesguildOhio said:


> One can get around this by insisting that all art is purely subjective and that there is no good nor bad. Anyone who denies this can be called an "elitist" as if this were a bad term. Of course all art is "elitist". All artist's strive toward achieving something of high merit... and toward continually surpassing their previous efforts... if not those of others. "Elitist" has become an insult akin to "snob", but what of the term "meritocracy"?
> 
> The elite, or the meritocracy in art are those individuals with intellect, training, education, or experience whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight. Opinions in art may ultimately be subjective... there is no possibility of absolutism... but some opinions are simply better than others. In the arts, the closest we come to an "objective" judgment is a collective opinion of those whose opinions hold the most weight... the individuals who have invested the most within a given artistic realm. This would include the critics, scholars, and other academics, as well as musicians, composers, and educated and experienced music lovers.
> 
> Of course I am not saying we must weight the opinions of the collective in making up our own opinions. I am saying that after an individual passes the teenage years (in most cases) they often begin to recognize that their own opinions and tastes may not be shared by others. They may even come to acknowledge (in most cases) that what they like or dislike is not necessarily the ultimate measure of "good" and "bad". There are TV shows, and movies, and songs, and other works of "art" that I take pleasure in in spite of recognizing that they are in no way artistic masterpieces.
> 
> But again, some individuals never reach this level. They need to feel that whatever they like MUST be "good"... no "GREAT"... and if this cannot be achieved, well then they will deny that there can even be a "good" nor "bad". Yet even within the oeuvre of a single artist, almost anyone who is at all honest with himself or herself can recognize works that are "better" and "worse"... and most artists will admit the same of their own work.


Elitism has it's uses, such as in politics and business: we want highly educated, knowledgeable, experienced people running these enterprises. Not many seriously suggest we adopt Athenian democracy where all citizens are considered to have equally good opinions, are picked at random to form the government, and then saddled with the task of negotiating foreign relations with hostile countries. Here, who has good opinions really *matters*. But unlike politics and business, art and music have no functional purpose aside from individual enjoyment. I really fail to see why you're so worried about establishing what music is and isn't good aside from _"insecurity, envy, and need to justify or legitimatize his or her own taste"_. Also, you're really going to argue that critics matter given the many negative reactions of these so-called educated academics to premiers of classical music that are today held to be masterpieces?



StlukesguildOhio said:


> As the Art/Aesthetic Philosopher Denis Dutton suggested:
> 
> _Cultural relativism has been taught as the default orthodoxy in many university departments. Under this philosophy, aesthetic values have been widely construed by academics as merely contingent reflections of local social and economic conditions.
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... (the individual)... or merely in the eyes of a given society. Such aesthetic relativism is decisively refuted by the cross-cultural appeal of certain art objects over centuries and across cultures: Mozart packs Japanese concerts halls, as Hiroshige does Paris galleries, while new productions of Shakespeare in every major language of the world are endless.
> 
> In a 1757 essay, philosopher David Hume argued that because "the general principles of taste are uniform in human nature" the value of some works of art might be essentially eternal. He observed that the "same Homer who pleased at Athens and Rome two thousand years ago, is still admired at Paris and London." The works that manage to endure over millennia, Hume thought, do so precisely because they appeal to deep, unchanging features of human nature._


Used to further a case for objectivism, these are just fallacies, appeals populism and tradition. Objective reality is not established by the number of people who believe it, or for how long it has been believed. Dutton and Hume appear to be making a case that art can transverse cultural barriers and through time if it appeals to fundamental enough human values. I missed the part where Dutton and Hume say this establishes Mozart or Homer as better than anybody else.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Agreed with reference to the output of a single artist, but as I said above, what people are doing comparing the "horse & cart" with the modern automobile just doesn't hold water, doesn't make sense to me at all.

I think that such comparisons can be done. T.S. Eliot, in his classic essay, Tradition and the Individual Talent suggests that we make such comparisons all the time... indeed, that such comparisons are necessary when a truly original and strong work of art comes along... for ever work of art must fight for its place within the imaginary canon. Eliot continues that this comparison isn't about measuring one artist against another in order to deem who is best (which is really rather useless) or measuring the new and original work by some universal standards. The example I have often thought of is a comparison of Rembrandt vs Matisse. By the standards of Rembrandt's era, Matisse comes off rather poorly. His draftsmanship is weak. There is little sense of the individual character of his models, there is no sense of the illusion of solid forms and space, and no dramatic light. But such a comparison is obviously biased, As Eliot suggests, it should not surprise us that the truly original art of today influences the art of the past (or our perception of the art of the past) just as the art of the past influenced the art of the present. As such, if we invert the bias we find Rembrandt quite lacking as a colorist, falling short with regard to formal daring, and lacking in the employment of abstraction. As such, I think we need to look at the art of the present and the past without a concept of any set standards or ideal toward which all art SHOULD aspire, and instead ask what is the intention of a given work and how well does it achieve this . And we might also look for areas of dialog between newer and older art... as opposed to comparisons.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Used to further a case for objectivism, these are just fallacies, appeals populism and tradition.

Fallacies because... you say so? Because you cannot fathom the possibility that certain works of art have survived and continue to speak across cultures, language barriers, and time and space for the simple reason that they are actually good... even perhaps (gasp!) better than many other works? The reality is that it is cultural relativism, not objectivism, which panders to populism. Every pimply-faced teenager would love to discover that according to cultural relativism Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber, and AC/DC are just as great as Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach. They could go back to their English class on Monday and ask why they are being forced to read that Shakespeare crap when the latest Batman comic is just as great.

Cultural Relativism also justifies our individual taste. We can claim that if that which we love is not "great" then it is no less "great" than anything else... for the simple reason that there is no "great" or "bad" but thinking makes it so.

Of course this would fully undermine any artistic progress or any artistic attempt toward improvement. Because its all relative, the kindergarten student banging away on the piano is as great of a musical artist as Murray Perahia... no need to waste further money of tutors and Julliard. The first year painting student is already equal to Michealangelo... no need for further studies in anatomy, composition, and paint application. I'll never be a better artist than I am at this very moment, so why worry, be happy? What could be more populist... and more reassuring to the mindless and the lazy than that?

I missed the part where Dutton and Hume say this establishes Mozart or Homer as better than anybody else.

_In a 1757 essay, philosopher David Hume argued that because "the general principles of taste are uniform in human nature" the value of some works of art might be essentially eternal. He observed that the "same Homer who pleased at Athens and Rome two thousand years ago, is still admired at Paris and London." The works that manage to endure over millennia, Hume thought, do so precisely* because they appeal to deep, unchanging features of human nature.*

*Some unique works of art, for example, Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony, possess this rare but demonstrable capacity to excite the human mind across cultural boundaries and through historic time.* I cannot prove it, but I think a small body of such works-by Homer, Bach, Shakespeare, Murasaki Shikibu, Vermeer, Michelangelo, Wagner, Jane Austen, Sophocles, Hokusai-will be sought after and enjoyed for centuries or millennia into the future. As much as fashions and philosophies are bound to change, these works will remain objects of permanent value to human beings.

*These epochal survivors of art are more than just popular.* The majority of works of popular art today are not inevitably shallow or worthless, but they tend to be easily replaceable. In the modern mass art system, artistic forms endure, while individual works drop away. Spy thrillers, romance novels, pop songs, and soap operas are daily replaced by more thrillers, romance novels, pop songs, and soap operas. In fact, the ephemeral nature of mass art seems more pronounced than ever: most popular works are incapable of surviving even a year, let alone a couple of generations. It's different with art's classic survivors: even if they began, as Sophocles' and Shakespeare's did, as works of popular art, they set themselves apart in their durable appeal: nothing kills them. Audiences keep coming back to experience these original works themselves.

Against the idea of permanent aesthetic values is cultural relativism, which is taught as the default orthodoxy in many university departments. Aesthetic values have been widely construed by academics as merely contingent reflections of local social and economic conditions. Beauty, if not in the eye of the beholder, has been misconstrued as merely in the eyes of society, a conditioning that determines values of cultural seeing. Such veins of explanation often include no small amount of cynicism: why do people go to the opera? Oh, to show off their furs. Why are they thrilled by famous paintings? Because they're worth millions. Beneath such explanations is a denial of intrinsic aesthetic merit.

Such aesthetic relativism is decisively refuted, as Hume understood, by the cross-cultural appeal of a small class of art objects over centuries: Mozart packs Japanese concerts halls, as Hiroshige does Paris galleries, while new productions of Shakespeare in every major language of the world are endless. And finally, it is beginning to look as though empirical psychology is equipped to address the universality of art. For example, evolutionary psychology is being used by literary scholars to explain the persistent themes and plot devices in fiction. The rendering of faces, bodies, and landscape preferences in art is amenable to psychological investigation. The structure of musical perception is now open to experimental analysis as never before. Poetic experience can be elucidated by the insights of contemporary linguistics. None of this research promises a recipe for creating great art, but it can throw light on what we already know about aesthetic pleasure.

What's going on most days in the Metropolitan Museum and most nights at Lincoln Center involves aesthetic experiences that will be continuously revived and relived by our descendents into an indefinite future. In a way, *this makes the creations of the greatest artists as much permanent achievements as the discoveries of greatest scientists.* That much I think I know. The question we should now ask is, What makes this possible? *What is it about the highest works of art that gives them eternal appeal?*_

DENIS DUTTON: What Do You Believe is True Even Though You Cannot Prove It? 2005


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Curiosity said:


> PS: **** out of my toilet > Black Sabbath. Because I say so.


You can save yourself a trip to the bathroom for some of that and look inside your head.


----------



## Argus

I think Couchie has covered a lot of the key points.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Fallacies because... you say so? Because you cannot fathom the possibility that certain works of art have survived and continue to speak across cultures, language barriers, and time and space for the simple reason that they are actually good... even perhaps (gasp!) better than many other works? The reality is that it is cultural relativism, not objectivism, which panders to populism. Every pimply-faced teenager would love to discover that according to cultural relativism Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber, and AC/DC are just as great as Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach. They could go back to their English class on Monday and ask why they are being forced to read that Shakespeare crap when the latest Batman comic is just as great.
> 
> Cultural Relativism also justifies our individual taste. We can claim that if that which we love is not "great" then it is no less "great" than anything else... for the simple reason that there is no "great" or "bad" but thinking makes it so.


Everyone has the ability to form an opinion on art and this can be expressed. It is useless and absurd to filter out these opinions into ones that matter or have greater weight than others.

Art is not science or mathematics. Logic has no place within it. I don't think people who believe in any objective value of art are "insecure, envious, and have a need to justify or legitimatize his or her own taste", they just don't understand (or don't like) the truth.


----------



## Couchie

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Fallacies because... you say so? Because you cannot fathom the possibility that certain works of art have survived and continue to speak across cultures, language barriers, and time and space for the simple reason that they are actually good... even perhaps (gasp!) better than many other works?


Fallacies because the logical structure of your argument is flawed, making whatever your would-be argument is irrelevant in the first place.

You say that certain art survives across time and culture because it is good, but you have presupposed that _art is considered good if survives across time and culture_. A fine display of circular reasoning. By "certain" works of art you really mean "good" works of art, as you have already assumed the works in question are good, and this sentence pretty much reduces to "good works of art survive a long time because they are good".

Let's also not forget that the italicized is just another subjective opinion - how long the art has been around and if it's valued by many cultures may be a factor in your and Dutton's appraisal of its quality, but not necessarily mine or others.

So unfortunately, although you tried to bury it in a fallacy, you have not escaped the realm of subjectivity.


----------



## Guest

I hestitate to jump into this maelstrom.

But maelstroms are soooooo seductive!!

Facts and opinions are different things. And only the strange and irrational worship of "objectivity" leads us to such absurdities as trying to prove that if you have enough opinions that are the same, you then have a fact. No, you have a big stack of similar opinions, that's all.

Greatness is a judgment, that is, it is on the opinion (or subjective) side of things. We only get into trouble when we want to make greatness a universal. As a subjective thing, it is personal and individual. A whole bunch of personals don't add up to a universal. They just add up to a big stack of personals.

If we give up worshipping OBJECTIVITY, we notice a couple of very interesting things happen. One, we no longer feel the need to bolster our own subjective impressions with a big stack of similar subjective impressions from ages past. And two, we realize that subjective is actually better* than objective in that it is not static (like a fact) but dynamic. Objective points to an object. Subjective does not so much point to a subject as to a relationship between a subject and the world as perceived by that subject. It's the relationship that's important, not some chimerical truth divorced from any perceptions, but a real engagement by each individual.

That's where these discussions go wrong, I think, in discounting individual engagement. So what if a piece is "great" or not? Does it have to be compared to other pieces and ranked before it can be enjoyed? I say "No." Anything can be, and probably should be, enjoyed on its own terms. This is not to say that our knowledge of and engagement with other pieces won't feed into our enjoyment of whatever we're listening to now. Of course it all does. But ranking? Needing to somehow justify one's enjoyment with illusions of grandeur? Naw. When I'm listening to something and completely engaged, my ego disappears rather. Only that something, whatever it is, exists. Or, I should say, both it and I still exist, but our separate existences are not important, only that we are actively engaged is important. Not the piece, not "some guy," but the third thing that's created when the piece and myself are engaged, that's what's important.

The pieces and the auditors will vary widely, but so what? You really want everyone to be the same? You really want everyone to be exactly like you, valuing only the things you value, only the ideas you hold dear? That just sounds like some serious insecurity to me. And irresponsible, eh? How about taking responsibility each of us for our own individual tastes? How about we like what we like and hate what we hate without trying to turn those into universal values valid for all people in all times?

*yes, a subjective word!


----------



## regressivetransphobe

I wonder if certain posters have ever considered that maybe the "academic consensus" so fundamental to their stance is all a self-supporting system of legitimization for weak people's basic impulse to have little gods and idols.


----------



## Polednice

regressivetransphobe said:


> I wonder if certain posters have ever considered that maybe the "academic consensus" so fundamental to their stance is all a self-supporting system of legitimization for weak people's basic impulse to have little gods and idols.


I wonder also if certain posters have ever considered that maybe the ultimate worshipping of subjectivity so fundamental to their stance is a meagre rebellious affectation for egotistical people's basic impulse to have their personal tastes validated.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

...classical music is pretty big in Japan, has been since WW2, a tradition has developed there. Same with China since the "open door" policy, classical is getting some traction. But what about places like Thailand? Or Cambodia? Vietnam? Indonesia? I don't know about those. & is Mozart also big in Africa? Which brings up my thought, what about tribal musics which have limited scope/meaning/understanding to just people in those small tribes?

A lot of Dutton's studies and subsequent essays center upon aesthetic anthropology. Among things he has explored here is the very purpose of art from an anthropological view. (Sex!) and the very question you raise... taste compared across cultural grounds. I can't find the essay off hand, but the gist of one study he cites was a comparison between the examples of carvings by an obscure African (or possibly Pacific Island) tribe most admired by Westerners educated in art (albeit not specializing or even particularly cognizant of this body of work) and those most admired by the members of the native culture... and they found that surprisingly their tastes coincide.

I think that Dutton is well enough versed in scientific method to suggest something like a Universal Canon or negate art that does not cross cultural barriers. Conceptual Art, is quite likely a case in point. It is an art born in academia in many ways... an art dependent upon the grasp of the history of art, the precedents that were leading up to this movement, etc... In many ways, it is an art wholly dependent upon the context. Robert Hughes pointed out the irony of this fact by noting that one of the proclaimed goals of Conceptual Art was to tear down the barriers between Art and Life. Yet ultimately, Conceptual Art is dependent far more than other art upon the context. As Hughes suggested, the average person seeing a Rodin or Michelangelo sculpture placed in a parking lot as a work of art. Their likely response would be, "What is that "statue" doing here." If one were to take Carl Andre's stack of bricks and place them in the same parking lot, they would likely not be recognized as art... but rather as a stack of building materials. Indeed, the same response is had by many not "in the know" when they come upon such works in the museum. A cleaning lady famously threw away one of Joseph Beuys' blobs of lard in a museum, mistaking it for something left by repairmen, while another cleaner tossed out Damian Hirst's table strewn with cans, cigarette butts, and other debris (not unlike Emin's Bed) following a party. She had no reason to imagine that the work was anything but trash... let alone a work of "priceless" art.:lol:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I hestitate to jump into this maelstrom.

Hesitate. Give me a break, SG. You haunt multiple musical forums just looking for threads like this in order to argue your Cultural Relativist concepts and deflate "Elitists"... while bragging of your own listening experiences and citing favorite composers whom no one has ever even heard of... perhaps as a means of suggesting your own superiority (elitism).


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I wonder if certain posters have ever considered that maybe the "academic consensus" so fundamental to their stance is all a self-supporting system of legitimization for weak people's basic impulse to have little gods and idols.

And how so... if said individuals are able to admit that in spite of the relative merits of certain artists their own tastes and opinions may vary? The notion that all art is but subjective allows for one to argue that whatever one likes is great... or no better or worse than anything else. The idea that some works of art are indeed better than others, but that one's own taste may vary demands that one have the maturity needed to admit that perhaps one is not always right. In spite of the fact that I would prefer to listen to the Louvin Brothers to Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern, and the Rolling Stones before Stravinsky, I don't need to argue that the Louvin Brothers and the Rolling Stones are greater than Stravinsky, Berg, Webern, and Schoenberg. (Although they might just be.)

:tiphat:


----------



## Polednice

And what about the value of one work over another from an artist's perspective? Naturally, all of our discussions are very listener-/audience-centric, which provides great opportunity for people to say that everything is wholly subjective and that no opinions can possibly be better or more informed than another, but if it _is_ true that any two works of art are incomparable and that anything can be art if we so desire, how on earth is an artist supposed to make sense of that world? How can they hope for self-improvement and progression when such things _cannot exist_ if there is no possibility of comparing two of their own works?

That would make a great, great deal of musicological perception utterly worthless. There would be no point talking about a transition in a composer's life from early to mature; it would make no sense to hail Dvorak's 9th as any better than his hardly-performed 1st. He needn't have bothered trying to perfect his art throughout his life; he could have just written whatever came to mind and waited to see what people enjoyed regardless of craftsmanship - the equivalent to throwing **** at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Clearly, it is useful, important, and insightful for artists - and an audience - to be able to compare and assess two works of the same composer, so it must follow (whether it's useful or not!) that it is at least _possible_ to do with same with two works of different composers.


----------



## Couchie

Polednice said:


> I wonder also if certain posters have ever considered that maybe the ultimate worshipping of subjectivity so fundamental to their stance is a meagre rebellious affectation for egotistical people's basic impulse to have their personal tastes validated.


StlukesguildOhio and others are pretty much saying, "You are free to enjoy listening to crap, but you must acknowledge that other music is objectively better." Coincidentally, the music that they go on to define as "objectively better" is without fail the same music that they _subjectively_ believe is better. When asked, they are completely unable to provide objective proof of its superiority, they merely state what aspects of the music they feel make it better, and even which aspects of music they focus on and which aspects they ignore are a product of their own subjectivity.

So who is *really* being egotistical here?


----------



## Polednice

Couchie said:


> StlukesguildOhio and others are pretty much saying, "You are free to enjoy listening to crap, but you must acknowledge that other music is objectively better." Coincidentally, the music that they go on to define as "objectively better" is without fail the same music that they _subjectively_ believe is better.


Stlukes demonstrated otherwise in his most recent post on this thread.

With regards to my comment which you quoted, I just want to clarify that I wasn't being accusative; I just thought regressivetransphobe's comment was generalised and vacuous, so was showing that it could easily be turned on its head.


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I hestitate to jump into this maelstrom.
> 
> Hesitate. Give me a break, SG. You haunt multiple musical forums just looking for threads like this in order to argue your Cultural Relativist concepts and deflate "Elitists"... while bragging of your own listening experiences and citing favorite composers whom no one has ever even heard of... perhaps as a means of suggesting your own superiority (elitism).


Hahaha, if you only knew....

Anyway, I do know for sure that you haunt multiple music forums just looking for posts by myself so that you can make counter arguments to the distortions of my arguments that you create yourself. It's easier that way, I know, 'cause then you're in total control of both the argument AND the counter argument. I don't recall you _ever_ engaging with anything I've actually said.

As for my listening experiences, I've never mentioned very much about those at all, have I? No. That was just you making random accusations again. After all, who's gonna be able to check up on you? It's the perfect crime!

My favorite composers are simply those people who write the music I like the best. I don't decide if I like a piece by how well-known its composer it but by how interesting and engaging the thing sounds. Wow. What a weird way to listen to music, huh?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Hesitate. Give me a break, SG. You haunt multiple musical forums just looking for threads like this ...


I see, I never knew that. Sounds to me member _some guy_ has a crusade. (I've never bored to join and or read other musical forums to have noticed).


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Anyway, I do know for sure that you haunt multiple music forums just looking for posts by myself so that you can make counter arguments to the distortions of my arguments that you create yourself. It's easier that way, I know, 'cause then you're in total control of both the argument AND the counter argument. I don't recall you ever engaging with anything I've actually said.

SG... the only other music forum I frequent is Bright Cecilia, which I frequent predominantly for discussion concerning and introductions to "early music". You don't seem overly active there unless questions of Modern and Contemporary music pop up. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and admit that Balthazar has been far more vociferous in countering every post I make there than yourself. It seems I could simply say "It's a lovely day" and he'd presume I was making some comment negating the whole of the music of the 20th century. Indeed, for a while he followed me over to the literature site I frequent to continue being a thorn in my side... or somewhere lower and more to the rear.:lol:

:tiphat:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

My favorite composers are simply those people who write the music I like the best. I don't decide if I like a piece by how well-known its composer it but by how interesting and engaging the thing sounds. Wow. What a weird way to listen to music, huh?

Seriously, if those are truly your favorite artists... the strongest symphonic works produced in the last 30 years, more power to you. Honestly, if you asked me for a list of the 10 greatest paintings of the last 30 years I also might come up with a few obscure names... but quite likely the majority would be generally known to those who follow contemporary art... and quite likely shown in major museums/galleries. One really can't refute your taste in music when 90% of that which you recommend is out of print... must be due to high demand among cognoscenti.


----------



## Air

A really good list, Sid. Basically a whole bunch of unwarranted assertions that can be easily used to dress up an absolute claim as something that is factual. I know I've been guilty of this too, but I'll try to better keep this list in mind next time I fall into the same trap.

I think when it comes down to it, there really isn't such thing as logic when it comes to music appreciation. So no absolutes, only different hues.


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Honestly, if you asked me for a list of the 10 greatest paintings of the last 30 years I also might come up with a few obscure names... but quite likely the majority would be generally known to those who follow contemporary art.


You really need to stop smokin' that shyte. The ten composers I listed on that thread you're referring to are generally known to those who follow contemporary music, yes.

For those of you who don't want to find that thread, here is the list I offered of ten important works for orchestra of the last thirty years. I purposely put only things on that list that are readily available. Many of the other works I fancy a lot are pieces I've heard in concert and have private recordings of (feeding St's ravenous jealousy there) but are not commercially available.

Boulez, ...explosante-fixe...
Lachenmann, Harmonica
Ruders, Gong
Rihm, Klangbeschreibung III
Cage, 108
Terterian, Symphony nr. 7
Romitelli, Dead City Radio. Audiodrome
Moret, Tragiques
Czernowin, Shu Hai
Nørgård, Symphony nr. 6

The only one of these that might have slipped under the radar is Avet Terterian, which is a great pity, as his use of orchestra is genuinely fresh and unique. (Closest similar person is Ustvolskaya--Terterian the Ustvolskaya of the full orchestra. In a way.)

These are also not necessarily my favorite composers, as St suggests. I was responding to a particular request for important orchestral works of the past thirty years. My favorites do not write for orchestra much if at all.

They are all readily available, though, even the Terterian, which St could have found out just by going to Amazon.com, though he wouldn't have been able to have made his 90% out of print claim then. Or wait, maybe he still would have. Of course he would have!! What are facts against a rich fantasy life?


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> And what about the value of one work over another from an artist's perspective? Naturally, all of our discussions are very listener-/audience-centric, which provides great opportunity for people to say that everything is wholly subjective and that no opinions can possibly be better or more informed than another, but if it _is_ true that any two works of art are incomparable and that anything can be art if we so desire, how on earth is an artist supposed to make sense of that world? How can they hope for self-improvement and progression when such things _cannot exist_ if there is no possibility of comparing two of their own works?
> 
> That would make a great, great deal of musicological perception utterly worthless. There would be no point talking about a transition in a composer's life from early to mature; it would make no sense to hail Dvorak's 9th as any better than his hardly-performed 1st. He needn't have bothered trying to perfect his art throughout his life; he could have just written whatever came to mind and waited to see what people enjoyed regardless of craftsmanship - the equivalent to throwing **** at the wall and seeing what sticks.
> 
> Clearly, it is useful, important, and insightful for artists - and an audience - to be able to compare and assess two works of the same composer, so it must follow (whether it's useful or not!) that it is at least _possible_ to do with same with two works of different composers.


huh? I don't understand your point? There would still be a point in talking about how composer's music changed over time. A composer seeks to improve their music based on their own self-assessment of it, therefore, that is also a personal and subjective thing. Dvorak did write whatever the heck he wanted. Then a large majority of us just decided #9 was better, then again, another large majority decided #7 was actually the best. Then a small minority of us might think #1 is the best.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The only one of these that might have slipped under the radar is Avet Terterian, which is a great pity, as his use of orchestra is genuinely fresh and unique. (Closest similar person is Ustvolskaya--Terterian the Ustvolskaya of the full orchestra. In a way.)

Actually, the Terterian is available in import for some $20 plus foreign shipping. The Lachenmann is out of print but available for around $30. Ruders is also out of print, but if HC really wants a copy, it can be had through Amazon secondary dealers for a measly $77. And the Romitelli is also currently out of print but available used for $30. So anyone wishing to build a collection of music built upon the recommendation of SG just be ready to shell out some real money because this music is so hot they can't keep 'em on the shelves.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Many of the other works I fancy a lot are pieces I've heard in concert and have private recordings of (feeding St's ravenous jealousy there) but are not commercially available.

Ach! You have found me out! No one knows the suffering I go through... the self flagellation I endure as the price of my great sin of envy... envy for your famed stash of private recordings of electronic flatulence. The horror... the horror... the horror...

OK... enough of that. Let's pop some Johnny Cash or Hank Williams in the CD player. That oughta drive away the evil spirits.


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> huh? I don't understand your point? There would still be a point in talking about how composer's music changed over time. A composer seeks to improve their music based on their own self-assessment of it, therefore, that is also a personal and subjective thing. Dvorak did write whatever the heck he wanted. Then a large majority of us just decided #9 was better, then again, another large majority decided #7 was actually the best. Then a small minority of us might think #1 is the best.


We could talk about how a composer _changes_ over time, but if we accept the premise of absolute subjectivity in art, then it would be _impossible_ to talk about how a composer gets _better_ over time, which - I think - shows how ridiculous the premise is.


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> We could talk about how a composer _changes_ over time, but if we accept the premise of absolute subjectivity in art, then it would be _impossible_ to talk about how a composer gets _better_ over time, which - I think - shows how ridiculous the premise is.


Is it important to show that a composer get's better over time? I'm sure people in the early early 19th century thought early or middle Beethoven was "better" than the crazy stuff he was composing in his late period.

Using Beethoven as an example, it is the opinion of a lot of people that the best Beethoven symphonies are #s 3,5 and 9. Are we to suppose then that Beethoven's compositional skills started out not so good? Then got better, then got not so good again, then got a lot better, then got not so good again, then got a lot better? It's kind of silly.

And I think many people right here on TC would be hard pressed to say that Schoenberg's string trio was better than Veklarte Nacht, or that Stravinsky's Agon was better than the Rite of Spring.


----------



## Sid James

These posts raise good points, I find difficult to argue with them, I think I'm okay with the gist of these -

couchie

stlukes reply to me (rembrandt/matisse examples)

argus

couchie

some guy's

Basically I'm "on the fence" about the objective/subjective debate. & I'd say it's pretty wise to do so. Anyway, I gave copious "balanced" views/examples above, citing not "scholarly" things but just my own conclusions. We are getting too academic, using this high-fallutin' language, & it just shows that these are all in the area of dogma/politics/theories, etc. For me, it has to be personal. Anyway, here is some things I think may be of relevance -

The *"universal" views*, eg. about saying certain art is *"objectively"* above others - I think it can be wobbly. Art is not like fruit and veg that can be weighed on a scale. It's intangible. Another thing is that nothing much is "permanent" or "immutable" in this world. Some millenia ago, we had the 7 wonders of the world. Now we only have 1 left (the pyramids of Egypt). That's unless we count our own wonderful Sydney Opera House - there was an opera written about it called _The Eighth Wonder _. Anyway, the quicker we build monuments, the quicker they bite the dust. Those ancient cultures thought what they were doing was "universal," where are they now? Same with Hitler's "thousand year Reich." Gone, gone, gone. & this is relevant to the arts, who believes in his warped dogma of "degenerate art" now? Nobody. Maybe the latter is a crude example, but you probably know what I mean there. This "grand narrative" view doesn't hold water. Look at all the "revivals" we've had over the history of classical music? & things gone into obscurity & "rediscovered?" Whatever is objectively held to he "high" or "low" value now depends on the info/knowledge we have now. An ordinary person living in say 1800 wouldn't have recognised the name of J.S. Bach or a tune by him. True, some of his music was studied & "kept alive" by composers & probably survived sung by church choirs, but it was only since Mendelssohn's "revival" (which is of course simplistic, but that's the "legend") that Bach has slowly crept back into the limelight. But (as I said above) he can just as easily vanish as he did after his death. Not many people know Josquin (& no-one adressed what I said about him above ages back) but in his day he was as big as Beethoven was later in his.

The other side of* "cultural relativism"* - well, we can say an amateur violinist probably, most likely, whatever, isn't at the level of say Hilary Hahn. This is "objective" fact. What is "rubbery" is if we compare Ms Hahn to say, I don't know, violinist x or y, a violinist at her level. There are so many variables in music, art & everything. Not many things are black & white, there are many shades of grey in life. So if "cultural relativists" compare things that are extreme, like the level of Ms Hahn to someone who hasn't recorded the hardest violin concertos, etc. that she has, then they are on shaky ground. But I'm not sure if they do that, unless they are "less reliable" theorists, just like "extreme" "universal/"objectivist" theorists. If they are worth their salt as "theorists" or whatever, they will apply this theory to "commonsense" comparisons. The extreme "examples" of Beethoven vs. Black Sabbath above, or comparing a horse and cart with a modern automobile, is just a fallacy, imo & as some have stated above, really not worth pursuing.

These are my "commonsense" views on these things. I'm not interested in bringing up "evidence" of various theorists or youtube clip to prove empty "rhetorical" points that go round and round in endless circles. I'd urge people to think, and esp. to think about their own thinking. This has little to do with what music you listen to, etc. that's pretty superficial, what's important, imo, is to questions assumptions & say, own up to, "well, I'm sitting on the fence on this, but I'm still someone who can think." I hate "triangulation" where people are chosen to side with one person against another in an unequal, weighted "three tier contest."...


----------



## Sid James

I haven't been able to read all posts in detail, but I think that memberAir's post here was what I'm getting at, not going into "three tier contests" as I said above (it doesn't achieve much, here or anywhere in "real life")...


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> Is it important to show that a composer get's better over time? I'm sure people in the early early 19th century thought early or middle Beethoven was "better" than the crazy stuff he was composing in his late period.
> 
> Using Beethoven as an example, it is the opinion of a lot of people that the best Beethoven symphonies are #s 3,5 and 9. Are we to suppose then that Beethoven's compositional skills started out not so good? Then got better, then got not so good again, then got a lot better, then got not so good again, then got a lot better? It's kind of silly.
> 
> And I think many people right here on TC would be hard pressed to say that Schoenberg's string trio was better than Veklarte Nacht, or that Stravinsky's Agon was better than the Rite of Spring.


But this is the problem and the double-standard. If you refuse to accept that two artworks - whether by the same or by different composers - can be compared, then not only is it the case that you cannot say that a composer gets better (or worse) over time, you also cannot say that Beethoven's 3, 5, and 9 are any better than the others, or that Schoenberg's Veklarte Nacht was any better than the string trio, or that Stravinsky's Rite of Spring was any better that Agon. It degrades the whole of musicology to a worthless, meaningless free-for-all. You _have_ to have some criteria for discussing the level of craftsmanship and skill in a work, otherwise it's _all nonsense_. And if you do have those criteria, then of course works are comparable and, so it follows, some are better than others.


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> But this is the problem and the double-standard. If you refuse to accept that two artworks - whether by the same or by different composers - can be compared, then not only is it the case that you cannot say that a composer gets better (or worse) over time, you also cannot say that Beethoven's 3, 5, and 9 are any better than the others, or that Schoenberg's Veklarte Nacht was any better than the string trio, or that Stravinsky's Rite of Spring was any better that Agon. It degrades the whole of musicology to a worthless, meaningless free-for-all. You _have_ to have some criteria for discussing the level of craftsmanship and skill in a work, otherwise it's _all nonsense_. And if you do have those criteria, then of course works are comparable and, so it follows, some are better than others.


I don't understand why it makes it nonsense. So to you the only worth in discussing different music is to establish who is better or what piece is better than what? That doesn't make sense to me. Why can't you just discuss pieces and composers on their own merits and learn from each one without trying to rank them all?


----------



## Argus

Sid James said:


> The other side of "cultural relativism" - well, we can say an amateur violinist probably, most likely, whatever, isn't at the level of say Hilary Hahn. This is "objective" fact. What is "rubbery" is if we compare Ms Hahn to say, I don't know, violinist x or y, a violinist at her level. There are so many variables in music, art & everything. Not many things are black & white, there are many shades of grey in life. So if "cultural relativists" compare things that are extreme, like the level of Ms Hahn to someone who hasn't recorded the hardest violin concertos, etc. that she has, then they are on shaky ground.


No one's saying anything like that. What I'm saying is what if you prefer the sound the amateur violinist makes to that of Hilary Hahn? Then surely, the amateur violinist is making better music. Nothing to do with skill or ability, just your preference for the sounds you are hearing.

I disagree with horse & cart to automobile analogy for the Beethoven/Black Sabbath comparison too. You can compare any music with any other music as long as you've made a critical judgement about it. I could say that Dvorak is better than Miley Cyrus or The Allman Brothers are better than Puccini. What do the differences between the artists matter when all I'm doing is saying which I prefer (at that moment in time).



Polednice said:


> You have to have some criteria for discussing the level of craftsmanship and skill in a work, otherwise it's all nonsense. And if you do have those criteria, then of course works are comparable and, so it follows, some are better than others.


Everyone has their own personal criteria that they have in mind when evaluating music, but to think that these extend to anybody else is the real nonsensical viewpoint.

Craftsmanship and skill don't mean a thing if you don't like the music you are hearing.

Back to Sid's point about sitting on the fence. There is no fence. There is reality and there is fantasy. The reality is there is no objective way of measuring art, the fantasy is that there is some system for deciding artwork A is better than artwork B beyond personal preference.


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> I don't understand why it makes it nonsense. So to you the only worth in discussing different music is to establish who is better or what piece is better than what? That doesn't make sense to me. Why can't you just discuss pieces and composers on their own merits and learn from each one without trying to rank them all?


I'm not saying that at all. Personally, I couldn't give a damn about ranking different composers or different genres - it means nothing to me. What I'm trying to say is that, from a musicological and historical perspective, it is _vital_ for a full understanding of a composer's output to be able to compare their pieces. I mean, that's just common sense, isn't it? So what I'm saying after that fact is that, clearly, if it makes sense to be able to compare two works by one composer, you must be able to use the same method to compare two works by different composers.

As I said, I don't _care_ about this - I don't spend any of my time doing such comparisons. I'm just trying to state that it is theoretically possible, contrary to the notion suggested on these threads that it is all an absolutely, completely, irrevocably personal and subjective matter.



Argus said:


> Craftsmanship and skill don't mean a thing if you don't like the music you are hearing.


It sure as hell doesn't mean a thing to the audience, I accept that. But it's of essential importance to every artist who has ever made a living from it.


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> I'm not saying that at all. Personally, I couldn't give a damn about ranking different composers or different genres - it means nothing to me. What I'm trying to say is that, from a musicological and historical perspective, it is _vital_ for a full understanding of a composer's output to be able to compare their pieces. I mean, that's just common sense, isn't it? So what I'm saying after that fact is that, clearly, if it makes sense to be able to compare two works by one composer, you must be able to use the same method to compare two works by different composers.
> 
> As I said, I don't _care_ about this - I don't spend any of my time doing such comparisons. I'm just trying to state that it is theoretically possible, contrary to the notion suggested on these threads that it is all an absolutely, completely, irrevocably personal and subjective matter.
> 
> It sure as hell doesn't mean a thing to the audience, I accept that. But it's of essential importance to every artist who has ever made a living from it.


Either I still don't understand or I just don't agree. I don't think it is essential for a full understanding of a composers output to compare their pieces in a way that says one is better or worse than the other. I think it is essential to compare them in other ways.

For example, saying that Beethoven's 5th symphony has a sense of thematic unity across all the movements that his first symphony does not is an objective comparison that helps full understand his output. However, it doesn't assert that one is better than the other.


----------



## Polednice

Argus said:


> No one's saying anything like that. What I'm saying is what if you prefer the sound the amateur violinist makes to that of Hilary Hahn? Then surely, the amateur violinist is making better music. Nothing to do with skill or ability, just your preference for the sounds you are hearing.


This seems to be the crux of the matter where we disagree. I would say that no, the amateur violinist isn't making _better_ music, but you are perfectly entitled to prefer it, and power to you for it!


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> This seems to be the crux of the matter where we disagree. I would say that no, the amateur violinist isn't making _better_ music, but you are perfectly entitled to prefer it, and power to you for it!


The crux of the matter is that your subjects are essentially unconnected. One of you is saying that Luna revolves around the Earth, the other is saying the it is usually lighter in daytime than at night.

Yes, the moon is more visible at night...


----------



## Argus

Polednice said:


> This seems to be the crux of the matter where we disagree. I would say that no, the amateur violinist isn't making _better_ music, but you are perfectly entitled to prefer it, and power to you for it!


*Why* is the amateur violinist not making better music if I like it more?



> It sure as hell doesn't mean a thing to the audience, I accept that. But it's of essential importance to every artist who has ever made a living from it.


Craft and skill are means to an end. If the end is undesirable to the listener (including the artist), then what good are the means?

I don't know about you, but I hear music I like then figure out what the artist has done in the work to achieve the things I like. I don't learn to do things in the hope they'll help me create something I might happen to like. Knowledge, craft, skill, ability, all these things are tools to achieve a goal. They may (insome circumstances) be necessary for the achievement of this goal, but they themselves are never the goal.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

No one's saying anything like that. What I'm saying is what if you prefer the sound the amateur violinist makes to that of Hilary Hahn? Then surely, the amateur violinist is making better music.

So another words, if you're an idiot you may prefer garbage over quality... and your opinion should have merit? Ultimately it comes down to that. Some opinions are better than others. Some opinions hold more weight than others. Indeed, I suppose one might make an objective study of the IQ level of those who who imagine Black Sabbath is greater than Beethoven vs the opposite. But would such a study really be necessary?


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The only one of these that might have slipped under the radar is Avet Terterian, which is a great pity, as his use of orchestra is genuinely fresh and unique. (Closest similar person is Ustvolskaya--Terterian the Ustvolskaya of the full orchestra. In a way.)
> 
> Actually, the Terterian is available in import for some $20 plus foreign shipping. The Lachenmann is out of print but available for around $30. Ruders is also out of print, but if HC really wants a copy, it can be had through Amazon secondary dealers for a measly $77. And the Romitelli is also currently out of print but available used for $30. So anyone wishing to build a collection of music built upon the recommendation of SG just be ready to shell out some real money because this music is so hot they can't keep 'em on the shelves.


Sigh. I wasn't recommending anything. I was just making a list of ten recent orchestral pieces, as per the OP's request.

The Ruders is available _new_ for $77, but it's available used for only $15.95. The Terterian is available for an $8.99 download or $19.95 used. (The shipping is the usual $2.98. Not surprising, because it's shipped from New York.) The Romitelli is also available as an $8.99 download.

Four out of ten are out of print.* And all four easily available in one form or another for about the same price as a new CD or less than.

*And we all know that there's a direct correlation between "out of print" and musical quality.... (We seem to have forgotten that ALL cds are going to be "out of print" in just a few short years. Or so it seems.)


----------



## Polednice

Argus said:


> *Why* is the amateur violinist not making better music if I like it more?


That just reads as a nonsense question - and a very openly egocentric one at that. The inherent skill in a person or thing external to you has _nothing_ to do with your assessment of it.

With regards to the rest of your post, I think, again, that this is a fundamental difference in our understanding of art (and why these discussions can never really be all that fruitful). I don't necessarily think it is a matter of right and wrong, but rather of personal values. I think it's a fair summary of your ideas to state that you believe an artwork cannot exist in a vacuum - it can only be good or bad so long as someone is listening/looking/perceiving. No work of art has any intrinsic value; it is all in the mind of the audience. On the other hand, I would say that artworks _do_ have inherent properties that make them good or bad, irrespective of whether or not they are immensely popular or entirely unheard of, and that these properties cannot be precisely defined, but can be approximated by a study of musicological history.

_I_ think the Art is in the art, _you_ think the Art is in your mind, and I don't think either of us can convince the other of our position!


----------



## Argus

Polednice said:


> On the other hand, I would say that artworks _do_ have inherent properties that make them good or bad, irrespective of whether or not they are immensely popular or entirely unheard of, and that these properties cannot be precisely defined, but can be approximated by a study of musicological history.


This is where this debate becomes similar to the religion debates. I have took a position that something does not exist (an objective way of valuing art) and you have took the position that such a thing does exist. Therefore, the onus is on people with your belief to prove such a thing exists. Saying such vague things as ''these properties cannot be precisely defined, but can be approximated by a study of musicological history'' does nothing to support your position. Precise definion is a requisite.

You're right about no one's going to convince anyone to change their minds. Elitism is best relinquished through ones own self realisation rather than some person adamantly telling you. Just like the religion debates.

I'll add that it is unlike the religion debates in that religion is by nature unprovable one way or the other, there is just logic and common sense to take into consideration. Here that doesn't apply. there is only one real viewpoint, just some people can't see the forest for the trees.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

some guy said:


> ... We seem to have forgotten that ALL cds are going to be "out of print" in just a few short years.


A very misleading statement at best (coming from a person who has been purchasing records for years), unless of focurse, he was referring to Ruder's _Gong_ or Lachenmann's tuba-fart concerto, in which case I might thankfully agree.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ... The Lachenmann is out of print but available for around $30. Ruders is also out of print, but if HC really wants a copy, it can be had through Amazon secondary dealers for a measly $77.


You will have to pay me the $77 + $Freight + *$Compensation Premium* for buying and listening to it.


----------



## Polednice

Argus said:


> This is where this debate becomes similar to the religion debates. I have took a position that something does not exist (an objective way of valuing art) and you have took the position that such a thing does exist. Therefore, the onus is on people with your belief to prove such a thing exists. Saying such vague things as ''these properties cannot be precisely defined, but can be approximated by a study of musicological history'' does nothing to support your position. Precise definion is a requisite.


I don't think that's at all a fair analogy. We are _both_ saying that something exists (_i.e._ artistic 'goodness'), but we are each saying that it is to be found in a different place (I say the score, you say the mind). As such, there is no onus on anyone to prove anything. And my comment about properties that can't be precisely defined was not a trick of vaguery, it was just a lazy evasion of a long exposition - they are things such as imaginative capacity; thematic inventiveness; developmental technique _etc._. The only vague aspect of these is that they are not easily measured, but they are at least measurable enough to be worthwhile in a discussion. Of course, I know that you will say that none of these things matter if you don't like the music; I would say that the audience is worthless, and the creative merit is in a piece whether it is appreciated by people or not.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

We are both saying that something exists (i.e. artistic 'goodness'), but we are each saying that it is to be found in a different place (I say the score, you say the mind).

No... I think its something more than that. Argus is suggesting that beauty lies solely in the eye (or ear) of the beholder. Those who reject the concept of cultural relativism are suggesting that yes, beauty may lie in the eye of the beholder in the sense that each individual's opinion may differ from the larger accepted reality... but that does not negate the larger accepted realty.

An individual may find this woman (or Black Sabbath) to be unquestionably beautiful:










while finding this woman (or Mozart) to be hideous:










That is fine for the individual. If he were to suggest "I find the first woman more beautiful than the second" there is no argument as there is no value judgment being made. If, however, the individual declares, "The first woman is more beautiful than the second, who is clearly ugly," then a value judgment is being made.

Argus, and the rest who embrace cultural relativism, get around this by arguing that we live in a value-free world. Because there are no clear absolutes, they would argue that there can be no values: no good nor bad, no right nor wrong, but thinking makes it so.

I find this an egocentric, pathetic, and juvenile philosophy that rejects the possibility that some contributions to culture are greater than others. The need to label those who reject this philosophy as "elitist" ignores the very fact that art itself is an elitist endeavor in the sense that each artist struggles to continually improve and surpass himself/herself (an absolute impossibility if there is no good nor bad).

I have to laugh when I imagine Argus relating his theory to his idols and suggesting that in all reality, Black Sabbath is no better than the Monkees of the Bay City Rollers. I can just picture Tony Iommi whacking him with his guitar.:lol:


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I almost fell out of my chair when I first saw the first picture posted above. She is objectively, extremely ugly and frightening.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Argus said:


> This is where this debate becomes similar to the religion debates. I have took a position that something does not exist (an objective way of valuing art) and you have took the position that such a thing does exist. Therefore, the onus is on people with your belief to prove such a thing exists. Saying such vague things as ''these properties cannot be precisely defined, but can be approximated by a study of musicological history'' does nothing to support your position. Precise definion is a requisite.
> 
> You're right about no one's going to convince anyone to change their minds. Elitism is best relinquished through ones own self realisation rather than some person adamantly telling you. Just like the religion debates.
> 
> I'll add that it is unlike the religion debates in that religion is by nature unprovable one way or the other, there is just logic and common sense to take into consideration. Here that doesn't apply. there is only one real viewpoint, just some people can't see the forest for the trees.


Your real agenda is your intolerance of perceived "elitisim" (your views, not ours) amongst members here at TC (at least) who express their opinions on works of art, especially when those expressed opinions are of a negative substance dealing with the relatively modern pieces. That's fine, because you're entitled to it, though many of us might not think it worth than the cover of a Black Sabbath album.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I almost fell out of my chair when I first saw the first picture posted above. She is objectively, extremely ugly and frightening.

Now you know you just need to get over your patriarchal, elitist ways of thinking and your inability to perceive beyond these outdated standards of beauty.:lol:


----------



## Sid James

Argus said:


> No one's saying anything like that. What I'm saying is what if you prefer the sound the amateur violinist makes to that of Hilary Hahn? Then surely, the amateur violinist is making better music. Nothing to do with skill or ability, just your preference for the sounds you are hearing.


I often do prefer amateur musicians! I go to concerts seeing them, often do. A lot of the time the orchestras or ensembles I hear live, they are a combination of amateur, semi-professional, professional. Often they play repertoire far more interesting to me that the old "warhorses" that are endlessly trundled out by the major symphony orchestras here (actually, haven't been to see a major symphony orch. here for 20 years, the last inspirational/imaginative conductor we had was the late Stuart Challender, who did great stuff from music in this country, but even that's hard to compare as orchestras now face tougher economic times/budgets, so they have to put "bums on seats"). Anyway, I hear all type of musicians live, all along the spectrum, and I know quite a few personally. I'm not judging amateur or non-professional musos, I think they're tops! But basically, it would be very hard if not impossible for them to play something like what Ms Hahn is playing (eg. Schoenberg violin concerto, the hardest in the repertoire, even Heifetz said it was unplayable, but he was proven wrong, & Ms Hahn says in the cd notes that she had to change her whole way of thinking/doing violin technique to adjust to this work). Anyway, I suppose it's a matter of degrees. I am not interested in seeing our own major orchestras (or the Berlin Phil who came here last year trundling out the usual things we all know - can't they play one thing that we haven't heard dozens of times already? - or the Vienna Phil that's coming here soon). I can't give a rat's ar*e about these "elites" or the so-called "best orchestras in the world." I don't mind seeing the "warhorses" - & often do, they're masterpieces - but when I go to a concert, I like to have at least something in the program from "left field."



> I disagree with horse & cart to automobile analogy for the Beethoven/Black Sabbath comparison too. You can compare any music with any other music as long as you've made a critical judgement about it. I could say that Dvorak is better than Miley Cyrus or The Allman Brothers are better than Puccini. What do the differences between the artists matter when all I'm doing is saying which I prefer (at that moment in time).


Well, it may well make sense to compare so-called "high" & "low" arts (please see my reply to stlukes below) - but it's hard to make a connection between Beethoven (about 200 years ago) to Black Sabbath (who are still alive now). Maybe we can compare things like this if it is "useful" if it makes "sense." Eg. in his orch. work Asyla (written about 1990's) Thomas Ades put in the rhythms of techno, combined with rhythms from Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_. In that case, Ades is making a comparison, he's saying he values both, he's using both in his music. So there's no problem with you valuing both these kinds of things. But I think that to make a comparison, I think it's better to make it "relevant" and kind of "commonsense." Eg. comparing some techno artist/performer to what Ades was doing in that piece is reasonable. Then you may say, eg. Ades is more sophisticated, or the techno guy is more "better" or whatever. Even then it gets complex because they are fairly removed, concert hall music & dance/techno music isn't the same. But anyway, you can compare what you like, it's "a free world." What I'm saying is that comparing things 200 years apart doesn't "cut the mustard" with me personally.



> Everyone has their own personal criteria that they have in mind when evaluating music, but to think that these extend to anybody else is the real nonsensical viewpoint.
> 
> Craftsmanship and skill don't mean a thing if you don't like the music you are hearing.
> 
> Back to Sid's point about sitting on the fence. There is no fence. There is reality and there is fantasy. The reality is there is no objective way of measuring art, the fantasy is that there is some system for deciding artwork A is better than artwork B beyond personal preference.





Polednice said:


> I'm not saying that at all. Personally, I couldn't give a damn about ranking different composers or different genres - it means nothing to me. What I'm trying to say is that, from a musicological and historical perspective, it is _vital_ for a full understanding of a composer's output to be able to compare their pieces. I mean, that's just common sense, isn't it? So what I'm saying after that fact is that, clearly, if it makes sense to be able to compare two works by one composer, you must be able to use the same method to compare two works by different composers.
> 
> As I said, I don't _care_ about this - I don't spend any of my time doing such comparisons. I'm just trying to state that it is theoretically possible, contrary to the notion suggested on these threads that it is all an absolutely, completely, irrevocably personal and subjective matter.
> 
> It sure as hell doesn't mean a thing to the audience, I accept that. But it's of essential importance to every artist who has ever made a living from it.


Well, I read a book about music in the classical era, by Melanie Lowe (a recent book). She talked about "inter-subjectivity." I don't want to get too theoretical here, I'm not a theorist, I don't want to be. Anyway, that book talks to these issues. Of course, there are different reactions to a work (which is what she was saying, if I remember correctly), based on many factors, eg. a person's social "class," education, what job they have, what's their background with music. What intersubjectivity is about, Lowe aruged, is that it's finding the "baseline" of these opinions, and coming to solid conclusions about a particular work. But I don't think she compared works in that book, or compared composers. She actually only analysed a number of the Haydn "London" symphonies. I don't think she compared them, she did a separate chapter on each symphony. A lot of it went over my head, but what I just said summarises her theory (based on good scholarship, she's not extreme or "fruit loop." This is what I'm saying about the "middle ground." Better to go read latest research/theory, not old stuff. Anyway, we can find out about what is the "baseline" opinions of a particular work of music, with research into factual (& anecdotal) documents/evidence. But she didn't go far as comparing (say) Haydn to Mozart or Beethoven, let alone Wagner, or Black Sabbath or whatever (that would be extreme, imo). She didn't say one was "universal" the other not. That would be bullsh*t. In other words, there is a balance between subjective & objective factors in evaluating artworks, but it is based on what we know about these things at a particular time (see below, please).



StlukesguildOhio said:


> I find this an egocentric, pathetic, and juvenile philosophy that rejects the possibility that some contributions to culture are greater than others. The need to label those who reject this philosophy as "elitist" ignores the very fact that art itself is an elitist endeavor in the sense that each artist struggles to continually improve and surpass himself/herself (an absolute impossibility if there is no good nor bad).




As I said, to be more balanced, history has proven that monuments built in the past are likely to vanish in the future (or at least be changed, often beyond recognition, is the church that the early Christians built in Rome/Vatican same as the ones there now? Would they recognise it now?). To turn this back to music, or at least the arts issues, rather than your pictures, Vivaldi before the mid-c20th (c. 1950's) when his _Four Seasons _was unearthed, he wasn't seen as that significant by a lot of those "in the know." Stravinsky said he composed the same concerto 300 times. I'm not sure when he said that (& some say it's just attributed to him) but it's likely that even if he didn't say it, this "quote" expresses the spirit of it's times. Baroque and many earlier musics weren't valued as much as they are today (esp. with the rise of the "period instruments" movt.). These things were considered "niche" and "fringe" then. Since the 1950's, the Four Seasons has become one of the most popular of all classical pieces. What I'm getting at is that what we value today (or at any point in time) is based on what we know. Like Rumsfeld's quote about "known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns" all that. He didn't say this in the context of what I'm talking about, & the man would probably balk at being thought of as being quite "flexible" (him being a "neo-conservative") but I think that he was making sense in relation to this debate. He was kind of wobbling out of answering questions directly, but basically what his quote says to me is that it's hard to judge things "objectively" in the extreme way of building so-called "universal truths" that some are arguing about above. Of course there are universal values, common to all cultures, whether of the past or now, tribal or "civilised" but I don't think they necessarily relate to art. What people value in Africa does not "match" with ours in the "Western" world, but there are also differences between the Africans as there are "Westerners."

To go back to art history, in terms of "ideologies," any leader you can think of had different ideology in relation to the arts & they probably thought what they thought was universal. Just look at say Russia from 1900-2000. First, the Tsarist regime, probably put up with anything as long as it wasn't directly threatening them (eg. the ararchist movt., Bakunin, etc.), so okay, but even Rimsky-Korsakov had to apparently "tone down" the slightly anti-royalist message in "The golden cockerel" - eg. that the prince can be a fool like anyone else. Then with the "Revolution" (some call it a "coup") of 1917, Lenin came to power (after a brief foray into failed democracy), he wasn't that much interested in the arts, he was busy shoring up his political/military power, all that. Shostakovich's early works (_The Nose_) were pretty much tolerated. Also Roslavets, the "Russian Schoenberg" was not pushed around too much. This kind of thing changed when Stalin came to power (formalism - eg. anything we don't like). After that Khrushchev was much more "liberal" but even Shostakovich had to tone down the "raciness" of _Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk _to get it re-performed. Similar thing with the politics of the Babi Yar symphony (eg. suggesting the USSR was culpable in what happened in Ukraine during the Nazi occupation, but in any case, it's "pessimism" was not thought of highly by the Soviet "elites"). Then Brezhnev turned back the clock, clamped things down somewhat more, but not going as far as Stalin had. The Samizdat movt. kept going (underground). Gubaidulina got her works performed, but not with religious titles. She, like Schnittke & Arvo Part, earned their "bread & butter" from film scores. Then moving toward Gorby and perestroika things began to loosen up, then the "end" of the USSR, 1991. After that, it's still probably authoritarian, but now "the arts" in Russia & the other countries, are probably having similar issues as in the West (putting bums on seats, making a profit, or even breaking even). Now money is the ideology, that's what determines what's "in" & what's "out," probably to a greater degree than politics. See the changes just over a century? This is my personal "potted history" & I've tried to be "balanced." So looking at this, the "ideology" changed not due to "objective" or "universal" factors, but politics, economy, who's in charge, this kind of thing. Monuments were built (literally & figuratively) & smashed with each new change of leadership. It's as it has always been. & as the famous saying goes, the only unchangeable thing is change itself!



> I have to laugh when I imagine Argus relating his theory to his idols and suggesting that in all reality, Black Sabbath is no better than the Monkees of the Bay City Rollers. I can just picture Tony Iommi whacking him with his guitar.:lol:


Well, I'm not up on the more recent non-classical things, I only listen to it on radio, for "down time" from classical. But if you put things below other things, that's wobbly, imo. I think guys like Gershwin, Ravel & Milhaud, among others, affected by the jazz craze in the 1920's, probably valued jazz as much (or more) as classical influences. I don't think they cared much for Wagner, at least not so far as him being a "monument." They took a bit from guys like Wagner, Beethoven, etc. (though Ravel hated Beethoven's music) & also took stuff from the "popular culture" of the times. That's basically what has been done throughout all of classical music history. Eg. the Baroque master's incorporation of dance forms, came from non-serious music, a bit like popular culture, definitely not "high art." In the middle ages, Renaissance, troubadours went across Europe singing guys like Dufay's music, from lowly taverns to the courts, to soldiers at the front in battle to just by the street. Haydn's incorporation of gypsy tunes & "rough" peasants music in his instrumental works. There are many other examples. The "disconnect" that is argued between "high" & "low" art (so-called) is not very strict at all, imo, never has been, there has been always overlap & exchange between the two...


----------



## Timotheus

The main problem with the other thread wasn't that people were using rubbery logics but that they were trying to avoid the whole idea of some music being better than other music. And we have that in this thread too, like StLukes has pointed out.

The objective/subjective stuff is beside the point. If I say that a racist joke is bad I am not saying that it is "objectively unfunny", and to point out that people laugh at it is not a refutation.

Saying that people are entitled to their opinion is a non sequitur. No one is suggesting that other people should be forced to believe differently. 

****

But unfortunately it is difficult to talk about what makes a piece of art good or not. For example, there's a wide variety of patriotic music. I really doubt you can describe which piece is good or bad in purely musical terms. Each piece will resonate in a certain way, but seeing what piece is the best depends on having the best attitude towards or beliefs about patriotism. For example I hate most renditions of the star spangled banner because the singer almost invariable adds a lot of flourishes or tries to show off on the high notes. National anthems aren't a place to show off your singing ability*. Well, that's easy enough to say but I think it would be a pretty lengthy argument if someone disagreed. And that's a relatively clear cut example. 

It's very hard to judge the merits of music and art in general. "In poets as true genius is but rare; true taste as seldom is the critics share". It's hard because you would have to have life and human nature, etc, all figured out to be a perfect critic. 

So people who say "the only purpose of music is enjoyment" and "as long as you enjoy it good for you" couldn't be more wrong. Not only would the remain immature if they acted on those claims (which the don't really), but they miss out on one of the best things in life, thinking about the arts and humanities...

*And looking back on this after finishing the post I don't think I really came close to describing what's bad about the usual pop-star pre-sports game renditions.


----------



## Sid James

Not in reply to anyone in particular, but a general thought, is that it's interesting how many people tend to "rank" in a kind of "tabulated" way who they think is the "best" or "greatest" (whatever) composer is, the next one, then the next one & so on (these "lists" & "rankings" etc.). But we seldom do it with performers, or at least not as "obsessively." Eg. take three of the top former c20th conductors in the "Austro-German" world - Furtwangler, Bohm, Karajan. Very hard to compare these guys, although much/some of their repertoire overlaps. Of course, all three had strengths & weaknesses. But one would probably be hard pressed to find some kind of fairly or near "deninitive" "inter-subjective" (pls. read my last post for explanation of what I mean by that) ranking of these guy's work by their peers - eg. the "top" conductors today. It's just so hard to judge these kinds of things, esp. for those who know little about the "nitty gritty" of a conductor's job. I'm not saying people can't rank things all they like, it's their life, they're free to do it. I'm just questioning the underlying assumption of these false dichotomies - eg. "best" "medium" "mediocre." Words that don't get bandied about here on TC all too often, people are a bit more balanced here, but it's not always the case elsewhere. But as soon as I read someone "ranking" these kinds of things, the "questioning" part of my mind simply goes in overdrive!!!...


----------



## Argus

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Your real agenda is your intolerance of perceived "elitisim" (your views, not ours) amongst members here at TC (at least) who express their opinions on works of art, especially when those expressed opinions are of a negative substance dealing with the relatively modern pieces. That's fine, because you're entitled to it, though many of us might not think it worth than the cover of a Black Sabbath album.


My real agenda is to be correct.

I'll give you elitists one thing, you don't know when you're beat.

I can understand St Lukes elitist behaviour. He's an artist, he needs these delusions to prevent his life from being meaningless. He is too weak willed to allow art to exist for what it is. He's been to art school and thinks he knows his stuff, and he really gets pissed off when he sees someone who's not put the 'time in' to learn 'proper technique' get recognition. He needs his snobbery to justify his belief that artists like Tracy Emin or Damien Hurst don't deserve the attention they receive. This necessarily carries over into all arts for him. So, all power to him if that's what gets him through his artistic life, but when he tries to enforce this unfounded belief on others, I think I have the right to tell him the truth.

This is what it boils down to. Elitists use all their imagination to mentally distort reality in such a way as to justify their artistic choices.

I like how StLukes thinks it's 'Cultural Relativists' vs 'Objectivists'. This is another delusion of his. It's 'Elitists' vs 'Realists'.

Anyway, anyone can believe what they want. They can believe all great art was made by undercover reptilian humanoids if they want. It does get a bit silly when they try and impose these beliefs on other people though.


----------



## Pieck

Argus said:


> My real agenda is to be correct.
> 
> you don't know when you're beat.


 it could be applied on you either... why are you so sure you're the correct one?


----------



## violadude

I just want to know why we are missing out on something if we don't think some music is objectively better than others. I can examine the musical properties of a piece and what makes it good I can analyze a piece of music to death just like any one on the objective side of things can. I can even come to conclusions about what makes the piece bad and what makes it not bad. I merely don't conclude that this piece is better or worse than another piece. So what am I missing out on?


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> I just want to know why we are missing out on something if we don't think some music is objectively better than others. I can examine the musical properties of a piece and what makes it good I can analyze a piece of music to death just like any one on the objective side of things can. I can even come to conclusions about what makes the piece bad and what makes it not bad. I merely don't conclude that this piece is better or worse than another piece. So what am I missing out on?


What am I missing in my understanding of your position such that I find it self-contradictory for you to say that you can call something 'good' and 'bad', but you can't call something 'better' or 'worse'? _They are the same concept_.


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> What am I missing in my understanding of your position such that I find it self-contradictory for you to say that you can call something 'good' and 'bad', but you can't call something 'better' or 'worse'? _They are the same concept_.


Not really. Like I've said before, a piece can have good melodies, but not good theme development. Another piece can have good theme development but crappy melodies. So which one is better? It depends on if you think good melodies or good theme development are important.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

My real agenda is to be correct. 

Keep working at it.

I'll give you elitists one thing, you don't know when you're beat.

250 Years later... and Bach's still here. Black Sabbath... slowly fading along with the memories of aging stoners.

I can understand St Lukes elitist behaviour. He's an artist, he needs these delusions to prevent his life from being meaningless.

No... as any artist I recognize that with experience and practice the work continually gets better. I recognize that while I thought I was good back in grade school, I was far from good by the standards of my abilities today. The notion that there is no good nor bad nor better nor worse... now that is what we call delusional.

He is too weak willed to allow art to exist for what it is.

Just let it flow. Don't worry about attempting to surpass your previous efforts. It doesn't matter. You'll never be better than you are right now because there is no such thing as "better". What of philosophy of failure.

He's been to art school and thinks he knows his stuff, and he really gets pissed off when he sees someone who's not put the 'time in' to learn 'proper technique' get recognition. He needs his snobbery to justify his belief that artists like Tracy Emin or Damien Hurst don't deserve the attention they receive.

Tracey Emin and Damien Hirst don't deserve the attention they get not because they haven't put forth some great effort... but because their art sucks. It's not merely bad by the standards of the old masters who put forth far more labor... it's bad by the standards of conceptual art in that it is completely unoriginal.

An interesting look at where Hirst stole his ideas:

http://www.stuckism.com/Hirst/StoleArt.html

You must give his one thing. He is good at self-promotion.

Seriously, there are endless artists who have created works of astounding beauty and originality... in spite of never having been formally trained or educated.

Joseph Cornell:










The Postman Cheval:










Geneviève Seillé:










Adolf Wolfli:










And there endless examples of artists who were largely self-trained (Van Gogh, Gauguin, Rothko, Motherwell, William Blake, etc...). But you are correct in that I have developed the ability to recognize quality in art... even if it is not particularly to my taste.

I think I have the right to tell him the truth.

You truly need to beware of the man who comes armed with the certainty that he knows and speaks the "truth".

This is what it boils down to. Elitists use all their imagination to mentally distort reality in such a way as to justify their artistic choices.

What repeatedly eludes you, and I suppose this shouldn't be surprising, is the fact that no one has suggested that our own personal choices or preferences are one and the same with what we acknowledge is recognized as "good" or "great". As I have repeatedly stated, it is quite the reverse. We don't need to presume that our personal taste is always one and the same with what is "great"... we don't need to have our personal opinions justified or vindicated by suggesting that our personal opinions are the sole measure of artistic merit... or barring that... that there is no good nor bad. As I stated before, I'd far rather listen to the Rolling Stones than Stravinsky... but I don't need to justify this by suggesting that The Rolling Stones > Stravinsky.

I like how StLukes thinks it's 'Cultural Relativists' vs 'Objectivists'. This is another delusion of his. It's 'Elitists' vs 'Realists'.

Certainly feel free to employ your Orwellian approach to terminology all you wish. East Germany used to be known as the German Democratic Republic... as if anyone for a second believed it was "democratic" ...or your rubbery logic is "reality"


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Not really. Like I've said before, a piece can have good melodies, but not good theme development. Another piece can have good theme development but crappy melodies. So which one is better? It depends on if you think good melodies or good theme development are important.

I don't think anyone is arguing for a canon that has a clearly ordered hierarchy: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Handel, Brahms, Schubert... or is it Schubert, Handel, Brahms...? etc... What is being said is that individual works and art (and consequently the artists) attain something of "classic" status as the result of the collective opinion of those whose opinions hold the most weight within the artistic form and genre in question. This includes not merely professional "experts" such as critics, writers, professors and other academics, but also subsequent generations of artists within the field, and informed audience.

If we take Beethoven's 3rd and 9th, Brahms' 4th, Schubert's 8th, Mozart's 41st, Bruckner's 7th, Mahler's 2nd, Tchaikovski's 6th, and Shostakovitch's 10th it would be quite unlikely that any two individuals in a group of 10 critics or musicians or music lovers would arrive at the exact same order. What would likely be agreed upon is that all of these are marvelous works of music... worthy of classic status.

Comparisons only become obvious when we throw in works that are clearly greater or worse. If we added Mozart's 3rd symphony and Haydn's 5th to the list I would guess that a great majority would place these two immature works at the bottom of their personal list. Intelligent, logical arguments could be made for placing Beethoven's 9th above Schubert's 8th... as well as for the reverse. Such is not so of Mozart's 3rd... or of Black Sabbath. Seriously, if we had a group of 10 individuals knowledgeable of rock music (critics, musicians, informed listeners) would any of them even think to place Black Sabbath on a list of the 10 greatest rock bands in history? But I can see that suggesting that Black Sabbath, who wouldn't even rate among the best within it's own genre, is greater than Beethoven is a perfect approach to arguing that there is no such thing as quality or merit or aesthetic value in art. I just don't agree... and I find the entire notion rather... sad.


----------



## Argus

violadude said:


> I just want to know why we are missing out on something if we don't think some music is objectively better than others. I can examine the musical properties of a piece and what makes it good I can analyze a piece of music to death just like any one on the objective side of things can. I can even come to conclusions about what makes the piece bad and what makes it not bad. I merely don't conclude that this piece is better or worse than another piece. So what am I missing out on?


You and I miss out on the opportunity for some old fashioned snobbery. It gives the elitists a sense of superiority and security in their taste.



Pieck said:


> it could be applied on you either... why are you so sure you're the correct one?


I don't see any elitists refuting my position. I just see lots of snobbery.


----------



## tdc

Clearly St. Luke's arguments make more sense than Argus. I am not saying its black and white, but I think its time for Argus to step back and think about his stance. I'll use the alien analogy again -if there is no better or worse in art, than maybe when/if aliens visit this planet they will be completely confused about what is art/expression and what is not art? For example one group of aliens will be in a farmer's field having educated critiques over a piece of cow manure, while another group decides the stop sign is the ultimate in artistic expression. When an art gallery is stumbled across none of the aliens will think these works are any better or worse than the poo or the stop sign because clearly - these are are just subjective human constructions and not reality? Do you think this is likely?


----------



## Argus

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Mindless blather


Take it easy and go listen to Master of Reality or Vol 4 since you seem to mention Black Sabbath in every single one of your posts. Maybe you'll learn something.

I await your next 'war of attrition' style post. Try some content next time instead of just sheer length.


----------



## Argus

tdc said:


> Clearly St. Luke's arguments make more sense than Argus. I am not saying its black and white, but I think its time for Argus to step back and think about his stance. I'll use the alien analogy again -if there is no better or worse in art, than maybe when/if aliens visit this planet they will be completely confused about what is art/expression and what is not art? For example one group of aliens will be in a farmer's field having educated critiques over a piece of cow manure, while another group decides the stop sign is the ultimate in artistic expression. When an art gallery is stumbled across none of the aliens will think these works are any better or worse than the poo or the stop sign because clearly - these are are just subjective human constructions and not reality? Do you think this is likely?


This is a classical music forum. Obviously elitism is going to be rife.

I just don't need and abstract analogies or insubstantial explanations to get my point across.

There is physical reality and there is mental construct.

A Van Gogh painting's physical reality is the paint on the canvas, a Beethoven symphonies physical reality is the soundwaves propagating through the air. These are as real as anything can be said to be real. They are more or less (barring degrees of blindness and deafness) the same for everyone.

The mental construct is our perception and evaluation of the senses we feel when experiencing these physical realities. These only exist within our minds. Our minds only exist to ourselves, not to other people. A person can convey these feelings to other minds via speech and such, but the sensation exists only to the mind of oneself.

There you go. A concrete, rational explanation of the realities of art. No need for abstract comparisons with the beauty of women or anything like that.

Like I said, people can't see the forest for the trees.


----------



## Ukko

If one expresses Descartes' 1st principle with repeated emphasis on the 'I', _Argus_'s stance becomes clear.


----------



## Argus

Hilltroll72 said:


> If one expresses Descartes' 1st principle with repeated emphasis on the 'I', _Argus_'s stance becomes clear.


That's fine, just don't accuse me of solipsism. I am not saying _everything_ is in our minds (not here anyway), just artistic judgement is.


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> Not really. Like I've said before, a piece can have good melodies, but not good theme development. Another piece can have good theme development but crappy melodies. So which one is better? It depends on if you think good melodies or good theme development are important.


And what if you have two pieces where _both_ have bad melodies but good theme development, yet one of them displays somewhat more innovative development than the other? Isn't it therefore better?



Argus said:


> It gives the elitists a sense of superiority and security in their taste.


This is, I think, your most peculiar claim. After all, as Stlukes has repeatedly pointed out, he is open to saying that, in some instances, he much prefers to listen to composers or bands that are widely recognised as _worse_ than others, and he has no need to try to claim that they are better. People with your views, however, sit cosily with the notion that everything you like is therefore good, and everything you dislike bad. _That_ is a deliberate form of self-validation, and has far more security than we 'elitists' have.


----------



## Polednice

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I don't think anyone is arguing for a canon that has a clearly ordered hierarchy: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Handel, Brahms, Schubert... or is it Schubert, Handel, Brahms...? etc...


It's actually Brahms, Schubert, Handel.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

It's actually Brahms, Schubert, Handel.

After Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and (gasp!) Wagner!


----------



## Argus

Polednice said:


> This is, I think, your most peculiar claim. After all, as Stlukes has repeatedly pointed out, he is open to saying that, in some instances, he much prefers to listen to composers or bands that are widely recognised as _worse_ than others, and he has no need to try to claim that they are better.


StLukes lives in a fantasy world though. He thinks 'this is good' and 'I like this' are two different things. Maybe you do too?


----------



## Curiosity

Couchie said:


> I really don't know why you're so bent on objectively establishing a classical composer is better than a heavy metal band, the comparison is absurd. Let's suppose for a minute that you're right and convince us all that Beethoven IS objectively better than Black Sabbath... what have you achieved? People who like Black Sabbath will go on liking Black Sabbath and people who like Beethoven will go on liking Beethoven. Nothing is different apart from the satisfaction that this turn of events has brought you, which suggests this whole affair is really just about your own egotism.


You're missing the point. I only mention Black Sabbath and Beethoven because they were given as examples in the context of this thread. It could be AC/DC or Mozart, William McGonagall and Homer, or any number of other combinations. This is about what constitutes "greatness" in art and whether it can be measured objectively. And on that note, I expect the people who believe that there is NO objectivity in art to agree to the following points:

-Mozart's greatest works are no better than the works of his young students (a completely ridiculous concept but one you'll have to accept if you truly believe what you claim to)
-Beethoven's 9 symphonies are no greater of an achievement than his own juvenile lieder
-There is no reason to learn music theory or create music of any complexity, because you can just toss off a masterpiece in ten seconds with no effort (making classical music a huge waste of time and resources)
-You never (and I mean never) differentiate between the level of quality of different musical works
-You believe there is no greatness in art whatsoever, hence no artist is more deserving of fame and respect than any other.
-You do not differentiate between the quality of different performances and interpretations, because every interpretation is equally valid. Ashkenazy's Beethoven is no greater than than the Beethoven of any given music school student
-Bach was not "better" at counterpoint than Handel, Mozart was not a "better" melodist than Bartok, Mahler was not a "better" symphonist than Wagner - because all of these things are too subjective to measure
-You do not believe there is such thing as genius, because one man's genius is another man's mediocrity. Hence it cannot be measured.

Where does it end? Do you also believe that morals are entirely subjective? That any moral code concocted by anybody, no matter how unstable they are, is as valid as any other? Because if there is no objectivity in art there can be no objectivity in morality either.

I would argue that it is your own views that express massive egotism. The belief that anything you create, even a post on this forum, is a work on par with any other. It's completely ridiculous to me.


----------



## Artemis

StlukesguildOhio said:


> It's actually Brahms, Schubert, Handel.
> 
> After Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and (gasp!) Wagner!


According to THIS recent T-C poll, the pecking order for the top 10 is:

1. Beethoven
2. Mozart
3. Bach
4. Schubert
5. Brahms
6. Wagner
7. Tchaikovsky
8. Haydn
9. Mahler
10. Debussy


----------



## Ukko

Argus said:


> That's fine, just don't accuse me of solipsism. I am not saying _everything_ is in our minds (not here anyway), just artistic judgement is.


A spate of similar 'artistic judgments', a meeting of minds if you will, results in qualitative rankings. Minds can and do change over time, but the rankings are real until the change happens, and real historically even after that.

To take an example outside music, there are differing sets of qualitative judgments as to the greatness of Ho Chi Minh. Both sets are equally valid within their respective universes. We aren't even considering _relative_ greatness here, e.g. Ho Chi Minh vs. Woodrow Wilson and or Lyndon Baines Johnson. I suspect that the universe that favors Black Sabbath over Beethoven is rather small in numbers, but hey, a universe is a universe, eh?


----------



## Ukko

Artemis said:


> According to THIS recent T-C poll, the pecking order for the top 10 is:
> 
> 1. Beethoven
> 2. Mozart
> 3. Bach
> 4. Schubert
> 5. Brahms
> 6. Wagner
> 7. Tchaikovsky
> 8. Haydn
> 9. Mahler
> 10. Debussy


Weightings; it's all in the weightings. Some qualities are heavier than others, depending on personal tastes. Personally, I feel that Wagner's only significant quality is heaviness.


----------



## Curiosity

Curiosity said:


> You're missing the point. I only mention Black Sabbath and Beethoven because they were given as examples in the context of this thread. It could be AC/DC or Mozart, William McGonagall and Homer, or any number of other combinations. This is about what constitutes "greatness" in art and whether it can be measured objectively. And on that note, I expect the people who believe that there is NO objectivity in art to agree to the following points:
> 
> -Mozart's greatest works are no better than the works of his young students (a completely ridiculous concept but one you'll have to accept if you truly believe what you claim to)
> -Beethoven's 9 symphonies are no greater of an achievement than his own juvenile lieder
> -There is no reason to learn music theory or create music of any complexity, because you can just toss off a masterpiece in ten seconds with no effort (making classical music a huge waste of time and resources)
> -You never (and I mean never) differentiate between the level of quality of different musical works
> -You believe there is no greatness in art whatsoever, hence no artist is more deserving of fame and respect than any other.
> -You do not differentiate between the quality of different performances and interpretations, because every interpretation is equally valid. Ashkenazy's Beethoven is no greater than than the Beethoven of any given music school student
> -Bach was not "better" at counterpoint than Handel, Mozart was not a "better" melodist than Bartok, Mahler was not a "better" symphonist than Wagner - because all of these things are too subjective to measure
> -You do not believe there is such thing as genius, because one man's genius is another man's mediocrity. Hence it cannot be measured.
> 
> Where does it end? Do you also believe that morals are entirely subjective? That any moral code concocted by anybody, no matter how unstable they are, is as valid as any other? Because if there is no objectivity in art there can be no objectivity in morality either.
> 
> I would argue that it is your own views that express massive egotism. The belief that anything you create, even a post on this forum, is a work on par with any other. It's completely ridiculous to me.


And to add to this, you surely agree with John Cage's statement "the randomness of bread crumbs on a table is as significant as any artwork"


----------



## Artemis

Curiosity said:


> You're missing the point. I only mention Black Sabbath and Beethoven because they were given as examples in the context of this thread. ...


Could you remind me what point it is that you are making? Are you suggesting that it is possible to rank objectively all of history's composers, across all genres of music?


----------



## Curiosity

Artemis said:


> Could you remind me what point it is that you are making? Are you suggesting that it is possible to rank objectively all of history's composers, across all genres of music?


No, I'm suggesting it's possible to judge quality in art, a concept some people here seem keen to disagree with!


----------



## Argus

Hilltroll72 said:


> A spate of similar 'artistic judgments', a meeting of minds if you will, results in qualitative rankings. Minds can and do change over time, but the rankings are real until the change happens, and real historically even after that.


Sorry, total lack of precision, too vague.

Let's forget about that and go along with it to escape that other turgid argument.

Here's a list from a widely used website that lists the top albums of all time:

http://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/all-time

It includes albums of all genres. As you can see Black Sabbath's Paranoid album is ranked 22nd currently, Master of Reality is 58th and their eponymous debut 64th. Yet Mozart is nowhere to be seen near the top of the list. How can this be when I'm constantly told Mozart is objectively better than Black Sabbath.

This is where the elitist really gets elitist. He'll say not every one's opinion is equal or that there are too many albums of Mozart or that you can't compare 'apples and oranges'. Defences for a flawed belief.

All I gather from such lists is that my opinion is sometimes shared by others, sometimes not.


----------



## Argus

Curiosity said:


> No, I'm suggesting it's possible to judge quality in art, a concept some people here seem keen to disagree with!


It is possible to judge quality in art. No one's said any differently. It's that some people seem to think (wrongly) that this judgement exists within the art and not the mind.


----------



## Polednice

StlukesguildOhio said:


> It's actually Brahms, Schubert, Handel.
> 
> After Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and (gasp!) Wagner!


I was going to 'like' that post for making me laugh, but I didn't want you to think that I was endorsing this ludicrous judgement.  I'll settle for Artemis's ranking purely because it pushes Wagner below Brahms! 



Argus said:


> StLukes lives in a fantasy world though. He thinks 'this is good' and 'I like this' are two different things. Maybe you do too?


Clearly I do, and if that plants me in a fantasy world with a flawed belief then so be it. It's better than having no belief at all, which is what I think your outlook amounts to - an egocentric, self-validating free-for-all which severely limits the amount of useful musical and musicological discourse available to us.


----------



## Artemis

Curiosity said:


> No, I'm suggesting it's possible to judge quality in art, a concept some people here seem keen to disagree with!


Are you suggesting that it is possible to state objectively that the quality of Beethoven's art is higher than say the quality of Mendelssohn's (just choosing any composer at random here)?


----------



## Curiosity

Argus said:


> It is possible to judge quality in art. No one's said any differently. It's that some people seem to think (wrongly) that this judgement exists within the art and not the mind.


See my post on the last page. The very concept of "quality" in art is incompatible with your beliefs.



Artemis said:


> Are you suggesting that it is possible to state objectively that the quality of Beethoven's art is higher than say the quality of Mendelssohn's (just choosing any composer at random here)?


I would say that Beethoven has a greater body of work, but that people are entitled to prefer Mendelssohn if they wish.


----------



## Argus

Polednice said:


> Clearly I do, and if that plants me in a fantasy world with a flawed belief then so be it. It's better than having no belief at all, which is what I think your outlook amounts to - an egocentric, self-validating free-for-all which severely limits the amount of useful musical and musicological discourse available to us.


Okay, I guess I value listening to music over 'musical and musicological discourse'.


----------



## Polednice

Curiosity said:


> See my post on the last page. The very concept of "quality" in art is incompatible with your beliefs.


One of the problems here is that Argus and others have a _rubbery_ idea of what quality it is. In any other discussion, quality would be held as an _intrinsic_ property of an object or person, yet here the suggestion is that an artwork's quality is *equivalent* to an individual's liking of it. I think that's ridiculous, but, _if it were true_, then 'quality' would be a redundant concept anyway.


----------



## Artemis

Curiosity said:


> I would say that Beethoven has a greater body of work, but that people are entitled to prefer Mendelssohn if they wish.


So there's no way of reaching any conclusions about which of these composers is the greater, in terms of objective tests? Do you agree?


----------



## Argus

Polednice said:


> One of the problems here is that Argus and others have a _rubbery_ idea of what quality it is. In any other discussion, quality would be held as an _intrinsic_ property of an object or person, yet here the suggestion is that an artwork's quality is *equivalent* to an individual's liking of it. I think that's ridiculous, but, _if it were true_, then 'quality' would be a redundant concept anyway.


Music has qualities. You can say there is a dominant seventh there, or the oboe plays part of a descending whole tone scale there, or the bpm is 130 etc. Those qualities are intrinsic to the music.

Where are these other non-physical properties you speak of?


----------



## Curiosity

Argus said:


> Music has qualities. You can say there is a dominant seventh there, or the oboe plays part of a descending whole tone scale there, or the bpm is 130 etc. Those qualities are intrinsic to the music.
> 
> Where are these other non-physical properties you speak of?


Listen for them. You're missing out on alot.


----------



## Argus

Curiosity said:


> -There is no reason to learn music theory or create music of any complexity, because you can just toss off a masterpiece in ten seconds with no effort (making classical music a huge waste of time and resources)


This is the only point I half disagree with. I learned music theory to enable me to achieve what I want with my music, not because I thought I had to to be a better musician. Complexity is totally extraneous to my enjoyment of a piece. I can enjoy something as simple as Riley's In C or Nyman's Decay Music whilst being totally indifferent to something ultracomplex like a Sorabji or Alkan piece and vice versa.

The rest of your post about morality and egotism again reminds me of a religious person. They always say what is the point of following a set of morals if their is no God or afterlife to punish them for their evils. They don't realise that lack of fear from a God means the individual has freedom to impose his own morals and mostly these morals are no different from the religious persons. One morality is arrived at through fear, the other through personal choice.


----------



## Timotheus

Artemis said:


> So there's no way of reaching any conclusions about which of these composers is the greater, in terms of objective tests? Do you agree?


I think a number of people have commented on the irrelevancy of the objectivity talk. You're equivocating--if we were talking about whether a new medicine worked or not then "objective tests" is the standard we would use, but we are talking about something different entirely.

When I say that a racist joke is bad, I'm not trying to say that it's objectively unfunny. Do you understand that? Some people find it funny--because they are stupid and racist. Can you tell when a joke is in bad taste (at least some of the time)? How do you tell?

Let me try another analogy. If I say that something weighs more in pounds than something else, that is an objective claim, that can be tested. Something that weighs 45 pounds might be subjectively heavy to someone and not very heavy to someone else. But if I say "If you can't pick that up, you are weak" that's not a claim which you test objectively. You don't weigh it and then try and prove or disprove what I said. You have to have a sense of what "weak" means and how it's being used here and an idea of how strong people ought to be.


----------



## Curiosity

Argus said:


> This is the only point I half disagree with. I learned music theory to enable me to achieve what I want with my music, not because I thought I had to to be a better musician. Complexity is totally extraneous to my enjoyment of a piece. I can enjoy something as simple as Riley's In C or Nyman's Decay Music whilst being totally indifferent to something ultracomplex like a Sorabji or Alkan piece and vice versa.
> 
> The rest of your post about morality and egotism again reminds me of a religious person. They always say what is the point of following a set of morals if their is no God or afterlife to punish them for their evils. They don't realise that lack of fear from a God means the individual has freedom to impose his own morals and mostly these morals are no different from the religious persons. One morality is arrived at through fear, the other through personal choice.


But you concede that knowledge of music theory is utterly pointless at it does not actually enrich the music in any way? Just checking.

As for the latter point, you seem to be dodging the question. Is every individual's perception of morality equally valid and correct? Even if one of those individuals happens to be Ted Bundy and the other Mother Teresa?


----------



## Argus

Curiosity said:


> But you concede that knowledge of music theory is utterly pointless at it does not actually enrich the music in any way? Just checking.
> 
> As for the latter point, you seem to be dodging the question. Is every individual's perception of morality equally valid and correct? Even if one of those individuals happens to be Ted Bundy and the other Mother Teresa?


Knowledge of music theory is unrelated to my enjoyment of music. It is a tool for the creation of music. Do you need to know the ingredients of a food to enjoy the taste of it? (I know music isn't food )

What does your morality question have to do with the topic at hand? Why are you comparing morals to artistic judgements? Is someone saying Black Sabbath > Beethoven immoral in your eyes?


----------



## Polednice

Argus said:


> Okay, I guess I value listening to music over 'musical and musicological discourse'.


Well that's a good job because you wouldn't get very far.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Argus said:


> My real agenda is to be correct.


A dangerous presumption, Mr Argus, not least here at internet discussion forums but out there in the real world, too; though judging by your presumption, I'm pretty sure your idealisms are limited to lack of exposure to the latter.


----------



## Curiosity

Argus said:


> Knowledge of music theory is unrelated to my enjoyment of music. It is a tool for the creation of music. Do you need to know the ingredients of a food to enjoy the taste of it? (I know music isn't food )


We're not talking about the "enjoyment" of music, we're talking about the "creation" of music. You know this and are dodging the issue. Your viewpoint dictates that greater knowledge of the creation of music cannot actually enhance the music you create. This viewpoint is as patently ridiculous as the idea that knowledge of cookery cannot enhance your cooking!



> What does your morality question have to do with the topic at hand? Why are you comparing morals to artistic judgements? Is someone saying Black Sabbath > Beethoven immoral in your eyes?


Art and morality are both human concepts/constructs. You claim that the worth of art is entirely based on personal perception, and that there are no objective standards because the individual perception is all that matters in quantifying the value of any given thing. That individual perception alone gives any piece of art or any concept it's validity. In other words, in your eyes nothing in art is more valid than anything else. If this is true, then the same should apply to your perception of morality and ethics, no?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

John Cage said:


> "the randomness of bread crumbs on a table is as significant as any artwork"


Thanks to member Curiosity for John Cage's quote above.

Utterly pretentious (again) from Cage, not even worth the bread crumbs that inspired him to make that comment.


----------



## Curiosity

I think the statement would be entirely valid if he were referring to his own works exclusively.


----------



## Curiosity

I should add that I think Cage's comment is an absolute mockery. An insult to all artists and an insult to art itself. The kind of statement you'd expect from a cyborg who puts no value in real human expression and who can't discern between the soulless din of rotating helicopter blades and the spiritual depth of the Mass in B Minor or the Missa Solemnis. Just my opinion folks!


----------



## Polednice

Argus said:


> It is possible to judge quality in art.





Argus said:


> Music has qualities. You can say there is a dominant seventh there, or the oboe plays part of a descending whole tone scale there, or the bpm is 130 etc. Those qualities are intrinsic to the music.


From your first quote to your second quote, you deliberately obfuscate the issue by jumping between two completely different definitions of the word "quality". I usually quite enjoy discussing these things with you, Argus, but a number of times in the past few pages you have seemed to deceptively evade key issues that people have raised.

Call me lazy, but while I'm going to take a peek at this thread every so often, I'm not going to get engaged any more. The more I read people's responses, the more I'm reminded of this little piece of advice: "keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."

People on my side of the debate are repeatedly painted as elitist and (by extension) closed-minded, surrounding themselves with artificial constructs. Yet, as I can see from the open, frank, and actually not-at-all elitist exchanges from these same people, we are just ensuring that we have a useful framework for the discussion of art appreciation and history (which, after all, is what a forum like this is for).

Our opponents, apparently obsessed with stripping this away for reasons I'm not quite sure of - defiance of perceived authority? cultural relativity? egocentrism? - appear just as though their brains have utterly spilled from their skulls, and they're left repeating peculiar, self-contradictory mantras, all the while evading others' advances, and superficially attempting to raise the discussion to some grand idea of absolute subjectivity when, in fact, it's just a facade for shoddy, self-aggrandising thinking.


----------



## Ukko

Argus said:


> The rest of your post about morality and egotism again reminds me of a religious person. They always say what is the point of following a set of morals if their is no God or afterlife to punish them for their evils. They don't realise that lack of fear from a God means the individual has freedom to impose his own morals and mostly these morals are no different from the religious persons. One morality is arrived at through fear, the other through personal choice.


Your understanding of morals is approximately mine. Your understanding of 'a religious person' is flawed. Many religious people do not fear God; including moi.

:tiphat:


----------



## Sid James

Hilltroll72 said:


> A spate of similar 'artistic judgments', a meeting of minds if you will, results in qualitative rankings. Minds can and do change over time, but the rankings are real until the change happens, and real historically even after that.
> 
> To take an example outside music, there are differing sets of qualitative judgments as to the greatness of Ho Chi Minh. Both sets are equally valid within their respective universes. We aren't even considering _relative_ greatness here, e.g. Ho Chi Minh vs. Woodrow Wilson and or Lyndon Baines Johnson. I suspect that the universe that favors Black Sabbath over Beethoven is rather small in numbers, but hey, a universe is a universe, eh?





Polednice said:


> ...People on my side of the debate are repeatedly painted as elitist and (by extension) closed-minded, surrounding themselves with artificial constructs. Yet, as I can see from the open, frank, and actually not-at-all elitist exchanges from these same people, we are just ensuring that we have a useful framework for the discussion of art appreciation and history (which, after all, is what a forum like this is for)...


These two quotes are connected to what I was writing earlier (of course, nobody replied, as I tried to tread the "middle path" which is just not "sexed up" enough, it seems). Anyway, what Hilltroll said that "change happens" is what I was talking to before. The people of ancient times thought that the Hanging Gardens of Babylon were just the peak of artistic creation. They may well have thought of it as immutable, permanent, "universal." But now the Hanging Gardens are nowhere to be found, plus the rest of the 7 Wonders of the World (except the pyramids of Egypt). Monuments come and go. Some, like the pyramids, are "lucky" to survive, for whatever reason. Just because the pyramids have remained, does that mean they are "better" or "finer" whatever than the Hanging Gardens where? There's so many factors there & it's the same with art in general. What we value now is based upon what we know now. What was valued by the general population in Germany around 1800 was what they knew then (& take a guess, it wasn't J.S.Bach!). Stravinsky (apparently) said that Vivaldi wrote the same concerto 300 times, but then in the 1950's _The Four Seasons _were "rediscovered" & in terms of popularity (eg. record sales, live performances, etc.) they probably eclipse even Mr Stravinsky's most popular works. Things like these "rediscoveries" sparked off the more recent HIP (period instruments) movement, which in earlier times was just a "niche" or "fringe" thing.

There will inevitably be more artists of high ability, of genius, born now & in the future, who will change what we think of a "important" or "not." Same with current theorists, I mentioned Melanie Lowe's book which I read, on an area that many of you are super passionate about (the evaluation of Classical Era musics, esp. Haydn). No one bothered to talk to that. Her theory of intersubjectivity - a kind of objective subjectivity, or subjective objectivity, whatever - is of real value to this debate here. There is a "baseline" or a mean, but it doesn't answer every question. Nothing does, unless it is clouded by dogma/ideology rather than focussing on the thing at hand.

As for what Polednice says, it suggests yes, everyone has an ideology. It's difficult to quantify or "name" in any case, esp. on internet forums with people we've never met. I tend not to bandy about words like "elitist" "snob" "stuck up" or whatever, at least in relation to individual members here (I did have a go at the Berlin Phil & Vienna Phil for coming here & only playing "war horse" repertoire without much variety of something else, but I have a right to chose, I think, like anybody else, which orchestra I choose to shell out money to see?). Basically, everyone has an ideology, or set of them, to make sense of things. Of course this can change over time. But I think it's unwise when we try to "push our barrow" in a way that reduces things to "one size fits all." The old "three tier contest" which is actually a "stacked" & "predetermined" outcome. Hence people's tendency in joining sides in these things. It's the old "divide and conquer" tactic.

I doubt anyone with respond to this. What I'm saying clearly is worth zero because it's not "sexed up" enough. I don't mention the old cliches/dividing points - John Cage, "atonalism," Tracy Emin, Stockhausen, whatever. I'm trying to argue about ideas, not necessarily specific things. As I said, it doesn't matter what you listen to or don't, what you like or don't (some people have said this above as well), the issue is to question assumptions/ideas. A cleaning lady can do that, so can a waiter, so can a gardener, a banker, a CEO, a prime minister. Things like this do not mean anything, it's the quality of debate that is more interesting to me...


----------



## Ukko

Re the _Sid James_ post quoting _Polednice_ and me. I can't quote that post, because it's very long, and difficult to 'pick a point' to quote.

That's the problem with some of your posts, _Sid James_; they are too long. My theory about posting is, I don't have to get it all said in one post. Make it short, and succinct, and if anyone is actually interested in my slant on a subject he will respond. That's the give and take that makes a thread interesting anyway.

I hope you don't take this as a personal attack. If you are kind, you will accept it as advice from somebody who, back in the day, wrote manuals for a living. Succinct is a good thing.


----------



## Sid James

*@ Hilltroll *- Yes, I understand, the length/rambling nature of my posts is an issue. I tend to write things as I am thinking them as I'm often on the run. I'm not really good at being succinct in the first place, esp. with the pressure of time, etc.

But it would be good, in general, if people just talk (generally) to the issues I raise. I think there is a bit of a fear here of if you don't quote someone, then you will be shot down for putting words in their mouth, not reflecting/summarising their position accurately, things like that. I just try to use what people write as a general basis/springboard for my own thoughts. Not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with them, just saying what they said raised things in my mind in a general way.

Anyway, to summarise what I was saying re your opinion, what you said about *"change happens"* really gelled with me, as did Polednice's referring to* "artificial constructs.".*..


----------



## Artemis

> Curiosity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that Beethoven has a greater body of work, but that people are entitled to prefer Mendelssohn if they wish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Artemis said:
> 
> 
> 
> So there's no way of reaching any conclusions about which of these composers is the greater, in terms of objective tests? Do you agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I see that you don't appear to have responded to my question?

The point that I would make is that it's possible to rank composers by popularity, although not without difficulty or an element of uncertainty. From this ranking you could infer that it bears a rough correlation with their "greatness", so that for example if Beethoven is more popular than Mendelssohn this might indicate which of the two is greater.

However, this strictly limited concept of "greatness" based on popularity is not the more grandiose kind of thing I believe you and others are suggesting it is possible to construct, based on a list of technical features which you believe can be measured objectively. In other words, some people might be tempted to say that, on the whole, Beethoven's music is better than Mendelssohn's regardless of what the general public thinks about it. Is that the kind of thing you are trying to say? (Again, I choose the names of composers at random only to illustrate the point).


----------



## Couchie

Curiosity said:


> You're missing the point. I only mention Black Sabbath and Beethoven because they were given as examples in the context of this thread. It could be AC/DC or Mozart, William McGonagall and Homer, or any number of other combinations. This is about what constitutes "greatness" in art and whether it can be measured objectively. And on that note, I expect the people who believe that there is NO objectivity in art to agree to the following points:
> 
> -Mozart's greatest works are no better than the works of his young students (a completely ridiculous concept but one you'll have to accept if you truly believe what you claim to)
> -Beethoven's 9 symphonies are no greater of an achievement than his own juvenile lieder
> -There is no reason to learn music theory or create music of any complexity, because you can just toss off a masterpiece in ten seconds with no effort (making classical music a huge waste of time and resources)
> -You never (and I mean never) differentiate between the level of quality of different musical works
> -You believe there is no greatness in art whatsoever, hence no artist is more deserving of fame and respect than any other.
> -You do not differentiate between the quality of different performances and interpretations, because every interpretation is equally valid. Ashkenazy's Beethoven is no greater than than the Beethoven of any given music school student
> -Bach was not "better" at counterpoint than Handel, Mozart was not a "better" melodist than Bartok, Mahler was not a "better" symphonist than Wagner - because all of these things are too subjective to measure
> -You do not believe there is such thing as genius, because one man's genius is another man's mediocrity. Hence it cannot be measured.


I don't really understand this post. Why would a relativist such as myself agree to that list, which posits that all works are equal in quality? That is an objective judgement.

Relativity is defined by its lack of *any* objective judgement. Objectively, I could no more say the works are equally good than I could say one is better than the other. I can only tell you how I personally feel about each. That is all I know. Don't take this to mean that my list of "favorite" works lines up with my list of "greatest" works... I value the Haydn symphonies as a great milestone in the classical repertoire extremely important to the form's development, but they're not something I'd ever listen to on purpose. Don't mistake this for objectivism - I simply think historical influence is an important criterion for "greatness", but that is only my subjective inclination.

I *do* believe that any views on art are equally valid however. Suppose a strange creature came up to me and told me that the does believe the above, that the early Beethoven lieds are better than the symphonies. His life experiences, education, and taste led him to believe those things. When he sees art he clearly evaluates it by a different set of priorities than I, and perhaps most people do. If I argue that he is wrong on any account, I am saying his life experiences are less valid, education not as good, or taste not as developed. Who am I to judge? Had I had been born in his shoes, I would believe the same as he. I would probably go ahead and share with him my subjective reasons for why most conscious beings and I vehemently disagree with him, but all I have done is convinced him to adopt my own subjective views, no objective truths could I prove to him. If you, Polednice and others think he is *objectively* wrong on this matter, you are by definition being elitist: you can either embrace it and quit whining about being called it, or stop that.

Personally, I don't know what you guys are so uptight about. I find the objectivist position far more disturbing than relativism... the idea that art exists in some sort of ontological hierarchy of greatness where every composition is ranked somewhere between Bach's Mass in B Minor and John Cage's breadcrumbs... 



Curiosity said:


> I would argue that it is your own views that express massive egotism. The belief that anything you create, even a post on this forum, is a work on par with any other. It's completely ridiculous to me.


Perhaps the relativist position is egocentric, but witnessing and interpreting art is an egocentric venture. An objective standard for its appraisal is perhaps of interest to art dealers, but among individuals I only see it serving as a means to justify a feeling of superiority of taste. Again, my position does not entail a belief that everything is equally good. When I pass a bowel movement, I personally don't believe I've produced something rivaling a Beethoven Symphony, perhaps a Mahler Symphony, but not a Beethoven. However, if I failed to flush and the next person to use the stall commented on my beautiful stool, I would have to accept the validity of opinion and thank him for the compliment. 



Curiosity said:


> Where does it end? Do you also believe that morals are entirely subjective? That any moral code concocted by anybody, no matter how unstable they are, is as valid as any other? Because if there is no objectivity in art there can be no objectivity in morality either.


Morality is just as relative. However, unlike in art, it serves a functional purpose for governing society and implicates wellbeing - providing incentive to develop a universal moral code by restricting some practices through the application of logic (ie. murder = bad for society). An interesting off-topic topic I'd be willing to discuss in another thread.


----------



## Argus

Polednice said:


> From your first quote to your second quote, you deliberately obfuscate the issue by jumping between two completely different definitions of the word "quality". I usually quite enjoy discussing these things with you, Argus, but a number of times in the past few pages you have seemed to deceptively evade key issues that people have raised.
> 
> Call me lazy, but while I'm going to take a peek at this thread every so often, I'm not going to get engaged any more. The more I read people's responses, the more I'm reminded of this little piece of advice: "keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."
> 
> People on my side of the debate are repeatedly painted as elitist and (by extension) closed-minded, surrounding themselves with artificial constructs. Yet, as I can see from the open, frank, and actually not-at-all elitist exchanges from these same people, we are just ensuring that we have a useful framework for the discussion of art appreciation and history (which, after all, is what a forum like this is for).
> 
> Our opponents, apparently obsessed with stripping this away for reasons I'm not quite sure of - defiance of perceived authority? cultural relativity? egocentrism? - appear just as though their brains have utterly spilled from their skulls, and they're left repeating peculiar, self-contradictory mantras, all the while evading others' advances, and superficially attempting to raise the discussion to some grand idea of absolute subjectivity when, in fact, it's just a facade for shoddy, self-aggrandising thinking.


Quality can refer to both the physical realities of the music and our own mental evaluation of it. One is intrinisic, the other not.

Since I was ignored and flippantly dismissed the first time I'll ask again: Where are these other non-physical properties you speak of?

How is believing some art is better than other not elitist? The art you think is good is the elite of art, the art you think is bad is not. Pure elitism.

My brain might appear split from my skull because it is being turned to mush by the sheer amount of blinkered elitism on display. The total inability to see the other sides point of view is staggering. I have seen your point of view because that is what you are led to believe by the culture of the art world. When I looked at it without bias and with a clear head it's pretty plain to see that an objective measurement of art is absolute guff. Just look at all the dodged questions on your part and using egocentrism as an excuse. You never told me why the amateur violinist isn't better _if I like the music they make more_?

Thankfully, Couchie is still participating in this thread. Trying to be the sole voice of reason is tiresome.



Hilltroll72 said:


> Re the Sid James post quoting Polednice and me. I can't quote that post, because it's very long, and difficult to 'pick a point' to quote.
> 
> That's the problem with some of your posts, Sid James; they are too long. My theory about posting is, I don't have to get it all said in one post. Make it short, and succinct, and if anyone is actually interested in my slant on a subject he will respond. That's the give and take that makes a thread interesting anyway.


Yep, long rambling posts are hard to incorporate into the discussion.


----------



## Argus

Curiosity said:


> I should add that I think Cage's comment is an absolute mockery. An insult to all artists and an insult to art itself. The kind of statement you'd expect from a cyborg who puts no value in real human expression and who can't discern between the soulless din of rotating helicopter blades and the spiritual depth of the Mass in B Minor or the Missa Solemnis. Just my opinion folks!


Why can't you let art be what it is and yourself what you are?

Why do you try to marry the the art and yourself, and believe they are the same thing?

Is elitism that strong a crutch?


----------



## Sid James

Argus said:


> ...Yep, long rambling posts are hard to incorporate into the discussion.


Well okay, but I bet (regardless of how long or short my posts were), if I'd said some extreme things or put up some pictures or youtube clips as "evidence" to "prove" my point, I bet people would reply in a flash (of course to confront, take sides, in a three tier contest, the usual stuff). It's easier to post these things than to actually form a reasonable argument. I admit my flaws & even question myself. A lot of life (& music!) is like that, very ambigious. When we get into the "nitty gritty" things are far more complex than "clever" one-liners.

Having said that, I think (on the whole), the members of this forum tend to be a fairly moderate bunch, it's just that when people argue to convince others that they are 110 per cent "right" or something like that, these kind of things just don't go anywhere, imo...


----------



## Sid James

Here is Melanie Lowe's book titled _Pleasure and meaning in the classical symphony_ which I read last year, talking about issues related to the objective & subjective evaluations of music (esp. in regards to Haydn's _London_ symphonies).

& here is a thread I created in late 2010 talking to some of the issues raised in that book (incl. some quotes I found interesting) -

http://www.talkclassical.com/11398-meaning-musical-meaning.html

Although I don't shout it from the roof-tops here, I do read quite a bit of scholarly opinions on music, but only from a layman's (non musician) perspective...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Couchie said:


> When I pass a bowel movement, I personally don't believe I've produced something rivaling a Beethoven Symphony, perhaps a Mahler Symphony, but not a Beethoven. However, if I failed to flush and the next person to use the stall commented on my beautiful stool, I would have to accept the validity of opinion and thank him for the compliment.


Really? You should be questioning his sanity, or worse his apparent coprophilia.


----------



## Argus

Sid James said:


> Here is Melanie Lowe's book titled _Pleasure and meaning in the classical symphony_ which I read last year, talking about issues related to the objective & subjective evaluations of music (esp. in regards to Haydn's _London_ symphonies).
> 
> & here is a thread I created in late 2010 talking to some of the issues raised in that book (incl. some quotes I found interesting) -
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/11398-meaning-musical-meaning.html
> 
> Although I don't shout it from the roof-tops here, I do read quite a bit of scholarly opinions on music, but only from a layman's (non musician) perspective...


That post was nice and concise.

I agree with Melanie Lowe's premise (from what I can gather from the quotes in that thread) although she seems to be talking mainly about musical meaning. So agree that music doesn't contain meaning, emotion or express anything beyond itself, but that's not exactly what's being argued here. Here I am mainly focussing on qualitative evaluaions of the music and how they (like meaning) are purely within the mind of the listener, and are thus entirely subjective.

Sid, do you agree with Melanie Lowe's assertations about meaning in music? If so, would you say it's reasonable to extrapolate her stance to include all non-physical properties of music?


----------



## Sid James

Thanks for reading, Argus.



Argus said:


> ...I agree with Melanie Lowe's premise (from what I can gather from the quotes in that thread) although she seems to be talking mainly about musical meaning. So agree that music doesn't contain meaning, emotion or express anything beyond itself, but that's not exactly what's being argued here.


You're right, it's a different issue to your discussions above, but maybe in terms of my opening post (about general "judgements" of music or other's tastes, etc.) it can be relevant.



> Sid, do you agree with Melanie Lowe's assertations about meaning in music?


Yes, I like how in that book she tried to analyse pieces in terms of different people's reactions to them at the time (Haydn's time, his works). She based it on good research of documents & also the latest theories now. I like this kind of balanced view.



> Here I am mainly focussing on qualitative evaluaions of the music and how they (like meaning) are purely within the mind of the listener, and are thus entirely subjective.


I think I'm in the middle with that, but strongly leaning towards the more "subjective" side/argument. I wouldn't say "purely in the mind of the listener" but *largely*. Quality means different things to different people. If you are a musician or trained in music - the technical side (like yourself) - you will have a different "take" on these things. Same with a layperson listener such as myself. As I was arguing before, context of how we evaluate, what we evaluate, what information we have (eg. my earlier examples of J.S. Bach & Vivaldi) heavily bear into what we see as "important" & what we don't.



> If so, would you say it's reasonable to extrapolate her stance to include all non-physical properties of music?


I'll have to give that more thought, but as I said, I have a more listener-oriented/centred view than the "grand narrative" view/s...


----------



## Curiosity

Artemis said:


> I see that you don't appear to have responded to my question?
> 
> The point that I would make is that it's possible to rank composers by popularity, although not without difficulty or an element of uncertainty. From this ranking you could infer that it bears a rough correlation with their "greatness", so that for example if Beethoven is more popular than Mendelssohn this might indicate which of the two is greater.
> 
> However, this strictly limited concept of "greatness" based on popularity is not the more grandiose kind of thing I believe you and others are suggesting it is possible to construct, based on a list of technical features which you believe can be measured objectively. In other words, some people might be tempted to say that, on the whole, Beethoven's music is better than Mendelssohn's regardless of what the general public thinks about it. Is that the kind of thing you are trying to say? (Again, I choose the names of composers at random only to illustrate the point).


I didn't answer because the answer is so bleeding obvious. Popularity isn't the be-all-end-all. We have to objectively look at the impact the artist has had upon art and, hell, humanity itself. Beethoven's impact outshines Mendelssohn's in this regard, objectively, regardless of whether you, Dick Crawford, or Joe Blow prefers Mendelssohn. What makes this so hard to understand?


----------



## Curiosity

Couchie said:


> I don't really understand this post. Why would a relativist such as myself agree to that list, which posits that all works are equal in quality? That is an objective judgement.


It simply illustrates the absurdity of the relativist view. Which is why nobody from the relativist camp has had the guts to it respond point by point. They'd look ridiculous if they outright agreed that, for example, none of Mozart's works were "better" than any of those of his students, and that none of Beethoven's works were "greater" than any of his other works. :lol:



> Relativity is defined by its lack of *any* objective judgement. Objectively, I could no more say the works are equally good than I could say one is better than the other. I can only tell you how I personally feel about each. That is all I know. Don't take this to mean that my list of "favorite" works lines up with my list of "greatest" works... I value the Haydn symphonies as a great milestone in the classical repertoire extremely important to the form's development, but they're not something I'd ever listen to on purpose. Don't mistake this for objectivism - I simply think historical influence is an important criterion for "greatness", but that is only my subjective inclination.


This is an illustration of your subjective feelings, seperate from the objective reality. In the same way that, while one may prefer for example the work of Carl Czerny, they should still be able to recognise that Beethoven was (objectively) a greater composer. His impact being greater, his reputation being greater, his influence being greater. Beethoven being considered among the peaks of human achievement while Czerny remaining semi-obscure is no coincidence, I'm afraid. It's directly related to the quality and impact of their artistic output.



> I *do* believe that any views on art are equally valid however. Suppose a strange creature came up to me and told me that the does believe the above, that the early Beethoven lieds are better than the symphonies. His life experiences, education, and taste led him to believe those things. When he sees art he clearly evaluates it by a different set of priorities than I, and perhaps most people do. If I argue that he is wrong on any account, I am saying his life experiences are less valid, education not as good, or taste not as developed. Who am I to judge? Had I had been born in his shoes, I would believe the same as he. I would probably go ahead and share with him my subjective reasons for why most conscious beings and I vehemently disagree with him, but all I have done is convinced him to adopt my own subjective views, no objective truths could I prove to him. If you, Polednice and others think he is *objectively* wrong on this matter, you are by definition being elitist: you can either embrace it and quit whining about being called it, or stop that.


Again, the subjective opinions of this individual are not invalidated simply because they differ from the objective reality. He is entitled to prefer Beethoven's lieder over his symphonies - but that is merely his preference, nothing more. The objective reality remains that Beethoven's symphonies are the greater work.



> Personally, I don't know what you guys are so uptight about. I find the objectivist position far more disturbing than relativism... the idea that art exists in some sort of ontological hierarchy of greatness where every composition is ranked somewhere between Bach's Mass in B Minor and John Cage's breadcrumbs...


That's an oversimplification.

I find the concept that all art amounts to no more than breadcrumbs disturbing. An inhuman view, in my opinion. If their is no "greatness" in art, there is no insignificance either. If nothing is of higher achievement than anything else, there is no need to pursue lofty artistic heights and, truth be told, no need to pursue art at all. Just fart into the wind if it's as valid as any painstakingly crafted masterpiece, we can all save ourselves alot of time and effort.

You do realise that, if Beethoven had have shared your views, he mostly likely would've died an unknown? His pursuit of greatness (the dirty word!) led him to his loftiest achievements. 
*
"What will be the judgment a century hence concerning the lauded works of our favorite composers today? Inasmuch as nearly everything is subject to the changes of time, and, more's the pity, the fashions of time, only that which is good and true, will endure like a rock, and no wanton hand will ever venture to defile it. Then let every man do that which is right, strive with all his might toward the goal which can never be attained, develop to the last breath the gifts with which a gracious Creator has endowed him, and never cease to learn; for 'Life is short, art eternal!'"*

Belief in greatness leads to greatness - hence the works of Beethoven. Belief in the idea that ones art cannot surpass the art of another leads to mediocrity and worse - hence the works of John Cage, no more significant than bread crumbs.  A world without greater and lesser art would be a pitiable, barren world indeed! :tiphat:


----------



## Polednice

I'm not posting this as a response to this thread; I just want to voice a general lamentation. Perhaps this is just a disease particular to online forums, but why is it so ****ing difficult for people to respond to _what people actually say_ instead of responding to a generalised, archetypal version of what they believe they might be saying?


----------



## Artemis

Curiosity said:


> I didn't answer because the answer is so bleeding obvious. Popularity isn't the be-all-end-all. We have to objectively look at the impact the artist has had upon art and, hell, humanity itself. Beethoven's impact outshines Mendelssohn's in this regard, objectively, regardless of whether you, Dick Crawford, or Joe Blow prefers Mendelssohn. What makes this so hard to understand?


That's a half-baked reply if I ever saw one.

So who in your opinion are the 10 greatest composer based on this so-called objective assessment? Exactly what objective factors did you use in this assessment? Please name them. Having done so, then enumerate exactly what scores you ascribe to each factor for each composer.

What I'm looking for is the matrix of numbers which support your contention that it's possible to evaluate the greatness of composers objectively. This should be fun. No dodging now.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> I'm not posting this as a response to this thread; I just want to voice a general lamentation. Perhaps this is just a disease particular to online forums, but why is it so ****ing difficult for people to respond to _what people actually say_ instead of responding to a generalised, archetypal version of what they believe they might be saying?


There are several reasons: (This order is not necessarily in order of importance)

1) The 'sum' of the words must be interpreted; that's one reason for math being such a valuable tool for scientists.

2) In an on-going debate, the reader has developed 'mental echoes' of prior statements which color and/or obscure the sense of the current argument. I've no idea how that problem can be resolved.

3) Each debater is fonder of his line of reasoning than he is of any other line. This is the 'don't distract me' element.

I'm sure there are other reasons, but I am honor bound to avoid any semblance of 'rambling'. []


----------



## Argus

Curiosity said:


> Post that misses the point


Try reading some of my posts.

If someone thinks Czerny is better than Beethoven, Czerny is better than Beethoven. If someone thinks Beethoven is better than Czerny, Beethoven is better than Czerny.

How do you know Beethoven didn't just create art that he wanted to. He wanted to create his symphonies, so he did. Why does an artist need to believe he is creating greatness to create greatness?

For the fifth or sixth time I'll ask *where is the greatness of the art?*


----------



## mmsbls

I've been following this debate with interest, and I believe both sides have made reasonable points. 

I am confused by two comments that reoccur frequently. These don't directly impact the arguments, but I'd appreciate a clarification. 

Why do people refer to the objectivist argument as elitist? I think the objectivists believe there is some way to "measure" the quality of composers and works. The measurement would be similar, but much more complicated presumably, to determining the height of buildings. If people believed some buildings were objectively taller than others, would others call them elitists?

Also why would either view (subjectivism or objectivism) be egocentric?


----------



## mmsbls

Argus said:


> Since I was ignored and flippantly dismissed the first time I'll ask again: Where are these other non-physical properties you speak of?


I reread most of the recent posts but I didn't see references to non-physical properties other than in your posts. Could you tell me what properties you mean (or think others meant)? I personally don't believe there are non-physical properties to art or music.


----------



## Argus

mmsbls said:


> I reread most of the recent posts but I didn't see references to non-physical properties other than in your posts. Could you tell me what properties you mean (or think others meant)? I personally don't believe there are non-physical properties to art or music.


By non-physical I mean what the elitist would refer to as 'quality', 'greatness' or 'artistic value'. Where are these to be found?

Why are they elitist? It's not the best word to use but I prefer it to 'snobs' and I can't think of a more apt descriptor. They believe that some art is better than others. This better art parallels the elite in society. 'The best of the bunch'.

A buildings height can be objectively measured because it exists in the physical world. The worth of art cannot be measured objectively because the feeling we experience from art exists only in our own minds. Actually the 'art' (not the physical item that triggers art) itself only exists in our minds because it _is_ that feeling. The sound we hear when listening to music is not art, it becomes art when our minds process it into such a thing. Using the word 'art' to refer to a physical thing is just shorthand (much like using the words 'good' and 'bad' are shorthand for 'like' and 'dislike'). Hence why there is so much confusion as to what art is.

This debate is making me want to go read some Wittgenstein.


----------



## Ukko

mmsbls said:


> I reread most of the recent posts but I didn't see references to non-physical properties other than in your posts. Could you tell me what properties you mean (or think others meant)? I personally don't believe there are non-physical properties to art or music.


_Greatness_ may be regarded as a non-physical property. It's a qualitative judgment of the art/music's physical properties (if long-term broad-based appreciation can be regarded as a physical property. Since [ltbba] can be measured statistically, I will stipulate that it is a physical property. The qualitative judgment is not a physical property though, hence the debate is unresolved.

:tiphat:


----------



## Curiosity

Artemis said:


> That's a half-baked reply if I ever saw one.
> 
> So who in your opinion are the 10 greatest composer based on this so-called objective assessment? Exactly what objective factors did you use in this assessment? Please name them. Having done so, then enumerate exactly what scores you ascribe to each factor for each composer.
> 
> What I'm looking for is the matrix of numbers which support your contention that it's possible to evaluate the greatness of composers objectively. This should be fun. No dodging now.


I never suggested you could make an ordered list, 1-10, that sort of thing, you're putting words into my mouth and hence your "argument" amounts to nothing than a flimsy straw man.

I stated that some composers have clearly, plainly achieved more relative to others in their field. Do you disagree with this? Do you disagree that Beethoven has had a greater impact on the world of music than Mendelssohn? If you do, I'll be interested to read your half-assed, half-baked "reasoning". No dodging now.


----------



## Curiosity

Argus said:


> Try reading some of my posts.
> 
> If someone thinks Czerny is better than Beethoven, Czerny is better than Beethoven. If someone thinks Beethoven is better than Czerny, Beethoven is better than Czerny.
> 
> How do you know Beethoven didn't just create art that he wanted to. He wanted to create his symphonies, so he did. Why does an artist need to believe he is creating greatness to create greatness?
> 
> For the fifth or sixth time I'll ask *where is the greatness of the art?*


And for the last time, I will tell you, that if you can't recognise quality in art (get this: you can't), there's no hope for you. Individual perception is seperate from the objective reality. Prefer Czerny all you want, but Beethoven accomplished more in the field of music. This is why one is a legend and the other relatively obscure. Facts speak for themselves brah! Stop being willfully obtuse btw. Did the roman empire have more impact upon the world than the Zapotecs? Yes or no? Or does it "come down to opinion"?


----------



## Argus

Curiosity said:


> And for the last time, I will tell you, that if you can't recognise quality in art (get this: you can't), there's no hope for you. Individual perception is seperate from the objective reality. Prefer Czerny all you want, but Beethoven accomplished more in the field of music. This is why one is a legend and the other relatively obscure. Facts speak for themselves brah! Stop being willfully obtuse btw. Did the roman empire have more impact upon the world than the Zapotecs? Yes or no? Or does it "come down to opinion"?


Beethoven did have more of an impact, but that does not mean his music is better. 'Facts speak for themselves' you say, well try using some relevant facts then, like the proof of a precise objective system for rating and ranking art. Or possibly where the quality of the music can be found.

You are a good question dodger. Stick to dodging questions because you're not very good at answering them.


----------



## Curiosity

Argus said:


> Beethoven did have more of an impact, but that does not mean his music is better. 'Facts speak for themselves' you say, well try using some relevant facts then, like the proof of a precise objective system for rating and ranking art. Or possibly where the quality of the music can be found.
> 
> You are a good question dodger. Stick to dodging questions because you're not very good at answering them.


This is gold! :lol:

I did answer your question. My answer to your question is that I can't teach you how to discern quality in art and that objective reality exists outside your little box. You seem to believe that greatness must be a entirely tangible, entirely physical, ENTIRELY PHYSICALLY MEASURABLE thing before it can exist. Well, sometimes quality is physically measurable (for example in the quality of construction of a musical instrument), and sometimes it is not (for example, why will one piece of art touch millions of people on a deep spiritual level while another, though written in the same general style, will not?). Got it?

If you lack the capacity to differentiate between what is good and what is mediocre, that's your problem, just don't try to project your lack of discernment onto other people. Your entire shtick is basically an attempt to downplay the accomplishments of the most towering artistic giants in an attempt to inflate the image of your own favourites and in turn your own ego. 

It was you who failed to answer my question, not that surprising because you make a habit of beating around the bush and answering questions with questions, yet providing no or simply completely inadequate replies. Granted, there's nothing else you _can_ do because your position is essentially indefensible. Afterall, your position dictates that this painting (created by a chimpanzee, no less, because why should we draw an arbitrary line at humanity? :lol is the equal of any Beethovenian masterpiece :lol:










You're being willfully obtuse again, Argus. Did the Roman empire have more impact upon the world than the Zapotecs? Did the Roman empire achieve more? This is one of the MEASURABLE qualities of greatness, seperate from the INTAGIBLE qualities. Answer this very simple question or you will only further drive your posts into obsolescence.

Get this through your head: OBJECTIVE FACTS EXIST OUTSIDE OF YOUR PERCEPTION! :lol:


----------



## Artemis

Curiosity said:


> I never suggested you could make an ordered list, 1-10, that sort of thing, you're putting words into my mouth and hence your "argument" amounts to nothing than a flimsy straw man.
> 
> I stated that some composers have clearly, plainly achieved more relative to others in their field. Do you disagree with this? Do you disagree that Beethoven has had a greater impact on the world of music than Mendelssohn? If you do, I'll be interested to read your half-assed, half-baked "reasoning". No dodging now.


I see, trying to slip out of it now. Let's remind ourselves of the key things you have actually stated in this thread. I think the following quotes by you from earlier in this thread do justice to your opinion:_"Beethoven is objectively greater due to his superior originality, innovation, artistic integrity and reputation …"_

_"Some art is better where it counts, i.e. in terms of originality, breadth of vision, depth of expression …"_

_"Some things are objective, such as: Beethoven accomplished more than Black Sabbath musically, Beethoven achieved more, he was more ahead of his time, his music was more unique, more complex, required greater skill to create, is more highly respected among those with musical knowledge etc"_

_"I only mention Black Sabbath and Beethoven because they were given as examples in the context of this thread. It could be AC/DC or Mozart, William McGonagall and Homer, or any number of other combinations. This is about what constitutes "greatness" in art and whether it can be measured objectively …"_​Clearly, you seem to like the word "objective". And you appear to think that composers can be ranked objectively based on factors like originality, breadth of vision, depth of expression. In that case, you shouldn't have any trouble setting out your assessment of the relative greatness of the top 10 composers. You've already said that in your opinion Beethoven > Mendelssohn. Let's now see the fuller picture by naming the relevant criteria, and setting out the respective scores for each of the top 10 composers (5 if you like) against each factor.

I don't believe this is an unreasonable request, given the robustness of your earlier statements. I do of course fully accept that you may be unable to answer it given that things are a bit more difficult when you are trying to rank the top echelons of classical composers, but to someone with your apparently amazing skills of classical music appreciation based on only one year of listening I sincerely hope that it doesn't prove too difficult for you.


----------



## Curiosity

Artemis said:


> I see, trying to slip out of it now. Let's remind ourselves of the key things you have actually stated in this thread. I think the following quotes by you from earlier in this thread do justice to your opinion:_"Beethoven is objectively greater due to his superior originality, innovation, artistic integrity and reputation …"_
> 
> _"Some art is better where it counts, i.e. in terms of originality, breadth of vision, depth of expression …"_
> 
> _"Some things are objective, such as: Beethoven accomplished more than Black Sabbath musically, Beethoven achieved more, he was more ahead of his time, his music was more unique, more complex, required greater skill to create, is more highly respected among those with musical knowledge etc"_
> 
> _"I only mention Black Sabbath and Beethoven because they were given as examples in the context of this thread. It could be AC/DC or Mozart, William McGonagall and Homer, or any number of other combinations. This is about what constitutes "greatness" in art and whether it can be measured objectively …"_​Clearly, you seem to like the word "objective". And you appear to think that composers can be ranked objectively based on factors like originality, breadth of vision, depth of expression. In that case, you shouldn't have any trouble setting out your assessment of the relative greatness of the top 10 composers. You've already said that in your opinion Beethoven > Mendelssohn. Let's now see the fuller picture by naming the relevant criteria, and setting out the respective scores for each of the top 10 composers (5 if you like) against each factor.
> 
> I don't believe this is an unreasonable request, given the robustness of your earlier statements. I do of course fully accept that you may be unable to answer it given that things are a bit more difficult when you are trying to rank the top echelons of classical composers, but to someone with your apparently amazing skills of classical music appreciation based on only one year I hope that it doesn't prove too difficult for you.


Nonononono, you're doing the dodging now. I didn't try to wriggle anything out of anything. I told you that I never suggested I could rank the greatness of musicians in specific order. That's a childish, irrelevant request to begin with. A straw man concocted by an individual who can't actually come up with anything better. What I said is that some musicians have objectively achieved more than others within the world of music. This is a fact that you seem to take umbrage with. This is what seperates the legends from the obscures. The amazing thing is you don't need huge depth of knowledge to assess this, merely some common sense. Something you appear sorely in need of! :lol:

Now answer the question. Has Beethoven had a greater impact upon the music world than Mendelssohn? Does he surpass Mendelssohn in this measurable criteria of greatness? No dodging now. :lol:


----------



## Artemis

Curiosity said:


> Nonononono, you're doing the dodging now. I didn't try to wriggle anything out of anything. I told you that I never suggested I could rank the greatness of musicians in specific order.


That's sorted then. Thanks for the admission that your methodology is an empty box when push comes to shove, if it can't be used to rank the greatness of musicians in specific order.

I'm left wondering, though, how you can state that Beethoven > Black Sabbath, or that Beethoven > Mendelssohn, if you now believe that your ideas don't allow you to rank composers in specific order. This seems to be a complete contradiction. Did I miss something in your exposition, or would you like to revise your opinion on these technicalities too?


----------



## Argus

Curiosity said:


> Get this through your head: OBJECTIVE FACTS EXIST OUTSIDE OF YOUR PERCEPTION! :lol:


You must have missed the part when I said I wasn't solipsistic. I've argued exactly what you say in capitals here. Objective facts do indeed exist outside of my perception. 'Quality' or 'Greatness' is not an objective fact, therefore it only exists within our minds. Damn, how many times do I have to say the exact same things in these kind of threads.

For what it's worth, I prefer that painting you posted over any Rubens or Rembrandt painting I've ever seen. It's fine action painting reminiscient of a colourful Franz Kline or a simplistic Joan Mitchell.

The Roman Empire did have a greater impact than the Zapotecs. The Roman Empire and the Zapotecs aren't art though. The Roman Empire and the Zapotecs themselves aren't even tangible things. You cannot define the specifics of them, only vaguely suggest what they represent.


----------



## Timotheus

Everyone needs to quit equivocating.

My posts didn't explain it that well so I'll try quoting from the philosophy encyclopedia:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aesthetic-judgment



> We can sum things up like this: judgments of taste occupy a mid-point between judgments of niceness and nastiness, and empirical judgments about the external world. Judgments of taste are like empirical judgments in that they have universal validity; but, they are unlike empirical judgment in that they are made on the basis of an inner response. Conversely, judgments of taste are like judgments of niceness or nastiness in that they are made on the basis of an inner subjective response or experience; but they are unlike judgments of niceness and nastiness, which makess no claim to universal validity. To cut the distinctions the other way: in respect of normativity, judgments of taste are like empirical judgments and unlike judgments of niceness or nastiness; but in respect of subjectivity, judgments of taste are unlike empirical judgments and like judgments of niceness or nastiness. So we have three-fold division: empirical judgments, judgments of taste, and judgments of niceness or nastiness. And judgments of taste have the two points of similarity and dissimilarity on each side just noted.


It's essential to understand this...some are saying that because the judgment of music is based on an inner response, relativism is true. That simply shows philosophical immaturity--the fact that judgment is based on an inner response is a mainstay of the argument for taste! And that's also why the argument that there are objective facts about composers, while true, is tangential. What actually matters is the inner response.

Heck I'll just quote more since it's a pretty good entry:



> 1. The Judgment of Taste
> 
> What is a judgment of taste? Kant isolated two fundamental necessary conditions for a judgment to be a judgment of taste - subjectivity and universality (Kant 1790). Other conditions may also contribute to what it is to be a judgment of taste, but they are consequential on, or predicated on, the two fundamental conditions. In this respect Kant was following the lead of Hume and other writers in the British sentimentalist tradition (Hume 1757).
> 1.1 Subjectivity
> 
> *The first necessary condition of a judgment of taste is that it is essentially subjective. *What this means is that the judgment of taste is based on a feeling of pleasure or displeasure. It is this that distinguishes a judgment of taste from an empirical judgment. Central examples of judgments of taste are judgments of beauty and ugliness. (Judgments of taste can be about art or nature.)
> 
> ...
> 
> 1.2 Normativity
> 
> In order to see what is special about pleasure in beauty, we must shift the focus back to consider what is special about the judgment of taste. For Kant, the judgment of taste claims "universal validity", which he describes as follows:
> 
> … when [a man] puts a thing on a pedestal and calls it beautiful, he demands the same delight from others. He judges not merely for himself, but for all men, and then speaks of beauty as if it were a property of things. Thus he says that the thing is beautiful; and it is not as if he counts on others agreeing with him in his judgment of liking owing to his having found them in such agreement on a number of occasions, but he demands this agreement of them. He blames them if they judge differently, and denies them taste, which he still requires of them as something they ought to have; and to this extent it is not open to men to say: Every one has his own taste. This would be equivalent to saying that there is no such thing as taste, i.e. no aesthetic judgment capable of making a rightful claim upon the assent of all men. (Kant 1790, p. 52; see also pp. 136-139.)​
> Kant's idea is that in a judgment of taste, we demand or require agreement from others in a way we do not in our judgments about the niceness of Canary-wine, which is just a question of individual preference. In matters of taste and beauty, we think that others ought to share our judgment. That's why we blame them if they don't. It is because the judgment of taste has such an aspiration to universal validity that it seems "as if [beauty] were a property of things."
> 
> ...
> 
> We can recast the point about how we ought to judge in austere terms by saying that there is a certain normative constraint on our judgments of taste which is absent in our judgments about the niceness of Canary-wine. The most primitive expression of this normativity is this: some are correct, others incorrect. Or perhaps, even more cautiously: _*some judgments are better than others*_. We do not think that something is beautiful merely to me, in the way that we might say that some things just happen to give me sensuous pleasure. Of course, we might well say "I think X is beautiful," because we wish to express uncertainty; but where we judge confidently, we think of our judgment as being correct. And that means that we think that the opposite judgment would be incorrect. We assume that not all judgments of beauty are equally appropriate. "Each to their own taste" only applies to judgments of niceness and nastiness, which Kant calls "judgments of agreeableness" (see Kant 1790, pp. 51-53, p. 149).
> 
> ...
> 
> *In some cases the correctness of a judgment of taste may be impossibly difficult to decide. *We may even think that there is no right answer to be had if we are asked to compare two very different things. But in many other cases, we think that there is a right and a wrong answer at which we are aiming, and that our judgments can be erroneous. If we don't think this, in at least some cases, then we are not making a judgment of taste - we are doing something else.
> 
> Before we move on, it may be worth saying something about "relativism", according to which no judgments of taste are really better than others. It is common for people to say "There is no right and wrong about matters of taste." Or people will express the same thought by saying that beauty is "relative" to individual judgment, or even that it is "socially relative." Such relativism about value of all sorts is part of the Zeitgeist of a certain recent Western cultural tradition. It is part of the intellectual air, in certain quarters. And in particular, many intellectuals have expressed a dislike of the idea that judgments of taste really have any normative claim, as if that would be uncouth or oppressive. However, if we are describing our thought as it is, not how some think it ought to be, then it is important that philosophers should be persistent and insist - in the face of this Zeitgeist - that normativity is a necessary condition of the judgment of taste. Two points ought to embarrass the relativist. Firstly, people who say this kind of thing are merely theorizing. In the case of judgments of beauty, relativist theory is wildly out of step with common practice. As with moral relativism, one can virtually always catch the professed relativist about judgments of beauty making and acting on non-relative judgments of beauty - for example, in their judgments about music, nature and everyday household objects. Relativists do not practice what they preach. Secondly, one thing that drives people to this implausible relativism, which is so out of line with their practice, is a perceived connection with tolerance or anti-authoritarianism. This is what they see as attractive in it. But this is upside-down. For if 'it's all relative' and no judgment is better than any other, then relativists put their judgments wholly beyond criticism, and they cannot err. *Only those who think that there is a right and wrong in judgment can modestly admit that they might be wrong. *What looks like an ideology of tolerance is, in fact, the very opposite. Thus relativism is hypocritical and it is intolerant.


----------



## Argus

Timotheus said:


> Everyone needs to quit equivocating.
> 
> My posts didn't explain it that well so I'll try quoting from the philosophy encyclopedia:
> 
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aesthetic-judgment
> 
> It's essential to understand this...some are saying that because the judgment of music is based on an inner response, relativism is true. That simply shows philosophical immaturity--the fact that judgment is based on an inner response is a mainstay of the argument for taste! And that's also why the argument that there are objective facts about composers, while true, is tangential. What actually matters is the inner response.
> 
> Heck I'll just quote more since it's a pretty good entry:


I noticed Roger Scruton's name in the bibliography. He's one of StLukes favourites as well. Much of that reads like elitist propaganda disguised as fact, especially that last paragraph in your quote. Also, it also doesn't consider a claim some people here are making, not just that views on art are objective but that the art itself (the physical thing) holds the objective value.

Philosophy is all opinion, hence why it's a pretty pointless discussion debating amongst people with fundamentally differing overarching philosophies on the world (It's pretty pointless anyway). However, I'd venture most here share somewhat similar stances on how we perceive the world.

I consider most of us are on a philosophical level playing field in that we believe certain things exist in a real physical world and others in a metaphysical world (or the mind). If you don't believe this then my point on art won't be true. If however you do share these basic philosophical ideas of reality then the relativist position is the only sensible one.


----------



## mmsbls

Argus said:


> By non-physical I mean what the elitist would refer to as 'quality', 'greatness' or 'artistic value'. Where are these to be found?
> 
> A buildings height can be objectively measured because it exists in the physical world. The worth of art cannot be measured objectively because the feeling we experience from art exists only in our own minds. Actually the 'art' (not the physical item that triggers art) itself only exists in our minds because it _is_ that feeling. The sound we hear when listening to music is not art, it becomes art when our minds process it into such a thing. Using the word 'art' to refer to a physical thing is just shorthand (much like using the words 'good' and 'bad' are shorthand for 'like' and 'dislike'). Hence why there is so much confusion as to what art is.


The "concepts of greatness, quality, and artistic value" would be found in the brain. They are brain states and just as physical as a building. The physical artwork (painting or sound waves of music) interacts with the physical brain to produce a brain state that _is_ the joy, appreciation, or "art" you refer to above.

I differ from you in that I believe the feeling we experience from art exists in physical states in our brain. When you say, it can't be measured, you are correct at this time. In principle I think it could potentially be measured, and one could objectively measure the "appreciation" individuals receive from art works. Obviously, this potential is a very long way from the present, and probably not really worth arguing about now.


----------



## Sid James

Just some things "on the fly" here. I think these questions/issues are complex. No-one will have a "right" (or "wrong") answer. The people who do go to those extremes tend to be ideologues - eg. former members banned here in the past, eg. JTech, Saul, Herzeleide. All these had "barrows to push" which were quite out of touch with the "baseline" reality. It makes no difference what they listened to, it's deeper than that. It's basically attitude. We can state our opinions, but it gets "rubbery" when we try to convince others that that opinion is the only one that's valid, or that they have to agree with it 110 per cent.



Artemis said:


> ...Clearly, you seem to like the word "objective". And you appear to think that composers can be ranked objectively based on factors like originality, breadth of vision, depth of expression. In that case, you shouldn't have any trouble setting out your assessment of the relative greatness of the top 10 composers. You've already said that in your opinion Beethoven > Mendelssohn. Let's now see the fuller picture by naming the relevant criteria, and setting out the respective scores for each of the top 10 composers (5 if you like) against each factor...


These "criteria" do exist in classical music. Eg. international piano competitions, etc. Technical ability is a given. It's usually the "it" factor (hard to describe/pin down, the judges often deliberate, debate these issues, in a quite heated way). In the Sydney International Piano Comp, hundreds of applicants from all around the world are narrowed down to say 50. Then as the comp proceeds, it boils down to the top 3. The decisions made are often controversial. Eg. Bartok didn't believe in these sorts of comps, although he was a top pianist himself. [edited/omitted sentence, see below].

Going off the Beethoven vs. Mendelssohn "debate." Hard to judge who made biggest impact? Eg. Beethoven is more obvious to us, but Mendelssohn's work in putting in the spotlight guys like J.S. Bach, older choral repertoire, also premiering forgotten works by Schubert (his 9th) did make a huge contribution to music. & as I said before, different generations value different things. During his lifetime, Beethoven's early Septet was far more popular than any of his symphonies (much to his chagrin, apparently). So there you go, people of his time valued certain things more than others. That's why the "universalist" view doesn't gel with me much at all...

[EDIT - Deleted this sentence "One of our own finest pianists, Simon Tedeschi, has stated he has never had a desire to enter them, yet he's up there with any who have." Checked my facts, Mr Tedeschi has entered & won international piano comps. I was thinking of another prominent Australian pianist or musician/soloist who is anti-comp whose name eludes me...]


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Artemis said:


> That's sorted then. Thanks for the admission that your methodology is an empty box when push comes to shove, if it can't be used to rank the greatness of musicians in specific order.
> 
> I'm left wondering, though, how you can state that Beethoven > Black Sabbath, or that Beethoven > Mendelssohn, if you now believe that your ideas don't allow you to rank composers in specific order. This seems to be a complete contradiction. Did I miss something in your exposition, or would you like to revise your opinion on these technicalities too?


Just curious, are you a composer and or a professional musician?


----------



## Artemis

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Just *curious*, are you a composer and or a professional musician?


Very funny.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Artemis said:


> Very funny.


It was a serious question. Are you a composer and or a professional musician?


----------



## Artemis

Sid James said:


> These "criteria" do exist in classical music. Eg. international piano competitions, etc. Technical ability is a given. It's usually the "it" factor (hard to describe/pin down, the judges often deliberate, debate these issues, in a quite heated way). In the Sydney International Piano Comp, hundreds of applicants from all around the world are narrowed down to say 50. Then as the comp proceeds, it boils down to the top 3 ...


 I would guess that it is far difficult to apply the same criteria as used in international piano competitions to judging the general quality of composers' music. I'm not aware that any such competition exists.

Where I think this thread has gone completely off the rails is in attempting to draw an overall quality comparison between artists from completely different musical genres, e.g. Beethoven and Black Sabbath.

Plain common sense ought to be sufficient to tell anyone that this sort of comparison just isn't possible, as the two personalities are in separate musical markets i.e. where the scope for substitution is extremely limited if not completely absent.

You can only begin to consider the merits of Beethoven's music against other composers who offer an alternative. Even then, a judgement on the relative merits of each is not something for which any hard and fast, objectively determined, results can be achieved.

The closest anyone will get to determining the pecking order of the greatest composers is one based on popularity, but this falls short of the more idealistic claims made by some here that it's possible to set out objective criteria which are numerically measurable. I've asked for such details but you will notice that no-one has been able to supply them.



> Going off the Beethoven vs. Mendelssohn "debate." Hard to judge who made biggest impact? Eg. Beethoven is more obvious to us, but Mendelssohn's work in putting in the spotlight guys like J.S. Bach, older choral repertoire, also premiering forgotten works by Schubert (his 9th) did make a huge contribution to music. & as I said before, different generations value different things. During his lifetime, Beethoven's early Septet was far more popular than any of his symphonies (much to his chagrin, apparently). So there you go, people of his time valued certain things more than others. That's why the "universalist" view doesn't gel with me much at all...


Queen Victoria and Prince Albert preferred Mendelssohn to Beethoven.


----------



## Artemis

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> It was a serious question. Are you a composer and or a professional musician?


Neither. I'm a Goddess.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Artemis said:


> Neither. I'm a Goddess.


Well, you have managed to find one worshipper so far, as he gave you a "like"!


----------



## Sid James

Artemis said:


> I would guess that it is far difficult to apply the same criteria as used in international piano competitions to judging the general quality of composers' music. I'm not aware that any such competition exists.


Yes, well what I was saying that if a panel of experts who judge international piano (or other) competitions find it hard to reach "consensus" regarding who should be the top 3 out of 50 or so finalists, then what use is it us debating these things? Often the things that "raise" a certain performer above "the pack" are not easy to quantify or put a finger on. & how a pianist performs at a given time in such a competiton is just just a "snapshot" in time. It doesn't guarantee that they will be at that same "level" in a year (or maybe even a week). Just read the up and down careers/lives of some noted musicians (eg. Vladimir Horowitz) to see what I mean.



> Where I think this thread has gone completely off the rails is in attempting to draw an overall quality comparison between artists from completely different musical genres, e.g. Beethoven and Black Sabbath.


I agree these comparisons don't make sense to me, nor are they of much use to me personally. I'm sure people who travelled in the horse and cart thought that was as good as things would get, travel wise, but then there came the train, the automobile, air travel, etc. Saying something is "the best" in these kinds of terms may hold true for a certain point in time (eg. now) but will it in say a decade, or 50 years, a century, whatever? The only unchangeable thing is change, imo.



> Plain common sense ought to be sufficient to tell anyone that this sort of comparison just isn't possible, as the two personalities are in separate musical markets i.e. where the scope for substitution is extremely limited if not completely absent.


Yes, I agree with the common sense aspect especially. Eg. Beethoven did not compose heavy metal music, & I don't think Black Sabbath are composing concertos, symphonies, sonatas, masses, etc. like Beethoven did.



> You can only begin to consider the merits of Beethoven's music against other composers who offer an alternative. Even then, a judgement on the relative merits of each is not something for which any hard and fast, objectively determined, results can be achieved.


Yes, neither do I think that "hard and fast" & to add to that "one size fits all" dogmas are of any use here or elsewhere. In their most extreme form, these lead to the colonial subjugation of various non-European "others," the "White man's burden," not to speak of the many horrible totalitarian regimes that have been & gone & sadly still exist in various guises. Regarding current politics, universalist notions at their worst have at least contributed some part to questionable theories that the institutions/structures of Western democraces can be transplanted wholus bolus into countries with complex histories of tribal, ethnic, religious systems (predating by centuries or millenia any Western democracies).



> The closest anyone will get to determining the pecking order of the greatest composers is one based on popularity, but this falls short of the more idealistic claims made by some here that it's possible to set out objective criteria which are numerically measurable. I've asked for such details but you will notice that no-one has been able to supply them.


Well this will be argued about till the cows come home. Some members here & people I know, love the popular classics, others are middling with them, some absolutely hate them, never want to hear them again. It seems composers can't win. Tchaikovsky was said to be too Russian by the Europeans and not enough Russian by the Russians. It's all pretty murky territory, laced with a huge dollop of politics/dogma/ideology.



> Queen Victoria and Prince Albert preferred Mendelssohn to Beethoven.


Yes, & the Nazis preferred Beethoven to Mendelssohn, destroying the latter's monument in Leipzig (& needless to say, banning his music), despite the fact that he had made a huge contribution to German music & music in general. So there you go, notions (or at least these more extreme ones) of what we "value" or "hate" are based ultimately on ideology.


----------



## Artemis

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Well, you have managed to find one worshipper so far, as he gave you a "like"!


My top 10. I'm top right.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Artemis said:


> My top 10. I'm top right.


Interesting. I can agree with all ten in that collage. I especially recognise the corpulant one sitting down in the middle ...


----------



## Argus

mmsbls said:


> The "concepts of greatness, quality, and artistic value" would be found in the brain. They are brain states and just as physical as a building. The physical artwork (painting or sound waves of music) interacts with the physical brain to produce a brain state that _is_ the joy, appreciation, or "art" you refer to above.
> 
> I differ from you in that I believe the feeling we experience from art exists in physical states in our brain. When you say, it can't be measured, you are correct at this time. In principle I think it could potentially be measured, and one could objectively measure the "appreciation" individuals receive from art works. Obviously, this potential is a very long way from the present, and probably not really worth arguing about now.


See, that means we have basic differences in our fundamental understandings of the world. I think the mind does not exist in the physical world but in a metaphysical one. Anything that is an abstract object and doesn't exist in a time and place is for me not part of the physical world.

Let me get this correct, you believe the thoughts which exist in our mind also exist as exact parallel physical changes in the brain? So all thought can be reduced to electrical alterations in our head, which can then somehow be measured as physical data.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Argus said:


> ... I think the mind does not exist in the physical world ...


I see. You are saying that you don't believe you physically have a mind ...


----------



## Argus

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I see. You are saying that you don't believe you physically have a mind ...


Well, no one does. They have non-physical minds.


----------



## Ukko

Argus said:


> Well, no one does. They have non-physical minds.


You guys are playing with words. The functioning brain is not the mind, any more than a 'functioning' cello is music.

That doesn't mean that the processes in the brain that _cause_ 'mind' are not at least potentially (no pun intended) identifiable/measurable.

Just in case a confusion exists here, mind is not soul (it's just part of the 'blueprint'). Understanding that concept makes 'mind' a lot less mysterious, and should narrow the gap between the current antagonists' positions.

(The Ponderous Pontificator)


----------



## Guest

Yes, that there is physical reality and non-physical reality does seem to cause a lot of grief. Since physical reality can be seen and heard and touched (and smelled and tasted)--in short, it can be measured--it sometimes even gets to be the _only_ thing, with non-physical reality being not really real. I recall a few decades ago there being a group of people who were saying that there was no such thing as "mind," only "brain." And the objective/subjective "debate" follows along the same lines. Physical/objective is either better than non-physical/subjective or it's the only thing.

And the fact that the physical and non-physical are inextricably combined causes a lot of grief, too, with spiritualist types wanting to escape from the evil, gross, sinful body and with materialist types denying that anything but material is real--both extremes denying what any of us can "see" all the time, that there always seems to be a physical component of everything non-physical (no brain then no mind) and nothing seems to happen in the physical world unless preceded by a non-physical event. (No mind then no brain. This latter may not lead to a belief in a God (or a Higher Power for the folks who prefer abstractions over persons), but it is certainly true that if there are no architects with non-physical ideas, there will be no buildings or bridges. (And if there are no physical objects, wood, stone, concrete, glass, then the idea will remain only an idea.) That's just how it goes so far as we knoes. (Visual pun for comedic effect.))

And if I have the temerity to suggest that since the physical realities (sound waves, ears) of musical situations are the same, then the place to look for the sources of disagreement is in the minds of the listeners, then a St. Troll will always be lurking to accuse me of "blaming" the listener for not getting the music (rather than blaming the music for being unmistakably ugly or the composer for being purposely antisocial). Not at all. But if A hears piece X and finds it beautiful and B hears piece X and finds it hideous, with piece X having the same physical properties in both cases, then the difference in perspective (as in all differences in perspective) is coming from inside A and B not from piece X.

But this simple, elegant equation does not fit into the world view (non-physical) of those who want their living composers to keep writing music that sounds like the familiar musics of the past, so the composers who won't cooperate are demonized (non-physical) as are the people who lyingly claim to actually enjoy the crap that _everyone_ can hear is ugly and stupid. To acknowledge the simple idea that perhaps people who enjoy Xenakis or Cage do so simply because they like it (a tautology, yes, but the same one at work for people who like Bach and Mozart, too) would be to destroy the whole edifice (non-physical) of the worship of past masters, the ideology that drives classical music listening. As soon as four string players get into four helicopters, the apocalypse is upon us. Only fart jokes can save us from moral and physical dissolution!!

(Can I hear you say "Amen"?)


----------



## mmsbls

Argus said:


> Let me get this correct, you believe the thoughts which exist in our mind also exist as exact parallel physical changes in the brain? So all thought can be reduced to electrical alterations in our head, which can then somehow be measured as physical data.


I would state my belief somewhat differently, but essentially what you've said is correct. The vast majority of thought (brain processes) is subconscious, but even conscious thought is electrochemical processes in the physical brain. We can not measure thoughts now, and maybe we never will have that capability due to measurement difficulties. In principle, thoughts are measurable.


----------



## mmsbls

@some guy: You could make that same argument just as strongly without assuming that there is a non-physical reality. Individual physical brains differ. They interact differently with physical sound waves. Some brain-sound wave interactions will produce the equivalent of pleasure/interest/joy/etc. while others will produce unpleasant reactions. The sound waves are the same, but differences occur (as you say) inside the individuals.


----------



## Polednice

When I was pondering this issue late last night, I thought about a certain clarification that I should express, though be warned that I haven't yet jammed it into the rest of my thinking coherently, so I invite you to take a dig at my thoughts so I can develop them further. 

On the previous one or two pages, I mentioned that the likes of me, Stlukes, Curiosity, and others are not wanting to engage in or justify a petty ranking of composers, but are instead trying to promote a stable foundation for artistic discourse. I think, for any such discussions to be worthwhile, we need to acknowledge qualities in music that are _extrinsic_ to our experience of it.

*However*, with regards to the 'objectivity' of these qualities, I certainly didn't make it clear enough that I do _not_ believe that these are entirely physical properties that exist outside of the human experience. Yes, I have been rampaging against the notion that they only exist in the minds of the listener, but I didn't mean to suggest that I believe the exact opposite, whereby these qualities would exist in some musical score on a planet devoid of life.

What I meant to argue, but failed to do so clearly, was that these qualities in music gain a kind of cultural objectivity across a collective human experience. In other words, _of course_ there is nothing intrinsically good about something like innovative thematic development in a piece of music, _but placed in the context of 19th century Europe_, it can be used as a benchmark to appreciate the 'goodness' of an artwork _beyond_ individual experience because it was an important attribute and influence over a vast spread of time and people.

In brief then, I suppose I may instead be shedding the usefulness of the word 'objective', and asking instead for us to move away from a self-centred approach to music (I still think it is ridiculous to equate "I like this" to "this is good"), and acknowledge that the value of an artwork can be assessed - albeit very approximately - in relation to its cultural and historical context.

Whose side am I on now?


----------



## Vesteralen

This has all become tedious.

Not *objectively* tedious, of course...


----------



## Timotheus

Sometimes people use objective to simply mean unbiased, not relative. Sometimes they use subjective to mean "it's all just subjective, no good or bad". But objective here also means mind-independent while subjective can mean mind-dependent. The problem is people are conflating these meanings.

Taste in food can be subjective in both senses. Whether I like a food depends on my internal reaction to it, and it's generally the case that if I like dill pickles and not bread and butter, well ok then. 

Whether I find, say, the video of the looters in London pretending to help a boy and then robbing him repulsive also depends on my internal reaction to it. But it is not the case that if someone else doesn't feel repulsed by it, then it is "not wrong for him" but "wrong for me". 

And it's the same with music and the arts. We have varying subjective experiences of art. But that is not to say that there isn't good music and bad music. This is a basic philosophical point that a lot of people seem to trip up on (because equivocation is insidious). 

Also, poled, I totally agree that this is about a stable foundation for artistic discourse. There is plenty of scorn heaped on the most ridiculous bits of contemporary music, but I think the source of the scorn has to do with a desire to affirm that stable foundation.


----------



## Guest

Here's a stable foundation for discourse: each listener is different. If there's disagreement about the value of a particular piece of music, the source of that is the difference between listeners, not in anything intrinsic to the piece.

That there is a kind of cultural consensus about certain pieces in time is very nice and all and works fairly well for pieces that are old enough, but that leaves out the pieces that aren't old enough or widely enough known.

That there are people who do enjoy those new pieces when they're new is true. That there are not very many of those people, at first, is also true. Unless you're seduced by numbers, that's not going to seem very important.

So you have a situation in which you have people who enjoy music that's old enough to have been approved of by many other people over many years. It is now, or it seems to be, indisputably good. If someone doesn't like Beethoven's ninth, then too bad for that someone. The piece itself has been judged to be good, therefore it is good. When those people are confronted with new music, music that hasn't been approved of by many other people over many years, then too bad for the music. The someone who dislikes it can't be wrong! It's crappy music.

But let's go back to the approved music. Greatness there is the consensus, I've heard people say, of all the most sensitive listeners, the most insightful critics, the most musical musicians. OK. New music has its sensitive listeners, too, though. Its insightful critics. Its dedicated musicians. It is those people who should be the ones who get to decide (if anything _has_ to be decided!!) which new pieces are any good or not. But that's not what happens. It's the unsympathetic classical listeners who get to decide, the less knowledgable (about new music), the less experienced. These are the people who get to take the high moral ground? Who get to make all the fart jokes?

If you've demonized new music, then that seems just peachy. But if you've been richly rewarded by listening to new music, or are just logical, then that seems to be not quite the thing. None of this is in any way a debate about the merits of new music generally or even about the merits of particular pieces but a debate about the merits of particular listeners or groups of listeners. And it seems to come down to this, that the haters want to be the ones whose perspective is the right one, the valid one. And the likers want to be able to say that sympathy and understanding and enjoyment should count for something.

It is most definitely NOT about whether you like or dislike something, it is very much about how you talk about what you like or dislike. Prejudice and name-calling are bad, whether the subject is race or gender or new music.


----------



## Argus

Hilltroll72 said:


> You guys are playing with words.


Not really. The brain is that squishy thing in your noggin and the mind is our thoughts and that guff.

Some people here are moving from philosophy, which is all opinions, into science, in which opinions mean nothing. To say the activity of the brain directly resembles the activity of the mind is moving towards a scientific viewpoint. Unless, there is a way of proving this to be the case it's not a realistic position to hold.


----------



## Argus

some guy said:


> It is most definitely NOT about whether you like or dislike something, it is very much about how you talk about what you like or dislike. Prejudice and name-calling are bad, whether the subject is race or gender or new music.


We can forget about the technicalities of the subjective/objective debate and think about what holding these beliefs mean.

The objectivist must believe some people have good taste and some have bad. Someone liking 'bad art' must have at least some 'bad taste'. This is at the core of his concept of art. I find this way of thinking despicable.

The subjectivist can never believe some people have good taste and some people have bad. He can only believe people have tastes that align more or less with his. Hence, someone with good taste simply shares similar taste with himself and vice versa. I find this way of thinking reasonable.

So when I say, Polednice has horrendous taste in music, I am simply saying he has very different taste in music to mine.


----------



## mmsbls

some guy said:


> But let's go back to the approved music. Greatness there is the consensus, I've heard people say, of all the most sensitive listeners, the most insightful critics, the most musical musicians. OK. New music has its sensitive listeners, too, though. Its insightful critics. Its dedicated musicians. It is those people who should be the ones who get to decide (if anything _has_ to be decided!!) which new pieces are any good or not.


I'm not sure how to determine which music is good, better, or best (other than for me). I believe that for anyone interested in exploring new music the first group of people to approach are the ones who have listened extensively, discussed works with others, and who enjoy that music. For example, I would not suggest anyone ask me which heavy metal bands or works are good. I guess in that sense, yes, those listeners "should" decide.

This question is somewhat similar to the debates that take place over the NEA. I have always felt that only artists (and especially the artists that are doing work in a particular area) should decide what to sponsor - not people with no interest. It's OK, of course, for society to decide how much to fund art, but not OK for society to decide which art to fund. Similarly, society should determine National Science Foundation funding levels but not which experiments to fund.


----------



## Ukko

mmsbls said:


> [...]
> It's OK, of course, for society to decide how much to fund art, but not OK for society to decide which art to fund. Similarly, society should determine National Science Foundation funding levels but not which experiments to fund.


_Which_ art to fund? Those bread crumbs 'artfully' arranged are *Art* that I need to help fund?

A creationist (bless her soul) needs to help fund experiments furthering the 'heresy' of *evolution*?

Or are you referring to private funding? If so, never mind.


----------



## mmsbls

Argus said:


> Some people here are moving from philosophy, which is all opinions, into science, in which opinions mean nothing.


I think philosophers would disagree that philosophy is all opinions. There is a lot of careful reasoning that informs their views. But perhaps you meant that in general philosophers do not use empirical evidence in their reasoning.



Argus said:


> To say the activity of the brain directly resembles the activity of the mind is moving towards a scientific viewpoint. Unless, there is a way of proving this to be the case it's not a realistic position to hold.


I know the brain exists and consciousness exists, but I have no idea whether something non-physical exists. Scientists try to solve problems based on what they know and generally don't bring in unneeded phenomena unless necessary. Medical doctors believe that some people are autistic although they do not know the cause. Some people believe that dead ancestors acting through supernatural forces are responsible for problems like autism. I would call the doctors' belief that autism has a physical cause a realistic position even though they don't know how to demonstrate that.

If you're saying there should be a way in principle to demonstrate a scientific position, I would agree. I believe that with proper technology and advances in theoretical knowledge we very well may be able to show an equivalence between consciousness and the physical brain. More importantly, I have no reason to believe that consciousness (the mind) is not physical.


----------



## mmsbls

Hilltroll72 said:


> _Which_ art to fund? Those bread crumbs 'artfully' arranged are *Art* that I need to help fund?
> 
> A creationist (bless her soul) needs to help fund experiments furthering the 'heresy' of *evolution*?
> 
> Or are you referring to private funding? If so, never mind.


Public funding. If we each could veto funding on specific items, the country would spend almost nothing (and that would be horrible). I could veto a highway in Vermont, and all the military funding. Someone else could veto social security spending or funding for the post office.

If you don't think science furthers the interests of society, you should work with your representatives to reduce science funding (or funding on biology, physics, space research etc.). Once the country decides how much to fund specific sciences, it seems counterproductive to me to have people who are not well versed in the various fields to decide how best to use the funding.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

some guy said:


> ... If there's disagreement about the value of a particular piece of music, the source of that is the difference between listeners, not in anything intrinsic to the piece.


I think that's just a fallacious statement to propagate that crap piece of art (or crap music in this case). There is no need to defend your favourite genres. We all know what you like listening to, which is fine.


----------



## Ukko

mmsbls said:


> Public funding. If we each could veto funding on specific items, the country would spend almost nothing (and that would be horrible). I could veto a highway in Vermont, and all the military funding. Someone else could veto social security spending or funding for the post office.
> 
> If you don't think science furthers the interests of society, you should work with your representatives to reduce science funding (or funding on biology, physics, space research etc.). Once the country decides how much to fund specific sciences, it seems counterproductive to me to have people who are not well versed in the various fields to decide how best to use the funding.


Hah! Do you think 'your representatives' are well versed in art or science? Do you realize that 'once your country decides' includes the decisions of _Texan_ politicians? Let Creationism reign, and no **** will be shown! Halleluiah!

Sheez.


----------



## mmsbls

Hilltroll72 said:


> Hah! Do you think 'your representatives' are well versed in art or science? Do you realize that 'once your country decides' includes the decisions of _Texan_ politicians? Let Creationism reign, and no **** will be shown! Halleluiah!
> 
> Sheez.


I know our representatives are poorly versed in science. I believe we need public funding in science. We only have one way to do that - representatives who make law. 
What other options do we have? What would you suggest countries do?


----------



## Sid James

Vesteralen said:


> This has all become tedious.


Agreed. I made a comment HERE on the "what is the point of atonal music" thread that might be of some general relevance here...


----------



## tdc

mmsbls said:


> I know our representatives are poorly versed in science. I believe we need public funding in science. We only have one way to do that - representatives who make law.
> What other options do we have? What would you suggest countries do?


We need a completely new system of Government in the West. We also need a new financial system. Its that simple. The whole thing needs to be completely over-hauled. Truth, liberty, justice, the sciences, the arts, all of these will continue to be down graded until a system is implemented that puts these things rightfully ahead of 'profits for the few'.


----------



## Sid James

some guy said:


> ...To acknowledge the simple idea that perhaps people who enjoy Xenakis or Cage do so simply because they like it (a tautology, yes, but the same one at work for people who like Bach and Mozart, too) would be to destroy the whole edifice (non-physical) of the worship of past masters, the ideology that drives classical music listening. As soon as four string players get into four helicopters, the apocalypse is upon us. Only fart jokes can save us from moral and physical dissolution!!


I agree that I personally don't build monuments or shrines to composers (dead or alive) I just listen to their music.

Re. people liking different composers - eg. Cage, Xenakis, J.S. Bach, Mozart, whatever - it's also okay for them to like what you describe as "pastiche" or "the sounds of the past" by more recent composers. I actually like a whole variety of music - incl. those four composers you mentioned, as well as a whole lot of other things, from Andre Rieu to Andrea Bocelli & beyond. I don't care that you've dissed people like Arnold Bax, I don't care that Harpsichord Concerto has dissed electronic musics I like. It's basically a free world, we are free to chose what we listen. Putting value judgements on things like they are "outdated" or whatever doesn't really speak to a "middle ground" or "baseline" view, imo. It has nothing to do with what music you listen to at all, it's about attitude. Good old Hitler and Stalin loved classical music but they were horrible excuses for "rulers." Anyway, we all like some form of music, that's the main thing, isn't it. Making fart jokes has an element of humour, quite crude yes & I find it a bit tedious & stale now. But it's equally negative to pull down people for liking current composers who do not "match" with your personal value of "innovation" & "moving forward" in contemporary music. The dogmas of the 1960's are gone, they're in the dustbin of history. Yes, innovation is important, but so are other things. What you value & put on a pedestal (build a monument to?) may not be the same as what others value...


----------



## Guest

Sid James said:


> I don't care that you've dissed people like Arnold Bax....


I've been pretty careful to NOT diss anyone. I have brought up Bax as an example of someone I don't like, that's all. And I don't think he represents a particularly worthwhile trend in twentieth century music. But that's neither here nor there.



Sid James said:


> _t's equally negative to pull down people for liking current composers who do not "match" with your personal value of "innovation" & "moving forward" in contemporary music. The dogmas of the 1960's are gone, they're in the dustbin of history._


_Yeah, maybe. The sixties aren't all THAT long ago. But otherwise, I have never pulled down people for liking current composers who do not match my personal value of innovation. I know we had a fairly dusty time there on that thread what with everyone and his mom jumping down my throat for suggesting that pastiche was not a legitimate path for artists to take. (Since it was only a virtual throat--and only figurative jumping--no harm done.) But I never pulled anyone down for liking that stuff.

Really. If you want to criticize me, do me the courtesy of criticizing me for something that I've actually done. Otherwise, it's just sort of embarrassing. Like HC's or St's spirited whacking of mighty straw warriors. Well, actually, my mistake. It's not at all like that. You have intellectual honesty and integrity._


----------



## Jupiter

How can logic be rubbery? Something is either logical, or it is not. 

All A is B
All B is C
therefore all A is C. 

Nothing rubbery there.


----------



## Ukko

Jupiter said:


> How can logic be rubbery? Something is either logical, or it is not.
> 
> All A is B
> All B is C
> therefore all A is C.
> 
> Nothing rubbery there.


Aye. I mentioned that a mile or so back in the thread. Maybe not obviously enough for you?

Hilltroll72 - aka the 5th planet.


----------



## Sid James

some guy said:


> I've been pretty careful to NOT diss anyone. I have brought up Bax as an example of someone I don't like, that's all. And I don't think he represents a particularly worthwhile trend in twentieth century music. But that's neither here nor there.


Well we all have a right to be critical or positive of anything, really, musical or not. That's life. TC is not a scholarly journal or a university (or court of law), we don't have to provide evidence to legitimise our views. Actually, this is a pretty moderate place, compared to the other forum I was on. There, I'd read things like "x is a mediocre pianist" or "composer y couldn't do sonata form" or "this performer hasn't got a clue about doing Beethoven" & so on, ad nauseum. Questioning the "rubbery" reasoning behind such assesments was why a thread like this I think is useful.

& yes (Hilltroll & Jupiter), it's not exactly "logic" or "logical" but to the people making these comments, they think it's "logical" or "true."



> Yeah, maybe. The sixties aren't all THAT long ago.


Well I was kind of reductionist myself, bashing the dogmas/ideologies of the 1960's to the exclusion of other times, past & present, that I think lead to "splits" and "divisions" in music & thinking about it. Of course, there were both positive & negative (& in-between) things to come out of the 1960's, just like any other time. It's also easy to judge these things based on hindisight (hence my questioning of "universalist" views).



> Really. If you want to criticize me, do me the courtesy of criticizing me for something that I've actually done. Otherwise, it's just sort of embarrassing. Like HC's or St's spirited whacking of mighty straw warriors. Well, actually, my mistake. It's not at all like that.


Well, maybe I do have a tendency to read between the lines. I often agree with some things people say, but not with other things they say (or the "gist" of what they say). Sometimes I agree with part of a post, not the rest. It's far easier to make solid judgements in these kinds of casual conversations if they are "face to face."



> You have intellectual honesty and integrity.


Well thanks, but I think to some degree so does everyone on this forum, you included. As I said before, it's good that some former members who were clearly objectionable are now gone - who I think as to be ideologues, nothing to do with their knowledge of music, it was their attitude/s that I (& many others here) came up against like a brick wall, etc.


----------



## Timotheus

Jupiter said:


> How can logic be rubbery? Something is either logical, or it is not.
> 
> All A is B
> All B is C
> therefore all A is C.
> 
> Nothing rubbery there.


A-->B
C is A
therefore C-->B

Power corrupts
Knowledge is power
therefore knowledge corrupts

Something rubbery here 

But anyway, he didn't say formal logic. The word logic is used when talking about justifying something with reasons.


----------



## mmsbls

tdc said:


> We need a completely new system of Government in the West. We also need a new financial system. Its that simple. The whole thing needs to be completely over-hauled. Truth, liberty, justice, the sciences, the arts, all of these will continue to be down graded until a system is implemented that puts these things rightfully ahead of 'profits for the few'.


Those are nice goals, but revolutions are messy with lots of people dying. The other problem is that even if you succeed, you'll still have humans running the government. You _might_ get some of what you wanted. I prefer to work through the present system, but I'm not a radical.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

some guy said:


> Really. If you want to criticize me, do me the courtesy of criticizing me for something that I've actually done. Otherwise, it's just sort of embarrassing. Like HC's or St's spirited whacking of mighty straw warriors. Well, actually, my mistake. It's not at all like that. You have intellectual honesty and integrity.


I don't know what you do in real life, member _some guy_. But judging by the number of internet arguments that seem to positively correlate with your presence, I do suggest you might like to read a book of this nature.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

HC-I see. You are saying that you don't believe you physically have a mind ...

Argus-Well, no one does. They have non-physical minds.

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!


----------



## Jupiter

Timotheus said:


> A-->B
> C is A
> therefore C-->B
> 
> Power corrupts
> Knowledge is power
> therefore knowledge corrupts
> 
> Something rubbery here
> 
> But anyway, he didn't say formal logic. The word logic is used when talking about justifying something with reasons.


Hey, after spending four years earning a double degree in English and Philosophy, I need to use my knowledge _somewhere_!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Jupiter said:


> Hey, after spending four years earning a double degree in English and Philosophy, I need to use my knowledge _somewhere_!


It could be worse... you could have gotten a degree in art.:lol:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

If you want to criticize me, do me the courtesy of criticizing me for something that I've actually done. Otherwise, it's just sort of embarrassing. Like HC's or St's spirited whacking of mighty straw warriors. Well, actually, my mistake. It's not at all like that. You have intellectual honesty and integrity.

Good to know that HC and myself (and presumably anyone else who disagrees with you) lack intellectual honesty and integrity.


----------



## Sid James

Issues have been raised on the "what is the point of atonal music?" thread of things like -

*1. Who/what are "the elites"

2. The place of contemporary (& I'd expand that to any "non-warhorse" repertoire, old or new) in concert programs

3. Issues of "consensus" of what is significant from music of past 100 years or so.*

Regarding *"elites," *I basically think it's a "catch-all" word meaning "people or music (etc.) that I don't like." It's a loaded term. Funny how it's often used by one "elite" to describe another "elite." Eg. right-wing "elites" referring to left-wing "elites" but not themselves, of course (& vice-versa).

I personally have attended many concerts here combining less-known repertoire, old and new. This can be & is done with *good quality programming.* I don't see an issue of "captive audience" in terms of "forcing" people to listen to so-called "horrible atonal" music/noise. What I do see, with our "flagship" groups like the Sydney Symhony Orch. is a "conservative" agenda, focussed mainly on bland "bums on seats" programming. I can predict 75 per cent of what they play every year. It's okay to play "big names" but what about their lesser known works, let alone less known guys like say Glazunov, Bax, Hummel to name three. I am happy going to the smaller and more creatively programmed groups. But I think it's a pity that our "flagship" groups like the Sydney Symphony & Australian Opera have a tendency to trundle out the same old same old every year (with opera even Monteverdi is considered "risky" and "adventurous" & was he "atonal?"). How sad.

And imo* "consensus"* now is based on what we know. Just like in the past it was based on what they knew. Composers have come in & out of fashion for reasons like this. I don't think it's about survival, it's about what a particular society/culture/period whatever values. J.S. Bach was not valued (much) in say 1800. Vivaldi wasn't either until they discovered _The Four Seasons_ in about the 1950's. Composers not towing the serial/avant-garde line were not valued much (or at least not promoted by "those in the know") from postwar till about the 1980's - when a slew of recordings became available of guys in say the UK like Bax, Bliss, Arnold, etc (but they still haven't established themselves on the concert scene, despite their "accessibility."). So I personally think these things are largely based on OUR values not "THE" value (set in stone) of some composer's music. That's just my opinion, based on my reading & discussing these things with people I know, some of them musicians of various sorts.


----------



## Sid James

HERE is a brief list (selections only) of recent concerts I've gone to that have successfully "mixed" old & new music.

To expand on this, I think many of the "flagship" groups here & possibly elsewhere are basically not catering for the "middle ground" which is basically most people now here on TC. They are catering for the "hard line" conservatives, people similar to former members here with very ideological views about music that is "good" & music that is "not good." I'm thinking of the JTechs and Sauls of this world. They actually said, I remember, that classical music "peaked" or "the best" classical music was written between say c. 1800 - 1900. Maybe they liked some things before or after that period, but not much. This issue is, is it "balanced" that the big-name orchestras & opera companies only cater for this "conservative" group? Eg. what's wrong with playing things like Rachmaninov's 1st and 4th piano concertos, rather than the usual 2nd & 3rd? Do we have to be given those all the time, just because it's what the JTechs and Sauls of this world think is "permissible?"...

EDIT - HERE is the Vienna Phil's upcoming concert in Sydney. This is exactly what I meant - all the works are from about 1800-1900 (& probably safe to say all except maybe the Mahler are "warhorses") - the conservative's "solar plexus" of what is their "essence" of classical music. Just a random example, but this is what I mean, & it looks like it's not only the Sydney Symphony that does this - not a "wierd atonal" piece in sight, unless you consider the Mahler that :lol: ...


----------



## Sid James

Member* violadude *made some good points on the "atonal" thread which I thought I would transport here for wider discussions -



violadude said:


> Ya know, I honestly don't really understand the point of this anymore. I think people are making things way more complicated than they need to be.
> 
> There's no need to feel suspicious about people who's top 10 composers aren't the usual top 10, there's no need to say that composers should compose like this or that, there's no reason to demonize composers because their standard of what art should be is different than your own.
> 
> Every composer will write what THEY like, what they think expresses them. Some people will like it, some people wont. If you like it listen to it, if you don't like it, don't. It is as simple as that.


These three paragraphs summarise what I was thinking when creating this thread. A lot of our judgements of music we don't like often translate into other things which have little to do with the actual music at hand. I call them "rubbery logics," but they can be called many other things.



> Same with a conductor who is championing new works, or pieces that the audience isn't interested in. So what? He's just a guy doing what he believes in, no reason to say he shouldn't do it because people aren't interested. That would be like telling Beethoven not to write the Grosse Fugue because no one was interested. I'm sure he would have a couple choice words for that person. They're just guys doing what they like to do. Live and let live, man.


Yes, it's interesting how we don't beat with a stick past performers/musicians who were passionate about promoting certain composers/repertoires. Eg. do we blame Mendelssohn for doing that with J.S. Bach? Do we blame guys like Beecham & Boult for bringing a lot of the UK repertoire to the fore? (& Beecham also made the first recordings of the symphonic repertoire of one of my favs, Bizet, so they were not only focused on the UK things). What about Karel Ancerl, Rudolf Firkusny or Rafael Kubelik with the Czech composers? The list goes on and on. These guys were promoting the music, not the ideologies. That's what it's all about, imo, if they do that, then I see no reason to question what they were doing in a positive, inclusive way.



> And so what if John Cage said that breadcrumbs on a table can be art. It's one mans opinion, you either agree or disagree with it, but it shouldn't disturb your sense of what art should be. No matter what John Cage says or composes, the music of Mozart and Beethoven are still going to be in your CD collection when you wake up in the morning.


Well, over my two years at this forum, there have been numerous "bogey men" & whipping boys. In the JTech, Saul, Herzeleide "era" it was guys like Schoenberg, the other "atonalists" & "serialists" (whether or not their music could be described as that seemed to be irrelevant to these people) & the "Minimalists" esp. Philip Glass, Arvo Part - described as being "sell out" etc. More recently it's become John Cage, Xenakis & K.H. Stockhausen. Everyone needs a good ol' scapegoat to make them feel better, don't they???


----------



## samurai

@ Sid James, I don't know if this would help the atonality discussion/debate along at all, but I have been following it for some time, often not understanding the really erudite points some of my fellow members have been making--both "pro and con". 
So, as a person who is essentially untrained in music theory and notation etc. etc., I would simply ask the following: Is it possible--perhaps for the "trained ear" when listening to any given piece of music--to differentiate between *atonality *and the use of *dissonance* which are frequently used by composers {maybe more so in the "modern era"?}. Because when I listen to such composers as Prokofiev and Shostakovich, and even Cage and Scoenberg, I often cannot tell if what I am listening to is one or the other, or maybe even sometimes both. Are the concepts mutually exclusive, or do they often go together? I just hope that I have not muddied the waters any further than they have already seem to have become; sorry if I have.


----------



## Sid James

*@ samurai - *

I've been thinking of similar things myself. Eg. I have/had a tendency to confuse "dissonance" with what is simply "loudness" (eg. strong dynamic contrasts). Yes, it does get a bit murky after about the mid-late c19th because many composers then where writing whole-tone (chromatic) pieces, eg. Bruckner, R. Strauss, Wagner, Liszt, etc. I think Beethoven in his late period was also moving towards this. But these guys were still mainly "tonal" even though they were stretching it a lot (the old diatonic - major/minor systems). I'm not sure how to answer your question, except to say the obvious that "atonal" music is that which lacks a tonal centre (eg. a dominating key, or "tonic"). Then there's other things, branches of the "atonal" tree, eg. various types of serialism, progressive tonality, "ambi-tonality" (ambigious tonality), microtonality, etc. etc. It can all get confusing. I kind of see "atonalism" as just an umbrella term encompassing many things, many of them quite different.

Another thing is that you can't always (or often) hear the "row" in a serial piece, with the "naked ear" (eg. without following a score). The aim of these composers was not to do that, really, at least in regards to us "laymen" listeners. & not all composers using the serial techniques wrote 12-note "melodies," some wrote "rows" with less or more notes than the "traditional" 12. I think one of Carlos Chavez's (Mexican composer) symphonies has a thirty something row. & guys like Carter & Birtwhistle sometimes use rows of varying lengths within the same work (I think?).

Anyway, perhaps one of the many musicians on this forum can answer your question in a better way than I have. I've not really answered it, just reflected on it...

EDI T-


samurai said:


> ...Is it possible--perhaps for the "trained ear" when listening to any given piece of music--to differentiate between *atonality *and the use of *dissonance* which are frequently used by composers {maybe more so in the "modern era"?}. Because when I listen to such composers as Prokofiev and Shostakovich, and even Cage and Scoenberg, I often cannot tell if what I am listening to is one or the other, or maybe even sometimes both. *Are the concepts mutually exclusive, or do they often go together? *I just hope that I have not muddied the waters any further than they have already seem to have become; sorry if I have.


To answer what I have put in bold, I think some composers did use dissonance as an "effect" but still stuck to the tonic - eg. many/most of Bartok's, Prokofiev's, Shostakovich's works. I think it varies with Schoenberg from work to work, he flitted between "atonal" or "serial" techniques, using them to various degrees (as well as "whole-tone"), it's hard to categorise him, really...


----------



## samurai

@ Sid James, I'm just glad you could make some sense at all out of my rather awkwardly worded premise: Thanks!


----------



## Vesteralen

It's time to pause in this thread to offer up a word of thanks to the OP, the one and only Sid James....

Thanks for having enough faith in the forum to start a thread like this.
Thanks for attempting to be a voice of reason in a sea of.....whatever...
Thanks for maintaining your calm and congeniality.

Okay, that's three words of thanks. 

Anyway, when the vituperation around here makes me retreat more often than not into Wonderland, I have only good old Sid to thank for keeping me coming around. (uh..that may not be much of a recommendation, might it?)

"Carry on", Sid.


----------



## Ukko

Vesteralen said:


> It's time to pause in this thread to offer up a word of thanks to the OP, the one and only Sid James....
> 
> Thanks for having enough faith in the forum to start a thread like this.
> Thanks for attempting to be a voice of reason in a sea of.....whatever...
> Thanks for maintaining your calm and congeniality.
> 
> Okay, that's three words of thanks.
> 
> Anyway, when the vituperation around here makes me retreat more often than not into Wonderland, I have only good old Sid to thank for keeping me coming around. (uh..that may not be much of a recommendation, might it?)
> 
> "Carry on", Sid.


 Do to 'psychic hardening' acquired in the rough streets of RMCR, I didn't even register anything in this thread as 'vituperation'.

_Sid_ does come across as a pretty calm sort. Some of that effect may be caused by the , um, Glorious Length of his posts.

Anyway, please do 'carry on', _Sid_. Note that I didn't elide any of _Vesteralen_'s post, out of respect for it's sentiment.

:tiphat:


----------



## Sid James

*Well thanks guys (Vesteralen & Hilltroll) *- I think that it's good to have a thread like this where we can question people's assumptions, and our own assumptions as well. I'm probably pushing an agenda same as anyone, but I'm trying to relate it to music in general, not just the usual "punching bags" that people love to get stuck into because they're "soft targets." I'm basically interested on people's opinions on music as much as the music itself - whether it be listeners, musicians, professionals, laymen, amateurs, scholars, whatever. It's good to get diversity of opinion & I don't think it's shameful to kind of "sit on the fence." I see life as being more the grey areas than black vs. white, false dichotomies. Maybe people like to comfort themselves with "absolutes," I suppose we all do to some extent, it's just when we "don't see the forest for the trees" that this becomes a kind of impediment. & I'm not saying that I'm not one of those people, I have/had still challenge my thinking all the time...



Vesteralen said:


> "Carry on", Sid.


Well, I think my name-sake (or avatar-sake), would do the same (with his classic "dirty" laugh!  )...


----------



## Sid James

Earlier on this thread (post #287) I gave a link to THIS concert coming up here by the Vienna Phil., citing it's conservatism. But to be fair, they're also doing another concert, with a less predictable program HERE. These three works are not really "war-horses" it must be said. Looks like with the earlier more "conservative" one & this less predictable "bums on seats" one, they're trying to cater for different tastes (eg. not only the "hardened super-glued" conservatives). In any case, my earlier point is still valid, that there are no works on either program from after 1900 (but yes, the Mozart is before 1800, thus bucking the usual 1800-1900 "axis" of the "hard conservatives.")...


----------



## tdc

Sid James said:


> *@ samurai - *
> 
> I've been thinking of similar things myself. Eg. I have/had a tendency to confuse "dissonance" with what is simply "loudness" (eg. strong dynamic contrasts). Yes, it does get a bit murky after about the mid-late c19th because many composers then where writing *whole-tone (chromatic) pieces*, eg. Bruckner, R. Strauss, Wagner, Liszt, etc. I think Beethoven in his late period was also moving towards this.


Some interesting thoughts, but I think you may have the term 'whole-tone' confused. Whole-tone scales move up by whole step intervals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_tone_scale

Where chromatic scales are played in half step intervals, so I don't think that a 'whole-tone' piece could be referred to as 'chromatic', unless you are using the term in some other way.


----------

