# "Understanding a work" VS. "Appreciating it"



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> But is "understanding" a work of music any assurance of "liking" it?





hammeredklavier said:


> I've always thought music isn't really supposed to be "understood". If there's music you had "appreciated" but no longer "appreciate" as time goes by, can you say you've lost the ability to "understand" it?


How can you "understand" a work, and not "appreciate" it? Maybe you think you "understand", but in reality there are still some things about the work you don't "understand", so you don't "appreciate" it?
Does the term "understanding" have significant meaning when it comes to music appreciation?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think it comes down to individual preference; some need/like to study a work to appreciate it, some just like to listen and feel it. I think it's quite possible to understand and not appreciate a work, and to appreciate and understand another at one point, continue to understand, but grow tired of it.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

One needs definitions for "appreciation" and for "understanding" in terms that relate to music (or art, in general) that can be agreed upon in order for some sense to be had from any such inquiry as "'Understanding a work' VS. 'Appreciating it'".

I suggest that "appreciation" depends upon some sense of "understanding" the _value_ or _worth _of a piece (a philosophical concept) as well as the structural elements of its design and creation (objective, mechanical concepts). We talk of "music appreciation" with some sense that what we mean is we recognize a quality in the music, a quality to its worth as art, that makes it valuable for consideration -- further study, continued listening and performance, preservation -- and that we can describe some methodology to its construction or mechanics. I don't see any requirement _to like_ a work of art that one can _appreciate_.

I appreciate the music of Richard Strauss, but I don't necessarily like it. I appreciate the music of Bach and Beethoven and Brahms and I love it greatly, with exceptions here and there where my interest in particular pieces wanes a bit.

I appreciate the music of The Beatles and Bob Dylan and Miles Davis and Cole Porter, which suggests that music appreciation is not reserved for "classical music", as is often presumed by the fact that so many courses titled "Music Appreciation" deal with listening to and analyzing and attempting to "understand" (popular) "classical music".

In my way of thinking, "to understand" a piece of music is something rather different than "to appreciate" it, though I would insist that "appreciation" involves "understanding." Again, one needs definitions.

Whether or not defining terms and discussing this matter is worth the time and effort, though, I remain unsure of. I certainly don't want to do so in this post.


----------



## Tarneem (Jan 3, 2022)

perhaps music consists of two things: The Craft and The Art

*The Craft* is intellectual and *The Art* is a matter of taste. for me personally I absolutely don't deny Mozart's genius. But he is not one of my favorite composers. I appreciate his craft but his Art mostly is not my taste.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

That last sentence captures exactly how I respond to Mahler.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> How can you "understand" a work, and not "appreciate" it? Maybe you think you "understand", but in reality there are still some things about the work you don't "understand", so you don't "appreciate" it?
> Does the term "understanding" have significant meaning when it comes to music appreciation?


Perhaps you'd first tell us what you take the two words to mean in the context of listening to classical music.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I've seen a number of courses titled Music Appreciation and Understanding Music - and they essentially teach the same thing: a survey of music across different periods and genres through informed listening. A text that is often used is _Understanding Music_ by Jeremy Yudkin - which is a music appreciation text.

I think it is a semantical issue, IMO, a distinction without a difference.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> I've seen a number of courses titled Music Appreciation and Understanding Music - and they essentially teach the same thing: a survey of music across different periods and genres through informed listening. A text that is often used is _Understanding Music_ by Jeremy Yudkin - which is a music appreciation text.
> 
> I think it is a semantical issue, IMO, a distinction without a difference.


Well we can all offer our own understanding and appreciation of what these words mean. We all have access to the same online dictionaries.

But if the OP wants to raise this as an issue, they would be better understood if they made sure we fully understood their position and agreed with their use of the terms.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Forster said:


> Well we can all offer our own understanding and appreciation of what these words mean. We all have access to the same online dictionaries.
> 
> But if the OP wants to raise this as an issue, they would be better understood if they made sure we fully understood their position and agreed with their use of the terms.


I agree.

But if that means creating a difference between appreciating and understanding based on concepts that "appreciating" is an _emotional/subjective_ response while "understanding" is a _cerebral/objective_ response, then that is a specific (somewhat artificial) discussion on those concepts - which are not necessarily inextricably tied to the terms "appreciate" and "understand."


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Forster said:


> Perhaps you'd first tell us what you take the two words to mean in the context of listening to classical music.


The difference is too vague to me, I can't know for sure. Even "being familiar with a work" seems less vague an idea than "understanding a work". 
Even if you descriptively understand what each of the gestures in a work would have meant for/by the composer when he was writing them, if they don't genuinely inspire feelings in you or move you (the true purpose of music), how can you say you've understood them? -is sort of like the question I'm asking.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SONNET CLV said:


> I appreciate the music of Richard Strauss, but I don't necessarily like it.


So what you're saying is like
"you appreciate a work = you see why other people would want to listen to the work on regular basis.
you like a work = you want to listen to the work on regular basis."?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Hard to address this issue without a clarification of what each term means, but here's my attempt. I'd say there are many elements which one can understand about any piece of music: its historical context (how it fits in or differs from the music of its time and before it), its historical significance (how it influenced contemporary and future music), its harmonic content, structure, and other technical elements, etc. Appreciation, however, ultimately comes down to how much we value these elements. At most, understanding might lead to an appreciation of how others (audiences and composers) felt about it, but it won't necessarily lead to us appreciating it ourselves because we either don't value those elements, or simply because it doesn't move us. It's possible to semantically separate "appreciation" from "enjoyment," but I think the notion of appreciating music we don't like is mostly just an acknowledgment of others' tastes, feelings, and opinions.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> its historical context (how it fits in or differs from the music of its time and before it), its historical significance (how it influenced contemporary and future music), ..........ultimately comes down to how much we value these elements.


Yeah, historical significance is probably the most vague concept (largely dependent on how you interpret) of them all. Who gives a damn about Aumann's influence on Bruckner, or Reichardt's influence on Schubert, or Adlgasser's influence on Mozart these days? (lol)


hammeredklavier said:


> Lots of composers had IMPACT throughout history, but whether or not the IMPACT was objectively positive/valuable is a different matter entirely. For instance, the Rise of Romanticism opened doors to a whole new world of musical possibilities, but it was also a Pandora's box that eventually led to modernism, which many people (even on this forum) constantly express disapproval for.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

According to most classical music theorists, music is made to evoke emotional and spiritual responses, studying music to enhance personal graces and virtues. For example in Castiglione`s courtisan`s book:_"..that the movement of the celestial spheres creates natural harmonic tones, that the formation of our souls follows the same reasoning, thence music awakens and, as it were, revives their virtues."(Book I, ch.XLVII)_

Martin Luther`s view is more emotional, stating that _"We can mention only one point (which experience confirms), namely, that next to the Word of God, music deserves the highest praise. *She is mistress and governess of those human emotions*….which as masters govern men or more often overwhelm them….For whether you wish to comfort the sad, to terrify the happy, to encourage the despairing, to humble the proud, to calm the passionate, or to appease those full of hate….what more effective means than music could you find?"_

It would be very enlightening not only to consider music as the agent of emotional arousal but also a master over emotion as well, like what Plato considered music not just to be the medium of inspiration to be a better man but also a metaphysical means for free imagination or almost everything:
_
"music is a moral law. It gives soul to the universe, wings to the mind, *flight to the imagination*, and *charm and gaiety* to life and to everything".
_

One of the most outstanding exhibitions of this spirit will be by John Dryden`s poem for St. Cecilia's Day, 1687:


> What passion cannot music raise and quell!
> When Jubal struck the corded shell,


There are also lores of Arion taming a dolphine and Orpheus the beasts with music, the latter even convinced Hades to release his wife on condition. Hades as a god, he should be a reasonable deity, as a paragon of reason, he was like the beast of irrationaliy overcomed. But no much explanations from classical times about how music affect people had been given other than metaphysical allegories about the power of music. All the rest are about the basic musical theories of music making. Music itself is almost purely metaphysical, from classical evaluations, not just passion, also reason can be overcomed in their best. It is quite amazing to notice that music can serve as a space encompassing human passion and reason, making both of them mutually convertable and communicative between themselves: beasts and men can be moved to reason from passion, and gods from reason to passion.

Human understanding in classical terms also has various schools: intuitive, analytical, objectivist, subjectivist. When looking onto the classical evaluations of music as a means of such power and worth, our modes of understanding would sound a bit off-climactic, however, not unethical. But it surely will be very off-topic to go for all the understanding modes before one can actually enjoy music in the way that is self-sufficient. My answer would be, music is music, it is self-sufficient as an art form and a way of enlightenment, the delights and enlightenment it brings are also self-sufficient therefore requires no mandates of understanding whatever the modes can be. In short, if you do not enjoy music, why bother? just go do some math and eat; if enjoy, then how to understand it, is totally up to personal ways/modes, everything else would be as practical as anything, as free as one should be free, but the enjoyment is always the thing that matters. To try to codify any musical understanding is only for the short term, music will always go with the most foundamental ways possible of human life: always enjoy it first.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

hammeredklavier said:


> Yeah, historical significance is probably the most vague concept (largely dependent on how you interpret) of them all. Who gives a damn about Aumann's influence on Bruckner, or Reichardt's influence on Schubert, or Adlgasser's influence on Mozart these days? (lol)


I'm sure some people care about such things. I've always been fascinated by the evolution of the arts, how the greats take influences from the past and transform them into something new and great; and this is especially true when they do this of much lesser works and artists. I always think of the Handel quote who when asked why he took some melody from some unknown (today) composer said: "it was much too good for him, he didn't know what to do with it."


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> How can you "understand" a work, and not "appreciate" it? Maybe you think you "understand", but in reality there are still some things about the work you don't "understand", so you don't "appreciate" it?
> Does the term "understanding" have significant meaning when it comes to music appreciation?


How about "enjoying" it? I often wondered why classical music and fine art must always work around the concept of joy. Courses in classical music are called "Music Appreciation". When I was in Spain visited the cathedral at Toledo, the tour guide kept saying that we will now go to _admire_ El Greco's masterpeice. I _enjoy_ listening to hours of classical music and visiting art museums.While I a certain level of understanding the craftsmanship of music or art can lead to a level of admiration or appreciation, it is the joy that makes it worth the effort.

The real question for me is the paradox of Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich or Gorecki's _Symphony of Sorrowful Songs_; how such sad, brooding, soulful, music can be bring to my ears feelings of sadness and joy _at the same time_. Can someone explain that?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Coach G said:


> The real question for me is the paradox of Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich or Gorecki's _Symphony of Sorrowful Songs_; how such sad, brooding, soulful, music can be bring to my ears feelings of sadness and joy _at the same time_. Can someone explain that?


It's a rather different question. 
But it's similar also for horror movies etc. Basically for a lot of art, above all literature, drama, movie. You will probably find some recent neurobabble how this "really" works in da brain (mirror neurons or whatever). The more traditional attempts are along the lines that we vicariously experience some of the sadness, conflict, tragedy expressed in the tragedy or movie or music but as we are in fact "safe" as we are not really in the conflict or tragic situation (and we of course know that we are sitting in the theatre not actually being chased by monsters or trying to woo an unattainable chick like Gwyneth Paltrow) this transforms the negative/tense emotions into positive ones. Roughly a slightly weaker and more general version of identifying with The Amazing Spiderman and being a hero instead of a pimply couch potato.


----------



## Xenophiliu (Jan 2, 2022)

SanAntone said:


> I've seen a number of courses titled Music Appreciation and Understanding Music - and they essentially teach the same thing: a survey of music across different periods and genres through informed listening.


As a sometimes instructor of Music Appreciation, I always mention on the first day that I hate the title of the course, for there is nothing in my power, or the textbook's, to make a student enjoy all music (there is a text called The Enjoyment of Music).

What I can offer them are tools on how to develop a historical, cultural, and musical framework around what they hear, all in order to make a quantitative statement regarding music and sound. I think the hope is, that in understanding how music works, what to listen for, all within a context, that students will have the tools to approach, listen to, and how to recognize the significance in aspects of music they may not initially understand upon hearing.

From the post quoted, I would much prefer the title Understanding Music.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

The difference between "understanding" and "enjoying" becomes obvious when one considers a simple piece, for example a small and repetitive pop song (I'm not saying that all pop songs are small and repetitive). It's totally possible to "assimilate" (or "understand") it with a few listens, but there's no guarantee that it will make one like it. But if the piece in question is technically or/and expressively complex, then "assimilating" it is necessary to like it, otherwise one may become lost in the process of hearing.

One has to understand something in order to decide if he enjoys it or not.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Understanding and learning toward a transcendental happiness.

PLATO AND ARISTOTLE ON THE ENDS OF MUSIC



> Aristotle, then, assigns four ends to music: giving pleasure. disposing toward
> virtue, imitating emotion, and giving intellectual enjoyment. The order that he sees
> between these ends can be inferred from what he says about the principles of
> education in general and the place of music in education in particular.
> ...


Understanding music contributes to higher form of enjoyment, here termed as intellectual pleasure, the last to be achieved, after attaining the basic ways of enjoyment. The keyword is still enjoyment, further controversy would be about the validity and the content of this classical idea of "intellectual pleasure". One needs to confirm to classical philosophy in order to pursue this discussion. The cold-mind of rationality has degrees, even Sherlock Holmes enjoys a violin concert as he claims to be out of love affairs for his entire life. You must accept this term to make sense of this classical music theory. So what is this 'intellectual pleasure" is up to discussion now. Disillusioned performers of Gustav Leonhardt`s ideal being totally impartial is probably just a perceived idealism on the part of audience. But a state of absolute calm of mind can be attained through learning and ethical practices as well, it is the matter when intellectual and ethical practices surpass the boundary of musical realm into a pure state of self-awareness, like Buddhahood. This could be a state of disillusionment and self-composure, achievable through music to go beyond music. There is indeed a kind of enlightened happiness of all learned people that focus on the point of disillusionment or an ideal state of calmness of mind.

Stoic calm indifference towards external events is one of the major teaching themes, as it upholds the similar idea about happiness in connection with a good and virtuous character.

Buddhism pursues "upekkha"/equanimity of mind by using knowledge and practice. A mental state of detachment from all the passions, needs, cravings, greeds. This is an buddhist ideal state of happiness.

So pleasure can be divided into two levels: passionate pleasure as the basical level; disillusioned pleasure as the higher(through learning). How much Aristotle`s intellectual pleasure can agree with the idealistic disillusioned pleasure is not clear, not to be discussed here, gotta be long. But it is sure whatever the degree of their complacency, there is a common note of happiness shared from the most basic level to the highest idealistic level, even given this happiness might transcend all artistic forms. It might be feasible to illustrate professionalism as the transcendental mind that dedicates itself to the conveyance of certain results to the public, via the specific means of his/her profession. So the reception of this professional conveyance should be getting interested, and entertained, and motivated toward our own ways of transcendency. Getting passionate should be innocent, do not blame or shame yourself for that, we do not need to pursue the transcendency from the very beginning, but through steady and gradual learning and growth of the mental state, we can grow into such a state of living with music. (So reason and passion can be either raised or overcome by music, but not transcendental happiness.)

The whole process is clear: Getting enthusiastic--learning--understanding--calm of mind--perseverance--maturity--transcendency. A long process, I would be satisfied to attain transcendency just a few moment before my death. A whole life of professionalism in everything, not for me, boring.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

There's a difference between "appreciate" and "like."


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Xisten267 said:


> The difference between "understanding" and "appreciation" becomes obvious when one considers a simple piece, for example a small and repetitive pop song (I'm not saying that all pop songs are small and repetitive). It's totally possible to "assimilate" (or "understand") it with a few listens, but there's no guarantee that it will make one like it. But if the piece in question is technically or/and expressively complex, then "assimilating" it is necessary to like it, otherwise one may become lost in the process of hearing.
> 
> *One has to understand something in order to decide if he enjoys it or not.*


I don't agree with this at all. In fact, some of the works of art I love most were those that completely confounded my ability to understand them on my first experience, yet I instantly knew they were profoundly powerful emotionally/aesthetically and worthy of my time and effort to understand them. In fact, there is an entire aesthetic and affect that comes with experiencing something that one doesn't understand. It's often referred to as "awe." Being in awe is often the combination between the lack of intellectual understanding combined with the overwhelming intuitive and emotional power of the work being experienced. Tristan und Isolde, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Neon Genesis Evangelion, William Blake's Visionary Works... just a handful of examples of works that have provoked that feeling in me.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> How can you "understand" a work, and not "appreciate" it? Maybe you think you "understand", but in reality there are still some things about the work you don't "understand", so you don't "appreciate" it?
> Does the term "understanding" have significant meaning when it comes to music appreciation?





hammeredklavier said:


> The difference is too vague to me, I can't know for sure. Even "being familiar with a work" seems less vague an idea than "understanding a work".
> Even if you descriptively understand what each of the gestures in a work would have meant for/by the composer when he was writing them, if they don't genuinely inspire feelings in you or move you (the true purpose of music), how can you say you've understood them? -is sort of like the question I'm asking.


Thanks for your reply.

As others have said, I think it's possible to _appreciate _(recognise the value of) a work, and to _understand _a work (become sufficiently familiar with a work to recognise its structure and shape, its component parts) without necessarily either enjoying it (intellectually, emotionally) or being moved by it.

It's quite possible that some of the works I've listened to often without being moved by it or enjoying it are, as you suggest, simply ones I've not properly understood.

_Jeux _by Debussy, for example.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't agree with this at all. In fact, some of the works of art I love most were those that completely confounded my ability to understand them on my first experience, yet I instantly knew they were profoundly powerful emotionally/aesthetically and worthy of my time and effort to understand them. In fact, there is an entire aesthetic and affect that comes with experiencing something that one doesn't understand. It's often referred to as "awe." Being in awe is often the combination between the lack of intellectual understanding combined with the overwhelming intuitive and emotional power of the work being experienced. Tristan und Isolde, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Neon Genesis Evangelion, William Blake's Visionary Works... just a handful of examples of works that have provoked that feeling in me.


To have a great first impression of a certain piece of music doesn't guarantee that one will really enjoy it after assimilating it, and the other way around is also true. The first time I heard Ketèlbey's _In a Persian Market_ I was in awe because I didn't know well music back then, but later I came to dislike it. The first time I listened to _Tristan und Isolde_ I hated it so much that it took me years to decide to hear it again, but nowadays it is one of my absolute favorite works in all music.

My point remains.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Forster said:


> to _understand _a work (become sufficiently familiar with a work to recognise its structure and shape, its component parts) .


If that is the definition of "understanding" a piece of music then it offers nothing towards my enjoyment of it. The way you are defining "understanding music" is similar to knowing how to spell a word and what it means as well as recognizing the grammar of a sentence (a pretty low threshold). They are certainly prerequisites for knowing how to read but do not get you very far regarding the enjoyment of literature.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I can generally understand very well how a work is put together, and somewhat less well why the composer put it together in that way and not some other way. I also may understand, in general and approximate terms, what the composer is trying to express or communicate. Those are appropriate uses of the word "understand" in describing our responses to music. 

But, often, when people say they don't "understand" a piece of music they are really saying simply that they suspect it might evoke some feeling in them that it doesn't at present. This is not a question of understanding the music (though understanding its formal aspects may help us get into it), and if it's a question of understanding our own responses, figuring out why we do or don't like something is difficult and never complete, and beyond a certain level (different for everyone) pretty pointless.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> If that is the definition of "understanding" a piece of music then it offers nothing towards my enjoyment of it. The way you are defining "understanding music" is similar to knowing how to spell a word and what it means as well as recognizing the grammar of a sentence (a pretty low threshold). They are certainly prerequisites for knowing how to read but do not get you very far regarding the enjoyment of literature.


Well, it's not 'the' definition...just mine.

However, if I want to talk about enjoying music, I'd use the word...

...enjoying!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Xisten267 said:


> To have a great first impression of a certain piece of music doesn't guarantee that one will really enjoy it after assimilating it, and the other way around is also true. The first time I heard Ketèlbey's _In a Persian Market_ I was in awe because I didn't know well music back then, but later I came to dislike it. The first time I listened to _Tristan und Isolde_ I hated it so much that it took me years to decide to hear it again, but nowadays it is one of my absolute favorite works in all music.
> 
> My point remains.


I don't think anyone's who's truly experience that feeling of awe has later come to really dislike whatever work inspired it. At least, I doubt seriously that would be the case. The experience alone is incredibly rare, and every time I've had it there was zero doubt in mind I'd just experienced something special, and my mind hasn't changed on any of them. Of course there are works that you may really like (even love) or really dislike (even hate) and first and change your mind over time, but I'm not talking about mere like/love/dislike/hate. However, even with the latter I don't think understanding is a necessary component in how you feel about them. Understanding may or may not change our opinion over time, but it certainly doesn't have to, and IME rarely does.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't think anyone's who's truly experience that feeling of awe has later come to really dislike whatever work inspired it. At least, I doubt seriously that would be the case. The experience alone is incredibly rare, and every time I've had it there was zero doubt in mind I'd just experienced something special, and my mind hasn't changed on any of them. Of course there are works that you may really like (even love) or really dislike (even hate) and first and change your mind over time, but I'm not talking about mere like/love/dislike/hate. However, even with the latter I don't think understanding is a necessary component in how you feel about them. Understanding may or may not change our opinion over time, but it certainly doesn't have to, and IME rarely does.


I rarely think in terms of like/dislike/love/hate/good/bad for music, except very rarely for a tiny number of specific works or recordings. My way of putting it for the vast majority of music (all music of any kind) is either a work interests me or not. And this can change easily, quickly, and mercurially.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't think anyone's who's truly experience that feeling of awe has later come to really dislike whatever work inspired it. At least, I doubt seriously that would be the case. The experience alone is incredibly rare, and every time I've had it there was zero doubt in mind I'd just experienced something special, and my mind hasn't changed on any of them. Of course there are works that you may really like (even love) or really dislike (even hate) and first and change your mind over time, but I'm not talking about mere like/love/dislike/hate. However, even with the latter I don't think understanding is a necessary component in how you feel about them. Understanding may or may not change our opinion over time, but it certainly doesn't have to, and IME rarely does.


Maybe you're right. Reconsidering my position, I think now that it's possible to feel pleasure from an experience even if the comprehension of it is only superficial. In this sense, it's possible to like music without assimilating it. But I think that one can only truly be certain of how much he really enjoys a piece of music after he has understood it, "understand" in the sense of having a reasonable grasp of it's structure and meaning: if I can't comprehend, even if intuitively, where the composer is going, and I have no idea of what he's trying to express, then my experience as a listener of his piece is insufficient.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

the terms require defining, of course...
for me - 
_appreciation_ implies that I like the work to some degree...I respond positively to what the composer has put together.

_understanding_ to me indicates that I grasp the structure, the direction, the technique, the craftsmanship that went into composing the work, tho I might not necessarily like the work very much....

Example - I "understand" Rachmaninoff Sym #2 - I know it inside out. I've played it a jillion times.....but I don't like the work....I don't "appreciate" it.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

For me, understanding usually involves getting to know the piece of music through repeated listening, and trying to relate the parts to the whole. Most of the classical music that I like the most has some sort of unified theme, even if highly fragmented as becomes more common as we move through the 20th century. If I can grasp that journey of the theme (or themes), then as far as my ability goes, I'm on the road to understanding it.

Some pieces that more or less show what my limits to this sort of understanding are:

Berg String Quartet, Op. 3
Carter String Quartet #1
Dutilleux Cello Concerto "tout un monde lontain"

Certain things are beyond my understanding, often because the composer avoids presenting his ideas in the framework of a unified set of themes. To illustrate, I'll keep to the same composers. Good examples are Carter's subsequent quartets, Berg's Lyric Suite for string quartet and Dutilleux's Violin Concerto "arbre des songes." These are all markedly different in terms of the goals of the composer and the way the musical content has been organised and developed.

Compared to understanding, I think appreciation can be more distanced. I might appreciate, for example, that these pieces have significance and might be understood in different ways, but without some sort of understanding they are like a closed book to me.

Maybe one way of putting it is that understanding must be experienced, whereas appreciation can be vicarious (e.g. reading about why music I don't understand is significant).



Ariasexta said:


> ...Stoic calm indifference towards external events is one of the major teaching themes, as it upholds the similar idea about happiness in connection with a good and virtuous character.
> 
> ....The whole process is clear: Getting enthusiastic--learning--understanding--calm of mind--perseverance--maturity--transcendency. A long process, I would be satisfied to attain transcendency just a few moment before my death. A whole life of professionalism in everything, not for me, boring.


Marcus Aurelius wrote about these sorts of things, as did John Cage. Its certainly a worthy goal, but I think that if I get a fair way down the track towards stoicism, I woudn't need music at all (or, at the most, not need it to the extent I do now). Its not impossible to imagine, but as you suggest, it would take some serious work!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I would probably never claim to "understand" a work of music, and therefore if I claim to "appreciate" it, I would mean it in a shallow sense, meaning that I appreciate a few things about it.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier (12 mo ago)

My personal definitions of understanding & appreciating:
I understand it if I can make out the patterns & keep track of what's going on. If the music goes in one ear & doesn't go out the other.
I appreciate it if I found something to like about it. Doesn't mean I have to like it a lot. Usually only happens when I already "understand".


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Heck148 said:


> _understanding_ to me indicates that I grasp the structure, the direction, the technique, the craftsmanship that went into composing the work, tho I might not necessarily like the work very much....





Sid James said:


> For me, understanding usually involves getting to know the piece of music through repeated listening, and trying to relate the parts to the whole.





4chamberedklavier said:


> I understand it if I can make out the patterns & keep track of what's going on. If the music goes in one ear & doesn't go out the other.


I have no good idea what could be meant be "understanding a piece".

Grasping the structure, the direction, the technique, the craftmanship, ...? What do you know about the Winterreise or the finale of Mahler #9, if you understood all these technical details? Let me call Mahler as a witness, who said: "“What is _best in music is not_ to be found in the notes.” 

Getting to know the piece and trying to relate the parts to the whole? I like this one. A whole and single parts and their relations to each other and to the whole. Maybe. But what kind of relation do you mean? Structural? Emotion-based?

Making out patterns and keeping track of what's going on? But how do you know, what's really going on? On which layer - the audible layer, the meta-layer of semantics, the meta-meta-layer of quotations, ...?

Do you think you understand Beethoven's fifth symphony? Or "Für Elise"? 

Do you think Karajan understood Beethoven's fifth? And Harnoncourt? If "yes" for both, why does it sound so different when Karajan conducts it and when Harnoncourt conducts it?

I have no good idea what "understanding a piece" could mean.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Just throwing this out there -- 

Music isn't really my field, but literature is, and in that field I can say that most people who casually say they understand a work usually don't. The world is full of people who react to feelings without analysis; far fewer base their feelings on analysis. It may be getting a little better in recent years thanks to youtube channels where people analyze literature and books like _How to Read Literature Like a Professor_, but not that much better.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Next question: "Understanding a piece" - does it have a binary value (i. e., the answer can only be "yes" or "no") or is it a continuous phenomenon ("His understanding of the piece was at 73.4510385 %")?


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

MarkW said:


> There's a difference between "appreciate" and "like."


Sure. This points to the concepts of "natural taste" and "educated taste".

I think, nobody likes cigars by his natural taste. You have to approach somehow, maybe starting with cigars with much artificial vanilla flavour added, and get your experiences, before you can discard a five dollars cigar from a fifty dollars cigar. That's educated taste.

You can even reach a state, where you are saying "I don't like Barolo, but this one is so typical for the variety and its origin, it is completely free of any flaws and faults, it displays everything for being in position to maturing towards a great future, I give him 96 out of 100, but I don't like Barolo." - And some expert who likes Barolo would equally give something between 95 and 97.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

If by "understanding" we claim to be able to know and understand why Movement Y--its specific music--follows inexorably Movement X, put me down as a skeptic. I am not talking about the well-understood nature of most genres: for symphonies, fast, slow, schezo-ish, fast, etc. There are certainly many works where themes, melodies are recapitulated in a following movement, or where, as in some program music (_Nightride and Sunrise, Pastorale), _an idea predictably follows another. Otherwise, I am of the opinion that, for many works, one could use a random-number program to select any given, say, scherzo for any other in the works of any given composer. This is in conflict with a notion that, A) once a composer sets down the first few notes, the rest of the work follows inexorably, or B) unless the composer, as it is sometimes said of Mozart, finds it formed as a complete unit in the composer's mind, with the same conclusion. I will concede B but balk at A. This is different from the composer choosing to generally express certain emotions/impressions in a symphony because an extra-musical message is to be carried by the music--Shostakovich's 5th symphony, or Tchaikovsky's 4th spring to mind.​


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Strange Magic said:


> If by "understanding" we claim to be able to know and understand why Movement Y--its specific music--follows inexorably Movement X, put me down as a skeptic.


I am not sure whether this could be an adequate meaning of "understanding".

Because this meaning assumes tacitly that there is some logic in the piece in a way that the first notes determine the rest of it. (This was part of Celibidache's "understanding" of music, it fits well to some aspects of Bruckner's symphonies, but it also explains why Celibidache didn't condcut Mahler's symphonies ... so this "understanding" can't be universal.)

We have learned that Beethoven's symphonies display such logic. And we have learned to estimate it. However, this is maybe the reason why Schubert's sonatas don't have the same level of appreciation as Beethoven's do. They don't display so easily their logic, they are not drama-oriented, they are lyric, they have some magic which is outside the easy-to-recognize-formal-logic approach. Are Schubert's sonatas worse than Beethoven's? Yes, if you take Beethoven's way of sonata writing as a yardstick. Then Schubert is worse. But the statement also holds vice versa.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

I think, "understanding" and "appreciating" are difficult.

I think it is rather something like a resonance phenomenon. 

There is a piece of music. The interpreter has the notes, maybe he has some additional informations such as biography, letters, testimonials from the composer's time etc. The interpreter gets to know the piece. He finds aspects that he likes, some melody, some harmonic progression, the form, the expression, ... he is getting in resonance. There is something in the piece that makes him react in a positive way - at least in a way that the recognizes something, melody, rhythm, form, harmonic progression, you name it.

If he thinks that the aspects he recognized are worthy to be shown in public, he will think to perform the piece. And he will prepare it in a way that the aspects he recognized are shown more or less clearly. So we get a filtered version of the piece, filtered by the resonance of the interpreter.

And we are listening and we are getting in resonance to the interpretation. The aspects worked out by the interpretation can be recognized by us - or not. Maybe we recognize aspects that the interpreter wasn't aware of. Maybe, because we already listened to this piece several times with other interpreters. 

What exactly do we mean if we are saying "I understood the piece"?


----------



## PuerAzaelis (Jul 28, 2021)

As a perpetual beginner the resonance between these two words strongly applies to my listening to Brahms. I "appreciate" Brahms upon a first listen. But that by no means finishes the experience. Because Brahms is "motific" rather than "melodic", I have to closely investigate the piece in order to get the different references and motifs, otherwise, what sense would it make?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Philidor said:


> I am not sure whether this could be an adequate meaning of "understanding".
> 
> Because this meaning assumes tacitly that there is some logic in the piece in a way that the first notes determine the rest of it. (This was part of Celibidache's "understanding" of music, it fits well to some aspects of Bruckner's symphonies, but it also explains why Celibidache didn't condcut Mahler's symphonies ... so this "understanding" can't be universal.)
> 
> We have learned that Beethoven's symphonies display such logic. And we have learned to estimate it. However, this is maybe the reason why Schubert's sonatas don't have the same level of appreciation as Beethoven's do. They don't display so easily their logic, they are not drama-oriented, they are lyric, they have some magic which is outside the easy-to-recognize-formal-logic approach. Are Schubert's sonatas worse than Beethoven's? Yes, if you take Beethoven's way of sonata writing as a yardstick. Then Schubert is worse. But the statement also holds vice versa.


Philodor, I am not sure of your meaning. I take your second sentence to mean that, as do I, you believe there is no necessary logic in the unfolding of an entire piece, say, a symphony, from its first few notes--that such logic is not inherent in the work except in the most general sense--fast, slow, fast, etc. Then you say that Beethoven's symphonies display such logic. This is an apparent contradiction, I think. But perhaps I misread you.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Strange magic, thank you for pointing this out!

I think it is about statements applying to all examples and statements applying to single instances.

I understood your statement "If by 'understanding' we claim to be able to know and understand why Movement Y--its specific music--follows inexorably Movement X" in a way that you meant, that understanding a piece is knowing something like the formula of the piece: You enter the first notes into the formula, and the whole piece is the formula's output.

I think that there pieces that are constructed this way - at least. to some extent -, but there are also pieces, for which such formula does not exist. For the latter ones, your statement "If by 'understanding' we claim to be able to know and understand why Movement Y--its specific music--follows inexorably Movement X" does not apply, does it?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Philidor said:


> Strange magic, thank you for poiting this out!
> 
> I think it is about statements applying to all examples and statements applying to single instances.
> 
> ...


I think we still are not entirely clear. I will be direct. Except with the broad general instances that I pointed out--fast, slow, fast, or programmatic music, or extra-musically-charged music, there is no necessary logic why one note should follow another. There is only the will of the composer and of the degree to which he is following the expectation/denial template described by Leonard Meyer that one note will follow another, or, in the possible case of a Mozart, the work springs full-blown and intact from his brain. Do you agree?


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Strange Magic said:


> Except with the broad general instances that I pointed out--fast, slow, fast, or programmatic music, or extra-musically-charged music, there is no necessary logic why one note should follow another.


I fully agree.

However, from your first posting I got the impression, that your definition of "understanding a piece" relies on the assumption that such logic always existed.

So I was wrong?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Philidor said:


> I fully agree.
> 
> However, from your first posting I got the impression, that your definition of "understanding a piece" relies on the assumption that such logic always existed.
> 
> So I was wrong?


I think I agree with your resonance formulation in that the performer forms a resonant bond with his/her interpretation of a composer's piece. And maybe that resonant bond will itself resonate with the listener (some listener or listeners). I think that is at the heart of why we prefer certain "interpretations" of certain pieces. As one example, I never found anyone's version of the Ravel Left Hand Concerto as satisfying as Samson Francois' rendering--and we all have such understanding. However, this phenomenon may be largely due to early imprinting and then repeated listening, and is "understanding" in a more defined and restricted sense, closely aligned with appreciation.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> I think we still are not entirely clear. I will be direct. Except with the broad general instances that I pointed out--fast, slow, fast, or programmatic music, or extra-musically-charged music, *there is no necessary logic why one note should follow another*. There is only the will of the composer and of the degree to which he is following the expectation/denial template described by Leonard Meyer that one note will follow another, or, in the possible case of a Mozart, the work springs full-blown and intact from his brain. Do you agree?


Do you really think that a (any) statement about music or musical works in general can be true or valid? I will be direct: Some works have inexorable logic, others don't. And Meyer's ideas about meaning in music were interesting in their day but haven't led to any productive theory of musical meaning in general.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

honestly, "appreciate' is usually one of those damning-with-faint-praise words I use when I get the appeal of a piece, or get its importance in the context of musical history, but don't particularly care for it.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Philidor said:


> I have no good idea what could be meant be "understanding a piece".
> 
> Grasping the structure, the direction, the technique, the craftmanship, ...? What do you know about the Winterreise or the finale of Mahler #9, if you understood all these technical details? Let me call Mahler as a witness, who said: "“What is _best in music is not_ to be found in the notes.”
> 
> ...


While I was reading your post I was thinking, one way is you sit at the piano and you play some of your own note ideas,
..and then you play the inspiring notes that impressed you from a classical piece. You hear and feel the differences in effectiveness. A person curious about the fundamentals of music would want to know what the differences are (facts) and why there are such differences coming out of the physics and interacting with the human brain. We might only think about such a deep subject for a few seconds, but it makes it all very open-ended and never-ending. You can follow this pursuit for many decades.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> Do you really think that a (any) statement about music or musical works in general can be true or valid? I will be direct: Some works have inexorable logic, others don't. And Meyer's ideas about meaning in music were interesting in their day but haven't led to any productive theory of musical meaning in general.


In terms of inexorable logic, if I wanted to appreciate the aesthetics of such a thing I'd be more inclined to study chess games by the great grandmasters--like Bobby Fischer's Game of the Century--than music. You can talk about all the inexorable logic there is in Bach's counterpoint all you want, but IMO once music and listeners of music lose site of the aesthetic, emotional, dramatic, and tonal (as in speaking tone, not music-theory-tone) aspects they've taken their eyes of the prize. If the "inexorable logic" is there for some aesthetic, emotional, tonal, or dramatic reason then that's fine. My values here probably helps explain why I prefer Handel to Bach, as I think the former, despite the relative simplicity of his harmonies and counterpoint, had a much better command on these other aspects I mention. Lovers of Bach may completely disagree, and that's their prerogative, but I've yet to hear an argument as to why I should care about "inexorable logic" in music if it doesn't make me feel anything.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Philidor said:


> Getting to know the piece and trying to relate the parts to the whole? I like this one. A whole and single parts and their relations to each other and to the whole. Maybe. But what kind of relation do you mean? Structural? Emotion-based?


Basically structural. The pieces I mentioned by Berg, Carter and Dutilleux are as far as I can go by applying this approach. I remember attending a concert of that Berg piece, _String Quartet Op. 3_. One of the musicians explained how the piece is built on three themes that are played at the outset. While he explained this, musicians played the themes. I'd connected to this work before, mainly on an emotional level, but his explanation helped me to understand its structure.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Philidor said:


> I have no good idea what could be meant be "understanding a piece".
> 
> Grasping the structure, the direction, the technique, the craftmanship, ...? What do you know about the Winterreise or the finale of Mahler #9, if you understood all these technical details? Let me call Mahler as a witness, who said: "“What is _best in music is not_ to be found in the notes.”
> 
> ...


Came to say something similar. As a philosopher, the concept of "understanding" something is vague at best, especially when applied to something like music. Is understanding how to play the cello part of something the same as understanding the composition generally? Does understanding a piece of music require knowledge of the historical context of a piece's creation? Of the beliefs, desires and mental states of its creator? Must one also understand contemporary pieces in order to situate it in context? How many? All of them?

It reminds me of Professor Frink telling the Springfield kindergarten class that they can't play with the push-pop machine because they must appreciate it on every level he does. Is music something that needs to be understood, or does it need to be played and heard?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> In terms of inexorable logic, if I wanted to appreciate the aesthetics of such a thing I'd be more inclined to study chess games by the great grandmasters--like Bobby Fischer's Game of the Century--than music. You can talk about all the inexorable logic there is in Bach's counterpoint all you want, but IMO once music and listeners of music lose site of the aesthetic, emotional, dramatic, and tonal (as in speaking tone, not music-theory-tone) aspects they've taken their eyes of the prize. *If the "inexorable logic" is there for some aesthetic, emotional, tonal, or dramatic reason then that's fine*. My values here probably helps explain why I prefer Handel to Bach, as I think the former, despite the relative simplicity of his harmonies and counterpoint, had a much better command on these other aspects I mention. Lovers of Bach may completely disagree, and that's their prerogative, but I've yet to hear an argument as to why I should care about "inexorable logic" in music if it doesn't make me feel anything.


Well, yeah, of course. What else would it be there for?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> Well, yeah, of course. What else would it be there for?


I get the feeling many just seem to appreciate the inexorable logic for the sake of the inexorable logic.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier (12 mo ago)

Philidor said:


> Making out patterns and keeping track of what's going on? But how do you know, what's really going on? On which layer - the audible layer, the meta-layer of semantics, the meta-meta-layer of quotations, ...?
> 
> Do you think you understand Beethoven's fifth symphony? Or "Für Elise"?
> 
> ...


As you hinted at in your post about binaries, I don't think it's the case that you either "understand" (in a loose sense) something in its entirety or you don't understand it at all. There are degrees to which you can comprehend something. I don't have to figure out every minute detail that the composer intended in a piece before I can enjoy it. If that were the case, listening to music would be a hassle.

How do I know, what's really going on? I don't, & I don't have to. I just take & work with whatever the music gives me. Anyhow, I'm not asserting that my own definition of "understanding" is the most adequate. It's just what works for me.

This discussion brings to mind the very busy thread about objectivity & subjectivity. It really is important to have clear definitions (I admit I wasn't very clear in my initial post).


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

4chamberedklavier said:


> As you hinted at in your post about binaries, I don't think it's the case that you either "understand" (in a loose sense) something in its entirety or you don't understand it at all. There are degrees to which you can comprehend something. I don't have to figure out every minute detail that the composer intended in a piece before I can enjoy it. If that were the case, listening to music would be a hassle.
> 
> How do I know, what's really going on? I don't, & I don't have to. I just take & work with whatever the music gives me. Anyhow, I'm not asserting that my own definition of "understanding" is the most adequate. It's just what works for me.
> 
> This discussion brings to mind the very busy thread about objectivity & subjectivity. It really is important to have clear definitions (I admit I wasn't very clear in my initial post).


I would guess that 60 percent of CM fans are like you.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier (12 mo ago)

Luchesi said:


> I would guess that 60 percent of CM fans are like you.


What do you mean? That around 40% of CM fans are the type to deeply analyze a work?


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> Yeah, historical significance is probably the most vague concept (largely dependent on how you interpret) of them all. Who gives a damn about Aumann's influence on Bruckner, or Reichardt's influence on Schubert, or Adlgasser's influence on Mozart these days? (lol)


You, hammeredklavier. YOU give a damn 😈😈😈


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> Do you really think that a (any) statement about music or musical works in general can be true or valid? I will be direct: Some works have inexorable logic, others don't. And Meyer's ideas about meaning in music were interesting in their day but haven't led to any productive theory of musical meaning in general.


"Some works have inexorable logic." A bold assertion indeed. And only an assertion. Leonard Meyer's analysis remains as valid today as when he formulated it. That is my assertion, but I suggest respectfully that you look up several articles and reviews of Meyer's work, including his NYTimes obit, and you see that, while dead, he is very much alive. Sort of like Bach.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

"Understanding" music is a very strange thing indeed! I'm not even sure it makes any sense to understand a piece of music.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> How can you "understand" a work, and not "appreciate" it? Maybe you think you "understand", but in reality there are still some things about the work you don't "understand", so you don't "appreciate" it?
> Does the term "understanding" have significant meaning when it comes to music appreciation?


More seems to be made of this than necessary, not least because the OP first quotes a thread from 2013 which talks about 'understanding' and 'liking', but then substitutes 'appreciating' for 'liking' in his query.

The original discussion he references seemed simple enough: is "understanding" music a necessary pre-requisite to "liking" (wrt serial music)? It seemed obvious to me that the question was about the extent to which we need to develop some familiarity with the unfamiliar before we can conclude that we "like" it, but that even if we did gain some familiarity, there's no guarantee that liking would follow. 'Liking' is a conscious, deliberate act: it requires a decision to be made. 'Understanding' and 'appreciating' (in the sense of getting to know) are processes that don't _require _a decision, though one might declare that one is beginning to appreciate (the virtues) of Ligeti's Etudes.

'Liking' seems to have acquired a negative connotation in some discussions here (not just in this thread), as if it is a trivialising of the act of fully appreciating and understanding, reaching the lofty heights of deep aesthetic comprehension.

Me, I'm happy that when I say I 'like' a piece, I mean that I have decided that the various responses I have had to it - emotional, intellectual etc - are sufficient to make me want to repeat the experience, to buy the work, stream it...whatever. There may be degrees of liking, as in "I quite like a bit of Mozart, but not enough to splash out on a complete set of symphonies", but the word has its place in the lexicon of musical appreciation and enjoyment (there's another vilified word).

I just don't see the need for the philosophising. Plain English will do.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> "Some works have inexorable logic." *A bold assertion indeed.* And only an assertion. Leonard Meyer's analysis remains as valid today as when he formulated it. That is my assertion, but I suggest respectfully that you look up several articles and reviews of Meyer's work, including his NYTimes obit, and you see that, while dead, he is very much alive. Sort of like Bach.


Not bold at all. It's been argued and demonstrated in numerous analyses that anyone with the necessary theory background can read for themselves. Virtually all trained theorists take this for granted.

I was at Meyer's farewell talk at a joint meeting of the AMS and SMT. Much of his legacy is the students he trained, many of whom were there to honor him. His principal theory in _Emotion and Meaning in Music_ hasn't been anywhere near the cutting edge of musical theory or aesthetics for fifty years. Old hat. Virtually no one cites it because its insights have been framed more comprehensively in later work. The idea of defied expectations and their role in expressiveness and meaning has been subsumed into later theories of musical semiotics via the concept of markedness. This is perhaps best explained in Robert Hatten's _Musical Meaning in Beethoven_. Most people in theory and musical aesthetics in Meyer's day didn't have the cross disciplinary training to realize they were reinventing old wheels long spun in other fields.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> "Understanding" music is a very strange thing indeed! I'm not even sure it makes any sense to understand a piece of music.


Depends on what sense of understand one has in mind. Understanding the technical workings of a composition through music theory is an everyday notion. Understanding in the sense of "What does the piece mean?" is, as you seem to be stating, a more slippery matter altogether.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> "Some works have inexorable logic." A bold assertion indeed. And only an assertion. Leonard Meyer's analysis remains as valid today as when he formulated it. That is my assertion, but I suggest respectfully that you look up several articles and reviews of Meyer's work, including his NYTimes obit, and you see that, while dead, he is very much alive. Sort of like Bach.


You've told us you don't know what the logic is, but it's a bold assertion? No, it's what we strive to understand and put together at the very bottom of it. It's the mechanics of music and the evoking techniques. It's foreign to you, so you have your assumptions and very limited approximations (you can't possibly guess what it is because it's a very long explanation). Your assumptions make it worse. But this is all very understandable in any subject..

We really talk past each other. It's not surprising because musicians have indescribable experiences every day. How could they share them? What would be the common ground of experience? For me those flashes of appreciation come from the dead score, but of course a good, novel performance can work wonders, since music is such a big subject for our natural brains. As in other subjects we start with the reliable objective landscape.

I've come to believe that the saddest thing about music is that you have to study a lot if you want to know what Dr. Bast is trying to help us with. Years of exposure to all the rewarding feedbacks. It's probably the same long road with learning to appreciate the art and history of painting.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

4chamberedklavier said:


> What do you mean? That around 40% of CM fans are the type to deeply analyze a work?


They're probably equipped to analyze, yes. Less than that?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> "Understanding" music is a very strange thing indeed! I'm not even sure it makes any sense to understand a piece of music.


We're trying to understand what makes the music music.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

To be compelled to dive into a piece, and to see its inner workings note by note, and analyze how it functions is just another form of love.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_"Understanding" music is a very strange thing indeed! I'm not even sure it makes any sense to understand a piece of music. _

You wouldn't think that if you performed music. Many composers have an idea or ideas in mind when they compose music and the performers may or may not put across those ideas. This kind of thing is often stated by critics in reviews with comments like, "Great playing but not great Beethoven." The performer played it well but did not transmit what the composer intended.

There are composers whose ideas are obscured by their adherence to form and style. It becomes the performer's task to expose the ideas through the composer's morass. A well known example of this is the many versions of Anton Bruckner's symphonies.

I once sang Vivaldi for a choral director of rare understanding. He drilled us relentlessly in practices on dipthong and nasal sounds to our consternation. When we performed in concert a woman came up to me afterward and said, "I've been to Italy three times and that sounded like Italy."

As to appreciation, that to me means you can like it or dislike it but are not confused by it. Appreciation is a response mechanism, understanding is cerebral.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Forster said:


> More seems to be made of this than necessary, not least because the OP first quotes a thread from 2013 which talks about 'understanding' and 'liking', but then substitutes 'appreciating' for 'liking' in his query.
> 
> The original discussion he references seemed simple enough: is "understanding" music a necessary pre-requisite to "liking" (wrt serial music)? It seemed obvious to me that the question was about the extent to which we need to develop some familiarity with the unfamiliar before we can conclude that we "like" it, but that even if we did gain some familiarity, there's no guarantee that liking would follow. 'Liking' is a conscious, deliberate act: it requires a decision to be made. 'Understanding' and 'appreciating' (in the sense of getting to know) are processes that don't _require _a decision, though one might declare that one is beginning to appreciate (the virtues) of Ligeti's Etudes.
> 
> ...


This is such a good place to discuss these particulars. Where else? 
It can be curiously unpleasant if your view of music has long been very different from that of a nerdy analyzer. 

But again this is the same in any technical subject. However, we know that there's a spiritual feeling in and about music, which is dulled in other subjects. It's an interesting phenomenon.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> This is such a good place to discuss these particulars. Where else?
> It can be curiously unpleasant if your view of music has long been very different from that of a nerdy analyzer.
> 
> But again this is the same in any technical subject. However, we know that there's a spiritual feeling in and about music, which is dulled in other subjects. It's an interesting phenomenon.


I don't see the need for philosophising in this particular instance. I don't routinely object to nerdy analysing.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Forster said:


> I don't see the need for philosophising in this particular instance. I don't routinely object to nerdy analysing.


In what subjects do you feel there's a need for philosophising, just so I can understand you. 

Philosophy is the love of wisdom so if we put personal limits on it we're easily misunderstood.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fbjim said:


> To be compelled to dive into a piece, and to see its inner workings note by note, and analyze how it functions is just another form of love.


When you put it that way it's even sadder, a missed opportunity when we don't find this form of love. 

Of course maybe it's only in our minds, fbjim. As a proudly rational person I have to hold that out as an explanation (for all this crosstalk).

added: My wife's an Art Therapist (ATR) so that very much influences my 'philosophy'.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> In what subjects do you feel there's a need for philosophising, just so I can understand you.
> 
> Philosophy is the love of wisdom so if we put personal limits on it we're easily misunderstood.


"Philosophy is the love of wisdom" - not in my dictionary. It may be the direct translation of the Greek, but it's come to refer to "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence".

If members want to have a philosophical discussion about what music is, or what beauty is, or how to "understand" music in the various ways that this might be interpreted, that's fine. I sometimes join in. In fact, in the long thread about 'beauty', I joined in quite a lot.

But in this thread, the question asked didn't seem to me to need a particularly 'deep' response.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> Not bold at all. It's been argued and demonstrated in numerous analyses that anyone with the necessary theory background can read for themselves. Virtually all trained theorists take this for granted.
> 
> I was at Meyer's farewell talk at a joint meeting of the AMS and SMT. Much of his legacy is the students he trained, many of whom were there to honor him. His principal theory in _Emotion and Meaning in Music_ hasn't been anywhere near the cutting edge of musical theory or aesthetics for fifty years. Old hat. Virtually no one cites it because its insights have been framed more comprehensively in later work. The idea of defied expectations and their role in expressiveness and meaning has been subsumed into later theories of musical semiotics via the concept of markedness. This is perhaps best explained in Robert Hatten's _Musical Meaning in Beethoven_. Most people in theory and musical aesthetics in Meyer's day didn't have the cross disciplinary training to realize they were reinventing old wheels long spun in other fields.





EdwardBast said:


> Do you really think that a (any) statement about music or musical works in general can be true or valid? I will be direct: Some works have inexorable logic, others don't. And Meyer's ideas about meaning in music were interesting in their day but haven't led to any productive theory of musical meaning in general.


Despite your lengthy answer to my reply to your first post, I again assert that your assertion that some music has *inexorable logic* to be undemonstrable without recourse to the most convoluted theorizing. Euclid's proof of the non-existence of a largest prime is ruddered by inexorable logic. The fact that musical "experts" utter such nonsense perhaps is why some of them are not held in high repute.

Regarding Meyer, you yourself have testified as to his enduring influence and legacy. Hutton is dead, but lives. Darwin is dead, but lives. Einstein is dead, but lives. These provide the very foundation (among others) for today's researchers.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

I guess in this thread it is my turn to be "agnostic" on the question the "inexorable logic" of some music. Based on my rudimentary understanding of music theory I can intuit what I think people mean by it, and perhaps given a certain set of axiomatic assumptions I might agree with it to some limited extents; but just as in the massive "objective/subjective" thread I find a lot of people willing to assert such things (inexorable logic and truth by way of axiomatic assumptions) but, at least thus far, very few people willing to articulate what those axiomatic assumptions are and how the truth of what they're saying follows with "inexorable logic" from those assumptions. 

I know I keep coming back to chess, but it really is the ideal model for comparison, because in a game like that the rules/goals ARE the axiomatic assumptions. Within those assumptions some moves have an absolute inexorable logic in that the other player will have a limited set of responses and sometimes, if your move was good enough, all of their responses will put them in a losing situation. I am skeptical that music can have inexorable logic of this sort. For one it assumes that there is only one "right" move (according to what axiomatic assumption?) from the set of all possible moves. Surely, there may be "better" moves if we anchor "better" to the axiomatic assumption of composer's intent, and perhaps to a set of "rules" we've established for composition, or the intended affect on audiences; but must we take the former as gospel, and is the latter not innately dependent upon the variable minds and sensibilities of people who respond to the music?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

At some point I feel like an analogy is saying that there isn't anything inherent about film which requires us to assume that the scenes are in temporal order, or that cross-cutting implies two things happening simultaneously, or that if you zoom in on a character and do a dissolve fade it means it's a flashback. Sure, but where does that really get us?

Classical is a form of art with conventions that the audience for the music has at least some familiarity with, _even if they may not know it, in the same way that you don't need to know film editing to get what crosscutting or a montage implies narratively. _I think we can accept that as an axiom, as ill-defined as it might be.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

*^^^^@Eva Yojimbo: *Put me down as beyond skepticism regarding the "inexorable logic" of certain pieces of music. The assertion, IMO, is absurd on its face. Do literature and film demonstrate inexorable logic? If so, we must contort and deform ordinary meaning in order to accommodate this new and strange use of the term. I am reminded of a YouTube clip showing Deepak Chopra learnedly expounding upon quantum physics before a college audience and then being asked a question from the floor. The questioner turns out to be a physicist specializing in quantum physics, who states that he understands each word that Chopra uttered about QP but that the sentence in which the words were embedded he could not understand at all.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Film and literature do not demonstrate "inexorable logic" but the audience and readers of such things accept generic conventions that allow those things to exist within that framework.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Despite your lengthy answer to my reply to your first post, I again assert that your assertion that some music has *inexorable logic* to be undemonstrable without recourse to the most convoluted theorizing. Euclid's proof of the non-existence of a largest prime is ruddered by inexorable logic. The fact that musical "experts" utter such nonsense perhaps is why some of them are not held in high repute.
> 
> Regarding Meyer, you yourself have testified as to his enduring influence and legacy. Hutton is dead, but lives. Darwin is dead, but lives. Einstein is dead, but lives. These provide the very foundation (among others) for today's researchers.


First paragraph: You don't know what you're talking about. It's an everyday activity for us theory types.

Meyer's mistake was thinking he needed to create a foundation in psychology for a problem that was inherently one of semiotics and aesthetic theory. Many people made that mistake when his theory was current. In fact, I made that mistake when I got a double undergraduate major in music and psychology. Later I figured out that the second major should have been philosophy or literary theory. Meyer explored a cul de sac and saved future generations from finding the same dead end. As you no doubt realize, exploring dead ends is always useful and often necessary for the advancement of any field of inquiry.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

fbjim said:


> At some point I feel like an analogy is saying that there isn't anything inherent about film which requires us to assume that the scenes are in temporal order, or that cross-cutting implies two things happening simultaneously, or that if you zoom in on a character and do a dissolve fade it means it's a flashback. Sure, but where does that really get us?


For one thing it gets us to questioning these assumptions, which can then feed into questions about the ways in which the medium manipulates us for all kinds of purposes. These are the exact questions that a filmmaker like Jean-Luc Godard has posed throughout his career, and he is considered one of the greatest (and most controversial) filmmakers ever who completely revolutionized the very cinematic language we take for granted, just as you're taking for granted in this post. He began his career Breathelss, which, though still fairly standard in comparison with his later, much more challenging works, still "broke all the rules" of filmmaking logic in dozens of small ways, like his frequent use of jump cuts.

Also, regardless of how much one enjoys or cares for Godard's experimentation, it certainly shattered the illusion that the things you mentioned have an "inexorable logic" to them as opposed to just being similar to linguistic conventions that were amenable to radical rethinking. Someone like Tarantino has absorbed those innovations and implemented them in a more postmodern context that's about entertainment rather than lofty philosophical exploration. 

One more fun example is that of Yasujiro Ozu. It was convention (still is) for conversations to be shot in what's called shot reverse-shot where characters would stare slightly left and right of the camera to make it appear as if they were looking at each other. Ozu shot them head on. The story goes that someone working with him questioned why he didn't shoot it the conventional way. He shot a scene the conventional way, reviewed it with that person and said "see, no difference," and just went on shooting it his way. 



fbjim said:


> Classical is a form of art with conventions that the audience for the music has at least some familiarity with, _even if they may not know it, in the same way that you don't need to know film editing to get what crosscutting or a montage implies narratively. _I think we can accept that as an axiom, as ill-defined as it might be.


Right, but "conventions" don't amount to "inexorable logic." Conventions rely on a lot of assumptions that may not be there for either the artist or the audience. There are a great many films from a great many filmmakers all over the world that don't rely on these conventions; and many of those conventions were formed during the Golden Era of Hollywood where productions were meant to be run as smooth and, well, conventional as a factory to the point that directors were largely interchangeable and one could fill in for another if need be. 

IMO, your comparisons are just highlighting the points I'm making. What's being described isn't "inexorable logic" but a kind of "logic by means of convention." Convention isn't gospel and most progress happens in art by subverting and questioning such conventions or by inventing new ones.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

If I'm trying to communicate something, it's that while questioning and even playing with these conventions can be an interesting topic of discussion, I also think it's a reasonable assumption that the audience for a work is going to have familiarity with those conventions, even if it's via culturally-learned immersion, intuition, actual technical learning, or whatever. More to your point, I think, breaking these conventions is something which only has significance because those conventions exist in the first place - you can not cheat if there are no rules.

I don't think I've ever read an analysis of any given film, for instance, which assumes that we start from absolute zero base principles and explains that film is generally accepted to be a narrative medium, in chronological order, and about two hours or so long. It may be an interesting topic (one which I'm certain has been covered in endless papers and writings) to see how the framework of orchestral music allows for a sort of narrative concept like "inexorable logic" to exist in an abstract form, but I don't think it's necessary to start from square zero to do so.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> *^^^^@Eva Yojimbo: *Put me down as beyond skepticism regarding the "inexorable logic" of certain pieces of music. The assertion, IMO, is absurd on its face. Do literature and film demonstrate inexorable logic? If so, we must contort and deform ordinary meaning in order to accommodate this new and strange use of the term. I am reminded of a YouTube clip showing Deepak Chopra learnedly expounding upon quantum physics before a college audience and then being asked a question from the floor. The questioner turns out to be a physicist specializing in quantum physics, who states that he understands each word that Chopra uttered about QP but that the sentence in which the words were embedded he could not understand at all.


I've seen that YouTube clip. Chopra is indeed a charlatan who uses the "mysterious" reputation of QM to peddle woo-woo. Some of what he says would be OK if he would clarify he's just using these terms metaphorically but he doesn't. 

At least I would appreciate some examples of this "inexorable logic." I assume any of them will come down to "a composer is trying to do X (like, say, modulate back to a home key), there are A, B, C ways of achieving X, but A is best because most listeners/composers prefer A..." though many here never really get around to admitting the last part of it. I mean, I actually have listened to and read certain analysis of how such things happen, but it strikes me no different than reading analysis of, say, Shakespeare's sonnets and all the literary tricks and patterns he's able to embed into the form. That's all well-and-good, but nothing what I'd describe as "inexorable logic" as in it MUST be this way given a set of axioms and goals. In art the axioms are too ambiguous and the goals are too rooted in our subjectivities.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fbjim said:


> If I'm trying to communicate something, it's that while questioning and even playing with these conventions can be an interesting topic of discussion, I also think it's a reasonable assumption that the audience for a work is going to have familiarity with those conventions, even if it's via culturally-learned immersion, intuition, actual technical learning, or whatever. More to your point, I think, breaking these conventions is something which only has significance because those conventions exist in the first place - you can not cheat if there are no rules.
> 
> I don't think I've ever read an analysis of any given film, for instance, which assumes that we start from absolute zero base principles and explains that film is generally accepted to be a narrative medium, in chronological order, and about two hours or so long. It may be an interesting topic (one which I'm certain has been covered in endless papers and writings) to see how the framework of orchestral music allows for a sort of narrative concept like "inexorable logic" to exist in an abstract form, but I don't think it's necessary to start from square zero to do so.


Not to disagree with you, but starting from most basic square one is what fascinates me. How do the first notes set the key, if they do. What comes next and what comprises the most interesting ideas as they hopefully relate back somewhere. The actual notes are right there to mull over.
You know the logic of note combinations transitioned artistically, impressively and the power of it all because of the effective figurations. It's difficult to put the power and the effects of these notes combinations into words for non-musicians so we use the terms of music theory. The terms might be a problem.
Here's a clip from a book I poured over when I was young and realized that it would be interesting to see each LvB sonata put into words.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

EdwardBast said:


> First paragraph: You don't know what you're talking about. ...


I think that's a problem with a lot of these threads. Heavy on the philosophizing, light on the "musical".


Strange Magic said:


> The fact that musical "experts" utter such nonsense perhaps is why some of them are not held in high repute.


I don't think music experts such as musicologists or teachers of theory are held in low esteem, certainly no more so than psychoanalysts or sociologists.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

fbjim said:


> If I'm trying to communicate something, it's that while questioning and even playing with these conventions can be an interesting topic of discussion, I also think it's a reasonable assumption that the audience for a work is going to have familiarity with those conventions, even if it's via culturally-learned immersion, intuition, actual technical learning, or whatever. More to your point, I think, breaking these conventions is something which only has significance because those conventions exist in the first place - you can not cheat if there are no rules.


I absolutely agree that for breaking/questioning conventions to have any power the conventions must first exist: but the entire notion that questioning/breaking convention can lead to great, revolutionary works of art IMO puts the lie to any notions of "inexorable logic" in art. It isn't inexorable if it can be questioned and broken and still result in excellent or even better work than all the art that follows those conventions. 

It reminds me of a great quote in an article about DOs and DON'Ts for young poets, paraphrased: "Don't slip on form and meter and think you can get away with it; people will notice and think you an idiot. Don't think it impossible to cheat on form and meter; if you do it well people will think you a genius." 

Die Meistersinger is both a parody of the notion that art can be reduced to following rules/convention, and an endorsement that genius comes via inspiration that flounces such rules and conventions. 



fbjim said:


> I don't think I've ever read an analysis of any given film, for instance, which assumes that we start from absolute zero base principles and explains that film is generally accepted to be a narrative medium, in chronological order, and about two hours or so long. It may be an interesting topic (one which I'm certain has been covered in endless papers and writings) to see how the framework of orchestral music allows for a sort of narrative concept like "inexorable logic" to exist in an abstract form, but I don't think it's necessary to start from square zero to do so.


I don't know if I've ever read such an analysis either, but I think films like those of Godard showed how... unnecessary, let's say, many of those conventions were. It's worth noting that a little more than a century ago nobody really had any idea how to make fiction films except as what amounted to filmed stage plays. DW Griffith changed that by introducing all kinds of novel ideas like the modulation of shot types (medium shot, close-ups, etc.) and things like cross-cutting scenes of temporally parallel action, which you've previously mentioned. After Griffith dozens of filmmakers of the silent film's golden era (the 20s) worked to established many of the conventions that would dominate throughout the the early sound era of Hollywood. Many of these conventions were invented towards the goal of making film narrative more intelligible to viewers, who were, less than a decade before, completely "blank slates" for such things; so filmmakers HAD to take care to make sure they didn't lose their naive audiences. 

Nearly a century on most of these conventions are no longer necessary. Audiences are sophisticated enough to follow much more complicated film techniques that would've seemed like gibberish to people a century ago, like the rapid editing and "intensified continuity" of most modern action blockbuster directors (though some of that traces back to Eisenstein's theory of editing). Much of that is thanks to Godard and the avant-garde cinema of the 60s that, either directly or indirectly, helped prime viewers for more, shall we say, oblique forms of film narratives. The conventions you make still exist, but are nowhere near as dominant or necessary as they once were. 

I would be shocked if there aren't parallels to this in music, where many things deemed necessary by inexorable logic have been questioned, subverted, and made into what are still considered masterpieces.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> I think that's a problem with a lot of these threads. Heavy on the philosophizing, light on the "musical".
> I don't think music experts such as musicologists or teachers of theory are held in low esteem, certainly no more so than psychoanalysts or sociologists.


An excellent comparison pooling music experts in with psychoanalysts and sociologists. That speaks for itself. I would be more receptive to a discussion of the evolution of a musical idea or piece if the bizarre term "inexorable logic" was replaced by something defensible. The use of the term invites profound skepticism, and I wonder at its evocation--is it to foreclose questioning by issuing a pronunciamento?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> An excellent comparison pooling music experts in with psychoanalysts and sociologists. That speaks for itself. I would be more receptive to a discussion of the evolution of a musical idea or piece if the bizarre term "inexorable logic" was replaced by something defensible. The use of the term invites profound skepticism, and I wonder at its evocation--is it to foreclose questioning by issuing a pronunciamento?


You don't think there's logic in music? I could pool them in with pure mathematicians as well, maybe.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> You don't think there's logic in music? I could pool them in with pure mathematicians as well, maybe.


It's the "inexorable" part I struggle with. To claim that there is logic in music is perfectly defensible; this is apparent in the abundant patterns within music, in concepts like themes and their development, in modulations to and from keys, etc. All of these things point to the existence of goals and means of achieving those goals within certain frameworks. Logic exists, but "inexorable logic," with the implication that it couldn't have been otherwise, is another matter entirely.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It's the "inexorable" part I struggle with. To claim that there is logic in music is perfectly defensible; this is apparent in the abundant patterns within music, in concepts like themes and their development, in modulations to and from keys, etc. All of these things point to the existence of goals and means of achieving those goals within certain frameworks. Logic exists, but "inexorable logic," with the implication that it couldn't have been otherwise, is another matter entirely.


Well the greatness of, say, the Goldberg Variations isn't in some scientific certainty that Bach's "solution" was the only mathematically possible one; it's that the whole work has the feeling of inevitability. It couldn't really have been any other way without loss. It may be as illusory as the implied counterpoint in the cello suites, but it's there. Do you _know_ the logic of the GV? It isn't completely ad hoc; there is mathematical symmetry underlying it. Do you know the logic of the canons and fugues in the Musical Offering? Absolutely no offense intended but I see a lot of confident statements from people who don't seem to be all that knowledgeable about the real subject at hand, which is music. Or to put it in a more charitable way, who know a lot less about music than they do about philosophical ways of talking about it.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

...........oops......deleted


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> Well the greatness of, say, the Goldberg Variations isn't in some scientific certainty that Bach's "solution" was the only mathematically possible one; it's that the whole work has the feeling of inevitability. It couldn't really have been any other way without loss. It may be as illusory as the implied harmony in the cello suites, but it's there. Do you _know_ the logic of the GV? Do you know the logic of the canons and fugues in the Musical Offering?


I understand the feeling of inevitability, but I also understand that such feelings point to our own ideals, values, standards, etc. rather than anything else. There are plenty of works in which I would not want to change a note, a frame, a word (choose the appropriate term for the medium); but this doesn't argue for inexorable logic as it does to the notion of a work being in a state that matches the ideal you have for it. I acknowledge that The Goldberg Variations may be that for you, but, speaking as someone who's always been underwhelmed by TGV (and as someone who's followed along with the score, the multiple voices, and the harmonic developments), I suspect it could be changed quite radically and the result could be something I might even prefer. That, of course, would then push the work far away from your ideals of what it should be, and undoubtedly away from Bach's, but such is the case with all art and its interaction with such varying subjectivities.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I understand the feeling of inevitability, but I also understand that such feelings point to our own ideals, values, standards, etc. rather than anything else.


No, it has to do with the music.


> There are plenty of works in which I would not want to change a note, a frame, a word (choose the appropriate term for the medium); but this doesn't argue for inexorable logic as it does to the notion of a work being in a state that matches the ideal you have for it.


So what other definition for "inexorable logic" would you have? I don't _really_ think the term is used as an expression of mathematical certitude, but at least partly figuratively. But in some ways maybe there _is_ mathematical certitude involved.


> but, speaking as someone who's always been underwhelmed by TGV (and as someone who's followed along with the score, the multiple voices, and the harmonic developments), I suspect it could be changed quite radically and the result could be something I might even prefer.


It's your loss. At a certain point that would be like saying "I don't find fractals to be aesthetically pleasing." Um...ok..?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> No, it has to do with the music.
> So what other definition for "inexorable logic" would you have? I don't _really_ think the term is used as an expression of mathematical certitude, but at least partly figuratively. But in some ways maybe there _is_ mathematical certitude involved.
> It's your loss.


I feel like at this point we're just going to be repeating arguments that have already been gone over ad infinitum in the objective/subjective thread. As always, nobody is saying the music has no role in producing the feeling you mention, merely that the music does not lead "inexorably" to that feeling, which is the entire reason why opinions differ. 

I would define "inexorable logic" as precisely meaning that the musical choices in something couldn't have been otherwise given some set of axiomatic assumptions and goals (because that's how logic works). The problem is that I don't think you're ever going to be able to establish what those axiomatic assumptions and goals are in a way that's universally applicable. At most you might be limited to defining such a thing in the much more limited context of the composer, but then in that case most everything composed becomes the product of inexorable logic. 

I agree me being underwhelmed by TGV is my loss, which is why I've tried so much with it; but then the fact that any number of people don't respond to the music I rate highly based on my own subjective ideals/goals/etc. is also their loss. Hell, I've been listening to some of Handel's lesser-known keyboard suites and there's some phenomenal music in them that I rarely seem mentioned and I can't help but think that for everyone who hasn't heard them, or who has heard them and don't share my reactions, that's their loss too. Here's one example: 




That may be the saddest Menuet I've ever heard... but of course appealing to emotion doesn't have the same force and weight to many as asserting inexorable logic, but what can you do?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I feel like at this point we're just going to be repeating arguments that have already been gone over ad infinitum in the objective/subjective thread.


Not this time. The presence of logic in music doesn't depend on whether you like it or not. It's a matter of your knowledge and being able to discern it. It is objective. There is a logic to Schoenberg and Webern, and you could say that logic is inexorable in the stream of classical music.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

dissident said:


> So what other definition for "inexorable logic" would you have? I don't _really_ think the term is used as an expression of mathematical certitude, but at least partly figuratively. But in some ways maybe there _is_ mathematical certitude involved.


I think Strange Magic and Eva Yojimbe are happy to say classical music often ( or maybe generally) has a logic to its construction. I think they are objecting to the term "inexorable logic". You seem to agree that the term does not really mean that there is a certitude to the score, but you also suggest that maybe there is a certitude involved. 



> It's your loss. At a certain point that would be like saying "I don't find fractals to be aesthetically pleasing." Um...ok..?


So here's a good example. The Mandelbrot set is a fractal that may or may not be aesthetically pleasing to people. It does however have a mathematical certitude. Once the set is defined, any mathematician can generate the exact set. In fact computers can generate the set once programed with the algorithm. Could any composer or even a computer generate the Goldberg Variations with the appropriate algorithm? If not, I think Strange Magic and Eva Yojimbe are correct in saying the Variations may have a logic just not an inexorable logic.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

> I think they are objecting to the term "inexorable logic". You seem to agree that the term does not really mean that there is a certitude to the score,


I'm not so sure about that, either. For example I think the stretto of the 6 part fugue from the Musical Offering is inexorable. A stretto by its nature is going to be so.


> Could any composer or even a computer generate the Goldberg Variations with the appropriate algorithm?


It's a question of the appropriate algorithm.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

...................


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

dissident said:


> I'm not so sure about that, either. For example I think the stretto of the 6 part fugue from the Musical Offering is inexorable. A stretto by its nature is going to be so.


Do you believe there exists a set of axioms and inferential rules with information content significantly smaller than the 6 part fugue that would generate the fugue?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mmsbls said:


> Do you believe there exists a set of axioms and inferential rules with information content significantly smaller than the 6 part fugue that would generate the fugue?


"Does it exist" is different from "is it possible". Again though this is not a holdover from the objective-subjective mishmash. Is it possible that Bach could have ended the fugue with a tone row or note clusters? What this is going to become is "is the fugue itself inexorable?".


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

dissident said:


> "Does it exist" is different from "is it possible". Again though this is not a holdover from the objective-subjective mishmash. Is it possible that Bach could have ended the fugue with a tone row or note clusters?


I don't think anyone believes that Bach could only have written the work that became the Musical Offering in one and only one possible manner. He did have many possible choices for the work. The question is whether he envisioned a particular logic that dictated the entire work (or perhaps the particular fugue). Is the fugue dictated by a particular set of axioms and rules (an algorithm). If so, it has an inexorable logic. I think the point is that it's hard to imagine that even a small percentage of "great" works have such a particular logic. But it's hard to imagine they don't have a musical logic associated with them.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> You don't think there's logic in music? I could pool them in with pure mathematicians as well, maybe.


Did you miss the adjective *inexorable?* I fear so.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mmsbls said:


> The question is whether he envisioned a particular logic that dictated the entire work (or perhaps the particular fugue). Is the fugue dictated by a particular set of axioms and rules (an algorithm). If so, it has an inexorable logic.


With Bach, yes. I do believe he started with a musically logical framework and filled it in according to the rules and techniques of fugal composition. And fugues of course are sort of rule-bound to begin with. In that sense the canons in the Musical Offering adhere to logic even more closely.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> Did you miss the adjective *inexorable?* I fear so.


Maybe it's unfounded, but I fear you haven't gone much beyond "I like/don't like".


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> A stretto by its nature is going to be so.
> It's a question of the appropriate algorithm.


This is a tautology. A stretto is a stretto in the sense that a fugue is a fugue. If someone sets out to write a stretto or a fugue and doesn't, then the so-called logic is broken. There is no information here.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> Maybe it's unfounded, but I fear you haven't gone much beyond "I like/don't like".


Deal, please, with the issue. I will be happy to assert that if a composer chooses to develop a fixed and rigid algorithm to generate notes on a page, then by definition the logic is inexorable and likely of little interest to anyone. This makes "inexorable logic" very poor stuff indeed as applying to anything other than the running of a computer program.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Did I miss where someone mentioned how the "inexorable logic" of CPT got subverted and CM explored such a diverse range of options that it was difficult to find any logic whatsoever?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

…....................


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

dissident said:


> With Bach, yes. I do believe he started with a musically logical framework and filled it in according to the rules and techniques of fugal composition. And fugues of course are sort of rule-bound to begin with. In that sense the canons in the Musical Offering adhere to logic even more closely.


I agree with your statement, but I don't believe that all of Bach's students could have written the exact Musical Offering (or the 6 part fugue) from his logical framework. Anyway, I suspect we both view the Musical Offering as a remarkable work that is also beautiful.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mmsbls said:


> I agree with your statement, but I don't believe that all of Bach's students could have written the exact Musical Offering (or the 6 part fugue) from his logical framework. Anyway, I suspect we both view the Musical Offering as a remarkable work that is also beautiful.


I don't know though mmsbls, there are those who think some of the music attributed to Bach is actually by his students.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

It is clear to me that the phrase "inexorable logic" is now going to be narrowly defined to cover those aspects of musical composition wherein a composer constructs or otherwise follows--slavishly, robotically--a preset template or algorithm for putting notes to paper like a pencil-making machine makes pencils, The mind is on cruise control, the gears turn, the pistons move back and forth as the machinery grinds on until the program deems the section finished. This is a very far cry from the torments that we are told composers subject themselves to in trying to find just the correct note to follow another. I think such inexorable logic may, in fact, be operative if the composer is writing a long ostinato passage where unchanging repetition is desired. In that case the concept of inexorable logic has indeed carved out a tiny kingdom for itself and all, like myself, who like a bit of ostinato (Sibelius) can be grateful. Perhaps all this verbiage could have been eliminated had the first user of the term at the outset provided us with some sort of definition or explanation of what they had in mind. Perhaps one will be forthcoming.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> It is clear to me that the phrase "inexorable logic" is now going to be narrowly defined to cover those aspects of musical composition wherein a composer constructs or otherwise follows--slavishly, robotically--a preset template or algorithm for putting notes to paper like a pencil-making machine makes pencils, The mind is on cruise control, the gears turn, the pistons move back and forth as the machinery grinds on until the program deems the section finished. This is a very far cry from the torments that we are told composers subject themselves to in trying to find just the correct note to follow another. I think such inexorable logic may, in fact, be operative if the composer is writing a long ostinato passage where unchanging repetition is desired. In that case the concept of inexorable logic has indeed carved out a tiny kingdom for itself and all, like myself, who like a bit of ostinato (Sibelius) can be grateful. Perhaps all this verbiage could have been eliminated had the first user of the term at the outset provided us with some sort of definition or explanation of what they had in mind. Perhaps one will be forthcoming.


It's actually just another hair-splitting episode.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

---------problem------del


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> An excellent comparison pooling music experts in with psychoanalysts and sociologists. That speaks for itself. I would be more receptive to a discussion of the evolution of a musical idea or piece if the bizarre term "inexorable logic" was replaced by something defensible. The use of the term invites profound skepticism, and I wonder at its evocation--is it to foreclose questioning by issuing a pronunciamento?


Your free-floating concerns about the specific language are vapid snit divorced from the discussion of specific musical examples.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

"inexorable logic" is obviously an exaggeration. What is often meant with this and similar expressions is probably what Wagner puts in "Meistersinger" as Sachs' response to Walther: "Wie fang ich nach der Regel an? "Ihr stellt sie selbst und folgt ihr dann!" How should I begin according to the rule? You set the rule yourself and then you follow it. 

This is not merely the rulefollowing of a general system of composition in a time or of a certain form or genre but a specific law or form sui generis i.e. it strictly holds only for that particular piece although there will of course often be similarities and analogues among pieces in a similar style that determines a piece of art by having its parts in a stringent relation, not just loosely put next to each other. (There are also rather loose pieces ("fantasies", of course not every piece with that name has to be loosely organized.)

A listener who is confronted with a tightly organized "logical" piece might to some extent perceive this strong unity subliminally but it could also be the case that a listener grasps only a fraction of these unifying relations and perceives the piece as "chaotic". In such a case it doesn't seem unfair to say that this listeners misses something in the understanding of the piece. I'd guess almost everyone has had the experience that a piece seemed haphazard or chaotic but after some more listening or learning a bit about the structure eventually made (more) sense, i.e. the "logic" that leads to the unity of the piece is now perceived more clearly.

This is also not something new. Hoffmann points out in his contemporary writings on Beethoven that some perceive the latters works as excentric flights of fancy but they miss the tight organization and strong unity.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Luchesi said:


> from Latin inexorabilis, from in- ‘not’ + exorabilis (from exorare ‘entreat’).
> 
> There's an 'entreating' logic. Entreating, anxious to do something. Unstoppable.
> How does it come from the note combinations? That's a fascinating puzzle to study. How much playing of music is required to feel the inexorable-ness? A few years of playing, I'd say.
> ...


I think some recent posts have converged on the idea that the term inexorable logic was being used in different ways. I believe all of us agree that there is a logic to musical compositions and that those who can analyze music likely would be able to follow or discover that logic.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> I think some recent posts have converged on the idea that the term inexorable logic was being used in different ways. I believe all of us agree that there is a logic to musical compositions and that those who can analyze music likely would be able to follow or discover that logic.


Some people (many people) assume that musicians are looking at every note, identifying it in their mind and then playing it. It would be like seeing a sentence and identifying every letter in your mind with its name, or however. 

The 'look' of the patterns in each key repeat and repeat, so we see them as a familiar landscape. As you glance around the room you probably don't name the objects. It's that effortless, because familiar patterns.

Sorry, this is how difficult it is to share an overview of such an instinctual (unconscious, but curiously rewarding experience) activity. There aren't any helpful analogies, because it's like no other, and that's why we love it..


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> Your free-floating concerns about the specific language are vapid snit divorced from the discussion of specific musical examples.


This is your idea of discourse. I take it you are going to stick, with admirable tenacity, to your undefined, unconstrained use of the term. I understand.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Kreisler jr said:


> *"inexorable logic" is obviously an exaggeration. *What is often meant with this and similar expressions is probably what Wagner puts in "Meistersinger" as Sachs' response to Walther: "Wie fang ich nach der Regel an? "Ihr stellt sie selbst und folgt ihr dann!" How should I begin according to the rule? You set the rule yourself and then you follow it.
> 
> This is not merely the rulefollowing of a general system of composition in a time or of a certain form or genre but a specific law or form sui generis i.e. it strictly holds only for that particular piece although there will of course often be similarities and analogues among pieces in a similar style that determines a piece of art by having its parts in a stringent relation, not just loosely put next to each other. (There are also rather loose pieces ("fantasies", of course not every piece with that name has to be loosely organized.)
> 
> ...


In what context? With respect to what? As a free-floating statement this is meaningless.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> This is your idea of discourse. I take it you are going to stick, with admirable tenacity, to your undefined, *unconstrained use of the term*. I understand.


My use of "the term" (the adjective?) was constrained. I said _some_ works have an inexorable logic in how they unfold. You are claiming this isn't so? You understand that by contradicting my statement, you are asserting that no musical works exhibit inexorable logic, right? By contrast to my clearly constrained statement, that is an unconstrained blanket assertion.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> My use of "the term" (the adjective?) was constrained. I said _some_ works have an inexorable logic in how they unfold. You are claiming this isn't so? You understand that by contradicting my statement, you are asserting that no musical works exhibit inexorable logic, right? By contrast to my clearly constrained statement, that is an unconstrained blanket assertion.


See Post #111--I think you missed it. All is revealed there. Your use of *inexorable* cried out for explanation, clarification from the outset. And did not receive it. You reap what you sow.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Another tempest in a teapot over something that most people would probably say, ‘What’s the big deal?’ For a start, the word ‘inexorable’ has various definitions, one of them being ‘relentless’. Personally, I find a ‘relentless logic’ in a number of Bach works and a work such as the Beethoven Grosse Fugue.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DaveM said:


> Another tempest in a teapot over something that most people would probably say, ‘What’s the big deal?’ For a start, the word ‘inexorable’ has various definitions, one of them being ‘relentless’. Personally, I find a ‘relentless logic’ in a number of Bach works and a work such as the Beethoven Grosse Fugue.


Clearly not a tempest in a teapot if you find it worthy of comment. I have a notion that words have meanings--maybe more than one--and that one should pin down one's intended meaning when one uses a charged adjective like Inexorable. When we write ocelot or tube, we have a fairly unambiguous picture in our minds. I do anyway.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> Not this time. The presence of logic in music doesn't depend on whether you like it or not. It's a matter of your knowledge and being able to discern it. It is objective. There is a logic to Schoenberg and Webern, and you could say that logic is inexorable in the stream of classical music.


But nobody is denying that there are objective patterns in music that serve as evidence for such logic; what we're questioning is what @mmsbls goes on to say about finding an algorithm to that would show that logic is inexorable. Claiming such a thing exists because you feel every note is perfect isn't a convincing argument.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Clearly not a tempest in a teapot if you find it worthy of comment. I have a notion that words have meanings--maybe more than one--and that one should pin down one's intended meaning when one uses a charged adjective like Inexorable. When we write ocelot or tube, we have a fairly unambiguous picture in our minds. I do anyway.


This is a logic which apparently can't be understood and shared across the divide. I don't think that non-musicians could guess what it is. It's the same modes of behavior in other fields, especially in meteorology since people live with it every day, and don't know what they don't know. Likewise, music is every day too.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> But nobody is denying that there are objective patterns in music that serve as evidence for such logic; what we're questioning is what @mmsbls goes on to say about finding an algorithm to that would show that logic is inexorable. Claiming such a thing exists because you feel every note is perfect isn't a convincing argument.


 I ...really don't care.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> Clearly not a tempest in a teapot if you find it worthy of comment. I have a notion that words have meanings--maybe more than one--and that one should pin down one's intended meaning when one uses a charged adjective like Inexorable. When we write ocelot or tube, we have a fairly unambiguous picture in our minds. I do anyway.


Actually the word "tube" can call forth several different pictures, as long as we're being ****-retentively precise.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Kreisler jr said:


> "inexorable logic" is obviously an exaggeration.


Is it? I often get the impression that some people (here and elsewhere) mistake such exaggeration, metaphor, and other figurative language for being quite literal. When someone feels a work could not have been other than what it is, it could be easy to mistake that feeling for what amounts to literal (rather than figurative) inexorable logic. I myself might use that phrase to figuratively describe a work I feel is perfect, and in which I feel was generated by the composer (or author, filmmaker, etc.) devising some plan or form or principle and following it through. If questioned, though, I would immediately clarify that it was meant figuratively rather than literally. If people here meant it figuratively, it would be strange that they (or at least one of them) has spent so much time arguing for it. 



Kreisler jr said:


> A listener who is confronted with a tightly organized "logical" piece might to some extent perceive this strong unity subliminally but it could also be the case that a listener grasps only a fraction of these unifying relations and perceives the piece as "chaotic". In such a case it doesn't seem unfair to say that this listeners misses something in the understanding of the piece. I'd guess almost everyone has had the experience that a piece seemed haphazard or chaotic but after some more listening or learning a bit about the structure eventually made (more) sense, i.e. the "logic" that leads to the unity of the piece is now perceived more clearly.


All of this I agree with, by the way.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> I ...really don't care.


Why people respond to threads (or posters) to announce that they don't care (when their multiple previous posts provide ample evidence otherwise) will forever be a mystery to me.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> This is a logic which apparently can't be understood and shared across the divide.


How would you know this is a logic that can't be "understood and shared across the divide" when no attempt at doing so has even been made? I cringe at the assumption that everyone who questions and is skeptical of certain, often bombastic and exaggerated, claims simply don't possess the knowledge necessary to understand and thus agree with them.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Why people respond to threads (or posters) to announce that they don't care (when their multiple previous posts provide ample evidence otherwise) will forever be a mystery to me.


I said what I wanted to say. Why one 50-word comment sometimes has a way of bringing out a 10-paragraph response -- little of which really has much to do with music -- is mysterious as well.


Eva Yojimbo said:


> I often get the impression that some people (here and elsewhere) mistake such exaggeration, metaphor, and other figurative language for being quite literal.


You and your compadre for two. It's just a points-scoring thing, and it's tiresome.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Considering that the word ‘inexorable‘ has more than one definition and there are subtle differences among them, one could say that ‘inexorable logic‘ doesn’t mean that ‘_this is the only possible way this work could have proceeded’_, but rather ‘_the path that was chosen is so relentless as to appear inevitable that it is hard to imagine how it could have proceeded otherwise‘._


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Considering that the word ‘inexorable‘ has more than one definition and there are subtle differences among them, one could say that ‘inexorable logic‘ doesn’t mean that ‘_this is the only possible way this work could have proceeded’_, but rather ‘_the path that was chosen is so relentless as to appear inevitable that it is hard to imagine how it could have proceeded otherwise‘._


If the latter is what was meant then the latter should've been specified, but even with the latter it's pretty vague and feels more like an opinion or feeling. No crime in that, of course, but I just didn't the impression that's how it was meant.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

dissident said:


> ... it's tiresome.


Everything interesting is eventually exhausting, and the most interesting things are the most exhausting.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I don't think the "inexorability" of a great work of art is something that can be seen as the work unfolds before us. That would be mere predictability. Instead, what we're thinking about is something that is apparent as we look back at it. In the moment we can only guess what would happen next and what actually happens (if the art is really good) is often surprising: but in hindsight we realize, ah, yes, that's in fact how it had to be.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> Actually the word "tube" can call forth several different pictures, as long as we're being ****-retentively precise.


Weak tea, dissident. If you are now into one-liners, this indicates a certain weakening of your grip.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> Clearly not a tempest in a teapot if you find it worthy of comment.


Interesting but unintuitive reasoning. Informing someone that their hair isn’t on fire doesn’t suggest that their hair is on fire.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> How would you know this is a logic that can't be "understood and shared across the divide" when no attempt at doing so has even been made? I cringe at the assumption that everyone who questions and is skeptical of certain, often bombastic and exaggerated, claims simply don't possess the knowledge necessary to understand and thus agree with them.


So you don't agree either. What's the opposite of inexorable?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> So you don't agree either. What's the opposite of inexorable?


I'm confused: I don't agree with what? I was merely pointing out that I don't think anyone in this thread has really tried to demonstrate this "inexorable logic" they mention. 

I guess the opposite of inexorable in this context would be something like complete freedom, anarchy, and chance in music. I don't know of any music that's completely free, where every note appears with no context or connection to anything before it. Even aleatory music and genres like free jazz simply leave some things up to chance and/or remove certain guiding principles for improvisation.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> I said what I wanted to say. Why one 50-word comment sometimes has a way of bringing out a 10-paragraph response -- little of which really has much to do with music -- is mysterious as well.


It's not "mysterious" at all. It's well known in discussion and debate that any simple claim or argument can (usually does) require far more words to unpack and attempt to prove. 



dissident said:


> You and your compadre for two. It's just a points-scoring thing, and it's tiresome.


This makes literally zero sense. My "compadre" and I were not the one who introduced the term and proceed to argue for it literally. If you, or anyone else, meant the term figuratively, or were exaggerating, you could've immediately clarified that was the case, but you literally did the opposite of that. So nice attempt at gaslighting, but try it on someone more gullible.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> So you don't agree either. What's the opposite of inexorable?


*Exorable definition*
eksərəbəl
That can be persuaded or moved by pleas.
Capable of being moved or persuaded.

DaveM told us that there were several definitions of inexorable, which were close enough to be essentially synonymous. But if we need to carefully parse the several meanings of inexorable, it is incumbent upon the initial user to exactly indicate which of the several he had in mind. Simple.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It's not "mysterious" at all. It's well known in discussion and debate that any simple claim or argument can (usually does) require far more words to unpack and attempt to prove.


No it isn’t well known. A good debater keeps arguments succinct. Many words to respond to a simple claim or argument indicates an insecurity of position and an attempt to filibuster.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DaveM said:


> No it isn’t well known. A good debater keeps arguments succinct. Many words to respond to a simple claim or argument indicates an insecurity of position and an attempt to filibuster.


One hell of a "simple" claim or argument. As far as insecurity of position is concerned, pot calleth kettle....... Now we're into psychobabble and questioning motives. All I ever wanted was a clear, succinct statement about what was meant by "inexorable logic" in the context of the discussion. Perhaps you will supply it.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> One hell of a "simple" claim or argument. As far as insecurity of position is concerned, pot calleth kettle....... Now we're into psychobabble and questioning motives. All I ever wanted was a clear, succinct statement about what was meant by "inexorable logic" in the context of the discussion. Perhaps you will supply it.


Are you sure you’re not Grandpa Yojimbo?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DaveM said:


> No it isn’t well known. A good debater keeps arguments succinct. Many words to respond to a simple claim or argument indicates an insecurity of position and an attempt to filibuster.


Yes, it's well-known and you're simply wrong. Succinct enough for ya?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Yes, it's well-known and you're simply wrong. Succinct enough for ya?


Good for you. I presented a simple argument and you responded succinctly. You’re learning brevity. Thank me later.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Good for you. You’re learning brevity. Thank me later.


No thanks. My response was as stupid as the one I was responding to. This "brevity" serves no purpose except to turn the forum into an opinion vomitorium and betrays a lack of intellectual curiosity and nuance. Besides, it's clear a lack of brevity doesn't bother you when it comes to posts and posters you agree with, so your selective distaste for them betrays an ulterior motive itself... maybe it's insecurity... you know, while we're psychoanalyzing each other.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier (12 mo ago)

Is this just going to be part 2 of the objective/subjective thread?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Please refrain from personal comments about other members or their posting style. Focus on the content of their posts. 

Anyway, it does seem to me that the term "inexorable logic" has been used to mean somewhat different things and that perhaps there is less conflict of opinion than suggested by the past few pages.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> Please refrain from personal comments about other members or their posting style. Focus on the content of their posts.
> 
> Anyway, it does seem to me that the term "inexorable logic" has been used to mean somewhat different things and that perhaps there is less conflict of opinion than suggested by the past few pages.


Perhaps less conflict, but if we only could be told clearly what the poster intended. I take it to mean a relentless, pitiless working out of a predetermined algorithm or the exact following of an unalterable template. Robotic; machine-like. But we may never know.....


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

4chamberedklavier said:


> Is this just going to be part 2 of the objective/subjective thread?


It is entertaining to hear the assumptions of non-musicians.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> It is entertaining to hear the assumptions of non-musicians.


Bingo, and pseudointellectual posturing (an Internet staple) can be fun sometimes too...up to a point.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'm confused: I don't agree with what? I was merely pointing out that I don't think anyone in this thread has really tried to demonstrate this "inexorable logic" they mention.
> 
> I guess the opposite of inexorable in this context would be something like complete freedom, anarchy, and chance in music. I don't know of any music that's completely free, where every note appears with no context or connection to anything before it. Even aleatory music and genres like free jazz simply leave some things up to chance and/or remove certain guiding principles for improvisation.


Demonstrate or describe what musicians get out of music in terms of what a non-musician experiences while just listening? That would be a big challenge. I can blather on about how I wonder about the rightness of one constellation of notes following another, and the music theory description of that logic (which I'm very interested in). Change one note and there would be diminishment... from Amadeus. It's so fascinating, bordering on the mysterious. 

Tell us how you would describe what a musician senses as inexorable. Maybe we're so far apart. In reality, maybe we delude ourselves about this, but it doesn't matter when the rewards are so great (regardless of the complex mechanisms going on in our experiences). Not that music theory is mysterious, no, it's our rock and a reliable foundation. But for experienced people, when it becomes so much greater than its individual parts then it borders on the mysterious. Art is artifice, after all.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> It is clear to me that the phrase "inexorable logic" is now going to be narrowly defined to cover those aspects of musical composition wherein a composer constructs or otherwise follows--slavishly, robotically--a preset template or algorithm for putting notes to paper like a pencil-making machine makes pencils, The mind is on cruise control, the gears turn, the pistons move back and forth as the machinery grinds on until the program deems the section finished. This is a very far cry from the torments that we are told composers subject themselves to in trying to find just the correct note to follow another. I think such inexorable logic may, in fact, be operative if the composer is writing a long ostinato passage where unchanging repetition is desired. In that case the concept of inexorable logic has indeed carved out a tiny kingdom for itself and all, like myself, who like a bit of ostinato (Sibelius) can be grateful. *Perhaps all this verbiage could have been eliminated had the first user of the term at the outset provided us with some sort of definition or explanation of what they had in mind.* Perhaps one will be forthcoming.


The definition can be found in any dictionary. Applied to music it can cover anything from works with a quasi-algorithmic process (e.g. Arvo Pärt's _Tabula Rasa_) to a systematic narrative design (many movements and whole works by Beethoven, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and others), any piece organized by circle of fifths progressions … A Schenkerian theorist would claim it can be found underlying the architecture of any tonal work. This is all commonplace and obvious..


----------



## 4chamberedklavier (12 mo ago)

Luchesi said:


> It is entertaining to hear the assumptions of non-musicians.


Don't get me wrong, these threads are very interesting, but the quality of discussion suffers when members become too hostile. Maybe it would help if we did not take the worst possible interpretation of what another poster says.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Luchesi said:


> Demonstrate or describe what musicians get out of music in terms of what a non-musician experiences while just listening? That would be a big challenge. I can blather on about how I wonder about the rightness of one constellation of notes following another, and the music theory description of that logic (which I'm very interested in). Change one note and there would be diminishment... from Amadeus. It's so fascinating, bordering on the mysterious.
> 
> Tell us how you would describe what a musician senses as inexorable. Maybe we're so far apart. In reality, maybe we delude ourselves about this, but it doesn't matter when the rewards are so great (regardless of the complex mechanisms going on in our experiences). Not that music theory is mysterious, no, it's our rock and a reliable foundation. But for experienced people, when it becomes so much greater than its individual parts then it borders on the mysterious. Art is artifice, after all.


I don't think those in this thread are far apart on viewing the logic of well constructed music. I think we're using terms to mean different things. I believe everyone here agrees that good works contain a logic to their construction that many people knowledgeable about music composition can ascertain. I think the term inexorable implied to some of us that the work could only have been written one way (no note being different) and the logic completely constrained the entire work such that a computer algorithm could have produced it once the axioms and rules had been determined. It's not so much whether someone can see the logic of sections and notes after the work is completed but whether one could write them oneself given the logic. I think those arguing for that inexorable logic viewed that as a bit ridiculous (as did all of us) because they were not using the term that way.

Incidentally, changing one note might very well diminish the work so that note might be completely constrained, but changing a whole section or movement would not have that problem.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

The most recent posts by Luchesi and dissident can be waved aside easily as what they believe are short _coups de grace_ and are indicative of the growing poverty of their positions (if they can be so humored). Luchesi retreats into his usual arcane "professionalism", wondering yet again why or how anybody who is not a trained or professional musician can conceivably have a legitimate relationship to CM--a variant of Milton Babbittry.

dissident has retreated again into revealing psychobabble and supercilious disdain. It seems a habit.

EdwardBast retreats into telling us all that "any dictionary" will tell us what the term "inexorable logic" *can* cover regarding music. This is meant to be enlightening. A squid's ink cloud sort of tells others roughly, vaguely, where the squid is, but its actual location remains literally shrouded in mystery. I despair of getting a clear exposition.

None of the above attitudes, in my opinion, do classical music any good at all.

mmsbls, are you fully satisfied that the discussion of "inexorable logic" has clarified anything?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

On the other hand, what can happen if there is no logic in the music:


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> mmsbls, are you fully satisfied that the discussion of "inexorable logic" has clarified anything?


Well, perhaps not fully satisfied, but do you honestly think people's true positions are far apart? I can't imagine anyone thinks that an concise algorithm (or something similar) exists to determine complete works. Also, I think all of us believe that good works have a musical logic to them. Honestly, I think we agree in a general sense.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> The most recent posts by Luchesi and dissident can be waved aside easily as what they believe are short _coups de grace_ and are indicative of the growing poverty of their positions (if they can be so humored). Luchesi retreats into his usual arcane "professionalism", wondering yet again why or how anybody who is not a trained or professional musician can conceivably have a legitimate relationship to CM--a variant of Milton Babbittry.
> 
> dissident has retreated again into revealing psychobabble and supercilious disdain. It seems a habit.
> 
> ...


I'd have to discuss it with you at the piano. You need convincing examples. I don't think construction or form are helpful in understanding this.

Can we change C to C6 and not change the effect on the listener? Add a sustained fourth, how does that deviate from the composer's original intent? Does it work? No? Well, it depends upon what you want to express (but it definitely changes it for the listener).


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> Well, perhaps not fully satisfied, but do you honestly think people's true positions are far apart? I can't imagine anyone thinks that an concise algorithm (or something similar) exists to determine complete works. Also, I think all of us believe that good works have a musical logic to them. Honestly, I think we agree in a general sense.


I appreciate your wish to find common ground, but when you suggest that people's true positions are likely not far apart, I ask instead: How Can We Know? Instead of "inexorable logic"--whatever that means, and perhaps when we're all old and grey, we'll find out--it may be that someone here can explain that it is something more than a wordsmith's careful selection of the right words/phrases--*right for them*--as a piece of literature (like this very post itself) unfolds. It would be, I think, or should be--easy for EB to state his meaning clearly and succinctly. Asking too much? I'm not saying what EB means by inexorable logic--I'm saying Who Knows?

I love John Locke's usage; *resistless logic.  *


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> dissident has retreated again into revealing psychobabble and supercilious disdain. It seems a habit.


It doesn't take a psychobabblist...



> EdwardBast retreats into telling us all that "any dictionary" will tell us what the term "inexorable logic" *can* cover regarding music. ...


That should be sufficient unless you want to badger for no purpose, or just pointless ****-stirring.


> Luchesi retreats into his usual arcane "professionalism", wondering yet again why or how anybody who is not a trained or professional musician can conceivably have a legitimate relationship to CM--a variant of Milton Babbittry.


No, if you're trying to make or refute statements about the internal workings of something it helps if you know what you're talking about. It provides a common reference point.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> Demonstrate or describe what musicians get out of music in terms of what a non-musician experiences while just listening? That would be a big challenge. I can blather on about how I wonder about the rightness of one constellation of notes following another, and the music theory description of that logic (which I'm very interested in). Change one note and there would be diminishment... from Amadeus. It's so fascinating, bordering on the mysterious.


Part of the problem is the assumption itself that all musicians think the same way and what, if anything, does this tell us about music VS the subjectivity of musicians? It seems to me that the sense of "rightness" for musicians might differ greatly depending on if, say, they're jazz musicians vs classical musicians vs _insert any other genre here_. Do jazzers hear the same kind of "inexorable logic" in Bach? What about classical musicians hearing that in John Coltrane?



Luchesi said:


> Tell us how you would describe what a musician senses as inexorable. Maybe we're so far apart. In reality, maybe we delude ourselves about this, but it doesn't matter when the rewards are so great (regardless of the complex mechanisms going on in our experiences). Not that music theory is mysterious, no, it's our rock and a reliable foundation. But for experienced people, when it becomes so much greater than its individual parts then it borders on the mysterious. Art is artifice, after all.


The thing is that I've never thought of any logic in music in terms of it being inexorable. I've thought some works were essentially note-perfect, and I've admired things ranging from strategies of formal unity to key schemes to complex harmonic development... but I've never thought to myself that any work must've been that way, or that these feelings of mine were anything other than, well, subjective feelings about what was there.

I mean, if we want to define "inexorable logic" in a much looser to way to essentially mean "logic developed as part of an extensive formal or harmonic plan," then maybe I can get behind that, while also saying I'm agnostic on how much many composers actually did such a thing as opposed to mostly just following their intuitions (themselves guided by their musical training/knowledge) about what feels right. I mean, maybe the most obvious example of this kind of inexorable logic is from the 12-tone serialists, and I don't know how many here would be quick to praise the "inexorable logic" of their music.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> It doesn't take a psychobabblist...
> 
> 
> That should be sufficient unless you want to badger for no purpose, or just pointless ****-stirring.
> No, if you're trying to make or refute statements about the internal workings of something it helps if you know what you're talking about. It provides a common reference point.


I deeply appreciate your usual cogent, focused contributions.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> I deeply appreciate your usual cogent, focused contributions.


I try to be focused if not cogent.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Part of the problem is the assumption itself that all musicians think the same way and what, if anything, does this tell us about music VS the subjectivity of musicians?


Well they don't all think completely differently either. You focus on the differences without explaining the similarities.


> The thing is that I've never thought of any logic in music in terms of it being inexorable.


OK then you are free to consider it "exorable". Happy?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> Well they don't all think completely differently either. You focus on the differences without explaining the similarities.


I've said many times that such similarities can be explained by their similar subjectivities, which in itself is undoubtedly influenced by their similar (though not identical) education in music and music theory.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I've said many times that such similarities can be explained by their similar subjectivities, which in itself is undoubtedly influenced by their similar (though not identical) education in music and music theory.


Ok, whatever...but "undoubtedly"? How can you state that with such certitude? Do you have a musical education? Have you compared your musical education with that of others? Is music theory an objective area of study?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

mmsbls said:


> Well, perhaps not fully satisfied, but do you honestly think people's true positions are far apart? I can't imagine anyone thinks that an concise algorithm (or something similar) exists to determine complete works. Also, I think all of us believe that good works have a musical logic to them. Honestly, I think we agree in a general sense.


Part of the frustration is in not really knowing how far apart we are. I sense a lot of inconsistency in the claims and positions over what inexorable logic means and the extent to which it applies in any music; and without semantic clarification followed by examples (which hasn't happened) it's impossible to clear up the confusion. Yes, we all agree that most all the music we love contains some logic: the extent to which it is "inexorable" is what's debatable, and it doesn't help clear things up when some posters switch from clarifying their positions and arguing for them to taking pot-shots at each other for various reasons having nothing to do with the subject. I'm particularly getting tired of some posters harping on my "long posts" and "armchair philosophizing" when they clearly don't mind such things from other posters whom they agree with.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> Ok, whatever...but "undoubtedly"? How can you state that with such certitude? Do you have a musical education? Have you compared your musical education with that of others? Is music theory an objective area of study?


I assume that music education isn't so radically different so that students are learning completely different things... so if they're all learning similar things then that knowledge will lead to certain similarities in their subjectivities, at least on that specific issue. 

You asked about my music education before and I told you. I get tired of repeating myself to people who either don't read what I say or don't care enough to remember. 

Music theory is an objective area study so long as it remains descriptive: concepts like tonality, harmony, the names of keys, notes, instruments... all completely objective. If music theory ever switches from description to prescription--meaning "this is what should/shouldn't be done"--it's moved into the realm of the subjective.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> ...Yes, we all agree that most all the music we love contains some logic: the extent to which it is "inexorable" is what's debatable...


Well then it's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. Why don't you demonstrate (which you haven't done yet) some examples of "musical logic" and demonstrate why it's logical at all and then demonstrate how it's inexorable or eminently exorable. You talk about taking potshots but that's pretty much all that the "subjectivists" have done. "I think this contains an inexorable logic..." "No it doesn't...define 'inexorable logic'..." "I think this is great art..." "Not necessarily...it's all subjective..." It's like the "Argument Clinic" sketch from Monty Python. What gets under the skin of some people is that it seems that the game is just to minimize classical music. You're not elucidating anything, or edifying or explaining anything other than a subjectivist view of reality. WE GET IT ALREADY.


> Music theory is an objective area study so long as it remains descriptive: concepts like tonality, harmony, the names of keys, notes, instruments... all completely objective.


Yeah, that's music theory.


> You asked about my music education before and I told you. I get tired of repeating myself to people who either don't read what I say or don't care enough to remember.


Well that can happen if it's embedded in 7 or 8 paragraphs of other stuff.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> Well then it's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. Why don't you demonstrate (which you haven't done yet) some examples of "musical logic" and demonstrate why it's logical at all and then demonstrate how it's inexorable or eminently exorable.


Why in the world would I do this when I wasn't the one making the claims of music having inexorable logic to begin with? And why would I need to provide examples of musical logic when we all already agree (or seem to?) that music contains logic? These requests are utterly bizarre. 



dissident said:


> You talk about taking potshots but that's pretty much all that the "subjectivists" have done.


The evidence within the thread says otherwise. I encourage you to review it.



dissident said:


> What gets under the skin of some people is that it seems that the game is just to minimize classical music. You're not elucidating anything, or edifying or explaining anything other than a subjectivist view of reality. WE GET IT ALREADY.


So you think the subjectivists here, all of which love classical music, are trying to minimize classical music? And what would their motivation be for that? It doesn't even make sense. Perhaps if you stopped perceiving us as a threat you'd be able to better understand what we're actually saying. Being skeptical of claims of objective truth (or inexorable logic) shouldn't be dictated by how much someone loves something; that's completely irrational. I love Mozart, but were I to declare him a literal and objective God I would HOPE others would put on their skeptic hats.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Why in the world would I do this when I wasn't the one making the claims of music having inexorable logic to begin with? And why would I need to provide examples of musical logic when we all already agree (or seem to?) that music contains logic? These requests are utterly bizarre.


It isn't bizarre. Show us the objective elements of the music that's otherwise subjective. Delineate and elucidate instead of bloviate.


> The evidence within the thread says otherwise. I encourage you to review it.


I've seen enough, thank you.


> So you think the subjectivists here, all of which love classical music, are trying to minimize classical music? And what would their motivation be for that? It doesn't even make sense.


It makes perfect sense. Everything has to be minimized, or is already if we could but see it, because minima and maxima are subjective constructs.


> Perhaps if you stopped perceiving us as a threat ...


I don't think you're a threat whatsoever.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Since we are still without clarification of EB's use of "inexorable logic" and since I am one of the very few actually pondering the possible ramifications of what EB *might* mean, I ask what the inexorable logic thesis has to tell us about composers revising previously published and performed works. Prokofiev's 4th symphony is just one of many examples. How inexorable was the initial logic? Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> It isn't bizarre. Show us the objective elements of the music that's otherwise subjective. Delineate and elucidate instead of bloviate.


Yes, it's bizarre, and I'm not "bloviating" any more than those who've repeatedly made assertions (without clear definitions or objective evidence) for what they're claiming. Most of my "bloviation" is just pointing out that they haven't supported their assertions. This is a clear case of "Physician, heal thyself!" 



dissident said:


> I've seen enough, thank you.


But seem to remember it very poorly.



dissident said:


> It makes perfect sense. Everything has to be minimized, or is already if we could but see it, because minima and maxima are subjective constructs.


Then all I can say is have fun battling the imaginary subjectivist enemies and their evil agendas that you've made up; but please stop pretending it's what us subjectivists actually think.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I believe dissident is into the final clutching-at-straws phase of his participation.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> I believe dissident is into the final clutching-at-straws phase of his participation.


Clutching at straws in support of what? I'm not the one with the à rebours outlook.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> Since we are still without clarification of EB's use of "inexorable logic" and since I am one of the very few actually pondering the possible ramifications of what EB *might* mean, I ask what the inexorable logic thesis has to tell us about composers revising previously published and performed works. Prokofiev's 4th symphony is just one of many examples. How inexorable was the initial logic? Inquiring minds want to know.


Talk about "clutching at straws"...


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> Talk about "clutching at straws"...


You are becoming more conspicuous. Don't worry, we see you.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> You are becoming more conspicuous. Don't worry, we see you.


Cool beans! 

By the way, was Edward Bast's thesis that every work has this "inexorable logic"? Maybe symphonies weren't Prokofiev's forte, as it were.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> Cool beans!
> 
> By the way, was Edward Bast's thesis that every work has this "inexorable logic"? Maybe symphonies weren't Prokofiev's forte, as it were.


Why ask me about EB's thesis? All I can do is speculate. I am sure he can speak for himself if he so chooses. But I do speculate. Compare that to your acting as a Greek chorus offering what you believe are stinging rebukes to those actually dealing--or trying to--with what EB might mean. Cap and bells.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> Why ask me about EB's thesis? All I can do is speculate. I am sure he can speak for himself if he so chooses. But I do speculate.


Not really. You just dress up your preconceived notions in sarcastically speculative garb. I see you, too.


> Compare that to your acting as a Greek chorus offering what you believe are stinging rebukes to those actually dealing--or trying to--with what EB might mean. ...


No you're just being a wordier Don Rickles.

Going back to the original comments in question:


Strange Music said:


> *there is no necessary logic why one note should follow another*.


Well, yes and no. In a canon at the fourth, the entry of the second voice is going to be a separated by a fourth from the leader's starting note, for one example. Now there is no logic determining what the subject will be, but the second appearance will be at the interval of the fourth. That's the logical framework of a canon at the fourth, and it seems pretty inexorable. In a retrograde canon the answering voice will inexorably be a backward version of the leading voice. The subtext here really is "what is the logic behind a canon or any musical form or even music as a whole in the first place?". What's the logic behind a game of chess? There's no "necessary logic" behind the existence of chess as a game. The logic driving the game isn't external to the game itself.

And here's Edward Bast's original statement:


Edward Bast said:


> Some works have inexorable logic, others don't.


Well, there it is.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> I think we still are not entirely clear. I will be direct. Except with the broad general instances that I pointed out--fast, slow, fast, or programmatic music, or extra-musically-charged music, there is no necessary logic why one note should follow another. There is only the will of the composer and of the degree to which he is following the expectation/denial template described by Leonard Meyer that one note will follow another, or, in the possible case of a Mozart, the work springs full-blown and intact from his brain. Do you agree?


If we trouble ourselves to go back to the exchanges between Philidor and myself, posts #41 through 47, we will see the full context of my conclusion that there is, indeed, no *necessary* logic why one note should follow another. There may clearly be logic, but is it *necessary* logic, is it *inexorable* logic? We were doing fine until EdwardBast in post #48 added the curious stipulation that *inexorable logic* was at work during the construction of some pieces. Now just how does he know this? Having had his assertion questioned, EB retreated into his ink cloud. Under his formulation, the will, the choice, the judgment of the composer are rendered null and void and a robot is at the controls. If you are happy with this then our views are very widely divergent indeed. But we knew that to the extent that you have views; you seem to be more attuned to comments from the sidelines.

Often by _breaking_ the logic, interesting new music is created.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> ...
> Often by _breaking_ the logic, interesting new music is created.


Strange Magic, I agree. Schoenberg did that and introduced a new logic.


> we will see the full context of my conclusion that there is, indeed, no *necessary* logic why one note should follow another. There may clearly be logic, but is it *necessary* logic, is it *inexorable* logic?


Within the context of musical form and rules, yes there is, or at least what aesthetically appears to be such. Within the context of a kind of "Inexorable Logic" floating in the aether, who can say for sure? You're harping on the latter in an attempt to discredit the former. Just because you don't get it doesn't make it a "squid cloud". Maybe you're the one squirting ink.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

To elaborate my argument, I assert that a composer may or will _intentionally_ choose to _follow a convention_ when composing all or part of a work.This is a far cry, very far, from the sort of relentless forward inertia more than suggested by use of the couplet "inexorable logic" with its aura of involuntary tragedy. As the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead stated, "The essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things."


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> To elaborate my argument, I assert that a composer may or will _intentionally_ choose to _follow a convention_ when composing all or part of a work.This is a far cry, very far, from the sort of relentless forward inertia more than suggested by use of the couplet "inexorable logic" with its aura of involuntary tragedy. As the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead stated, "The essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things."


But then that's an exaggeration of Edward Bast's position just to have something to attack. Not nice. But Bach's music for example _is_ about relentless forward motion (not inertia). It's one of the things I love about his music.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> But then that's an exaggeration of Edward Bast's position just to have something to attack. Not nice. But Bach's music for example _is_ about relentless forward motion (not inertia). It's one of the things I love about his music.


What _is_ EdwardBast's position? He has offered up, seemingly by inattention what he felt was an obvious(?) truism, but upon reflection *should have understood* that he would provoke controversy. And he has chosen radio silence and left you to carry his water.

I will easily agree that Bach's music is about that relentless forward motion and why I too love his music. Bach chose to write what he did, and thank goodness for it.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> What _is_ EdwardBast's position? He has offered up, seemingly by inattention what he felt was an obvious(?) truism, but upon reflection *should have understood* that he would provoke controversy. And he has chosen radio silence and left you to carry his water.


I'm not carrying anyone's water. What he stated isn't controversial to anyone with me a modicum of musical knowledge unless they're looking for controversy and will create it regardless, inexorably.



> I will easily agree that Bach's music is about that rel Bach chose to write what he did, and thank goodness for it.
> ...


He chose to write what he did within formal rules and musical logic, which is another thing that makes his music great.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> I'm not carrying anyone's water. What he stated isn't controversial to anyone with me a modicum of musical knowledge unless they're looking for controversy and will create it regardless, inexorably.


Your concern continues to be over process and motivation rather than the issue at hand. You are carrying EB's water with a yoke over your shoulders and two big buckets. I assert again that we could not have had this lengthy thread had EB been forthcomingly articulate--it may have been EB who sought controversy by his _ex cathedra _utterance. The choice, it seems to me, is between inattention and hauteur. He should be grateful that you are available to carry the load.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> What he stated isn't controversial to anyone with me a modicum of musical knowledge...


It's nice that not only do you speak for EB but you are able to speak for everyone with a "modicum of musical knowledge." The music world is lucky to have you as their ambassador and representative, truly.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It's nice that not only do you speak for EB but you are able to speak for everyone with a "modicum of musical knowledge." The music world is lucky to have you as their ambassador and representative, truly.


It's just a fact. We enjoy the theory, we use the theory in all musical activity. Can we write a few paragraphs and catch everyone up to what a working musician has learned and has enjoyed analyzing endlessly and enough of what he has objectively experienced? I hardly think so, but if anyone wants to get started we can all chip in.
I think it would be a nice new thread, and musicians who haven't seen this thread might contribute. That eventuality might be convincing to people on the edge of belief.
Putting the experience of music into words for someone else, everyone knows how difficult that is! The words limp around and fall short, and then there's fault finding with the WORDs (usually remarkably irrelevant to the point). 

I think you need live, responsive examples and a thought-out curriculum in order to open a window into musical analysis. There's a lot to it, you won't get bored.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> It's just a fact.


No, it's not a fact until you've polled a representative sample size of musicologists to see what they think. I'm guessing a great many of them--at least the more rational ones--will ask exactly what's meant by "inexorable logic" the same way SM and I have. 



Luchesi said:


> Can we write a few paragraphs and catch everyone up to what a working music has learned and has enjoyed analyzing endlessly and enough of what he has objectively experienced?


Who needs such a thing? Take a relatively short work, or even a section from a work, and demonstrate using whatever means necessary. Video yourself at a keyboard discussing, take screen shots of the score and just write about it--that's just two ideas. The problem is that this endeavor can't even get off the ground until someone defines exactly what they mean by "inexorable logic," which nobody has even done. 



Luchesi said:


> I think it would be a nice new thread, and musicians who haven't seen this thread might contribute. That eventuality might be convincing to people on the edge of belief.
> Putting the experience of music into words for someone else, everyone knows how difficult that is! The words limp around and fall short, and then there's fault finding with the WORDs (usually remarkably irrelevant to the point).
> 
> I think you need live, responsive examples and a thought-out curriculum in order to open a window into musical analysis. There's a lot to it, you won't get bored.


I think all of this is a lovely idea. Despite my lack of formal music education I have picked up enough theory over the years to follow along with most analysis, even if it takes me longer because I lack the ear training that some professionals do. Video examples might be the best way to go, and such things are easy to provide in this day and age when everyone has smart phones and can create free YouTube accounts.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> No, it's not a fact until you've polled a representative sample size of musicologists to see what they think. I'm guessing a great many of them--at least the more rational ones--will ask exactly what's meant by "inexorable logic" the same way SM and I have.
> 
> Who needs such a thing? Take a relatively short work, or even a section from a work, and demonstrate using whatever means necessary. Video yourself at a keyboard discussing, take screen shots of the score and just write about it--that's just two ideas. The problem is that this endeavor can't even get off the ground until someone defines exactly what they mean by "inexorable logic," which nobody has even done.
> 
> I think all of this is a lovely idea. Despite my lack of formal music education I have picked up enough theory over the years to follow along with most analysis, even if it takes me longer because I lack the ear training that some professionals do. Video examples might be the best way to go, and such things are easy to provide in this day and age when everyone has smart phones and can create free YouTube accounts.


Well, teach it then. I'll help you. Others might help.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> Well, teach it then. I'll help you. Others might help.


I do not consider myself enough of an expert to teach anything music theory related; and since I've been one of those who are skeptical as to whether inexorable logic exists (or what it even means) I certainly wouldn't be in any position to teach it!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I think it is important to point out that this site is Talk Classical and not Julliard or Curtis. Here people talk about CM (and other musics) on an informal basis where--it is hoped and maybe expected--that members consider themselves in a community of enthusiasts for classical music, sharing what information they choose and certainly their enthusiasm for their composers and works. 

It is in this setting that it is difficult to justify an overt attitude of easy condescension on the part of the more trained music "professionals" in the site over the probably larger group of those here for the comradeship and opportunity for "Taste Exchanging" among, for our purposes, equals, just as we are equals under the law, in the voting booth, and, yes, in the validity of our tastes. Under these suppositions it would be important to post with some clarity and perhaps necessary context about things being the result of "inexorable logic" which everybody is supposed to accept without question.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> I think it is important to point out that this site is Talk Classical and not Julliard or Curtis. Here people talk about CM (and other musics) on an informal basis where--it is hoped and maybe expected--that members consider themselves in a community of enthusiasts for classical music, sharing what information they choose and certainly their enthusiasm for their composers and works.
> 
> It is in this setting that it is difficult to justify an overt attitude of easy condescension on the part of the more trained music "professionals" in the site over the probably larger group of those here for the comradeship and opportunity for "Taste Exchanging" among, for our purposes, equals, just as we are equals under the law, in the voting booth, and, yes, in the validity of our tastes. Under these suppositions it would be important to post with some clarity and perhaps necessary context about things being the result of "inexorable logic" which everybody is supposed to accept without question.


Well, I've learned a lot. About people, about this issue, about non-musicians' desires to understand and what the barriers are, about trying to communicate online across the divide, the natural urge to put a musical score into the exact and helpful words. It plays out just as it does in other 'everyday' subjects which humans make specific erroneous assumptions about. We've all seen it. And they've been doing it for so long in their lives that they've convinced themselves. 
I do it with video games (I know very little, and no actual experience). And others I won't list, and make me look bad.. lol
Why is it in our nature to worry about the awareness of others? I also worry about the youngsters so that motivates me.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Luchesi said:


> Well, I've learned a lot. About people, about this issue, _about non-musicians' desires to understand and what the barriers are, about trying to communicate online across the divide,_ the natural urge to put a musical score into the exact and helpful words. _ It plays out just as it does in other 'everyday' subjects which humans make specific erroneous assumptions about._ We've all seen it. And they've been doing it for so long in their lives that they've convinced themselves.


_(italics in the above are mine)_ Luchesi it seems to me that you have insights into the above discussion and others like it, along with more patience that I have. A brief comment: on The Weather Thread where a certain Luchesi is the meteorologist, I've learned that measuring and studying high altitude wind streams is key to weather forecasting now. Whereas when my meteorologist father began, they used surface and occasional low-altitude measurements. Your posts have helped me to understand both today's forecasts and my father's career better.

The following has nothing to do with the idea of a music analysis thread but I think it is relevant. I could be wrong but to my knowledge _there isn't anyone posting regularly on Talk Classical with special expertise in music aesthetics, philosophy of music, or music criticism, yet there are thousands of posts in these areas_. These are rich areas with hundreds of years of preceding thought and knowledge. But it seems that people want to go for the big general questions without any Luchesi (meteorology) or Bast (music theory) to take them beyond the starting gate.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Roger Knox said:


> _(italics in the above are mine)_ Luchesi it seems to me that you have insights into the above discussion and others like it, along with more patience that I have. A brief comment: on The Weather Thread where a certain Luchesi is the meteorologist, I've learned that measuring and studying high altitude wind streams is key to weather forecasting now. Whereas when my meteorologist father began, they used surface and occasional low-altitude measurements. Your posts have helped me to understand both today's forecasts and my father's career better.
> 
> The following has nothing to do with the idea of a music analysis thread but I think it is relevant. I could be wrong but to my knowledge _there isn't anyone posting regularly on Talk Classical with special expertise in music aesthetics, philosophy of music, or music criticism, yet there are thousands of posts in these areas_. These are rich areas with hundreds of years of preceding thought and knowledge. But it seems that people want to go for the big general questions without any Luchesi (meteorology) or Bast (music theory) to take them beyond the starting gate.


Roger Knox, i see your point if the question is about whether more knowledge about something is ever amiss. But the fact remains that EB put forward the concept of inexorable logic without any serious effort to qualify, contextualize, elaborate upon, explain, or justify said usage, but rather uttered it like a papal bull. This was in contrast to the very heart of your reaction to Luchesi's approach to newcomers to meteorology. Were the subject of geology to come up and for me to expound upon some facet of it, I would hope to provide the necessary context within which to offer whatever thoughts I had. 

To repeat: If one chooses to offer up some nugget of special knowledge to a large heterogeneous group that we assume or ought to assume are validly interested in a subject, one should provide something beyond seemingly pure assertion.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I mean, *if we want to define "inexorable logic" in a much looser to way to essentially mean "logic developed as part of an extensive formal or harmonic plan,"* then maybe I can get behind that, while also saying I'm agnostic on how much many composers actually did such a thing as opposed to mostly just following their intuitions (themselves guided by their musical training/knowledge) about what feels right. I mean, maybe the most obvious example of this kind of inexorable logic is from the 12-tone serialists, and I don't know how many here would be quick to praise the "inexorable logic" of their music.


That's not a looser definition, it's just the obvious one in describing musical structure—although narrative design and thematic processes could be added to the list. WTH else did you think the expression meant? I don't understand why you people are getting riled up about such an obvious and innocuous point. Is there something important at stake for you in this argument? What? i just don't get it.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Roger Knox said:


> _(italics in the above are mine)_ Luchesi it seems to me that you have insights into the above discussion and others like it, along with more patience that I have. A brief comment: on The Weather Thread where a certain Luchesi is the meteorologist, I've learned that measuring and studying high altitude wind streams is key to weather forecasting now. Whereas when my meteorologist father began, they used surface and occasional low-altitude measurements. Your posts have helped me to understand both today's forecasts and my father's career better.
> 
> The following has nothing to do with the idea of a music analysis thread but I think it is relevant. I could be wrong but to my knowledge _there isn't anyone posting regularly on Talk Classical with special expertise in music aesthetics, philosophy of music, or music criticism, yet there are thousands of posts in these areas_. These are rich areas with hundreds of years of preceding thought and knowledge. But it seems that people want to go for the big general questions without any Luchesi (meteorology) or Bast (music theory) to take them beyond the starting gate.


Thanks. I like helping, and I know SM does too.

I've seen some rare kids pick up a healthy fixation for these subjects from the basic fundamentals like I did when I was their age. These three subjects are all around us every day and the basic facts are very interesting. ‘Much better than spending hours chatting and texting (so ‘rewarding’ to primates like us) and gazing vacantly at someone else's story on a flickering screen (instead of being creative themselves). (I’m being harsh, but this unexpected outcome upsets me.)

Music, how does it come from the physics? how do slight changes in the chords etc. etc. affect the human brain. I was originally interested in how some kids can play so effortlessly. What is the logical view they’re using for the required short cuts (for their fast and accurate ten fingers)? How do they do it?

Meteorology, why is one day clear and sunny and the next day raining cats and dogs? What are the theories about the tilt of the planet and the slowing rotation rate. How did these phenomena result in the weather we see every day, in this epoch.

Botany, what are the groupings of plants and where did the groups come from. I am interested in weeds and rare and endemic plants and saving them, but that's an outgrowth of my interest in their natural history. 
Others will have other ‘outgrowths’ from these 3 studies of everyday topics we’re familiar with. It's very inexpensive for kids to pursue these, and they can last a lifetime. There’s so much to them.

Added; the three personal discoveries from study which helped me so much were;
the rise and acceptance of dissonance
planetary waves
and plant succession


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> That's not a looser definition, it's just the obvious one in describing musical structure...What? i just don't get it.


I see that.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> That's not a looser definition, it's just the obvious one in describing musical structure—although narrative design and thematic processes could be added to the list. *WTH else did you think the expression meant? *I don't understand why you people are getting riled up about such an obvious and innocuous point. Is there something important at stake for you in this argument? What? i just don't get it.


Have you not read the rest of the thread? The hypothetical of an algorithm that could generate every note was posited and one member even tried to defend that such a thing was possible. Really, this just comes down to the limits of creative freedom. Every form imposes some limitations on creative choice, and certain conventions do as well if composers choose to accept them; but I think it's a stretch to call this "inexorable logic." There's still a ton of freedom within those forms and conventions, which is why composers could make such radically different music with them. There's logic, absolutely, but logic just implies a conceptual design, while the "inexorable" adjective implies much less freedom (like the aforementioned algorithm) than what mere logic suggests. 

I don't think there was any "getting riled up" as opposed to some skepticism followed by requests for clarification. When no clarification was forthcoming it made it seem like the phrase was used to just shut down all possible conversation by authoritative proclamation.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> ..I don't think there was any "getting riled up" as opposed to some skepticism followed by requests for clarification. When no clarification was forthcoming it made it seem like the phrase was used to just shut down all possible conversation by authoritative proclamation.


Or more likely, ‘no clarification was forthcoming’ simply meant that one’s time is too precious to waste on demands for clarification by the few who seem to require a lot of clarification.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Or more likely, ‘no clarification was forthcoming’ simply meant that one’s time is too precious to waste on demands for clarification by the few who seem to require a lot of clarification.


Yes, people who have thousands of posts on a forum discussing their views on classical music clearly think their time is too valuable to discuss this particular view on classical music. That makes sense.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I think "Inexorable" is fine as an aesthetic descriptor - I've seen it frequently used as such. I could say a work "heads inexorably to a tragic conclusion", for instance - this is primarily an aesthetic statement, though. 

Anyway if one wants to be objective, one really should be prepared to concretely define things. Someone even mentioned "intelligence" earlier as an objective measure which was funny since there's no agreed academic definition on it!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

fbjim said:


> I think "Inexorable" is fine as an aesthetic descriptor - I've seen it frequently used as such. I could say a work "heads inexorably to a tragic conclusion", for instance - this is primarily an aesthetic statement, though.
> 
> Anyway if one wants to be objective, one really should be prepared to concretely define things...


I think it's fine as a metaphoric (exaggerated) descriptor, certainly, but when questioned it shouldn't be difficult for someone to clarify they only meant it metaphorically. Why it should take all these pages to clarify if, indeed, one did mean it metaphorically is quite mysterious.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

fbjim said:


> ..Anyway if one wants to be objective, one really should be prepared to concretely define things. Someone even mentioned "intelligence" earlier as an objective measure which was funny since there's no agreed academic definition on it!


And yet, increasingly, we’re particularly aware of a lack of it in high places these days.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Like "dirty pictures", I think most take the old Potter Stewart definition of "I know it when I see it" when it comes to defining what "intelligence" is.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DaveM said:


> Or more likely, ‘no clarification was forthcoming’ simply meant that one’s time is too precious to waste on demands for clarification by the few who seem to require a lot of clarification.


If you sincerely postulate this, I salute your inventiveness. EB has made it clear that he is happy to talk--like you--about why others are talking about the issue, rather than directly address the issue of what was meant by "inexorable logic". 'why is this? "I just don't get it."


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

fbjim said:


> Like "dirty pictures", I think most take the old Potter Stewart definition of "I know it when I see it" when it comes to defining what "intelligence" is.


Except Dunning-Kruger types who lack the capacity for recognizing it... which is part of the problem with all declarations of "I know it when I see it" in general and the relative superiority of actual empirical demonstration. To take your example, IQ tests may not measure everything there is to intelligence, but they correlate well with any number of positive life outcomes and seem to demonstrate a facility with certain fundamentally intelligence-intensive tasks like abstract problem solving. It's better than just saying "I know it when I see it;" to which one can just retort: "how do you know what you know?"


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

To put it another way, I've said of some great finals that the work "couldn't have ended any other way." that of course is not a literal statement, nor does it even imply that there isn't, in the void, a potential finale that I might have found even more effective had it only been written. When something affects me greatly, though, it can be impossible to think it could be improved upon.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> If you sincerely postulate this, I salute your inventiveness. EB has made it clear that he is happy to talk--like you--about why others are talking about the issue, rather than directly address the issue of what was meant by "inexorable logic". 'why is this? "I just don't get it."


I posted more than once on my view of the term ‘inexorable logic’.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> If you sincerely postulate this, I salute your inventiveness. EB has made it clear that he is happy to talk--like you--about why others are talking about the issue, rather than directly address the issue of what was meant by "inexorable logic". 'why is this? "I just don't get it."


It's like any other. Some people don't know the terms, don't know the theory and certainly don't work with it. 'Don't care to know. Again, as in meteorology, botany and music. But since any of those is an everyday experience for humans, then we have the Dunning-Kruger responses to a technical question. 'Very natural.
Or am I 'way off? 
Study music and play for just a decade, it will all become clear to you, Grasshopper. I know this is what it sounds like.. sorry..
but it's the same sorry state in any technical field.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

DaveM said:


> Or more likely, ‘no clarification was forthcoming’ simply meant that one’s time is too precious to waste on demands for clarification by the few who seem to require a lot of clarification.


Especially when such calls are just transparent oh-so-clever attempted "gotchas". For whatever reason. And also especially considering that those things then have a way of spilling into 40 or 50 multiparagraph tag-team matches.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> It's like any other. Some people don't know the terms, don't know the theory and certainly don't work with it. 'Don't care to know. Again, as in meteorology, botany and music. But since any of those is an everyday experience for humans, then we have the Dunning-Kruger responses to a technical question. 'Very natural.
> Or am I 'way off?
> Study music and play for just a decade, it will all become clear to you, Grasshopper. I know this is what it sounds like.. sorry..
> but it's the same sorry state in any technical field.


A fear of others not knowing the terms shouldn't present anyone who does know the terms from using them (if necessary) to demonstrate what they're talking about. I've had actual discussions with physicists about quantum mechanics, with philosophers about philosophy, with literature and film professors about literature and film... all of these people in all these professions are willing to talk and, as necessary, teach about these subjects in a way that makes whatever is being discussed accessible even to relative laymen or non-experts. Why should music be any different? I've met far more resistance from supposed-experts/musicians to demonstrate their claims than I've ever met from experts in any other fields; other fields that are often much more full of technical terminology that's much more difficult to grasp (ever tried to understand what a wavefunction is? Ever tried to explain how to intuitively grasp Bayes's Theorem?) than music is.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> Especially when such calls are just transparent oh-so-clever attempted "gotchas".


If the simple request to clarify what's meant by a term is a "gotcha" then all that does is speak terribly of the people using the term. "Gotchas" typically require more than a "what do you mean by that?"


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> A fear of others not knowing the terms shouldn't present anyone who does know the terms from using them (if necessary) to demonstrate what they're talking about. I've had actual discussions with physicists about quantum mechanics, with philosophers about philosophy, with literature and film professors about literature and film... all of these people in all these professions are willing to talk and, as necessary, teach about these subjects in a way that makes whatever is being discussed accessible even to relative laymen or non-experts. Why should music be any different? I've met far more resistance from supposed-experts/musicians to demonstrate their claims than I've ever met from experts in any other fields; other fields that are often much more full of technical terminology that's much more difficult to grasp (ever tried to understand what a wavefunction is? Ever tried to explain how to intuitively grasp Bayes's Theorem?) than music is.


Then you're halfway there. You have the confidence and the background. You have the drive to know.
Now how do we teach about the inexorable logic of music in these posts? I like to start with the Mozart piano sonatas. Analyze them, de-construct them, reduce the attractive concepts to their bare bones. Play through them for a visceral sense of their logical inevitability. But, then again, change notes and see what happens. Change rhythms, change the tempo, simplify the arrangement, the slurs and accents, reverse things. What happens? What was Mozart doing, every few bars? Every detail is written out in the score. This should all be second nature to our experience, but how do we communicate this concept?
This surely isn't the best example for this. Beethoven or Chopin would be better, but somewhat more difficult to follow.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> systematic narrative design (many movements and whole works by Beethoven


"The very term ‘cyclic form’ is confusing. Hans Keller was exaggerating only a little when he described it as ‘one of the most senseless technical terms in the rich history of musicological nonsense’. In fact, it is almost obligatory for commentators to offer some brief apology for their continued use of the term. Charles Rosen, for instance, states that ‘“cyclical form” is an ambiguous as well as a vague term’, whilst James Webster, in his influential study of Haydn's ‘Farewell’ Symphony, prefaces his text with a disclaimer on the unsuitability of the terms ‘cyclic’ and ‘through-composed’, before going on to use them nevertheless." (cambridge.org/core/books/abs/mendelssohn-time-and-memory/idea-of-cyclic-form)

As we talked about before, in the case of Beethoven's 5th, for instance, you're attributing a particular kind of "logic" to the music based on your subjective interpretation of it. The only element the themes of the movements share is the rhythm, ♪♪♪♩, which occurs in plenty of Beethoven's other music. Person A can think that "it is the motivic drive of the whole work"; while Person B can think that "Beethoven is just doing his signature move just cause it sounds good to him" and neither can be objectively disproven.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> ..I've met far more resistance from supposed-experts/musicians to demonstrate their claims than I've ever met from experts in any other fields; other fields that are often much more full of technical terminology that's much more difficult to grasp..


It’s obviously another one of those dang conspiracies!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DaveM said:


> I posted more than once on my view of the term ‘inexorable logic’.


I have also speculated on what EB might mean and also on the fact that the use of the adjective "inexorable" is at best ambiguous without context. EB has chosen not to discuss, clarify, contextualize his use of the adjective--instead he seemingly relies upon you and dissident to distract attention--be the shiny things--from the real matter of the issue. I dare say I have posted far more than you as to what EB _might _have meant and why I believe the term serves to obscure rather than elucidate. Are we having fun yet?

And Luchesi yet again suggests that if we change even a note in any piece of music, it falls apart like wet tissue paper--they are set in reinforced concrete--"just look at the score". A strange notion. "Inexorable logic." "Logical inevitability:. These term are repeated like an incantation, a mantra. If I say it long enough, I may believe that it's true.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> I have also speculated on what EB might mean and also on the fact that the use of the adjective "inexorable" is at best ambiguous without context. EB has chosen not to discuss, clarify, contextualize his use of the adjective--instead he seemingly relies upon you and dissident to distract attention--be the shiny things--from the real matter of the issue. I dare say I have posted far more than you as to what EB _might _have meant and why I believe the term serves to obscure rather than elucidate. Are we having fun yet?
> 
> And Luchesi yet again suggests that if we change even a note in any piece of music, it falls apart like wet tissue paper--they are set in reinforced concrete--"just look at the score". A strange notion. "Inexorable logic." "Logical inevitability:. These term are repeated like an incantation, a mantra. If I say it long enough, I may believe that it's true.


[/QUOTE]

Yes, I guess musicians are in their own world. You could enter our world.
What happens when we change a note? Everything is accomplished with only 12 notes, but there's also 12 keys, and then each progression is chosen, adding to the complexity. Something so large and expanding awareness from so small a set. If we convert all the notes to frequencies then, in our minds, we can construct a visual representation of the interrelationships between all the notes (melody, keys, progressions, accompaniment).

If we're in one key and a work starts in another key, what does this effect on listeners tell us about human brain responses? It's below the conscious level. It's unavoidable. What is really going on? Are complicated brain engrams furiously trying to catch up and make sense of the signals? It seems it must be done quickly to justify all the food energy going to our oversized brains.
It's one way, a very human way to survive dangers, and all of human civilization comes from it. My brain also tries to rapidly make sense of new tactile patterns, the look of the score on the page, the reactions of any listeners. There's a lot going on, in this survival game.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> *Luchesi: "*Yes, I guess musicians are in their own world. You could enter our world.
> What happens when we change a note? Everything is accomplished with only 12 notes, but there's also 12 keys, and then each progression is chosen, adding to the complexity. Something so large and expanding awareness from so small a set. If we convert all the notes to frequencies then, in our minds, we can construct a visual representation of the interrelationships between all the notes (melody, keys, progressions, accompaniment).
> 
> If we're in one key and a work starts in another key, what does this effect on listeners tell us about human brain responses? It's below the conscious level. It's unavoidable. What is really going on? Are complicated brain engrams furiously trying to catch up and make sense of the signals? It seems it must be done quickly to justify all the food energy going to our oversized brains.
> It's one way, a very human way to survive dangers, and all of human civilization comes from it. My brain also tries to rapidly make sense of new tactile patterns, the look of the score on the page, the reactions of any listeners. There's a lot going on, in this survival game."


Yes, but what has this to do with the topic?  And, do you believe in a composer's--or anybody"s--Free Will? That is a question posed by the use of the terms "inexorable logic" and "logical inevitability" without a clarifying context.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Personally, the term ‘inexorable logic’ is more likely to make sense with music of the CP era. Logic infers rules. Some contemporary music doesn’t appear to have any.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

As I understand that last several pages, there was confusion about the term "inexorable logic." That's not unreasonable. EdwardBast, who introduced the term, later said:



EdwardBast said:


> That's not a looser definition, it's just the obvious one in describing musical structure—although narrative design and thematic processes could be added to the list. WTH else did you think the expression meant? ...


in reference to Eva's comment:



> *if we want to define "inexorable logic" in a much looser to way to essentially mean "logic developed as part of an extensive formal or harmonic plan* ...


I think Edward is agreeing that Eva's definition is roughly what he meant. I don't see an issue now. I think everyone basically agrees with that definition, and there is no longer a conflict (I realize some felt that there was never a conflict). Yes?


----------



## AlexD (Nov 6, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> How can you "understand" a work, and not "appreciate" it? Maybe you think you "understand", but in reality there are still some things about the work you don't "understand", so you don't "appreciate" it?
> Does the term "understanding" have significant meaning when it comes to music appreciation?


I can understand how ice-cream is made, but that doesn't mean I like ice-cream.

A powerful tool for me as a writer was to see past what I liked, or didn't like - but to see how a writer structured a piece. 

I can think that what a poem says is trite, but appreciate or understand how the poet has structured it or used language enough to steal the technique to use it myself.

What a piece of art says, and how it says it can be analysed separately.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> As I understand that last several pages, there was confusion about the term "inexorable logic." That's not unreasonable. EdwardBast, who introduced the term, later said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would rather say it's a compelling logic for those interested, but it's also relentless (too strong a word).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DaveM said:


> It’s obviously another one of those dang conspiracies!


Nah, far simpler explanations than that.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> Then you're halfway there. You have the confidence and the background. You have the drive to know.
> Now how do we teach about the inexorable logic of music in these posts? I like to start with the Mozart piano sonatas. Analyze them, de-construct them, reduce the attractive concepts to their bare bones. Play through them for a visceral sense of their logical inevitability. But, then again, change notes and see what happens. Change rhythms, change the tempo, simplify the arrangement, the slurs and accents, reverse things. What happens? What was Mozart doing, every few bars? Every detail is written out in the score. This should all be second nature to our experience, but how do we communicate this concept?
> This surely isn't the best example for this. Beethoven or Chopin would be better, but somewhat more difficult to follow.


Yes, but what I don't have is unlimited time to spend studying music just to see if I emerge on the other side somehow blessed with this mysterious knowledge that some people here claim all such musicians possess; as if there musicians don't regularly and vociferously disagree with each other on all kinds of subjects; and as if much of what they claim to know doesn't cross from the objective knowledge of music into debatable aesthetics and other philosophy. I've done what you suggest before on things I can play on guitar and, again, never felt what I'd call "inexorable logic" when playing pieces as written. Logic? Yes. Inexorable logic? No, at least not in any objective sense rather than in a "everything sounds perfect to me" subjective sense.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> I think Edward is agreeing that Eva's definition is roughly what he meant. I don't see an issue now. I think everyone basically agrees with that definition, and there is no longer a conflict (I realize some felt that there was never a conflict). Yes?


No. EB (and Luchesi) continue to not directly address the exact meaning they have in mind when they use the terms "inexorable logic: and "logical inevitability" in regards to musical composition. I have to speculate on what they might mean: does Free Will not exist for composers? Do composers voluntarily decide to follow some predetermined (by them or anybody else) template for some or all of a piece of music?

My ungenerous thesis is that, once the phrase was posted, there was a rush for the lifeboats a la Noel Coward's dictum: "Never apologize. Never explain".


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

I'm content that EB at least has agreed that my post hit on what he meant, but, good grief, it shouldn't have taken this much effort to get to this point.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'm content that EB at least has agreed that my post hit on what he meant, but, good grief, it shouldn't have taken this much effort to get to this point.


When EB directly agrees with you, then you may be content. Thus far, the responses have been enigmatic and/or posted by surrogates, with the same ambiguities.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> No. EB (and Luchesi) continue to not directly address the exact meaning they have in mind when they use the terms "inexorable logic: and "logical inevitability" in regards to musical composition. I have to speculate on what they might mean: does Free Will not exist for composers? Do composers voluntarily decide to follow some predetermined (by them or anybody else) template for some or all of a piece of music?
> 
> My ungenerous thesis is that, once the phrase was posted, there was a rush for the lifeboats a la Noel Coward's dictum: "Never apologize. Never explain".


Well, OK, but I'm not sure that continuing to push the issue will result in anything you would find useful.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> No. EB (and Luchesi) continue to not directly address the exact meaning they have in mind when they use the terms "inexorable logic: and "logical inevitability" in regards to musical composition. I have to speculate on what they might mean: does Free Will not exist for composers? Do composers voluntarily decide to follow some predetermined (by them or anybody else) template for some or all of a piece of music?
> 
> My ungenerous thesis is that, once the phrase was posted, there was a rush for the lifeboats a la Noel Coward's dictum: "Never apologize. Never explain".


Eva doesn't have the time and you've never had the experience. That sounds about right, statistically. It fits with my view of a cross section of music fans. Unlike Noel C., I'm not negative, I'm hopeful people will be exposed to these seemingly 'extreme' claims.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> Well, OK, but I'm not sure that continuing to push the issue will result in anything you would find useful.


Someone might be able to put this big subject, understandably and attractively, into well-thought out posts. I'd like to see it.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> My ungenerous thesis is that, once the phrase was posted, there was a rush for the lifeboats..


Leaving you on the sinking ship.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> Eva doesn't have the time and you've never had the experience. That sounds about right, statistically. It fits with my view of a cross section of music fans. Unlike Noel C., I'm not negative, I'm hopeful people will be exposed to these seemingly 'extreme' claims.


The kicker for me is why nobody that does have the experience can explain themselves and justify the claims being made. The expert/laymen gap is something that's bridged and crossed all the time on much more complicated, technical subjects than music. When no attempt is made at building that bridge and one side is just demanding the other side join them because wealth and riches await them on the other side perhaps you can understand the skepticism. I've also witnessed too many examples of experts making claims about subjects that are actually outside their area of expertise; a bit like all the faux pas some scientists have made in recent years/decades about philosophy. There's the common mistake in which expertise engenders a kind of myopic thinking that expertise in one subject migrates to expertise in all quasi-related subjects, and if often does not, and many experts don't know where that line is. Many prefer to use that expertise to declare authoritative pronouncements on these quasi-related areas as if it were the case. So perhaps you can also understand my further skepticism given that.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The kicker for me is why nobody that does have the experience can explain themselves and justify the claims being made. The expert/laymen gap is something that's bridged and crossed all the time on much more complicated, technical subjects than music. When no attempt is made at building that bridge and one side is just demanding the other side join them because wealth and riches await them on the other side perhaps you can understand the skepticism. I've also witnessed too many examples of experts making claims about subjects that are actually outside their area of expertise; a bit like all the faux pas some scientists have made in recent years/decades about philosophy. There's the common mistake in which expertise engenders a kind of myopic thinking that expertise in one subject migrates to expertise in all quasi-related subjects, and if often does not, and many experts don't know where that line is. Many prefer to use that expertise to declare authoritative pronouncements on these quasi-related areas as if it were the case. So perhaps you can also understand my further skepticism given that.


It might not be a grand example, but take a pop song and change some notes. It will change the effect on you and it will evoke other metaphors, or it will just fail. It would be a quick example, but everyone knows this. What are you thinking about? If you play guitar you know you can't play the wrong chords. People know it, they might not know why, they might not care why.
By wrong chords I mean adding a seventh or a sixth or ninth or major seventh.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> Eva doesn't have the time and you've never had the experience. That sounds about right, statistically. It fits with my view of a cross section of music fans. Unlike Noel C., I'm not negative, I'm hopeful people will be exposed to these seemingly 'extreme' claims.


Dodging and weaving, like a skilled boxer. How do you know that EB doesn't have the time? Has he taken the time to tell you he hasn't the time? I'd love for more to be exposed to these extreme claims within a clarifying context offered by the author of the ambiguous term.

DaveM: still working the one-liners from the sidelines, I see.. P_lus ca change._


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> It might not be a grand example, but take a pop song and change some notes. It will change the effect on you and it will evoke other metaphors, or it will just fail. It would be a quick example, but everyone knows this. What are you thinking about? If you play guitar you know you can't play the wrong chords. People know it, they might not know why, they might not care why.


Yes, but what has this to do with the issue under discussion? Instead of wonderful song X, we might have wonderful song Y. Or it may fail in that fewer people like it--it moves fewer units.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Dodging and weaving, like a skilled boxer. How do you know that EB doesn't have the time? Has he taken the time to tell you he hasn't the time? I'd love for more to be exposed to these extreme claims within a clarifying context offered by the author of the ambiguous term.
> 
> DaveM: still working the one-liners from the sidelines, I see.. P_lus ca change._


Music theory is the context and it can clarify. You disagree with this?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Yes, but what has this to do with the issue under discussion? Instead of wonderful song X, we might have wonderful song Y. Or it may fail in that fewer people like it--it moves fewer units.


I wonder what are the chances that it could be better. Very small. 

Lennon and McCartney (and Harrison) played so many live gigs, for long hours, that they could break some conventions while composing (by ear) and get a better result (for their audience). It was very exciting when they pulled it off (and a little awkward/cringeworthy). Critics of this view will say that no, it was their blues background. But mostly they didn't know, didn't care. It was part of the rebellion.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> Dodging and weaving, like a skilled boxer. How do you know that EB doesn't have the time? Has he taken the time to tell you he hasn't the time? I'd love for more to be exposed to these extreme claims within a clarifying context offered by the author of the ambiguous term.
> 
> DaveM: still working the one-liners from the sidelines, I see.. P_lus ca change._


Why is it that essentially only you and EY are particularly troubled by this? Just as with the subjectivity/objectivity ‘issue’ there seems to be the need for an explanation that meets some kind of semantic perfection necessary to satisfy what seems to be an unyielding headset. Optimal interpretation of semantics, especially as applied to the arts, might just require stepping outside one’s own rigid parameters and being open to other interpretations, especially from those more educated on the subject at hand


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DaveM said:


> Why is it that essentially only you and EY are particularly troubled by this? Just as with the subjectivity/objectivity ‘issue’ there seems to be the need for an explanation that meets some kind of semantic perfection necessary to satisfy what seems to be an unyielding headset. Optimal interpretation of semantics, especially as applied to the arts, might just require stepping outside one’s own rigid parameters and being open to other interpretations, especially from those more educated on the subject at hand


Yes, but what does this have to do with the issue under discussion? We're back into psychobabble again. It may be that EY and I prefer clear, unambiguous statements asserted within a defined context. You are content with less and with the Wisdom of the Master. A great devotee of medieval Scholasticism, born centuries too late.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> I wonder what are the chances that it could be better. Very small.
> 
> Lennon and McCartney (and Harrison) played so many live gigs, for long hours, that they could break some conventions while composing (by ear) and get a better result (for their audience). It was very exciting when they pulled it off (and a little awkward/cringeworthy). Critics of this view will say that no, it was their blues background. But mostly they didn't know, didn't care. It was part of the rebellion.


Yes (or no), but what has this to do with the issue under discussion? Every song by Lennon and McCartney was just as good as it could possibly be? Right out of Dr. Pangloss and _Candide. _I love the overture!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> Yes, but what does this have to do with the issue under discussion? .. It may be that EY and I prefer clear, unambiguous statements asserted within a defined context.


What you said was irrelevant was exactly relevant to what you keep repeating in the last sentence above:


DaveM said:


> Optimal interpretation of semantics, especially as applied to the arts, might just require stepping outside one’s own rigid parameters and being open to other interpretations, especially from those more educated on the subject at hand.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DaveM said:


> What you said was irrelevant was exactly relevant to what you keep repeating in the last sentence above:


Yes (or No). What has this to do with the issue under discussion?

In John Osborne's play _Luther, _Osborne has Luther being reprimanded by a cardinal of the church for retracting his retraction of his indictment of the church. The cardinal urges Luther (played by DaveM in my telling) to not "return like a dog to its vomit". No more need be said, other than to restate the obvious--that the issue at hand continues to be evaded, talked around, obfuscated by those choosing to not address it head on: What exactly is meant by EB when he uses the phrase "inexorable logic" or when Luchesi uses "logical inevitability"?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> I wonder what are the chances that it could be better. Very small.
> 
> Lennon and McCartney (and Harrison) played so many live gigs, for long hours, that they could break some conventions while composing (by ear) and get a better result (for their audience). It was very exciting when they pulled it off (and a little awkward/cringeworthy). Critics of this view will say that no, it was their blues background. But mostly they didn't know, didn't care. It was part of the rebellion.


The masters - pop, rock, painting, CM - have often reworked their product, so whatever inevitability may have at first been evident, it soon gets overturned into the ambiguous.

I'm no artist, but my wife is. I've lost count of the times she's asked me to look at her work and give her my (amateur, but precious) opinion on whether something is finished or not. I know this is something dear to Woodduck's heart - the honed sensibility of the artist to what is "right", and his belief that this can be applied to CM as well. However, the fact that there is a doubt in the artist's mind confirms to me that there is no such thing as "inexorable logic" in matters of art, except to the extent that the artist plays by some pre-determined rules: the writer sets out to craft a sonnet - the inexorable logic is that there will be 14 lines and the last two should rhyme. Unless you're an artist who bends the rules, in which case, there might not.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Yes (or no), but what has this to do with the issue under discussion? Every song by Lennon and McCartney was just as good as it could possibly be? Right out of Dr. Pangloss and _Candide. _I love the overture!


Change a note and make it better? I came up with a full arrangement of "I’m Henry the 8th I Am" in the style of Mozart, for kids. Very flowery! Yes fun stuff, maybe this is what is confusing the issue.

When Dr. Bast mentioned inexorable musical logic I immediately thought of 

OLD SALIERI
(voice over)
Displace one note and there would be diminishment. Displace
one phrase, and the structure would fall. It was clear to me. That
sound I had heard in the Archbishop's palace had been no acci-
dent. Here again was the very voice of God! I was staring
through the cage of those meticulous ink-strokes at an absolute,
inimitable beauty.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> Change a note and make it better? I came up with a full arrangement of "I’m Henry the 8th I Am" in the style of Mozart, for kids. Very flowery! Yes fun stuff, maybe this is what is confusing the issue.
> 
> When Dr. Bast mentioned inexorable musical logic I immediately thought of
> 
> ...


Yes, but what did *EB *mean? We are all speculating on what he _might_ have meant. Old Salieri was so ignorant of Mozart's true ability that he assumed that Mozart could not have improved upon any of his works. If we get into how we judge these things, we are back to the other thread. That would be sad because we're having so much fun here!


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Yes, but what did *EB *mean? We are all speculating on what he _might_ have meant. Old Salieri was so ignorant of Mozart's true ability that he assumed that Mozart could not have improved upon any of his works. If we get into how we judge these things, we are back to the other thread. That would be sad because we're having so much fun here!


What phrase would you use instead of inexorable logic?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> Yes (or No). What has this to do with the issue under discussion?
> 
> No more need be said, other than to restate the obvious--that the issue at hand continues to be evaded, talked around, obfuscated by those choosing to not address it head on: What exactly is meant by EB when he uses the phrase "inexorable logic" or when Luchesi uses "logical inevitability"?


Various posters, including myself, have suggested what is the meaning behind the term ‘inexorable logic’. You just don’t accept ithe various suggestions or anything near them or the fact that any explanation is not going to amount to some scientific truth meeting your exact parameters.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Forster said:


> The masters - pop, rock, painting, CM - have often reworked their product, so whatever inevitability may have at first been evident, it soon gets overturned into the ambiguous.
> 
> I'm no artist, but my wife is. I've lost count of the times she's asked me to look at her work and give her my (amateur, but precious) opinion on whether something is finished or not. I know this is something dear to Woodduck's heart - the honed sensibility of the artist to what is "right", and his belief that this can be applied to CM as well. However, the fact that there is a doubt in the artist's mind confirms to me that there is no such thing as "inexorable logic" in matters of art, except to the extent that the artist plays by some pre-determined rules: the writer sets out to craft a sonnet - the inexorable logic is that there will be 14 lines and the last two should rhyme. Unless you're an artist who bends the rules, in which case, there might not.


Thanks. This might be a hint of what the misunderstanding is.
That 'logic' (for crafting a sonnet) comes from human traditions and the rules that have developed from those human 'rules'.

It's a huge difference. Music's reliable logic comes from physics and adaptations (the evolving brain) in our natural history.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> Thanks. This might be a hint of what the misunderstanding is.
> That 'logic' (for crafting a sonnet) comes from human traditions and the rules that have developed from those human 'rules'.
> 
> It's a huge difference. Music's reliable logic comes from physics and adaptations (the evolving brain) in our natural history.



If that's true, what does it say when the "rules" and expectations of music change over time?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fbjim said:


> If that's true, what does it say when the "rules" and expectations of music change over time?


What 'rule' changed?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> What phrase would you use instead of inexorable logic?


What a strange question! Since I can only guess at the spectrum of what EB might mean, I do not have a clue as to what phrase one should substitute..Since you believe you are his proxy, put in any phrase you like. It still does not answer the question--_What did EB mean?_


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DaveM said:


> Various posters, including myself, have suggested what is the meaning behind the term ‘inexorable logic’. You just don’t accept ithe various suggestions or anything near them or the fact that any explanation is not going to amount to some scientific truth meeting your exact parameters.


The guessing game is thus to continue indefinitely.......


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> What 'rule' changed?


How about this for an answer choice: A) the rules have changed, B) the rules have not changed. Luchesi, pick one. Simple declarative statements are easier to analyze.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> *Have you not read the rest of the thread? *The hypothetical of an algorithm that could generate every note was posited and one member even tried to defend that such a thing was possible. Really, this just comes down to the limits of creative freedom. Every form imposes some limitations on creative choice, and certain conventions do as well if composers choose to accept them; but I think it's a stretch to call this "inexorable logic." There's still a ton of freedom within those forms and conventions, which is why composers could make such radically different music with them. There's logic, absolutely, but logic just implies a conceptual design, while the "inexorable" adjective implies much less freedom (like the aforementioned algorithm) than what mere logic suggests.
> 
> I don't think there was any "getting riled up" as opposed to some skepticism followed by requests for clarification. When no clarification was forthcoming it made it seem like the phrase was used to just shut down all possible conversation by authoritative proclamation.


Sorry. Sometimes I just roll my eyes and pass over the clearly whacky propositions. I'm a theorist after all. I stated the terms in which I think inexorable logic is a viable concept. I wasn't aware others read that as support for another member's ideas.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> How about this for an answer choice: A) the rules have changed, B) the rules have not changed. Luchesi, pick one. Simple declarative statements are easier to analyze.


Yes, we still had sentence diagramming. I really enjoyed learning it, compared to my friends. No surprise! I like reliable approaches.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> Sorry. Sometimes I just roll my eyes and pass over the clearly whacky propositions. I'm a theorist after all. I stated the terms in which I think inexorable logic is a viable concept. I wasn't aware others read that as support for another member's ideas.


Please redirect us to your post where you clearly, unequivocally state exactly what you meant and in what context that meaning is enclosed. There are layers of context wherein the idea of "inexorable logic" might be operable. For instance, on a gross level. the composer may choose to write a traditional symphony with 4 movements or a concerto with 3..Having decided this, the composer will move forward with"logical inevitability" with the standard 4 (or 3) movements. I also noted ostinato passages where the composer has chosen to exactly repeat the same brief theme over and over. But should not "inexorable logic" be made of sterner stuff?

But I am forced to speculate due to your strange reluctance to fully explain what you mean. A simple and completely reasonable request that seems to draw forth pages of equivocation from both yourself and your eager surrogates. You could make this all go away if you chose.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Please redirect us to your post where you clearly, unequivocally state exactly what you meant and in what context that meaning is enclosed. There are layers of context wherein the idea of "inexorable logic" might be operable. For instance, on a gross level. the composer may choose to write a traditional symphony with 4 movements or a concerto with 3..Having decided this, the composer will move forward with"logical inevitability" with the standard 4 (or 3) movements. I also noted ostinato passages where the composer has chosen to exactly repeat the same brief theme over and over. But should not "inexorable logic" be made of sterner stuff?
> 
> But I am forced to speculate due to your strange reluctance to fully explain what you mean. A simple and completely reasonable request that seems to draw forth pages of equivocation from both yourself and your eager surrogates. You could make this all go away if you chose.


The tonal progressions and key sequences of every Bach fugue are examples of inexorable logic based on a few premises. The same is true of the harmonic progressions of virtually every Classical movement in sonata form. The tonal logic is clearly audible. One of the principal metaphors for the construction of movements in the Baroque was the unfolding of a unified rhetorical argument — adapting the shape of logical argument to create musical structure. (see Matthesson and J.D. Heinichen.) The aesthetic aim of a huge proportion of CP music could be summarized as the attempt to create the impression of inexorable progress to an inevitable conclusion. Romantic and later music exploited systematic thematic processes and narrative designs, in addition to the harmonic and tonal patterns of the Baroque and Classical, in pursuing these ends. As I've stated before, the Schenkerians believe that every tonal work by definition exhibits the unfolding of inexorable logic. Literally thousands of analyses of musical works by diverse means have been undertaken with the purpose of demonstrating this sort of thing. It's call music theory. I stated pretty much the same thing pages back and have no interest in searching for it.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Please redirect us to your post where you clearly, unequivocally state exactly what you meant and in what context that meaning is enclosed. There are layers of context wherein the idea of "inexorable logic" might be operable. For instance, on a gross level. the composer may choose to write a traditional symphony with 4 movements or a concerto with 3..Having decided this, the composer will move forward with"logical inevitability" with the standard 4 (or 3) movements. I also noted ostinato passages where the composer has chosen to exactly repeat the same brief theme over and over. But should not "inexorable logic" be made of sterner stuff?
> 
> But I am forced to speculate due to your strange reluctance to fully explain what you mean. A simple and completely reasonable request that seems to draw forth pages of equivocation from both yourself and your eager surrogates. You could make this all go away if you chose.


It's not about broad structures or form (to me), it's about the logical flow of the musical notes in the score. How does it all flow? why does it flow? What was this like in the past, and what will this be like in future music. The big general questions. 

The language of the harmony from the notation is really quite simple, or at least it becomes very simple and second nature with experience.
Maybe you've only gotten as far as naming notes. Musicians don't name notes, it would slow up the brain while they're playing. Our minds bounce from one large pattern to the next while sight-reading and memorizing. It's all quite mysterious. It seems to me that the brain can take in more information at one time when it's being reinforced by sound and tactile feedback. That's why it's so much fun to express yourself with an instrument.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Why is it that essentially only you and EY are particularly troubled by this? Just as with the subjectivity/objectivity ‘issue’ there seems to be the need for an explanation that meets some kind of semantic perfection necessary to satisfy what seems to be an unyielding headset.


There's a huge gap between between "semantic perfection" (whatever that means) and complete semantic ambiguity. SM and I are reacting to what we perceive as being the latter and trying to just nudge it closer to the former. If you read back through this thread you might notice that between yourself, Luchesi, EB, and dissident you've all proposed 4 _very_ different ideas of what was meant by the original term. 



DaveM said:


> Optimal interpretation of semantics, especially as applied to the arts, might just require stepping outside one’s own rigid parameters and being open to other interpretations, especially from those more educated on the subject at hand


I'm open to "other interpretations," but I'm not open to vague, ambiguous, woo-woo or just accepting claims on the proclamations of expertise.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Forster said:


> the writer sets out to craft a sonnet - the inexorable logic is that there will be 14 lines and the last two should rhyme. Unless you're an artist who bends the rules, in which case, there might not.


Actually, there are a lot of ways to craft a sonnet; most all of them will have 14 lines, but pretty much everything else is up for grabs. The last two lines rhyming became known as the Shakespearean sonnet, because that's the form he preferred; while the older Petrarchan sonnet model used ABBAABBA for the octet and CDCDCD or CDECDE for the sestet (no rhyming couplet at the end).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> What phrase would you use instead of inexorable logic?


I think the phrase I'd prefer would depend on what each individual means. The way you're using it I think I'd prefer something like "Platonic perfection." You seem to be using it in the sense that a work has reached such a state in which removing or adding anything would make it lesser than what it is. That goes back to Plato's concept of ideal/perfect forms. These are very subjective things, but I think it fits better than "inexorable logic." Logic itself requires concepts of axioms and rules of operation, like math does. What you're talking about is a very different thing than that.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

This discussion has made me wonder what some of the "inexorable logic" folks think about, say, jazz interpretations of classical works. If the latter have "inexorable logic" then what are we to make of artists who take the basis of these works to craft very new, or at least radically different, versions of these pieces? Forget judgments of better/worse, it seems to me that if such things can be done and many find them rewarding, then in what sense did the originals exhibit inexorable logic if they could've been in this "altered state" from the beginning? 

I particularly think of this given the recent discussion in the Non-Classical Music forum where other members posted Hiromi's versions of Beethoven's Pathetique, as well as a piano version she did of The Beatles's (since they were previously mentioned) Blackbird:


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> There's a huge gap between between "semantic perfection" (whatever that means) and complete semantic ambiguity...


’complete semantic ambiguity’: whatever that means..



> I'm open to "other interpretations," but I'm not open to vague, ambiguous, woo-woo or just accepting claims on the proclamations of expertise.


Of all of those, by all means avoid woo-woo.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

DaveM said:


> ’complete semantic ambiguity’: whatever that means..
> 
> 
> 
> Of all of those, by all means avoid woo-woo.


Woo woo should often be an aspect of music.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DaveM said:


> ’complete semantic ambiguity’: whatever that means..


 Complete semantic ambiguity: Using a term that engenders four different definitions from four different posters. 

See: this thread.



DaveM said:


> Of all of those, by all means avoid woo-woo.


I do; not sure most here do too.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> The tonal progressions and key sequences of every Bach fugue are examples of inexorable logic based on a few premises. The same is true of the harmonic progressions of virtually every Classical movement in sonata form. The tonal logic is clearly audible. One of the principal metaphors for the construction of movements in the Baroque was the unfolding of a unified rhetorical argument — adapting the shape of logical argument to create musical structure. (see Matthesson and J.D. Heinichen.) The aesthetic aim of a huge proportion of CP music could be summarized as the attempt to create the impression of inexorable progress to an inevitable conclusion. Romantic and later music exploited systematic thematic processes and narrative designs, in addition to the harmonic and tonal patterns of the Baroque and Classical, in pursuing these ends. As I've stated before, the Schenkerians believe that every tonal work by definition exhibits the unfolding of inexorable logic. Literally thousands of analyses of musical works by diverse means have been undertaken with the purpose of demonstrating this sort of thing. It's call music theory. I stated pretty much the same thing pages back and have no interest in searching for it.


Thanks for finally offering a reply. I think my thesis that the composer, of his/her own free will, sometimes chooses to lock him/herself into a fixed template--for whatever reasons--may be at the core of your assertion. Certainly the Baroque would provide this opportunity moreso than later periods. But what are we to make of the statement of yours that a huge portion of CP music is _an attempt(!) to give the impression_ of inexorable logic? As to the Schenkerians, their notion that every tonal work by definition exhibits the unfolding of inexorable logic is nonsense. Why then do composers often rewrite their works, if inexorable logic led them to the first version?

Basically nothing is actually explained, other than the truism that composers compose what they will, as an act of Free Will combined with a rational expectation of what the market, the patron, will bear and that Inexorable Logic is just another way of saying that the composer did what he/she did. Que sera, sera in fancy language.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Actually, there are a lot of ways to craft a sonnet; most all of them will have 14 lines, but pretty much everything else is up for grabs. The last two lines rhyming became known as the Shakespearean sonnet, because that's the form he preferred; while the older Petrarchan sonnet model used ABBAABBA for the octet and CDCDCD or CDECDE for the sestet (no rhyming couplet at the end).


Yes, yes, yes, but the point is that the sonnet had a definition and variations - it wasn't just any old poem which would reach perfection by woo-woo, and "inexorable logic" would only get you so far.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Another thought triggered by EB"s reply is that use of the term "inexorable logic" is like killing a fly with a sledgehammer, if we are talking about things like resolving the dominant into the tonic now and again throughout a piece and at the end. A grandiose orotund portentous phrase with which to label the appeal of the tension-resolution interplay that appears to be a hallmark of tonal music and whose appeal lies in some cluster of psychological/neurological factors that are slowly being teased out--likely workings of the limbic system.

There are not an infinite number a of ways to get from the opening note to the end of even an 8-note melody, but the number is huge--Prokofiev as an exercise (he loved chess and measurements) calculated that there were almost 6 billion. He goes on to say that this is the figure for notes used--when you add variations in note duration, rhythm, and harmony into the equation, the resulting range of possible melodies increases yet more fantastically. To speak of "inexorable logic" guiding the composition of a piece of music is to overreach by a considerable margin.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Certainly there were rules and conventions in 18th century music, but once a composer started writing a piece, there was only one single way the piece had to go? If so, we would describe it as "inexorable". But the reality wasn't like that. His decisions would have been "exorable".
watch?v=gJCz0qJDzus&t=483s
"This was actually a passage that was meant to be inserted earlier in the piece and then decided he (Mozart) didn't want that insertion after all. So it represents three if not more attempts to kind of go through the piece and decide what works and what doesn't."


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> ... If you read back through this thread you might notice that between yourself, Luchesi, EB, and dissident you've all proposed 4 _very_ different ideas of what was meant by the original term.
> ...


Really? I was told earlier that I was "carrying Edward Bast's water". It seems like you and SM are having trouble coordinating the tag team tactics. And maybe throw in Forster chiming in sometimes. None of what we've been saying has been _very_ different (I guess that's a "complete semantic ambiguity" standing in as a certainty -- and by the way isn't something either ambiguous or not?). I suppose the endgame is to have us realize that the Musical Offering was the result of blind chance. Oh, it isn't?


Strange Magic said:


> There are not an infinite number a of ways to get from the opening note to the end of even an 8-note melody, but the number is huge--Prokofiev as an exercise (he loved chess and measurements) calculated that there were almost 6 billion.


Something similar could be said for a game of chess. But yet a great game is going to display an inexorable logic in its progress when viewed from the perspective of the end result and within the parameters of the game itself, and not in relation to whatever conception of external "Inexorable Logic" our Skeptical Trio or Duo-and-a-Half seems to be fixated on. Your ability to perceive such logic, inexorable or exorable, is going to be commensurate with your knowledge of the game itself. If you haven't gotten past checkers or tic-tac-toe, the Fisher-Spassky matches don't show much of anything.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> Really? I was told earlier that I was "carrying Edward Bast's water". It seems like you and SM are having trouble coordinating the tag team tactics. And maybe throw in Forster chiming in sometimes. None of what we've been saying has been _very_ different (I guess that's a "complete semantic ambiguity" standing in as a certainty -- and by the way isn't something either ambiguous or not?). I suppose the endgame is to have us realize that the Musical Offering was the result of blind chance. Oh, it isn't?
> Something similar could be said for a game of chess. But yet a great game is going to display an inexorable logic in its progress when viewed from the perspective of the end result and within the parameters of the game itself, and not in relation to whatever conception of external "Inexorable Logic" our Skeptical Trio or Duo-and-a-Half seems to be fixated on. Your ability to perceive such logic, inexorable or exorable, is going to be commensurate with your knowledge of the game itself. If you haven't gotten past checkers or tic-tac-toe, the Fisher-Spassky matches don't show much of anything.


Interesting notions here. Every chess player's victory is an example of "inexorable logic" that must end as it did no matter what the opponent played, This is an example of retroactive, _ex post facto_ reasoning that "explains" everything in human interaction by asserting the trivial truism that everything that happened had to have happened, an utterly mechanistic view of the world with no account for chaos theory or for the fact that there are two agents actively interacting constantly in an ever-evolving and highly variable pattern. Nothing is learned, no information is imparted by such complete determinism--"Whatever will be, will be". 

Regarding the remaining remarks about teams, team membership, team cohesion, and singularity/similarity of views, I can only say that such things were determined long ago by "inexorable logic" and "logical inevitability",


----------



## 4chamberedklavier (12 mo ago)

It didn't occur to me that "inexorable logic" was used in the most literal sense. It just seemed like it was used as a figure of speech, like someone praising the music in a somewhat hyperbolic way.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

dissident said:


> Really? I was told earlier that I was "carrying Edward Bast's water". It seems like you and SM are having trouble coordinating the tag team tactics. And maybe throw in Forster chiming in sometimes. None of what we've been saying has been _very_ different (I guess that's a "complete semantic ambiguity" standing in as a certainty -- and by the way isn't something either ambiguous or not?). I suppose the endgame is to have us realize that the Musical Offering was the result of blind chance. Oh, it isn't?
> Something similar could be said for a game of chess. But yet a great game is going to display an inexorable logic in its progress when viewed from the perspective of the end result and within the parameters of the game itself, and not in relation to whatever conception of external "Inexorable Logic" our Skeptical Trio or Duo-and-a-Half seems to be fixated on. Your ability to perceive such logic, inexorable or exorable, is going to be commensurate with your knowledge of the game itself. If you haven't gotten past checkers or tic-tac-toe, the Fisher-Spassky matches don't show much of anything.


Yes, it's the same in any field. People don't understand each other but they think that they surely do. heh 

And then because of emotions they will think up assumptions to fortify and justify their original stance. Maslow’s heirarchy of ‘needs'. It's how we defend our estimations of what's real in reality, and this goes for people on both sides of the argument. 
Musicians enthusiastically enter an experiential world of frequency relationships. That's a little bizarre when you think about it. Musicians leave the others behind in this foreign land, but everybody knows that..


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> Interesting notions here. Every chess player's victory is an example of "inexorable logic" that must end as it did no matter what the opponent played,


Within the context of that game, yes. But the opponent's moves are also within the context of that game. Outside the game none of it is really logical at all.


> This is an example of retroactive, _ex post facto_ reasoning that "explains" everything in human interaction determinism--...


Who said anything about "everything in human interactions"? You're the only I see. The subject is music, not whether any logic in music corresponds to the logic of molecular biology.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> Within the context of that game, yes. But the opponent's moves are also within the context of that game. Outside the game none of it is really logical at all.
> 
> Who said anything about "everything in human interactions"? You're the only I see. The subject is music, not whether any logic in music corresponds to the logic of molecular biology.


I take it that you cannot see the larger implications of EB's notion of inexorable logic. It can be applied to any purposeful human activity--we act as we do because we must. Again, this conveys no useful information. And we still haven't explained why Prokofiev revised the 4th symphony or the cello concerto. If both were written under the lash of logical inevitability, then the inexorability was somewhere deficient in the first instance. Of course people will find a way to have their cake (original inexorability) and eat it too (later inexorability). All that term does is to inhibit thought and conjecture by way of pure assertion to be taken at face value without question.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> I take it that you cannot see the larger implications of EB's notion of inexorable logic. ...


And there I stop. The "larger implications" are whatever you read or misread into it for the sake of an argument, and there's no point in taking 5 pages of condescension over your own imaginings for which EB or anyone else isn't responsible. Ta-ta


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> Romantic and later music exploited systematic thematic processes and narrative designs


With the exception of Wagner, I can't see what's so original about theirs regarding the "design" you frequently talk about. Based on what you've explained regarding that topic, it seems a bit derivative of what came before them.


hammeredklavier said:


> I think the inclusion of the Amen, which builds on the vertical inversion of the 'D-C#-D-E-F' of the Introitus, Dies irae, Recordare (horizontally inverted/modified), Domine jesu (horizontally inverted/modified), Lacrimosa, is vital to the overall "narrative" of the work. "As Levin points out in the foreword to his completion of the Requiem, the addition of the Amen Fugue at the end of the sequence results in an overall design that ends each large section with a fugue."


0:00, 12:52


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> *I take it that you cannot see the larger implications of EB's notion of inexorable logic.* It can be applied to any purposeful human activity--we act as we do because we must. Again, this conveys no useful information. And we still haven't explained why Prokofiev revised the 4th symphony or the cello concerto. *If both were written under the lash of logical inevitability, then the inexorability was somewhere deficient in the first instance.* Of course people will find a way to have their cake (original inexorability) and eat it too (later inexorability). All that term does is to inhibit thought and conjecture by way of pure assertion to be taken at face value without question.


Maybe you see larger implications based on your own privately authored dictionary/thesaurus, but unfortunately for your theory, ‘inevitable‘ is not a synonym for ‘inexorable’.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DaveM said:


> Maybe you see larger implications based on your own privately authored dictionary/thesaurus, but unfortunately for your theory, ‘inevitable‘ is not a synonym for ‘inexorable’.


I was giving your associate Luchesi his moment in the sun, as he translated EB's "inexorable logic" to "logical inevitability." What is the difference, pray tell? Have a conference in your ranks.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> With the exception of Wagner, I can't see what's so original about theirs regarding the "design" you frequently talk about. Based on what you've explained regarding that topic, it seems a bit derivative of what came before them.
> ...


Which is another red herring and another topic.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> And there I stop. The "larger implications" are whatever you read or misread into it for the sake of an argument, and there's no point in taking 5 pages of condescension over your own imaginings for which EB or anyone else isn't responsible. Ta-ta


Of the two of us, I posted much more about the issue. You posted much more about process and your "psychological" insights into the motives of others.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> None of what we've been saying has been _very_ different


You do realize this thread still exists and some people (like myself) are perfectly capable of going back through it and proving claims like this quite wrong, yes? Observe:



Luchesi said:


> You know the logic of note combinations transitioned artistically, impressively and the power of it all because of the effective figurations.





dissident said:


> ...it's that the whole work has the feeling of inevitability. It couldn't really have been any other way without loss.





dissident said:


> With Bach, yes. I do believe he started with a musically logical framework (this was in the context of a discussion about axiomatic assumption and inferential rules) and filled it in according to the rules and techniques of fugal composition.





DaveM said:


> ...‘_the path that was chosen is so relentless as to appear inevitable that it is hard to imagine how it could have proceeded otherwise‘._





EdwardBast said:


> Applied to music it can cover anything from works with a quasi-algorithmic process (e.g. Arvo Pärt's _Tabula Rasa_) to a systematic narrative design (many movements and whole works by Beethoven, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and others), any piece organized by circle of fifths progressions …


Do you really think all of these are the same thing? Luchesi is describing a kind of Platonic state of perfection; you are describing a feeling of inevitability PLUS a Platonic state of perfection, and then later a logical (axiomatic + inferential rules) system for composing. Dave M agrees with your feeling of inevitability, but then EB comes in and adds a "quasi-algorithmic process, sytematic narrative designs, and circle of fifths progressions." Like, all of these are VERY different things, and note how neither your nor Luchesi's nor DaveM's definition actually matched up with with EB, who was the first one to introduce the term! 



dissident said:


> I suppose the endgame is to have us realize that the Musical Offering was the result of blind chance. Oh, it isn't?


Keep tilting at those subjectivist windmills. 



dissident said:


> Something similar could be said for a game of chess. But yet a great game is going to display an inexorable logic in its progress when viewed from the perspective of the end result and within the parameters of the game itself...


The chess example serves to demonstrate why music is NOT like this. Chess has a definite goal and rules for what moves can/can't be made to achieve those goals. Music does not. Music (and all art) has conventions that composers/musicians and audiences accept or reject of their own volition. In chess there are dozens of openings that present hundreds of different ideas for how to achieve the goal of checkmate. Within that some situations will arise where any given move will have an inexorable logic that leads to a losing or winning positions: chess puzzles are designed to set up these situations where there is only one right answer that achieves/maintains an advantage or wins. I am skeptical such a situation exists in music as powerful, substantial results can be achieved by polar opposite means. Conventions exist because some composers/audiences find, for their time/culture, they prefer certain goals and certain methods of achieving them. Conventions are very different from the kind of hard rules that chess has, and the goal of making music people like is far more variable than the goal of checkmate in chess.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Do you really think all of these are the same thing? Luchesi is describing a kind of Platonic state of perfection; you are describing a feeling of inevitability PLUS a Platonic state of perfection,


I never said or implied anything of the sort. An impression doesn't equal some Platonic ideal of reality that seems to have your and SN's panties in an inexorable knot. And by the way, there are several gradations between "same thing" and "_very_ different".


> The chess example serves to demonstrate why music is NOT like this. Chess has a definite goal and rules for what moves can/can't be made to achieve those goals. Music does not. ...


So you're still at the checkers and tic-tac-toe level. Pile on some more words. You know someone out there is impressed.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> I never said or implied anything of the sort. An impression doesn't equal some Platonic ideal if reality that seems to have your and SN's panties in an inexorable knot. And by the way, "same thing" isn't the opposite of "_very_ different".


" It couldn't really have been any other way without loss" absolutely implies that... or else are you admitting that your impression is _gulp_ subjective? 

You can parse it how you want, but it's clear those definitions aren't the same, and I do perceive them as being very different. 



dissident said:


> So you're still at the checkers and tic-tac-toe level.


If you mean music, then please explain to me the goals and rules of music the way one could explain the goals and rules of chess; if you mean chess, my Elo's 1700-1800. Not Magnus Carlsen, but not bad for someone who's never rigorously studied the game and didn't start playing until they were an adult.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> " It couldn't really have been any other way without loss" absolutely implies that...


...a feeling that it couldn't have been any other way without loss. Who among us has ever denied the subjective nature of music appreciation? Keep tilting at that objectivist windmill...
And are we all supposed to have the same opinion? You two are precious.


> If you mean music, then please explain to me the goals and rules of music the way one could explain the goals and rules of chess...


Do your own homework.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> Who among us has ever denied the subjective nature of music appreciation?


Some (like yourself) seem very confused about where it begins and ends. 



dissident said:


> Do your own homework.


I have. I'm seeing if you've done yours.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Some (like yourself) seem very confused about where it begins and ends.


Life is confusing.


> I have. I'm seeing if you've done yours.


Musically? No you haven't.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> Life is confusing.


Hence the importance of philosophy and science in figuring it out and not relying on ambiguous claims based on supposed authority/expertise.



dissident said:


> Musically? No you haven't.


Musically I have no reason to think you've done any more homework than I have until you demonstrate it. I've told you generally what I know, and I'm cognizant of the fact there's much I don't. I have no idea where you stand, and I have no idea if you're making claims based on your actual expertise or just making your classic subjective/objective mistakes.

I also recall the great saying that there's no reason to think you understand something yourself until you can explain it to your grandmother. So go on, sonny, try to explain to your grandma the goals and rules of music.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Some (like yourself) seem very confused about where it begins and ends...
> 
> ..Hence the importance of philosophy and science in figuring it out and not relying on ambiguous claims based on supposed authority/expertise.


In the end, this discussion is like a big Black Hole. Maybe we’ll know more when the Webb telescope reports. But I’m not as optimistic about philosophy being a help, at least not as applied here..


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DaveM said:


> In the end, this discussion is like a big Black Hole. Maybe we’ll know more when the Webb telescope reports. But I’m not as optimistic about philosophy being a help, at least not as applied here..


I'm not optimistic about philosophy being a help to most either, at least not without a solid epistemic and logical foundation built from the same groundwork that science uses. Philosophy goes very wrong when it ignores these foundations, and unfortunately that's often the philosophy that attracts people to it because they find it more intuitively satisfying. I essentially dump all Continental philosophy and theology into that bucket.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> ..I essentially dump all Continental philosophy and theology into that bucket.


You have mentioned, mostly as an aside, one of those two subjects a few times before. Fwiw, you might be surprised to hear that, as much as we don’t agree on much in these long non-music-taste-related threads, we likely agree more than not on that subject.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Hence the importance of philosophy and science in figuring it out and not relying on ambiguous claims based on supposed authority/expertise.


What has philosophy ever really "figured out"?


> Musically I have no reason to think you've done any more homework than I have until you demonstrate it.


Well then maybe I'm just more adept at detecting logical patterns in music. _shrug_


> I also recall the great saying that there's no reason to think you understand something yourself until you can explain it to your grandmother. So go on, sonny, try to explain to your grandma the goals and rules of music.


I have a MPS (musician's proficiency standard of my own designing) of somewhere between 0 and 3000. Not Yo-Yo Ma territory but not bad for someone who started at the age of 8.

What's really confusing is to have two subjectivist evangelists always at the ready as if they have something objective to impart. What is it? Your own mighty intellects?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> What has philosophy ever really "figured out"?


They've figured out that science is mostly built on the twin pillars of empiricism and Bayesian logic. ET Jaynes wrote what I consider to be the definitive textbook on how all science breaks down to Bayesian modeling. Judea Pearl figured out causality similarly by mapping it to Bayes Networks, and with it showed how you can indeed get from correlation to causation (not without some effort and technical know-how), something previously thought impossible. That's some pretty good "figuring out," IMO. 



dissident said:


> Well then maybe I'm just more adept at detecting logical patterns in music.


Again, the issue isn't whether logical patterns exist in music. We all agree they do and can recognize them. The debate is over _inexorable _logic.



dissident said:


> I have a MPS (musician's proficiency standard of my own designing) of somewhere between 0 and 3000. Not Yo-Yo Ma territory but not bad for someone who started at the age of 8.


Nice. And is this MPS recognized by anyone but you the way Elo is recognized by every governing chess organization? 



dissident said:


> What's really confusing is to have two subjectivist evangelists always at the ready as if they have something objective to impart. What is it? Your own mighty intellects?


Because one can have objective knowledge about subjective things, or be objectivist on one subject and not on another; this has been explained before. 

As to what I have to impart, I'd like to think my years studying the arts and philosophy have something useful to contribute to a forum discussing these issues, yes. You're free to subjectively disagree of course and go on nodding sagely every time someone makes a claim you think you agree with even while only having a vague, subjective idea of what it means (which turns out to be a different idea from the person who said it). Some of us are just better at detecting illogical patterns in thought. _shrug_


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I continue to observe that some of us return again and again to the subject at hand--exploring the ramifications of EB's use of the curious and ill-defined phrase "inexorable logic" or Luchesi's equally ill-defined "logical inevitability" as they pertain to music (and perhaps much else) Others continue instead to offer one-liners and questions about the motives, psychology, and credential of the others. Putting on my psychiatrist's hat so as not to be left out, my diagnosis remains that EB has left it to his minions to somehow "explain" what he meant and that the minions are left to flounder and struggle to concoct some sort of defense of their position. Thus the one-liners and the constant return to motives and levels of understanding. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof said Carl Sagan, and I wholeheartedly concur. It should not be difficult to craft a brief few paragraphs to explain Inexorable Logic to an educated lay audience.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> They've figured out that science is mostly built on the twin pillars of empiricism and Bayesian logic.


So they figured out a way of describing science.


> Nice. And is this MPS recognized by anyone but you the way Elo is recognized by every governing chess organization?


No, it's not quite that pompous.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> Thus the one-liners and the constant return to motives and levels of understanding


One-liners are more economical than 50 paragraphs of pointless badgering.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

The last several pages have included a large number of negative personal comments. Our Terms of Service request that everyone post in a polite manner without commenting negatively on other members or their posting style. Please focus your posts on the thread content and not on other members.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> The last several pages have included a large number of negative personal comments. Our Terms of Service request that everyone post in a polite manner without commenting negatively on other members or their posting style. Please focus your posts on the thread content and not on other members.


Thank You!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

dissident said:


> Which is another red herring and another topic.


It's EB who talks about that all the time, you can find dozens of his similar posts other threads, but in just this thread alone, he has repeatedly stressed:


EdwardBast said:


> Romantic and later music exploited systematic thematic processes and narrative designs





EdwardBast said:


> narrative design and thematic processes could be added to the list.





EdwardBast said:


> a systematic narrative design (many movements and whole works by


Honestly, I think EB makes way too big a deal of it every time. He's pretty much telling us we're supposed to care about Franck's "symphonic variations", and Tchaikovsky 4th, 5th, Brahms 3rd, how the themes from the beginning return at the end, how the practice was _ingenious_ in their time, how _INEXORABLE_ a logic it is.
But it's something that existed before their time even. Mozart K.243 - just to give one example out of dozens. It's just that it wasn't done extensively with symphonies in the 18th century, as symphonies at the time were usually treated as a rather subordinate genre (the individual movements were splitted up and performed as preludes or interludes between the "main courses", such as vocal music and opera).
34:25 - see how the material from the beginning is further developed;


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> I take it that you cannot see the larger implications of EB's notion of inexorable logic. It can be applied to any purposeful human activity--we act as we do because we must. Again, this conveys no useful information. And we still haven't explained why Prokofiev revised the 4th symphony or the cello concerto. If both were written under the lash of logical inevitability, then the inexorability was somewhere deficient in the first instance. Of course people will find a way to have their cake (original inexorability) and eat it too (later inexorability). All that term does is to inhibit thought and conjecture by way of pure assertion to be taken at face value without question.


Prokofiev just got it wrong, that's all. If it's like the inexorability of maths, Sergei just made 2+2=5 and had to go back and correct his formula, that's all. Duh.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Forster said:


> Prokofiev just got it wrong, that's all. If it's like the inexorability of maths, Sergei just made 2+2=5 and had to go back and correct his formula, that's all. Duh.


Cute, though I must've missed where anyone said that it's applicable to everything ever composed. That's one reason why the consensus values Bach more highly than Prokofiev.  I have yet to read any satisfactory explanation of that state of affairs from our resident Subjectivist Trio that doesn't rely on circular he's-popular-because-he's-popular arguments. And hey, the St Matthew Passion, the St John Passion and the Magnificat were revised several times. Anyway... eppur si muove.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

My own take on this is that it's possible to appreciate something without having fully understood it. I tend to be quite an analytical listener anyway, but it's always possible to go deeper – there's historical context, both on a level of understanding the composer's own personal situation at the time, as well as what sort of music was being written in the environment that they were in at the time, not to mention what was going on in terms of extramusical influences and how this was affecting the music of the time (as well as being affected by the music of the time). Apart from historical context, there's also a wide range of analysis that one can apply to a piece of music: formal, harmonic, etc. 

It's also possible to perform analysis and get to know a piece without really feeling like you click with that piece. Perhaps there's personal aesthetic things that don't quite work for you, or you perceive some sort of compositional issues otherwise that bother you. This is possible too.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> Cute, though I must've missed where anyone said that it's applicable to everything ever composed. That's one reason why the consensus values Bach more highly than Prokofiev.  I have yet to read any satisfactory explanation of that state of affairs from our resident Subjectivist Trio that doesn't rely on circular he's-popular-because-he's-popular arguments. And hey, the St Matthew Passion, the St John Passion and the Magnificat were revised several times. Anyway... eppur si muove.


It is certainly a circular argument and a valid one, again indicating that you never absorbed the subjectivist thesis. A) The greater popularity of Bach is shown by polling. B) It is of no consequence to an individual (me) that Bach gets more votes than Prokofiev. C) Again, tell us what the finest wine is and the best ice cream. Likely the finest wine is what the most influential oenophiles say it is (though they often fail to detect it in blind taste tests). And plain vanilla may or may not be the best ice cream. D) Who is more popular: Elvis? The Beatles? Bach? Beethoven? Celia Cruz? Oum Kalthoum? It _all depends on whom you poll. _Esthetics in the arts is purely subjective, and there is not a scintilla of evidence to the contrary, just opinion. It is the impossible task for the clearly Platonic objectivists to maintain a thesis that popularity is due to something other than summed individual preferences among a particular group.

But if you want to relive the objectivist/subjectivist discussion, return instead to that thread.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> It is certainly a circular argument and a valid one, ...





> C) Again, tell us what the finest wine is and the best ice cream.


Two logical fallacies from our resident logic connoisseur. And anyway the question wasn't "is Bach the best", or "is Bach better than the Beatles or Elvis", it's "why is he valued by the consensus more than Prokofiev?" And he is, you know. The question isn't "who is more popular" but rather "_why_ is Bach in particular popular at all?" What about his music, or Mozart's, or Beethoven's, or Schoenberg's or Stravinsky's or Prokofiev's, makes it live on? None of you have taken that on. You're instead ankle-biting on the margins while imagining yourselves to be super-clever.

Edward Bast's argument is that some music displays an inexorable logic, and it's a valid one. Because he says so. If you disagree, you just like vanilla more than chocolate.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> *Thanks for finally offering a reply*. I think my thesis that the composer, of his/her own free will, sometimes chooses to lock him/herself into a fixed template--for whatever reasons--may be at the core of your assertion. Certainly the Baroque would provide this opportunity moreso than later periods. *But what are we to make of the statement of yours that a huge portion of CP music is an attempt(!) to give the impression of inexorable logic*? *As to the Schenkerians, their notion that every tonal work by definition exhibits the unfolding of inexorable logic is nonsense.* Why then do composers often rewrite their works, if inexorable logic led them to the first version?
> 
> *Basically nothing is actually explained,* other than the truism that composers compose what they will, as an act of Free Will combined with a rational expectation of what the market, the patron, will bear and that Inexorable Logic is just another way of saying that the composer did what he/she did. Que sera, sera in fancy language.


Thank you for not noticing that I gave pretty much the same answer ages ago. 

What are we to make of it? Maybe that the concept you deny is at the heart of CP theory and training?

No, Schenkerian theory is not nonsense, IMO it's true but trivial in conception — but I'm not a Schenkerian and no Schenkerian would want me speaking for them.

Nothing relevant to this issue _can be_ adequately explained to those who don't know theory.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Are grammar, syntax, coherence (wait till AI gets better with them) the same thing as inexorable logic? What some members are saying in this thread strike me as similar to what Bernstein describes in this video:


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> So they figured out a way of describing science.


You act as if this no big deal. Do you think you could present a mathematically formalized account for how science and rationality works? 



dissident said:


> No, it's not quite that pompous.


So now all chess experts and organizations are pompous? Interesting how selective you are in what experts you put faith in. 



dissident said:


> I have yet to read any satisfactory explanation of that state of affairs from our resident Subjectivist Trio that doesn't rely on circular he's-popular-because-he's-popular arguments.


I've answered this plenty of times and either you didn't read it, didn't understand it, or some combination as you never mounted any objections to my explanations. To reiterate as simply as possible: the object that is the music interacts with the subjectivity that is the listener's mind. At the end of that interaction the listener's mind ends up in a state of liking (to some degree) the music. The reason some artists/works are more popular is simply because more minds end up in a state of "liking" those works/artists. That's literally what popularity IS. 

How/Why more minds end up liking a work/artist is a question that will need to be answered by neuroaesthetics: "Why do certain works of art affect certain subjectivities in certain ways" is not a question anyone here or elsewhere has the full answer to; but any answer to how this causal chain works will depend on both the objective features of the art and the subjective features of the minds reacting to it. We can tease some aspects of this out just by focusing on our personal tastes, but the relevance of these tastes is limited to ourselves and those that happen to share our tastes. 

Now, do you have any actual objection to this beyond the fact that I'm not presenting to your neuroaesthetic research into why more people like Bach than Prokofiev? Because despite the "objectivists" around here offering intuitive, "sounds good to me" explanations, none of them are doing the necessary research either; and while laymen musings can be amusing, even subjectively enlightening to an extent, you shouldn't mistake your intuitive "satisfaction" with meaning they're right in any scientifically substantial sense.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> Nothing relevant to this issue _can be_ adequately explained to those who don't know theory.


I know some theory. Why don't you try explaining it in the simplest terms possible and see where we get.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> To reiterate as simply as possible: the object that is the music interacts with the subjectivity that is the listener's mind.


So then you really have no argument with anyone's interpretation, let alone an argument that requires so much figurative ink.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> So then you really have no argument with anyone's interpretation, let alone an argument that requires so much figurative ink.


I don't know what you mean by "anyone's interpretation." What interpretation about what? I mean, you're wanting an answer to a question that can only be answered by science, and instead of joining us subjectivists in saying "I/We don't really know," you glomp onto the objectivists and their Woo because it scratches your intuitive itch for an explanation, even if the explanation is wrong.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't know what you mean by "anyone's interpretation." What interpretation about what? I mean, you're wanting an answer to a question that can only be answered by science, and instead of joining us subjectivists in saying "I/We don't really know," you glomp onto the objectivists and their Woo because it scratches your intuitive itch for an explanation, even if the explanation is wrong.


Interpretation of a musical work, duh. If someone says they sense logic in a work, inexorable or exorable or whatever, who are you to dispute their subjective judgement? All you're doing is hawking another form of objectivity: it's subjective, but your subjective reaction must be the way I say it should be. All you really need to say is "I disagree" or "I don't know" without the screeds. That's all you really _can_ say.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

dissident said:


> Edward Bast's argument is that some music displays an inexorable logic, and it's a valid one.


What do you think about this:


EdwardBast said:


> Brahms had a thorough command of structure and his music always knows where it's going. *Bruckner didn't and his music doesn't.* Brahms doesn't tend to engage in long, sequential repetitions of trivial ideas. Bruckner…


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> Interpretation of a musical work, duh. If someone says they sense logic in a work, inexorable or exorable or whatever, who are you to dispute their subjective judgement? All you're doing is hawking another form of objectivity: it's subjective, but your subjective reaction must be the way I say it should be. All you really need to say is "I disagree" or "I don't know" without the screeds. That's all you really _can_ say.


Who is denying that there is logic in some musical works? Name those people, please. The question is whether the logic is *inexorable*. For you, inexorable is just another adjective to be disposed of quietly--maybe bury it the back yard while no one is looking. I have posted two examples where a composer has through an intentional act has chosen (maybe) to set the putting down of notes on autopilot. Nobody has set forth a counterargument or offered anything more than pure assertion. My thesis remains that EB set down the two words and now cannot free himself from the consequences of such a charged phrase. Nor can his associates. We are treated instead to obfuscation and misdirection and it is not working. To dissident--I make an offer to you that I made to another poster years ago who didn't like my posts. I told him he could write them for me for $50 each. For you, the price is $250 (inflation).


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> So then you really have no argument with anyone's interpretation, let alone an argument that requires so much figurative ink.


Not answering for EY but for myself: Yes, I have no problem, no argument with anyone's interpretation as a subjective opinion with which I am completely free to differ. All we can say about art objects is that they are long or short, complex or simple, what colors they are, how big, what they weigh, etc. I can tell you that I can easily value Rachmaninoff's Prelude in C-Sharp Minor over dozens of gasbag, formless, instantly forgettable symphonic works of great complexity and duration. perhaps the fruit of logical inevitability.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

*



Hammeredklavier:

Click to expand...

*


> > dissident said:
> > Edward Bast's argument is that some music displays an inexorable logic, and it's a valid one.
> 
> 
> ...


I think that the inexorability of any given piece of music is just what the evaluator thinks it is.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> *EdwardBast: "*Nothing relevant to this issue _can be_ adequately explained to those who don't know theory."


That is strange. Science writers do it all the time. I could explain plate tectonics or the mantle plume argument to any educated lay person. But nothing in science is inexorable; always looking for better data. Edit: the search for new, additional data is inexorable.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> Nothing relevant to this issue _can be_ adequately explained to those who don't know theory.


Does Gould know what he's talking about in these?:
watch?v=bHOdbCuBd5g
_"The harmony wanders all over the lot and is loosely connected."
"You heard one (a 7th chord), you heard them all. There are just more to come."_
watch?v=SHogW8FnFZM&t=8m43s


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> Does Gould know what he's talking about in these?:
> watch?v=bHOdbCuBd5g
> _"The harmony wanders all over the lot and is loosely connected."
> "You heard one (a 7th chord), you heard them all. There are just more to come."_
> watch?v=SHogW8FnFZM&t=8m43s


The term ’smart by half’ could be applied to Glenn Gould. He was highly intelligent, but could also be full of himself and even arrogant at times. (I may be the only person on this forum who saw him play _and_ saw a lot of him on Canadian TV.) High intelligence might correlate with opinions in the sciences and math, but does not necessarily correlate with profound opinions in the arts, especially where the comments imply a bias at work.

It is interesting that he committed to memory the Mozart works he is diminishing. Not to mention that I actually like the sequences that he played.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> High intelligence might correlate with opinions in the sciences and math, but does not necessarily correlate with profound opinions in the arts, especially where the comments imply a bias at work.
> It is interesting that he committed to memory the Mozart works he is diminishing. Not to mention that I actually like the sequences that he played.


Ok then, what do you think of EB's views:
"Bruckner has no command of structure and his music has no idea where it's going. It's nothing but sequential repetitions of trivial ideas." "I know what's inexorable logic and what's not cause I know theory."


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> Ok then, what do you think of EB's views:
> "Bruckner has no command of structure and his music has no idea where it's going. It's nothing but sequential repetitions of trivial ideas." "I know what's inexorable logic and what's not cause I know theory."


I love Bruckner, particularly the adagios/andantes. I would agree that his works don’t remind of the feeling of ‘inexorable logic’, but I don’t agree with the ‘repetitions of trivial ideas’ part either. Bruckner is known to be treasured by some and dismissed by others.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> What do you think about this:


Plainly, all those who rate Bruckner's symphonies alongside Brahms in the top 20 of greatness don't know theory. That includes:

Sir Andrew Davis
Mirga Grazinyte-Tyla
Paavo Jarvi
Okko Kamu
Andrew Manze
Zubin Mehta
Juanjo Mena
Kent Nagano
Sir Antonio Pappano
Sir Simon Rattle

etc


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> *DaveM:* "High intelligence might correlate with opinions in the sciences and math, but does not necessarily correlate with profound opinions in the arts, especially where the comments imply a bias at work."



Question: How can we identify profound opinions in the arts?

Answer: When another's bias matches our own.

All valuation in the arts is bias. We just need to find those with whom we share biases


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> *DaveM: *"Bruckner is known to be treasured by some and dismissed by others."


Well, whaddya know?! It is an objectively true fact that people hold different opinions of Bruckner. It is also clear that the differing opinions are--well, just opinions. The evaluation of art is opinion. And opinion in the arts is obviously bias.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Ok then, what do you think of EB's views:
> "Bruckner has no command of structure and his music has no idea where it's going. It's nothing but sequential repetitions of trivial ideas." "I know what's inexorable logic and what's not cause I know theory."


As a Bruckner fan myself, I think those are his views and he's entitled to them. I'm not going to sit here and post 246 comments trying to refute him. If the subjectivists would practice what they preach, they'd do (or not do) similarly.


Strange Magic said:


> And opinion in the arts is obviously bias.


No, it's obviously opinion. The word "bias" implies a value judgement that you're in no position to make. Calling it "bias" is to say that _you_ know "the reality" enough to recognize it as bias. You don't...unless of course you want to offer us your objective, unbiased, reality-based view.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

dissident said:


> the consensus values Bach more highly than Prokofiev.


We don't know objectively how much of that has been solidified through (intentional or unintentional) "propaganda" in our culture. It's up to each of us to decide subjectively. — I'm not saying Bach, Mozart, Beethoven don't deserve their fame today, but


hammeredklavier said:


> Things can be and have qualities to be popular, but whether or not they're popular because they're superficially appealing, sentimental, or over the top, or have attractive concepts (eg. "avantgardists of their time", "tortured artists", "musical philosophers", "masters of universal laws of complexity/simplicity") etc, still depends on how each one of us perceives them.


If we were educated from youth that a fair amount of things Bach did was the work of a typical "church kapellmeister" (I'm not saying it is), and chorales by composers far lesser-known today than Bach were used in teaching instead of Bach's, in all harmonization sessions, over a long period of time, how would it have affected the "consensus" in these matters? For example,




What if we were taught to think like Kreisler jr about Bach, "the usual methods of Bach were things he resorted to to hide his (alleged) 'weakness' in dramatic music (compared to his contemporaries)"?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Are these people understanding the logic correctly?


Guest said:


> Bach's approach to the craft, the tools and techniques of composition in his later works are akin to Milton Babbitt's approach to treating music composition as a field of research. The similarities lie in the fact that they are both dealing with the complex organisation of a 'collection' (be it a combination of pitches and durations to form a motif or theme of Bach where he then applies permutations, or a matrix that organises various elements of a composition and generates permutations of it).





janxharris said:


> You appear be describing what I experience whilst listening to The Art of Fugue. It sounds like an academic exercise in how many ways a melody can be decorated.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> We don't know objectively how much of that has been solidified through (intended or unintended) "propaganda" in our culture —
> ...


If you don't know, what's the point in bringing it up? It could be zero, it could be 10%, in which case you'd still have to account for 90%, or 20%-80% and so on. The only way you have a point at all is if you can show that it's decisively due to propaganda. Have at it. (And now here comes that French website that you've already linked and which doesn't _prove_ anything except the author's dim view of Bach.)


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> ...
> If we were brainwashed from youth, a fair amount of things Bach did was the work of a typical "church kapellmeister" (I'm not saying it is)...


Well you _are_ saying it is, but in an underhanded, passive-aggressive kind of way. If what Bach did was no better than Pachelbel and Zelenka and whoever else, then..._why Bach_ and not those? That's something you can't demonstrate. There's no logical reason aside from the music. And in my case it wasn't "brainwashing" at all. As a kid Beethoven and Chopin were the "idols". Aside from the WTC I had to discover Bach's music on my own.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Forster said:


> Plainly, all those who rate Bruckner's symphonies alongside Brahms in the top 20 of greatness don't know theory.






<The Immense Fugal Finale of Bruckner's Fifth Symphony>
00:00 - Slow intro quoting prior movements 
05:54 - Exposition, first theme (fugue, green subject) 
08:17 - Exposition, second theme ("gesangsperiode" orange theme) 
13:53 - Exposition, closing (3rd) theme (green augmented variant) 
16:07 - Brass chorale theme (blue) 
18:30 - Development (fugue, blue subject) 
22:47 - Development (double fugue, blue/green subjects) 
27:52 - Recapitulation (blue/green themes) 
30:24 - Recapitulation ("gesangsperiode" orange theme) 
33:13 - Recapitulation, closing theme, return of purple theme from first movement, counterpoint involving purple/green themes 
37:01 - "Coda of all codas" with return of green/blue/purple themes in augmentation


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> <The Immense Fugal Finale of Bruckner's Fifth Symphony>
> 00:00 - Slow intro quoting prior movements
> 05:54 - Exposition, first theme (fugue, green subject)
> 08:17 - Exposition, second theme ("gesangsperiode" orange theme)
> ...


Well, Forster's obviously more up on his theory than this guy.

Btw I really like that guy's videos. Here are a couple more that give a clue as to why we remember Bach in particular:


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> Well, whaddya know?! It is an objectively true fact that people hold different opinions of Bruckner. It is also clear that the differing opinions are--well, just opinions. The evaluation of art is opinion. And opinion in the arts is obviously bias.


Oh sure. And when you take that premise to the extreme, Dvorak is a top five greatest composer. Bias can come from many directions and all of them diminish objectivity. People are allowed their biased opinions especially on forums like this. Fine. But that doesn’t change the fact that the premise that there are not great composers, or great other artists for that matter, based on objective information continues to be silly-think.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

DaveM said:


> Oh sure. And when you take that premise to the extreme, Dvorak is a top five greatest composer. ...


And someone may very well rank Dvorak among the top five. From a subjectivist standpoint I don't see how there can be any argument with that. It's a valid response to Dvorak's music. Instead what you have is 538 posts pointing out how the Dvorak fan is thinking incorrectly.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

I think we all agree that there's some type of logic in music. How compelling or reliable is it, I think depends upon your musical experience (how much goes into you and comes out of you, to put it bluntly and crudely).
MRI studies indicate what the biology is between musicians and people who aren’t as responsive.








Lack of joy from music linked to brain disconnection


Have you ever met someone who just wasn’t into music? They may have a condition called specific musical anhedonia, which affects three-to-five per cent of the population. Researchers at the University of Barcelona and the Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital of McGill University have...



www.mcgill.ca




Specific musical anhedonics, however, did show reduced functional connectivity between cortical regions associated with auditory processing and the Nucleus Accumbens. In contrast, individuals with high sensitivity to music showed enhanced connectivity.
The fact that subjects could be insensible to music while still responsive to another stimulus like money suggests different pathways to reward for different stimuli. This finding may pave the way for the detailed study of the neural substrates underlying other domain-specific anhedonias and, from an evolutionary perspective, help us to understand how music acquired reward value.
Lack of brain connectivity has been shown to be responsible for other deficits in cognitive ability. Studies of children with autism spectrum disorder, for example, have shown that their inability to experience the human voice as pleasurable may be explained by a reduced coupling between the bilateral posterior superior temporal sulcus and distributed nodes of the reward system, including the Nucleus Accumbens. This latest research reinforces the importance of neural connectivity in the reward response of human beings.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

There actually does seem to be something of an asymmetry here, but I think it's just a consequence of the implications of objective viewpoints on music. If one does want to use certain metrics to define and quantify art, it's an entirely reasonable question to ask that those metrics be specifically defined. 

One couldn't say someone was "objectively more intelligent" than someone else, but, when asked to prove this, fail to give whatever of the myriad definitions of "intelligence" they were basing this on. If this seems unfair - well, maybe there's a good reason people have trouble finding specific objective metrics to judge art by.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> *DaveM: *"High intelligence might correlate with opinions in the sciences and math, but does not necessarily correlate with profound opinions in the arts, especially where the comments imply a bias at work."





> *dissident: ''* Calling it "bias" is to say that _you_ know "the reality" enough to recognize it as bias.





> *The Cambridge Dictionary: *Bias: the action of supporting or opposing a particular person of thing in an unfair way, because of allowing personal *opinions* to influence your judgment."


A consensus opinion is the summing of a host of personal opinions, a cluster of individual biases. Personal opinion is bias.  The term has a negative connotation in this and all definitions, but everyone is biased toward the views that they concur with. I am biased toward Classical Music, democracy, and peach pie. How about you?

I also note DaveM's assertion that high intelligence does not necessarily correlate with profound opinions in the arts. So i can keep my profound opinions though I am only marginally intelligent. The allure of subjectivism is making itself felt and any given individual is entitled to revel in the validity of their opinions and tastes. 

.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> There actually does seem to be something of an asymmetry here, but I think it's just a consequence of the implications of objective viewpoints on music. If one does want to use certain metrics to define and quantify art, it's an entirely reasonable question to ask that those metrics be specifically defined.
> 
> One couldn't say someone was "objectively more intelligent" than someone else, but, when asked to prove this, fail to give whatever of the myriad definitions of "intelligence" they were basing this on. If this seems unfair - well, maybe there's a good reason people have trouble finding specific objective metrics to judge art by.


The difference is really in saying that there _may be_ objective qualities in, say, Bach's music that may appeal to such a large number of people vs saying that no such objective qualities exist, but rather it's all in the individual brain. If I think there _may be_ objective qualities in Bach's music that appeal to many, the fact that I can't as yet pinpoint each and every one of those qualities with scientific precision doesn't mean they don't exist and that they're entirely an illusion within my own brain. And it doesn't mean that my attraction to Bach's music is no different from my attraction to vanilla ice cream. That's something of a false equivalence.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> A consensus opinion is the summing of a host of personal opinions, a cluster of individual biases. Personal opinion is bias.


A personal opinion is a personal opinion which from a subjective standpoint you can't label "bias" either way. It's another opinion as valid as yours or anyone else's unless you can objectively refute it. If I say "Bach is the greatest composer ever" that is my completely valid subjective opinion, no less valid than your "well I don't think he's any better than the Beastie Boys". You can't argue with it.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> A consensus opinion is the summing of a host of personal opinions, a cluster of individual biases. Personal opinion is bias. The term has a negative connotation in this and all definitions, but everyone is biased toward the views that they concur with. I am biased toward Classical Music, democracy, and peach pie. How about you?


You need to read up on the definition of bias. An opinion can reflect bias, but opinions are not necessarily biased. In fact, the more objective and educated the opinion, the less it reflects bias.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

DaveM said:


> You need to read up on the definition of bias. An opinion can reflect bias, but opinions are not necessarily biased. In fact, the more objective the opinion, the less it reflects bias.


"Bias" is also loaded with negative connotations, and I wonder where Strange Magic is getting the values here. There would also have to be an "unbiased" view, and I wonder what that would be.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

DaveM said:


> You need to read up on the definition of bias. An opinion can reflect bias, but opinions are not necessarily biased. In fact, the more objective the opinion, the less it reflects bias.


I'd disagree. A preference toward objectively measurable aspects of music is just another form of aesthetic preference, bias, opinion, whatever one might want to call it.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> Well you _are_ saying it is, but in an underhanded, passive-aggressive kind of way.....


There is that obsessive-compulsive urge to question the motives and mental health of those from whom one differs. I too am a trained psychiatrist.  But as Samuel Goldwyn so eloquently put it: "Anyone who sees a psychiatrist should have his head examined."


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> There is that obsessive-compulsive urge to question the motives and mental health of those from whom one differs. I too am a trained psychiatrist.  But as Samuel Goldwyn so eloquently put it: "Anyone who sees a psychiatrist should have his head examined."


If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck...


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> "Bias" is also loaded with negative connotations, and I wonder where Strange Magic is getting the values here. There would also have to be an "unbiased" view, and I wonder what that would be.


I am totally neutral on the question of which pie is better: apple or cherry. But we could put it to a vote.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> I am totally neutral on the question of which pie is better: apple or cherry. But we could put it to a vote.


But if I say cherry is better, you have absolutely no argument except your objectivist "there's no such thing as 'better' ". And then we can go on another 60-page epistemological odyssey.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck...


Oh, it's a duck all right, one that can't help itself. But let's get back to the issues at hand: exactly what did EB mean or intend when he used the powerful, evocative phrase "inexorable logic" in discussing musical composition?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> Oh, it's a duck all right, one that can't help itself. But let's get back to the issues at hand: exactly what did EB mean or intend when he used the powerful, evocative phrase "inexorable logic" in discussing musical composition?


I don't know. You have a problem with some subjective judgements but not others? Sounds kinda objectivist-ish.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

dissident said:


> But if I say cherry is better, you have absolutely no argument except your objectivist "there's no such thing as 'better' ". And then we can go on another 60-page epistemological odyssey.


This is literally just the subjectivist argument, restated. I would certainly be surprised if a "subjectivist" would attempt to discount someone's personal preference. It would be different if one claimed to have proof that cherry pie was quantitatively better than apple.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> This is literally just the subjectivist argument, restated. I would certainly be surprised if a "subjectivist" would attempt to discount someone's personal preference. ...


We've had I don't know how many pages of just that. It's not so much that some are saying they have "proof", it's that such proof is demanded to justify a subjective opinion.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> But if I say cherry is better, you have absolutely no argument except your objectivist "there's no such thing as 'better' ". And then we can go on another 60-page epistemological odyssey.


To repeat the obvious-- why on Earth would I question your preference for cherry? We all, individually, have the right to declare good or bad whatever we choose, for whatever reason. I will righteously defend your right to prefer cherry.

I fear that you still do not grasp the subjectivist position; after hundreds of posts, it remains a mystery to you


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> To repeat the obvious-- why on Earth would I question your preference for cherry? We all, individually, have the right to declare good or bad whatever we choose, for whatever reason. ...


Good. So Edward Bast sees "inexorable logic" in musical works and you don't, and yet you continue to badger for how many pages now about that judgement.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> We've had I don't know how many pages of just that. It's not so much that some are saying they have "proof", it's that such proof is demanded to justify a subjective opinion.


To repeat: there is not an iota of evidence that good, bad, better, worse judgments in the arts are not simple human preferences, created by the summing of the opinions of defined clusters of polled individuals. To assert otherwise is to imbue art objects with properties that cannot be measured to the satisfaction of all observers who are not suffering from a brain disease.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> To repeat: there is not an iota of evidence that good, bad, better, worse judgments in the arts are not simple human preferences, created by the summing of the opinions of defined clusters of polled individuals. ...


Well then...leave it at that. No need for multi-page explications of opinion or flexing those psycho-philosophical muscles.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> Good. So Edward Bast sees "inexorable logic" in musical works and you don't, and yet you continue to badger for how many pages now about that judgement.


EB has not made his case; has not yet offered a cogent, contextualized explication of his views..He sees inexorability in certain musics but has not made the full cases, while I have offered several possible instances. I am trying to help him out here but no luck.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> EB has not made his case; has not yet offered a cogent, contextualized explication of his views..


Who said it's required that he make a case at all? Obsessive-compulsive forum commenters? You said above "for whatever reason". He gave his reason.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

If that's the position, I think there's no real disagreement with the "subjective" or whatever, position- I think it's been pretty consistently stated that "objective" evaluations of music are, deep down, not any different than any other aesthetic evaluation. 

Also the specific argument was that "Logic" was something that could be concretely demonstrated with music theory, and that some works were in possession of it, and some were not, which is somewhat different than the argument being stated.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

fbjim said:


> I'd disagree. A preference toward objectively measurable aspects of music is just another form of aesthetic preference, bias, opinion, whatever one might want to call it.


As they say, people are entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. A definition of objective is: _not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; *unbiased: an objective opinion.*_

So what you have stated above is an oxymoron.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

DaveM said:


> As they say, people are entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. A definition of objective is: _not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; *unbiased: an objective opinion.*_
> 
> So what you have stated above is an oxymoron.


There may certainly be objectively measurable ways of evaluating music, such as popularity, or even craftsmanship. The point where personal preference comes into it is how much any given listener is inclined to value these things.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> ...
> Also the specific argument was that "Logic" was something that could be concretely demonstrated with music theory, and that some works were in possession of it, and some were not, which is somewhat different than the argument being stated.


Unless you're saying that music is devoid of logic then you'd have to agree.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

“Tis better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.”
Tennyson
How would we improve it by changing letters or adding words or deleting words?
It already achieves its purpose artistically.
I think it's the same with music. It's so difficult to come up with something excellent. And changing it doesn't change the original achievement.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> Does Gould know what he's talking about in these?:
> watch?v=bHOdbCuBd5g
> _"The harmony wanders all over the lot and is loosely connected."
> "You heard one (a 7th chord), you heard them all. There are just more to come."_
> watch?v=SHogW8FnFZM&t=8m43s


The announcer calls it a lighthearted musical essay. So, I don't know.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> “Tis better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.”
> Tennyson
> How would we improve it by changing letters or adding words or deleting words?
> It already achieves its purpose artistically.
> I think it's the same with music. It's so difficult to come up with something excellent. And changing it doesn't change the original achievement.


Well a slight improvement is possible:

"Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.”


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

dissident said:


> there _may be_ objective qualities in, say, 's music that may appeal to such a large number of people


Again, it depends on your subjective opinion what groups you include in within your subjective definition of "unwashed masses". For example, it's up to you how you view people (including "casual listeners" that vastly outnumber us) who only listen to Mozart and believe everything said by the so-called "experts" word for word (eg. "only Mozart wrote dissonant harmony like the K.465 quartet in his time") youtube.com/watch?v=NwuVVjTEQYU&t=2m30s or what Charlatan Rosen says in page 283 of the Romantic Generation, and don't have the audacity to take the time and trouble to search for the truth themselves.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> Interpretation of a musical work, duh. If someone says they sense logic in a work, inexorable or exorable or whatever, who are you to dispute their subjective judgement? All you're doing is hawking another form of objectivity: it's subjective, but your subjective reaction must be the way I say it should be. All you really need to say is "I disagree" or "I don't know" without the screeds. That's all you really _can_ say.


It entirely depends on if their "interpretation" is meant to refer to objective facts or subjective impressions. I can't know which they mean without them clarifying. I don't get the sense that most in this thread are using the phrase "inexorable logic" to refer to subjective impressions, other than those who've used it to refer to the impression of a work being perfect. THAT'S a subjective opinion, and if that's what people mean by it I don't have an issue.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> As a Bruckner fan myself, I think those are his views and he's entitled to them. I'm not going to sit here and post 246 comments trying to refute him. *If the subjectivists would practice what they preach, they'd do (or not do) similarly.*


What subjectivists preach we shouldn't discuss subjective opinions? 



dissident said:


> No, it's obviously opinion. *The word "bias" implies a value judgement that you're in no position to make.* Calling it "bias" is to say that _you_ know "the reality" enough to recognize it as bias. You don't...unless of course you want to offer us your objective, unbiased, reality-based view.


One problem in this thread is people using words when they have no idea what they mean. Biases are cognitive short-cuts that can be found in everything from reasoning to value judgments. Human cognition requires them because our brains aren't supercomputers. All a bias means is that given any input X the brain is "biased" to do Y and end up in Z state, and do so quickly and efficiently. In terms of aesthetic judgment, a bias simply means that the brain is primed to react to X art in Y way ending up in Z state. Biases are basically what we mean by "tastes." There's no such thing as a non-biased value judgment of any sort. 

Pointing out what someone's biases are does not have to imply that the person pointing it out is unbiased or "knows the truth." On subjective matters, like aesthetic judgments, we all have biases. Nobody knows "the reality" or "the truth" because there is no such thing.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> Again, it depends on your subjective opinion what groups you include in within your subjective definition of "unwashed masses". For example, it's up to you how you view people (including "casual listeners", which vastly outnumber us) who only listen to Mozart and take everything said by the so-called "experts" word for word (eg. "only Mozart wrote dissonant harmony like the K.465 quartet in his time") youtube.com/watch?v=NwuVVjTEQYU&t=2m30s or what Charlatan Rosen says in page 283 of the Romantic Generation, and don't have the audacity to search for the truth themselves.


So, are you the official truth-teller and the experts be damned?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It entirely depends on if their "interpretation" is meant to refer to objective facts or subjective impressions. I can't know which they mean without them clarifying. I don't get the sense that most in this thread are using the phrase "inexorable logic" to refer to subjective impressions, other than those who've used it to refer to the impression of a work being perfect. THAT'S a subjective opinion, and if that's what people mean by it I don't have an issue.


It makes no difference whatsoever if you're convinced that all such impressions are subjective anyway. In fact if you want to be really subjectivist about it all you and SM there should do is be silent, except to offer your own interpretations. Which neither of you really do.


> One problem in this thread is people using words when they have no idea what they mean. Biases are cognitive short-cuts that can be found in everything from reasoning to value judgments. Human cognition requires them because our brains aren't supercomputers. All a bias means is that given any input X the brain is "biased" to do Y and end up in Z state, and do so quickly and efficiently. In terms of aesthetic judgment, a bias simply means that the brain is primed to react to X art in Y way ending up in Z state. Biases are basically what we mean by "tastes." There's no such thing as a non-biased value judgment of any sort.


So why introduce the term at all when "opinion" does just as well?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DaveM said:


> As they say, people are entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. A definition of objective is: _not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; *unbiased: an objective opinion.*_
> 
> So what you have stated above is an oxymoron.


There is no such thing as an unbiased, objective *opinion. *The dictionary says "opinion is a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." There are facts about art objects, and I have listed many of them. And there are opinions. By their very nature, opinions are biases. Incontrovertible. "We the jury are of the opinion that the defendant is guilty as hell, but hey, we don't really care."


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> Who said it's required that he make a case at all? Obsessive-compulsive forum commenters? You said above "for whatever reason". He gave his reason.


I require it, as would anyone with an inquiring mind.. The phrase cries out for context and explanation.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> I require it, as would anyone with an inquiring mind.. The phrase cries out for context and explanation.


You say "any reason whatsoever" and then badger for an objective reason for that opinion? What are you, an objectivist in subjectivist clothing? His reasons are his reasons and all you can do is deal. Maybe he (and others) sense an "inexorable logic" where you don't. Maybe I detect "craftsmanship" where you see slop. I don't have to defend what I see.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> It makes no difference whatsoever if you're convinced that all such impressions are subjective anyway. In fact if you want to be really subjectivist about it all you and SM there should do is be silent, except to offer your own interpretations. Which neither of you really do.
> So why introduce the term at all when "opinion" does just as well?


I repeat my offer that you write my posts for $250 a pop, And we both know that I have offered my speculations as to what EB might mean. Just trying to help. And being silent is not my thing, nor is it yours.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> I repeat my offer that you write my posts for $250 a pop, And we both know that I have offered my speculations as to what EB might mean. Just trying to help. And being silent is not my thing, nor is it yours.


Well if you're going to respect subjective judgements, that's your only alternative. You're not trying to "help" anything. You're just ankle-biting. What does it help? I still hold the opinions that I held before I saw these screeds.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> You say "any reason whatsoever" and then badger for an objective reason for that opinion? What are you, an objectivist in subjectivist clothing? His reasons are his reasons and all you can do is deal. Maybe he (and others) sense an "inexorable logic" where you don't. Maybe I detect "craftsmanship" where you see slop. I don't have to defend what I see.


Some have inquiring minds. Some clearly don't. You are content with what you have been offered by EB. Rest In Peace.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> Well if you're going to respect subjective judgements, that's your only alternative. You're not trying to "help" anything. You're just ankle-biting. What does it help? I still hold the opinions that I held before I saw these screeds.


I put that down to a continuing failure to grasp the fundamental principles of my position. I have led the horse to water......


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> The difference is really in saying that there _may be_ objective qualities in, say, Bach's music that may appeal to such a large number of people vs saying that no such objective qualities exist, but rather it's all in the individual brain.


Not one "subjectivist" has said that there are no objective qualities in Bach's music that appeal to large number of people. That's an absurd claim and just demonstrates how poorly you understand our views. All we say is that "appealing" requires these large number of people to share similar subjectivities that react to those objective qualities the same way; and if "a large number of (OTHER) people" do not share those similar subjectivities, and if they react to those objective qualities in Bach differently, there is no means of saying which is objectively right or wrong. Understand? 



dissident said:


> It makes no difference whatsoever if you're convinced that all such impressions are subjective anyway. In fact if you want to be really subjectivist about it all you and SM there should do is be silent, except to offer your own interpretations. Which neither of you really do.
> So why introduce the term at all when "opinion" does just as well?


This is a confused mess of a response. When someone uses a term whose meaning is ambiguous, they can be either using that term to refer to "subjective impressions" or "objective facts." Neither you nor I can know WHICH they mean without them clarifying. "Inexorable logic" can refer either to a subjective impression, as in "the work seems perfect and would be lessened if anything was changed;" or it can refer to objective facts, as in "the composer used axioms and an algorithm to generate the music." The problem is that you (and others) still have no clue how to distinguish between subjectivity VS objectivity so you don't even see a difference between meanings like this; it's all the same to you as long as what someone's saying seems to agree with your biases. 

Again, no subjectivist has ever said we should be silent on matters of opinion. That's just your own opinion coming through.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> Some have inquiring minds. Some clearly don't. You are content with what you have been offered by EB. Rest In Peace.


I'm content with EB having EB's opinions, many of which I can agree with. Go eat your vanilla ice cream and cherry pie now.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Not one "subjectivist" has said that there are no objective qualities in Bach's music that appeal to large number of people. That's an absurd claim and just demonstrates how poorly you understand our views.


You know what, your views are apparently so arcane and require so much verbiage that I really and truly and sincerely don't care what they are.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DaveM said:


> You need to read up on the definition of bias. An opinion can reflect bias, but opinions are not necessarily biased. In fact, the more objective and educated the opinion, the less it reflects bias.


I know this wasn't directed at me but I've literally studied (read textbooks on) cognitive biases. There is not a single human on this planet that is completely unbiased about anything. At most we can be LESS biased on some issues than others. Value judgments are not such an issue because all value judgments are based on our subjective biases both individually and collectively as a species. Being educated does not free one from bias; in fact, it's often the opposite (this has been demonstrated in studies) as educated, high-IQ people are better at rationalizing their biases and thus become more deeply entrenched in them. In the sciences peer-review and the emphasis on empiricism are meant to be counters to such biases, but even then they're not perfect.



DaveM said:


> As they say, people are entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. A definition of objective is: _not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; *unbiased: an objective opinion.*_
> 
> So what you have stated above is an oxymoron.


I agree with your definition, but that just provokes the question: how do you distinguish between facts/"objective opinions" VS biased feelings, interpretations, etc.? Good luck making that distinction without some philosophical leg work!


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I agree with your definition, but that just provokes the question: how do you distinguish between facts/"objective opinions" VS biased feelings, interpretations, etc.? Good luck making that distinction without some philosophical leg work!


It also provokes the question: in the end, what does it matter, apart from going on music forums and writing philosophical treatises that don't have much of an effect on music appreciation anyway?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> “Tis better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.”
> Tennyson
> How would we improve it by changing letters or adding words or deleting words?
> It already achieves its purpose artistically.
> I think it's the same with music. It's so difficult to come up with something excellent. And changing it doesn't change the original achievement.


As @Forster mentioned, the actual phrase is "Tis better to have loved and lost than NEVER TO HAVE loved at all." 

Whether that's "better" or not will depend on your subjective opinions/biases. Tennyson wrote it that way because it maintains the meter. Your slight rewriting changes (breaks) the meter, making it less metrically consistent. Is metrical consistency desirable? To most classic poets, yes it was; though most all of them occasionally broke the meter either to make more sense or for aesthetic effect. There are a million questions one could ask about this one subject and you'd get different answers all depending on people's different subjectivities. The fact that you rewrote it like this and didn't even notice the metrical "breaking" is an example of how some people don't even notice (or care about) such formal effects.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> As @Forster mentioned, the actual phrase is "Tis better to have loved and lost than NEVER TO HAVE loved at all."
> 
> Whether that's "better" or not will depend on your subjective opinions/biases. Tennyson wrote it that way because it maintains the meter. Your slight rewriting changes (breaks) the meter, making it less metrically consistent. Is metrical consistency desirable? To most classic poets, yes it was; though most all of them occasionally broke the meter either to make more sense or for aesthetic effect. There are a million questions one could ask about this one subject and you'd get different answers all depending on people's different subjectivities. The fact that you rewrote it like this and didn't even notice the metrical "breaking" is an example of how some people don't even notice (or care about) such formal effects.


Ever come across the term "pedantic"? I get the feeling that maybe you have at some point.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> It also provokes the question: in the end, what does it matter, apart from going on music forums and writing philosophical treatises that don't have much of an effect on music appreciation anyway?


I tried so hard and go so far, but in the end it doesn't even matter... 

I assume we're all here because we meet in the Venn Diagram of "likes classical music" and "likes discussing classical music." Many of us here also like discussing philosophy in the context of music... some are just more educated/informed about it than others.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> Ever come across the term "pedantic"? I get the feeling that maybe you have at some point.


It's quite relevant to this thread/forum given how so many here like to harp on the objective aspects of music but completely overlook the subjective valuation and reaction to such objective aspects. Luchesi's post is a perfect example in another artistic medium of how the valuation of such objective features can range from "cares greatly about" (as almost all classic poets would've) to "don't even notice" (as Luchesi didn't even notice). 

If you were to be consistent with your own view, you should be scolding Luchesi for not noticing/caring about such objective features and asserting how objectively superior the original was because the long tradition of English poetry was built on such metrical regularity. Of course you won't do that because, one, you don't know about it and, two, you only care about such things when, well, you care about such things.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It's quite relevant to this thread/forum given how so many here like to harp on the objective aspects of music but completely overlook the subjective valuation and reaction to such objective aspects. Luchesi's post is a perfect example in another artistic medium of how the valuation of such objective features can range from "cares greatly about" (as almost all classic poets would've) to "don't even notice" (as Luchesi didn't even notice).


The only ones I see "harping on the objective features of music" are you and Strange Magic. And maybe Forster as a junior partner.


> If you were to be consistent with your own view,


What view is that? Anyway...


> you should be scolding Luchesi for not noticing/caring about such objective features and asserting how objectively superior the original was because the long tradition of English poetry was built on such metrical regularity. Of course you won't do that because, one, you don't know about it and, two, you only care about such things when, well, you care about such things.


It doesn't mean that much to me, really. The line will still be there despite an innocent misremembering of it.

By the way, it's a little dangerous to assume what I know and don't know about English poetry. Just because I don't pompously spew muh learnin' all over the place don't mean I'm no dummy.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> The only ones I see "harping on the objective features of music" are you and Strange Magic. And maybe Forster as a junior partner.


So what are the "objectivists" harping on about? The subjective aspects of music? 



dissident said:


> What view is that? Anyway...


That the opinions of experts and the artistic traditions of classical music (including the intentions of composers), including what objective features those experts/composers valued, should matter in our valuations of music. Is this not what you think? 



dissident said:


> It doesn't mean that much to me, really. The line will still be there despite an innocent misremembering of it.


Surely you see the irony in a thread about the "inexorable logic" of music. Imagine if someone posted a snippet of a Bach work that had unintentionally inverted part of the fugue and declared the piece couldn't be any better without having realized it wasn't even the original.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

A doctor looks in a patient‘s mouth and says, ‘In my opinion, you have a strep throat‘. The patient says, ‘I want a second opinion.’ The doctor says, ‘Okay, you’re ugly too.’


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> So what are the "objectivists" harping on about? The subjective aspects of music?


Who are these "objectivists"?


> That the opinions of experts and the artistic traditions of classical music (including the intentions of composers), including what objective features those experts/composers valued, should matter in our valuations of music. Is this not what you think?


They're factors to take into consideration, but they're hardly the be-all end-all. The score is.


> Surely you see the irony in a thread about the "inexorable logic" of music. Imagine if someone posted a snippet of a Bach work that had unintentionally inverted part of the fugue and declared the piece couldn't be any better without having realized it wasn't even the original.


I don't see any irony. I'd say it's a misprinting of a Bach fugue. Bleah.

By the way the thread is actually about "understanding vs appreciating music". It was SM's compulsive badgering of Edward Bast that turned it into one about "inexorable logic". I sense that in some works too. Neither of you have really contributed much to the main topic.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DaveM said:


> A doctor looks in a patient‘s mouth and says, ‘In my opinion, you have a strep throat‘. The patient says, ‘I want a second opinion.’ The doctor says, ‘Okay, you’re ugly too.’


Funny, and also a good example to illustrate the difference between objective and subjective opinions!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> Who are these "objectivists"?


The people arguing against us "subjectivists." What would you like to call yourselves? The anti-subjectivists? 



dissident said:


> They're factors to take into consideration, but they're hardly the be-all end-all. The score is.


The score does not impose any valuation onto us.



dissident said:


> I don't see any irony. I'd say it's a misprinting of a Bach fugue. Bleah.


If you're trying to argue that a piece is perfect, that it demonstrates "inexorable logic" in which changing anything would diminish it, and do so by using an example that is inverted from the original, then you have just offered a profound refutation of your own claim.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The people arguing against us "subjectivists." What would you like to call yourselves? The anti-subjectivists?


I prefer "the sane".


> The score does not impose any valuation onto us.


No, but that's what we have.


> If you're trying to argue that a piece is perfect, that it demonstrates "inexorable logic" in which changing anything would diminish it, and do so by using an example that is inverted from the original, then you have just offered a profound refutation of your own claim.


But you're putting words into my mouth. I never said any such thing. If someone did that to, say, the six part fugue from the Musical Offering, I would already know it immediately. I have it memorized, you see. And to me it's one of those "most nearly perfect" pieces in all of music. Absolutely perfect? I don't know, but I don't know how it could be improved.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> One problem in this thread is people using words when they have no idea what they mean. Biases are cognitive short-cuts that can be found in everything from reasoning to value judgments. Human cognition requires them because our brains aren't supercomputers. All a bias means is that given any input X the brain is "biased" to do Y and end up in Z state, and do so quickly and efficiently. In terms of aesthetic judgment, a bias simply means that the brain is primed to react to X art in Y way ending up in Z state. Biases are basically what we mean by "tastes." There's no such thing as a non-biased value judgment of any sort.
> 
> Pointing out what someone's biases are does not have to imply that the person pointing it out is unbiased or "knows the truth." On subjective matters, like aesthetic judgments, we all have biases. Nobody knows "the reality" or "the truth" because there is no such thing.


"Bias" I think is unfortunately a mild pejorative in everyday use- when one complains that someone is biased for or against art, it usually implies some extra-aesthetic reasoning, such as being biased toward American composers, biased against composers for political reasons, etc, etc. In reality, "bias" is a perfectly accurate word to describe aesthetic preference, though it's also a good example of why defining terms can be important.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> You know what, your views are apparently so arcane and require so much verbiage that *I really and truly and sincerely don't care what they are.*












"Arcane" is just code for "educated" and "verbiage" is required for precision. Sorry if you prefer ignorance and ambiguity to education and precision.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> View attachment 168477
> 
> 
> "Arcane" is just code for "educated" and "verbiage" is required for precision. Sorry if you prefer ignorance and ambiguity to education and precision.


Arrogance as well. And presumption. You think you're the only edumacated mug on the block, cupcake?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Many people make fun of the terminology used in academic fields, but this thread, and others is a good example of why those exist - it's good to have terms to express agreed-upon concepts in shorthand because nobody wants to reinvent the wheel from first principles every time a discussion starts, and, as it turns out, it's very frustrating to discuss things when terminology is ambiguous, as so many everyday words are.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

fbjim said:


> "Bias" I think is unfortunately a mild pejorative in everyday use- when one complains that someone is biased for or against art, it usually implies some extra-aesthetic reasoning, such as being biased toward American composers, biased against composers for political reasons, etc, etc. In reality, "bias" is a perfectly accurate word to describe aesthetic preference, though it's also a good example of why defining terms can be important.


It's a good example of what you mentioned in the "Decolonizing Mozart" thread about semantic drift. Bias as it's used in cognitive sciences has a specific meaning and applies to certain modes of thinking in opposition to strict rationality; however the way the term is used in "everyday speech" is much less precise, much more ambiguous, and perhaps more pejorative. There's simply no such thing as a lack of bias in terms of aesthetic judgments in the technical sense, and even in the "everyday sense" all I see are examples of biases that are more and less "acceptable," so to speak.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> Many people make fun of the terminology used in academic fields, but this thread, and others is a good example of why those exist - it's good to have terms to express agreed-upon concepts in shorthand because nobody wants to reinvent the wheel from first principles every time a discussion starts, and, as it turns out, it's very frustrating to discuss things when terminology is ambiguous, as so many everyday words are.


I think such terminology too often can be used to obfuscate as well. That's mainly the reason it's made fun of. Oops, I just realized, that's an ungrammatical construction...tsk tsk...


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> Arrogance as well. And presumption. You think you're the only edumacated mug on the block, cupcake?


Not arrogance, just facts. It's also a fact that many here are far more educated about music than I am. The problem is that some here think that being educated about objective features of music translates to more objective aesthetic judgments; they don't because the two inhabit different, unrelated spheres. But to understand that you have to understand some philosophy, not music.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Not arrogance, just facts. It's also a fact that many here are far more educated about music than I am.


That might be something to keep in mind when you pontificate.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> That might be something to keep in mind when you pontificate.


I do keep it in mind. Maybe others should keep in mind where music education stops and philosophy starts.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Not arrogance, just facts. It's also a fact that many here are far more educated about music than I am. The problem is that some here think that being educated about objective features of music translates to more objective aesthetic judgments; they don't because the two inhabit different, unrelated spheres. But to understand that you have to understand some philosophy, not music.


Someone earlier in this thread was very much expressing the "learned" form of musical enjoyment, where you pour over the score, try to understand (that word!) it in a theoretical sense, know it front to back etc. If I had any short thesis, it'd be that doing this is just another form of enjoyment as is any other. 

I remember some article about reading Joyce, and about how there were readers who loved to pour over his text, and look up every mythological and historical reference he made-and others who liked to enjoy his text on a purely aesthetic level, reading it aloud and enjoying the rhythm. The author mentioned that these groups were often at each other's throats, funny enough.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

> The problem is that some here think that being educated about objective features of music translates to more objective aesthetic judgments;


But it does, at least in a way. When you understand the structure of a fugue or sonata form, you do enjoy the music in a more objective way. You know what it's "about".


> I do keep it in mind. Maybe others should keep in mind where music education stops and philosophy starts.


The music is mandatory. The philosophical appendage is optional.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

dissident said:


> But it does, at least in a way. When you understand the structure of a fugue or sonata form, you do enjoy the music in a more objective way. You know what it's "about".


Anyone could say the same about trying to understand the mechanisms and contexts examining why and how human beings interact with, and enjoy art, and viewing any given work of music through that lens. There's a reason philosophers wrote about art all the time, and it's not because of a lack of things to write about.

What we mean when we say we "understand" art versus "appreciate" art is, at its core, a philosophical question. It's silly to object to that being brought up in this thread.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

fbjim said:


> Someone earlier in this thread was very much expressing the "learned" form of musical enjoyment, where you pour over the score, try to understand (that word!) it in a theoretical sense, know it front to back etc. If I had any short thesis, it'd be that doing this is just another form of enjoyment as is any other.
> 
> I remember some article about reading Joyce, and about how there were readers who loved to pour over his text, and look up every mythological and historical reference he made-and others who liked to enjoy his text on a purely aesthetic level, reading it aloud and enjoying the rhythm. The author mentioned that these groups were often at each other's throats, funny enough.


Yep, we 100% agree on this. The "enjoyment" some get with trying to intellectually understand art is just another form of enjoyment. I've always viewed such endeavors--of which I've voraciously engaged in across the arts--as a way of extending the enjoyment of the work itself, or at least of transferring the enjoyment from the emotional and aesthetic to the conscious and intellectual. 

How you describe different readers of Joyce rings true to me as well. I'm very convinced that to enjoy Joyce one either needs to "perform" it and just revel in the playground-like fun of the language, or to be the type that loves to scour the text for every possible meaning and allusion... the problem is that Joyce tends not to work for people just looking for a compelling story and interesting characters, which is what the vast majority of people (especially more casual readers) read fiction for. 

My one problem with the "learned" form of enjoyment is that it's too easy for such things to disconnect us from our emotional and aesthetic responses. As Maynard James Keenan said in Tool's Lateralus: "Overthinking, overanalyzing separates the body from the mind, withering my intuition leaving opportunities behind." People start to view art as a dry intellectual/academic exercise or, worse yet, a competition, and I've seen some humorous examples of the cognitive dissonance this creates. As someone who's naturally drawn to "overthinking/overanalyzing" it's taken me years to get back to a place where I can unapologetically enjoy simple art without all the learned, intellectual trappings. It reminds me of a great Jung quote: "Too much of the animal disfigures the civilized human being, too much culture makes a sick animal." We are civilized human beings AND animals, and art can (and should, IMO) appeal to both.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

As with the Joyce people always being at each others throats, I think it's easy to get dogmatic about these things and about how others enjoy art. 

Someone might characterize "pure aesthetic pleasure" guys as being all about dumbed-down surface-level me-first analysis, while others might pejoratively characterize the formalists as dissecting the frog, or bring up the old joke about a capitalist, or a businessman - the guy who knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing. 

I think it's good to have a lot of lenses through which to view things, but in the end, nobody is wrong to derive enjoyment from art in the way that they prefer. Excessive dogmatism just reminds me of this old joke article -


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> But it does, at least in a way. When you understand the structure of a fugue or sonata form, you do enjoy the music in a more objective way. You know what it's "about".


No, this is just restating the confusion. When you understand such things you understand such things. Full stop. Understanding them, being aware of them, recognizing them, etc. does not have to affect your enjoyment either way. Some prefer magic not knowing how the illusions work; others can enjoy it more (or less) by knowing how it works. Same with all the arts. 



dissident said:


> The music is mandatory. The philosophical appendage is optional.


The philosophical appendage isn't optional any time one moves from discussing objective features of music to things like evaluation, greatness, "inexorable logic," subjective/objective, etc.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

fbjim said:


> As with the Joyce people always being at each others throats, I think it's easy to get dogmatic about these things and about how others enjoy art.
> 
> Someone might characterize "pure aesthetic pleasure" guys as being all about dumbed-down surface-level me-first analysis, while others might pejoratively characterize the formalists as dissecting the frog, or bring up the old joke about a capitalist, or a businessman - the guy who knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing.
> 
> I think it's good to have a lot of lenses through which to view things, but in the end, nobody is wrong to derive enjoyment from art in the way that they prefer. Excessive dogmatism just reminds me of this old joke article -


Exactly, but the way I see it it's mostly the subjectivists who are content to "live and let live," to say "to each their own," and to simply view these things as discussing our subjective tastes/evaluations with other people who share them or don't to different degrees. However, there's some who become rather dogmatic and want to insist that their opinions/tastes aren't JUST mere opinions and tastes but statements of objective truth that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong or _insert strings of random pejoratives here_. 

I've come to think that both extremes, the "pure aesthetic pleasure" people and the "frog dissectors," have their place, but both are missing out on much by ignoring the other. I think the "frog dissectors" have it worse because, try as they might, we still care about "pure aesthetic pleasure" despite how much we might try to rationalize that we don't; and I think it's easy to argue that the whole "frog dissecting" edifice of music theory exists to analyze what objective features creates that "aesthetic pleasure;" and the minute we lose site of that goal of aesthetic pleasure weird (usually bad) things start to happen. 

I ultimately agree that there's no wrong way to enjoy art. I just see that it's indeed "excessive dogmatism" I'm pushing back against.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Forster said:


> Well a slight improvement is possible:
> 
> "Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.”


Oops my bad.
Bad example.

I wonder if this effectively illustrates that someone in one field is uninformed about the subtle details in another mostly unrelated field? It makes sense to me, how much can outsiders know?

Imagine the mistakes that a non-musician would make in composing or playing, or even discussing the world of experience a musician has.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> Oops my bad.
> Bad example.
> 
> I wonder if this effectively illustrates that someone in one field is uninformed about the subtle details in another mostly unrelated field? It makes sense to me, how much can outsiders know?
> ...


I think it illustrated something slightly differently if you read my posts on the mistake and replies to dissident about it.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> Imagine the mistakes that a non-musician would make in composing or playing, or even discussing the world of experience a musician has.


I've sometimes noticed that musicians, composers and artists can have - for lack of a better word - unusual tastes in art, and I think the idea that musicians "see things differently" than an average listener would is a big part of that. Living your life in music, music theory, music criticism, music writings, etc - is going to give you strong views on music that someone approaching it from a standard listener's perspective might not have.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

fbjim said:


> I've sometimes noticed that musicians, composers and artists can have - for lack of a better word - unusual tastes in art, and I think the idea that musicians "see things differently" than an average listener would is a big part of that. Living your life in music, music theory, music criticism, music writings, etc - is going to give you strong views on music that someone approaching it from a standard listener's perspective might not have.


Artists are simply (and obviously) much more aware of the techniques of their craft than others. Being aware of such things means they are more sensitive to noticing things like cliches and novelties, and this often leads to placing a higher valuation on novel technical ideas than non-artists would. This in itself is a bias, not one that's wrong or right, and many artists endeavor to make the kind of art that largely appeals to these tastes: "music for musicians" is a common phrase for such musical artists. Remember what Hanslick said of the 1st Movement of Brahms's 4th Symphony: "For this whole movement I had the feeling that I was being given a beating by two incredibly intelligent people."

However, not all artists are like this. Some simply know what art they like and what art they'd like to create and only care about technical details insofar as they facilitate the creation of the art they want. This is what often gives rise to the "split" between art that speaks to the head Vs the heart. To me, the best artists tend to be those that speak to both. Most all of the great composers did this: certainly Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Brahms, Wagner, etc., but in other arts you have Dickens, Shakespeare, Hitchcock... just to name a few.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I also think that a lot of what is valued in art - originality, "inspiration", etc - can stem from a sort of iconoclasm, and a willingness to go against the grain. How many artists went against the "rules" of aesthetics of their times, after all? People with those characteristics aren't likely to give the same answers of canonical Greats and masterpieces if asked about their preferences.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> You are content with what you have been offered by EB. Rest In Peace.


Apparently their views on what is inexorable logic and what is not also differ (eg. Bruckner). I feel like summoning Aries (who has a view on Bruckner vs. Brahms opposite of EB) here to make the discussion more interesting.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> Ever come across the term "pedantic"? I get the feeling that maybe you have at some point.


I have very rarely read posts by other members that are anywhere near as obsessed with the length or the style of other's posts. Very little interest in pursuing the issue at hand but a steady stream of criticism about form and process. Content? Not so much.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> I have very rarely read posts by other members that are anywhere near as obsessed with the length or the style of other's posts. Very little interest in pursuing the issue at hand but a steady stream of criticism about form and process. Content? Not so much.


With that particular commenter I'm not the only one who's noticed. You have to admit they often scream for the blue pencil. There really is no "issue at hand". It's gone from "understanding vs appreciating" (between which I don't see much difference, really) to some bizarre multi-page fixation on a term a commenter used.


Eva Yojimbo said:


> The philosophical appendage isn't optional any time one moves from discussing objective features of music to things like evaluation, greatness, "inexorable logic," subjective/objective, etc.


It's always optional. It doesn't help to understand any music any more deeply. At all. It says extremely little about music and loads about the commenter. I'm really not all that interested in the latter, sorry.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> With that particular commenter I'm not the only one who's noticed.


Just as I have "noticed" Woodduck's posts are just as long (often longer) and yet you say nothing about them. It's pure hypocrisy, which is why I don't take the complaints seriously as there's clearly an ulterior motive.



dissident said:


> It's always optional.


If you are discussing a philosophical subject, philosophy is not optional. I'm sorry if you don't know what counts as a philosophical subject.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> Oops my bad.
> Bad example.
> 
> I wonder if this effectively illustrates that someone in one field is uninformed about the subtle details in another mostly unrelated field? It makes sense to me, how much can outsiders know?
> ...


Well only you will know how/why your error was made. I would of course assume it's an innocent typo, and not that you don't know your Tennyson.  These days, of course, one only needs to be a specialist in internet searching. I didn't get out my Complete Works of Tennyson to check - just typed into Google, wondering if my memory was false, or that that 'never' had been deliberately placed to disrupt the meter and I'd not previously noticed.

There are degrees and types of specialism (pun intended), but having a mere honours degree, or a masters or a doctorate doesn't imply greater knowledge of understanding, only a greater length of study in an increasingly specialised subject. Your distinction between musician and non-musician seems rather simplistic to me, and doesn't take account of the full range of capabilities of the music lovers here.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Forster said:


> ...............There are degrees and types of specialism (pun intended), but having a mere honours degree, or a masters or a doctorate doesn't imply greater knowledge of understanding, only a greater length of study in an increasingly specialised subject. Your distinction between musician and non-musician seems rather simplistic to me, and doesn't take account of the full range of capabilities of the music lovers here.


You are correct I believe Forster in that in depth study does not _imply_ greater knowledge of understanding, it actually leads to a greater understanding, how can it not? I'm not suggesting superiority in any sense of the word, especially here, but it's a mistake imv to think that the depth of study and the concomitant aesthetic introspection a composer experiences and subsequently employs in his/her work can be anything but a specialised, profound knowledge allied to a deep understanding, especially of how it ultimately pertains to their unique artistry.
That knowledge of understanding - of craft, it's practical and aesthetic pedagogy and expressive musical result - is a critical and basic requirement for 'classical' composers imv.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> You are correct I believe Forster in that in depth study does not _imply_ greater knowledge of understanding, it actually leads to a greater understanding, how can it not? I'm not suggesting superiority in any sense of the word, especially here, but it's a mistake imv to think that the depth of study and the concomitant aesthetic introspection a composer experiences and subsequently employs in his/her work can be anything but a specialised, profound knowledge allied to a deep understanding, especially of how it ultimately pertains to their unique artistry.
> That knowledge of understanding - of craft, it's practical and aesthetic pedagogy and expressive musical result - is a critical and basic requirement for 'classical' composers imv.


It can do, but a certificate is only as good as the study actually undertaken and the knowledge and understanding gained, retained and put to good use. Passing exams in an education institution means only that sufficient work was done and set hurdles cleared.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Forster said:


> It can do, but a certificate is only as good as the study actually undertaken and the knowledge and understanding gained, retained and put to good use. Passing exams in an education institution means only that sufficient work was done and set hurdles cleared to meet course requirements. There are many who study without a course and many who fail to understand despite a course of study.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Forster said:


> It can do, but a certificate is only as good as the study actually undertaken and the knowledge and understanding gained, retained and put to good use. Passing exams in an education institution means only that sufficient work was done and set hurdles cleared.


Yes I agree with that for sure. Wits are granted more to some...I understand your pov now.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> Yes I agree with that for sure. Wits are granted more to some...I understand your pov now.


TBH, I was thinking of my own qualifications (nothing to do with music) which may have provided me with a key to a professional career, but by no means equipped me to be either an expert in my field, or a superstar in my profession. Having spent the last 20+ years watching many other teachers teach and headteachers headteach, I do feel somewhat qualified to assess my own knowledge, skills and understanding in relation to theirs: I have met some real superstars in both the classroom and in the HT's office.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Just as I have "noticed" Woodduck's posts are just as long (often longer) and yet you say nothing about them. It's pure hypocrisy, which is why I don't take the complaints seriously as there's clearly an ulterior motive.


His were usually trying to reply to yours point by point. That usually took quite a mass of words and if nothing else I have to admire the effort.


> If you are discussing a philosophical subject, philosophy is not optional. I'm sorry if you don't know what counts as a philosophical subject.


Objective/subjective, sure, but the topic itself actually is optional. Otherwise in the case of this thread it's a hijacking away from the topic to one that you like to show your reading about.


Eva Yojimbo said:


> No, this is just restating the confusion. When you understand such things you understand such things. Full stop. Understanding them, being aware of them, recognizing them, etc. does not have to affect your enjoyment either way.


Well yes it does. Knowing the structure of a piece and its logical framework makes it something more than just a succession of tones, leading to a greater appreciation, leading to enhanced enjoyment. By what authority do _you_ know what makes me or anyone else enjoy something more? You don't. It's more of your overbearing arrogance.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Why does it feel as if our opinions - especially when based on peak experiences - are objectively true? I can't deny the feeling that my own take on what is great and what is not is based on privileged access to better taste. But obviously that is not true and seeing many others, including so-called experts and a majority of connoisseurs, agree doesn't make it more so. 

Still, I know what I like and I know what it does to me. And I find I like and value the variety (varieties of genres, periods, performances, experiences) - all the different things that the music I like can do to me - as much as I like a few big names. So I don't really miss being able to say "x is the greatest" because I can't even comfortably say "x is my favourite".


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

The topic of this thread is a philosophical question lmao, what a "hijacking"


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> The topic of this thread is a philosophical question...


Not necessarily. At least not enough so to go off on a 10-page detour about "inexorable logic". Regardless of the merits of the term I think Edward Bast has demonstrated more of an understanding of musical structure, which isn't in itself philosophical.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Enthusiast said:


> Why does it feel as if our opinions - especially when based on peak experiences - are objectively true? I can't deny the feeling that my own take on what is great and what is not is based on privileged access to better taste. But obviously that is not true and seeing many others, including so-called experts and a majority of connoisseurs, agree doesn't make it more so.
> 
> Still, I know what I like and I know what it does to me. And I find I like and value the variety (varieties of genres, periods, performances, experiences) - all the different things that the music I like can do to me - as much as I like a few big names. So I don't really miss being able to say "x is the greatest" because I can't even comfortably say "x is my favourite".


What real difference does it make either way? Artistic hierarchies and value judgements can be philosophized out of existence and smothered in as much jargon as you want to lay on them. People are still going to have them.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Forster said:


> Well only you will know how/why your error was made. I would of course assume it's an innocent typo, and not that you don't know your Tennyson.  These days, of course, one only needs to be a specialist in internet searching. I didn't get out my Complete Works of Tennyson to check - just typed into Google, wondering if my memory was false, or that that 'never' had been deliberately placed to disrupt the meter and I'd not previously noticed.
> 
> There are degrees and types of specialism (pun intended), but having a mere honours degree, or a masters or a doctorate doesn't imply greater knowledge of understanding, only a greater length of study in an increasingly specialised subject. Your distinction between musician and non-musician seems rather simplistic to me, and doesn't take account of the full range of capabilities of the music lovers here.


A poetry person would say that's incorrect, here's the reasons.
A musician would say that doesn't look right. Is it a mistake (or is it intentional)? Here's the reasons why it's an issue, described in musicological terms.

The differences between a musician and non-musician is all easy to see. You hand them a score and you ask what's going on in it.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> Why does it feel as if our opinions - especially when based on peak experiences - are objectively true? I can't deny the feeling that my own take on what is great and what is not is based on privileged access to better taste. But obviously that is not true and seeing many others, including so-called experts and a majority of connoisseurs, agree doesn't make it more so.
> 
> Still, I know what I like and I know what it does to me. And I find I like and value the variety (varieties of genres, periods, performances, experiences) - all the different things that the music I like can do to me - as much as I like a few big names. So I don't really miss being able to say "x is the greatest" because I can't even comfortably say "x is my favourite".


It's not emotional for me. A piano concerto by JC Bach and one by Mozart. Where is it better and how is it better? Let's look at them. Let's learn something specific.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> It's not emotional for me. A piano concerto by JC Bach and one by Mozart. Where is it better and how is it better? Let's look at them. Let's learn something specific.


I think there's certainly a type of listener who will enjoy this, but this isn't everyone. 

You're right when you say that musicians may enjoy things in a different way than others, but books are not written for authors, nor music for musicians (generally speaking)- they're written for readers and listeners.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> I think there's certainly a type of listener who will enjoy this, but this isn't everyone.
> 
> You're right when you say that musicians may enjoy things in a different way than others, but books are not written for authors, nor music for musicians (generally speaking)- they're written for readers and listeners.


I don't think that would apply to late Beethoven. Or late Bach for that matter.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> Objective/subjective, sure, but the topic itself actually is optional. Otherwise in the case of this thread it's a hijacking away from the topic to one that you like to show your reading about.
> Well yes it does. Knowing the structure of a piece and its logical framework makes it something more than just a succession of tones, leading to a greater appreciation, leading to enhanced enjoyment. By what authority do _you_ know what makes me or anyone else enjoy something more? You don't. It's more of your overbearing arrogance.


An interesting post. An assertion is made that knowing the structure of a piece and its "logical"--maybe inexorably logical--framework makes it something more than notes and thus leads to a greater appreciation and enhanced enjoyment. We can then legitimately ask dissident's own question--indeed--by what authority do *you* know what makes me or anyone else enjoy something more? Is this not a direct contradiction of the immediately preceding assertion? I do believe it is. Having one's cake and eating it too.

I am happy to assert that knowing more about something that pleases us may yield a _different _reaction to the phenomenon or object, but not necessarily a better one for the person experiencing. I used the example of gazing into the Grand Canyon--people's reactions and the sense of awe and the sublime, are all capable of unique, personal validity, whether they are trained geologists or not..

And we have the now-mandatory display of spleen and of whining about another's posting style--not necessarily the content--"overbearing arrogance" indeed! I can equally assert in sadness rather than anger that compared with EY's posts, dissident's posts are content lite.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

> makes it something more than notes


You see when a comment is either misrepresented or misunderstood that badly there's no use in continuing to read this or that rant. I didn't say that. The logical organization of the notes becomes clearer. It is what it always was; you're just not as ignorant.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> It's not emotional for me. A piano concerto by JC Bach and one by Mozart. Where is it better and how is it better? Let's look at them. Let's learn something specific.


Which is "better"? Who's inexorable logic was more logical?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> I don't think that would apply to late Beethoven. Or late Bach for that matter.


Unless one is a trained professional musician, one's appreciation of the above works is inauthentic and invalid. Milton Babbitt would heartily agree.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> Unless one is a trained professional musician, one's appreciation of the above works is inauthentic and invalid. Milton Babbitt would heartily agree.


Not inauthentic or invalid at all. Just incomplete. Or rather, more incomplete.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> You see when a comment is either misrepresented or misunderstood that badly there's no use in continuing to read this or that rant. I didn't say that. The logical organization of the notes becomes clearer. It is what it always was; you're just not as ignorant.


Exactly. But one is not necessarily less deeply moved and appreciative. You've quite possibly not experienced the Grand Canyon.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

dissident said:


> I don't think that would apply to late Beethoven. Or late Bach for that matter.


Perhaps to some extent the late quartets but we're still talking about a late period that has some of the most popular works in the history of classical music, presumably among non-theorists. (Usually when I hear about work that's excessively written for theoretical purposes with little regard for any audience it's something like, to take the easiest example, Babbitt) 

It's something of a generalization and composers could write for their own fancy, but listening to music is still the fundamental way we engage with art. Performance practice and listener expectations developed around those things. 



dissident said:


> Not inauthentic or invalid at all. Just incomplete. Or rather, more incomplete.


Any given lens of viewing a work is going to be incomplete. I'm not sure a "complete" understanding of any given work of art is a concept that makes sense.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> Exactly. But one is not necessarily less deeply moved and appreciative. You've quite possibly not experienced the Grand Canyon.


I don't know if one is any "less deeply moved" or not. I remember when I was about 14 or so I first listened to the Leibowitz transcription of Bach's Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor. I was deeply moved. When I understood the structure and ingenuity of the fugue, I was blown away. At 14 my appreciation was more superficial.

It was much the same with the Musical Offering. I had no idea really what a retrograde canon is. I just listened to it. And later on I learned what it is, and that enriched and deepened my initial appreciation.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

> Any given lens of viewing a work is going to be incomplete. I'm not sure a "complete" understanding of any given work of art is a concept that makes sense.


Some lenses are more incomplete than others.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

There seems to be a lot of focus on how musicians respond to music which is fine of course. But I wonder what percentage of the classical music listenership do people here consider to be musically literate to the point of being able to analyze music? I would assume it's quite low such that the vast majority of listeners are people who react based on hearing the music without in any way considering a score.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Which is "better"? Who's inexorable logic was more logical?


Compare two scores. Wouldn't it be obvious to a trained person? You can see what both composers were doing. 

It's a language used for expression. We're never NOT using it. Which work is more effective for reaching its goals, and what are the dry points to be made for understanding HOW exactly.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> Compare two scores. Wouldn't it be obvious to a trained person? You can see what both composers were doing.
> 
> It's a language used for expression. We're never NOT using it. Which work is more effective for reaching its goals, and what are the dry points to be made for understanding HOW exactly.


Yes. *But which is better? *As the expert musician, you tell me........


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mmsbls said:


> There seems to be a lot of focus on how musicians respond to music which is fine of course. But I wonder what percentage of the classical music listenership do people here consider to be musically literate to the point of being able to analyze music? I would assume it's quite low such that the vast majority of listeners are people who react based on hearing the music without in any way considering a score.


I don't know but I wish it were a higher percentage. One thing that's almost never discussed in these threads is the idea that some people are just more "musically inclined" than others.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> Yes. *But which is better? *As the expert musician, you tell me........


That's up to you. You present that as some kind of "gotcha", but I don't think anyone has said that expertise in music means that the expert is going to have an unwavering sense of what is "better" or "best". The expert is going to have a clearer idea as to _why_ that particular expert thinks this or that is "better" beyond "hey, I like it like I like vanilla ice cream, and that's that."


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

mmsbls said:


> There seems to be a lot of focus on how musicians respond to music which is fine of course. But I wonder what percentage of the classical music listenership do people here consider to be musically literate to the point of being able to analyze music? I would assume it's quite low such that the vast majority of listeners are people who react based on hearing the music without in any way considering a score.


The entire performance tradition of Classical music is based on performing to an audience. That's how the majority of listeners interact with the music. To an extent it's the one thing that's inherent to the medium. 

Whether or not one finds joy, or finds their listening "enhanced" or "deepened" by formal and theoretical analysis is entirely up to them.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> The entire performance tradition of Classical music is based on performing to an audience. That's how the majority of listeners interact with the music. To an extent it's the one thing that's inherent to the medium.


What was Bach's intended audience with the B Minor Mass? The Art of Fugue?


> Whether or not one finds joy, or finds their listening "enhanced" or "deepened" by formal and theoretical analysis is entirely up to them.


It's a natural thing. Your appreciation of the moon is necessarily going to be deepened or enhanced as you learn more about it. Of course you can appreciate it as simply a seemingly glowing disk or crescent or whatever as well. It's up to you.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Yes. *But which is better? *As the expert musician, you tell me........


Better for learning. 
Better for teaching.
Better for our time.
Better for the future. 
Better ideas overall.
Better arrangement.
Better figurations.
Better harmony.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> Not inauthentic or invalid at all. Just incomplete. Or rather, more incomplete.





> *dissident: *"By what authority do _you_ know what makes me or anyone else enjoy something more? You don't. It's more of your overbearing arrogance."


I will cling like a limpet to dissident's angry outburst just above. He says that no one can dictate to what degree he (or anybody) enjoys a piece of music, and I totally concur. He is a subjectivist after all--who would have guessed? And who likes overbearing arrogance? A wonderful post!


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

dissident said:


> What was Bach's intended audience with the B Minor Mass? The Art of Fugue?


That matters for historical context but doesn't really affect modern listening habits _too_ much. Liturgical music is very frequently performed and listened to in contexts that composers of the time would never have intended nor expected. For good or ill, the performance practices of classical music have grown to encompass the performing and enjoyment of sacred music, particularly in the era of recorded music.


Even past liturgical music, this kind of thing happens - I'm sure Schubert would be very surprised that symphonies that he never saw performed himself and filed away somewhere were being regularly listened to and performed.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> Better for learning.
> Better for teaching.
> Better for our time.
> Better for the future.
> ...


Your gift for indirection is remarkable. Dodgeball is your preferred sport, I have reason to believe.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> I will cling like a limpet to dissident's angry outburst just above. He says that no one can dictate to what degree he (or anybody) enjoys a piece of music, and I totally concur. He is a subjectivist after all--who would have guessed? And who likes overbearing arrogance? A wonderful post!


I don't recall ever trying to dictate how anyone enjoys anything.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> What was Bach's intended audience with the B Minor Mass? The Art of Fugue?
> 
> It's a natural thing. Your appreciation of the moon is necessarily going to be deepened or enhanced as you learn more about it. Of course you can appreciate it as simply a seemingly glowing disk or crescent or whatever as well. It's up to you.


Tell us.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> That matters for historical context but doesn't really affect modern listening habits _too_ much. Liturgical music is very frequently performed and listened to in contexts that composers of the time would never have intended nor expected. For good or ill, the performance practices of classical music have grown to encompass the performing and enjoyment of sacred music, particularly in the era of recorded music.
> 
> 
> Even past liturgical music, this kind of thing happens - I'm sure Schubert would be very surprised that symphonies that he never saw performed himself and filed away somewhere were being regularly listened to and performed.


The problem is "audience" isn't a monolithic concept of concert/recital hall. It can be an audience of one. In Bach's case it can be an audience consisting of God.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> Tell us.


Tell us what? You want a line-by-line analysis of Beethoven's C# minor quartet? Can't you do that, or are you stuck at "it's chocolate ..I do/don't like it..."


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

dissident said:


> I don't know but I wish it were a higher percentage. One thing that's almost never discussed in these threads is the idea that some people are just more "musically inclined" than others.


I'm not sure if by "musically inclined" you mean that they have more musical potential in some sense or if you mean they are more knowledgeable about certain aspects of music. Both are no doubt true. Even though I've read the vast majority of this thread, I'm not sure if the people posting here mostly view music appreciation as something one enjoys or something that requires specific knowledge. My estimate would be that roughly 5-10% of listeners would be capable of analyzing music from scores. Others listen and decide how much they like the music. I think the percentage of truly knowledgeable people might be even lower for literature, art, and sports so perhaps my estimate is too high for classical music. 

The disconnect I have seen in these discussions I believe stems in part from those with specific knowledge and those without it attaching different meanings to concepts in discussions. Each side is certain what is being discussed, but I think each side is arguing something rather different, and hence, no or little progress is made.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> I don't recall ever trying to dictate how anyone enjoys anything.


Yet you are an expert on the enhancement of other's experience of music.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

dissident said:


> The problem is "audience" isn't a monolithic concept of concert/recital hall. It can be an audience of one. In Bach's case it can be an audience consisting of God.


This can certainly inform how we appreciate the work - but unless we want to say "well, this work is for God, and not us, so let's not bother listening to it" - the manner in which we engage with this art is in _most cases_ the same in which we engage with classical music generally (in most cases - we could certainly set an actual mass to Bach, and sometimes we do, but that's a bit besides the point) . It's performed, and we listen. How we proceed from there is really a matter of what we enjoy doing.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> Tell us what? You want a line-by-line analysis of Beethoven's C# minor quartet? Can't you do that, or are you stuck at "it's chocolate ..I do/don't like it..."


You and Luchesi are working out of the same playbook.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> You and Luchesi are working out of the same playbook.


And you and Eva Yojimbo are. So?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> There seems to be a lot of focus on how musicians respond to music which is fine of course. But I wonder what percentage of the classical music listenership do people here consider to be musically literate to the point of being able to analyze music? I would assume it's quite low such that the vast majority of listeners are people who react based on hearing the music without in any way considering a score.


I'm just trying to help. (No, really lol)

Grownups can spend their time according to their priorities (maturity). Children need to be shown what's worth studying.

How people respond (in my experience) is somewhere between a 5yr old and a 90yr old experienced musician. A very wide range.

Children should be given the best chance. Or will they find it on their own?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> This can certainly inform how we appreciate the work - but unless we want to say "well, this work is for God, and not us, so let's not bother listening to it" - ...


Well no, but that kinda gets in the way of any set definition of "audience".


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

dissident said:


> Well no, but that kinda gets in the way of any set definition of "audience".


That's because the performance traditions of classical music developed and evolved over time. This goes from HIP-inspired stuff like size of orchestra/instruments used/etc, to how and why we actually listen to music. 

I don't actually know enough musical history to precisely point when the practice of playing sacred music in a secular, orchestra-performance practice started, but that's how I'd wager most listeners- even those listening to sacred music - engage with it today. This changes the context of the work, but then again, so does listening to Beethoven in 2022 as opposed to the 19th Century.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> I don't know but I wish it were a higher percentage. One thing that's almost never discussed in these threads is the idea that some people are just more "musically inclined" than others.


On the contrary. The music experts have made their expertise a _sine qua non _for an authentic experience of music. Repeatedly. By repeatedly I mean over and over again. Some do this more than others. More italics: _cosi fan tutti._


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> Better for learning.
> Better for teaching.
> Better for our time.
> Better for the future.
> ...


It's remarkable how many ways we can evaluate music, isn't it?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> I'm just trying to help. (No, really lol)
> ...


Well, Luchesi, you see Strange Magic in his/her/their infinite wisdom already knows The Truth and is in absolutely no need of help. In fact Strange Magic through the magic of snark and caricature is trying so very very hard, almost to the point of obsession, to show us poor benighted I dunno, objectivists? the way to peace of mind and acceptance of the fact that cherry and vanilla and apple and chocolate are the results of polls. There, you know the objective subjective objective truth of the matter. End the thread.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> On the contrary. The music experts have made their expertise a _sine qua non _for an authentic experience of music. Repeatedly. By repeatedly I mean over and over again. Some do this more than others. More italics: _cosi fan tutti._


They said or you caricatured? Who said "authentic"? When did HIP enter the chat?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

I see no reason to believe that we can determine which of this piece of CM or that is the greater by looking at the score.

Would anyone like to give me one?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Forster said:


> I see no reason to believe that we can determine which of this piece of CM or that is the greater by looking at the score.
> 
> Would anyone like to give me one?


Do you read scores? If you don't, what good would any examples do? One suggestion might be to watch a few of that guy Richard Atkinson's videos on YT. Now some scores look absolutely enchanting to me, like Ferneyhough's, but I don't want to listen to them. It's...complicated. This one on the other hand is fascinating and I love the work as well:


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> Well, Luchesi, you see Strange Magic in his/her/their infinite wisdom already knows The Truth and is in absolutely no need of help. In fact Strange Magic through the magic of snark and caricature is trying so very very hard, almost to the point of obsession, to show us poor benighted I dunno, objectivists? the way to peace of mind and acceptance of the fact that cherry and vanilla and apple and chocolate are the results of polls. There, you know the objective subjective objective truth of the matter. End the thread.


Again, I counsel you to stick to the subject and renounce invective. I never refer to others as arrogant. One example of dozens.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> Again, I counsel you to stick to the subject and renounce invective. I never refer to others as arrogant. One example of dozens.


What invective? That was almost a verbatim quote, doc.

By the way if you find anything that I say to be arrogant or presumptuous, please say so.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> Do you read scores? If you don't, what good would any examples do?


Yup. Same playbook.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> What invective? That was almost a verbatim quote, doc.


Whatever you say........


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

dissident said:


> intended audience


Intended by whom? The composers themselves? Some nerdy little circles of today that comprise of 0.01% of the entire population today - you think Bach would have had them in mind when he wrote the Art of the Fugue?

Una cosa rara was more successful than Le nozze di Figaro, with the composers' respective intended audiences. 
Mozart's style of harmony and orchestration was once widely considered to be "grating", the K.465 quartet was perceived to be "ugly", just like how people's tastes for beauty changed over time (eg. over things like plumpiness vs slimness in women). 

"On the other hand, for the French, Mozart was certainly not 'one of us' from a national point of view. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, before Berlioz's time, some influential critics - for instance, Julien-Louis Geoffroy - rejected Mozart as a foreigner, considering his music 'scholastic', stressing his use of harmony over melody, and the dominance of the orchestra over singing in the operas - all these were considered negative features of 'Germanic' music."

“We cannot be sure if ‘composing freely’ is a concept that Mozart would have understood or desired: all the evidence is that he yearned to be needed and appreciated—to be asked to write music because people wanted it, to show off the skills of his singers and players as well as possible, to make the most of whatever practical performing circumstances he was faced with. Yes, he wanted his audiences to enjoy his music, and to show by their attention that they were enjoying it. Yes, he wanted his music to be better, cleverer, more passionate, and more memorable than everyone else’s, and probably believed it to be so, but there is not a shred of support for the idea that he ever consciously wrote for some far-distant future.”—Nicholas Kenyon, Faber Pocket Guide to Mozart


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> And you and Eva Yojimbo are. So?


We answer--or try to--questions and not respond a question or request with another question. Our playbook is largely the same because we share a mostly common view of the issues. The others are always fighting a losing struggle by complaining about others' posting styles, length of posts, attitudes, "attacks" on poor defenseless EB. And there is psychobabble. It's obivlous and it shows.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fbjim said:


> This can certainly inform how we appreciate the work - but unless we want to say "well, this work is for God, and not us, so let's not bother listening to it" - the manner in which we engage with this art is in _most cases_ the same in which we engage with classical music generally (in most cases - we could certainly set an actual mass to Bach, and sometimes we do, but that's a bit besides the point) . It's performed, and we listen. How we proceed from there is really a matter of what we enjoy doing.


I 'enjoy' music like I 'enjoy' a science subject, so I've learned that I'm an odd person. People talk about liking and not liking, but it's of little relevance without specifics about the individuals. Then if you know about people in a group, and they're inexperienced, what have you learned? I don't know, but it's called individual preferences.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

> Our playbook is largely the same because we share a mostly common view of the issues. The others are always fighting a losing struggle by complaining about others' posting styles,


Well maybe that's what we all do. Anyway, we've been spared some screeds lately so maybe it hasn't been a "losing struggle" after all, eh?


> It's obivlous and it shows.


I'll do my best to conceal my obivlous from now on. Promise.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Intended by whom? The composers themselves? Some nerdy little circles of today that comprise of 0.01% of the entire population today - you think Bach would have had them in mind when he wrote the Art of the Fugue?
> 
> Una cosa rara was more successful than Le nozze di Figaro, with the composers' intended audiences.
> Mozart's style of harmony and orchestration was once widely considered to be "grating", the K.465 quartet was perceived to be "ugly", just like how people's tastes for beauty changed over time (eg. over things like plumpiness vs slimness in women).
> ...


Spoke too soon. "Losing struggle" it is.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure if by "musically inclined" you mean that they have more musical potential in some sense or if you mean they are more knowledgeable about certain aspects of music. Both are no doubt true. Even though I've read the vast majority of this thread, I'm not sure if the people posting here mostly view music appreciation as something one enjoys or something that requires specific knowledge. My estimate would be that roughly 5-10% of listeners would be capable of analyzing music from scores. Others listen and decide how much they like the music. I think the percentage of truly knowledgeable people might be even lower for literature, art, and sports so perhaps my estimate is too high for classical music.
> 
> The disconnect I have seen in these discussions I believe stems in part from those with specific knowledge and those without it attaching different meanings to concepts in discussions. Each side is certain what is being discussed, but I think each side is arguing something rather different, and hence, no or little progress is made.


It seems to be the same in very field, wherein experts study beyond the level of general knowledge and experience. With music though, i can't find a helpful analogy. 

People like Pluto as the ninth planet for all the cute and comforting reasons. The planet scientists don't care about that. They care about facts, logic, consistency, helpful categories, and future applications etc.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> His were usually trying to reply to yours point by point. That usually took quite a mass of words and if nothing else I have to admire the effort.


First, I was responding to his posts point-by-point as he was mine. Second, I guarantee I could find plenty of long posts by Woodduck in threads I wasn't even apart of. 



dissident said:


> Objective/subjective, sure, but the topic itself actually is optional. Otherwise in the case of this thread it's a hijacking away from the topic to one that you like to show your reading about.


I was not the first to broach objectivity/subjectivity in this thread (beyond just alluding to the other thread). However, every concept discussed in this thread is philosophical: "understanding" is epistemology, "appreciation" is aesthetics, "inexorable logic" is, well, logic (one of the oldest branches of philosophy). 



dissident said:


> Well yes it does. Knowing the structure of a piece and its logical framework makes it something more than just a succession of tones, leading to a greater appreciation, leading to enhanced enjoyment. By what authority do _you_ know what makes me or anyone else enjoy something more? You don't. It's more of your overbearing arrogance.


I didn't say it CAN'T lead to more enjoyment, I said it doesn't HAVE TO. I could teach someone to recognize sonata form within a week (probably less); it's not difficult. Do you think their ability to recognize/understand this form would automatically lead to them enjoying classical music more than whatever popular music they preferred before it? Of course not. Understanding how music (any music) works will only lead to more enjoyment for those who care about such things to begin with. Explaining a joke rarely makes a joke funnier; knowing how magic works rarely makes illusions more (rather than less) magical. Music is no different for many.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> Why does it feel as if our opinions - especially when based on peak experiences - are objectively true?


Blame evolutionary psychology. Evolutionarily speaking our brains treat anything that's important to us as if it were objectively true because our brains evolved to survive and reproduce. Anything that's important to us is (to our brains) important for our survival or reproduction, so it's useful to treat it as if it's true an not question it. You tend to see this mind-projection fallacy in any arena in which people are very passionate. Most don't care enough about music to think their tastes are objectively good, right, better, etc.; you only see these attitudes on forums like this where people are really passionate about music. You'll find the same is true in politics, religion, morality, etc.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

> Most don't care enough about music to think their tastes are objectively good,


I have yet to read anyone's comment claiming their "taste is objectively good". Do you have a reference?

However everyone (except the most scrupulous of subjectivists I guess) does have an internal hierarchy that ranks things from high to low.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

mmsbls said:


> The disconnect I have seen in these discussions I believe stems in part from those with specific knowledge and those without it attaching different meanings to concepts in discussions. Each side is certain what is being discussed, but I think each side is arguing something rather different, and hence, no or little progress is made.


Actually, I think you'd fine that one side (mostly myself and SM) were quite certain that we were UNcertain about what was being discussed, and despite our continued querying of what was meant by certain terms, no (or very little, and all very late) clarification was forthcoming. 

Also, I dislike the dichotomous split between "those with specific knowledge" and "those without it." As I've said, I'm somewhere in the middle when it comes to music theory: I'm not an expert, but I understand it well enough to follow most scores and musical analysis. However, I'm also a rationalist with a strong distaste for woo and fake authority.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

> Evolutionarily speaking our brains treat anything that's important to us as if it were objectively true because our brains evolved to survive and reproduce. Anything that's important to us is (to our brains) important for our survival or reproduction, so it's useful to treat it as if it's true an not question it. You tend to see this mind-projection fallacy in any arena in which people are very passionate. Most don't care enough about music to think their tastes are objectively good, right, better, etc.; you only see these attitudes on forums like this where people are really passionate about music. You'll find the same is true in politics, religion, morality, etc.


My problem with explanations like that is that they become just-so stories that can "explain" literally anything in any way you want. It's untestable.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> I have yet to read anyone's comment claiming their "taste is objectively good". Do you have a reference?


It's a logical consequence of thinking some music is objectively better than some other music. If you prefer this objectively better music you would then have objectively good taste by preferring the objectively good/better music. 



dissident said:


> However everyone (except the most scrupulous of subjectivists I guess) does have an internal hierarchy that ranks things from high to low.


Yes, except your parenthesis is wrong: why in the world would "the most scrupulous subjectivists" NOT have an internal hierarchy?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It's a logical consequence of thinking some music is objectively better than some other music.
> ...


I don't even recall seeing that.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> My problem with explanations like that is that they become just-so stories that can "explain" literally anything in any way you want. It's untestable.


Perhaps, but we know evolution happens, and we know we're the product of evolution, and we know evolution tunes us for survival/reproduction. None of that is a "just-so" story as evolution itself is, outside of some theories in physics, the most rigorously tested theory in the history of science. Knowing that it's just a matter of figuring out why or how any aspect of a species, including their psychology, could've benefited their survival and reproduction. That may not be a fool-proof method for a number of reasons, such as the idea that vestigial features can exist that never served much purpose but didn't cause harm either and were thus never bred out of the species (like male nipples).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> I don't even recall seeing that.


You don't recall seeing some people claiming some music is objectively better than other music?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> You don't recall seeing some people claiming some music is objectively better than other music?


No, most of what I have seen is the thought that there may be objective elements to musical "greatness". I don't recall ever seeing anyone say Bach is objectively greater than Beethoven or the Beatles for that matter.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Actually, I think you'd fine that one side (mostly myself and SM) were quite certain that we were UNcertain about what was being discussed, and despite our continued querying of what was meant by certain terms, no (or very little, and all very late) clarification was forthcoming.


Fine. What I meant was that each side argued a particular meaning of particular terms and felt they knew the clear meaning _of what they were arguing. _Because each side was arguing about a different meaning of the same terms (e.g. "inexorable logic" and subjective/objective), little progress was made. I care vastly less about whose "fault" it was.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> No, most of what I have seen is the thought that there may be objective elements to musical "greatness". I don't recall ever seeing anyone say Bach is objectively greater than Beethoven or the Beatles for that matter.


Is Bach objectively better than Justin Bieber?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Is Bach objectively better than Justin Bieber?


My honest answer is that it's apples and oranges. Is Shakespeare objectively better than Dr Seuss?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

dissident said:


> No, most of what I have seen is the thought that there may be objective elements to musical "greatness". I don't recall ever seeing anyone say Bach is objectively greater than Beethoven or the Beatles for that matter.


That's interesting since I believe some of us felt that many, many pages of the debate between subjective and objective greatness had one side arguing that greatness is subjective while the other side argued forcefully against that (i.e. greatness is objective). Personally I felt that no one believed that greatness is truly objective, but the faction that argued against the subjective side certainly pushed back quite hard for a long time.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> My honest answer is that it's apples and oranges.


If this is what you truly think then you're basically saying the same as us subjectivists. Your entire issue seems to be that "we" can't explain why many consider Bach or certain composers great. I've tried to explain that that's a question only science can truly, definitively answer. Anything else is just a guess, and while objective musical analysis is fine it's only ever going to get us part of the way there.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

mmsbls said:


> Fine. What I meant was that each side argued a particular meaning of particular terms and felt they knew the clear meaning _of what they were arguing. _Because each side was arguing about a different meaning of the same terms (e.g. "inexorable logic" and subjective/objective), little progress was made. I care vastly less about whose "fault" it was.


Normally I wouldn't care about "fault" either, but it's hard to overlook when things start becoming rather hostile. I just don't get why it was so hard for many here to clarify what they meant. I'm always ready to clarify what I mean to the best of my abilities, but then I get accused of writing too long posts when I do that; but we've also seen what happens when ambiguity runs rampant.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> I have yet to read anyone's comment claiming their "taste is objectively good". Do you have a reference?
> 
> However everyone (except the most scrupulous of subjectivists I guess) does have an internal hierarchy that ranks things from high to low.


A glimmer of understanding. To my knowledge, every subjectivist has their own unique and authentic hierarchy ranking things from low to high. I certainly do. Don"t we all? Why would anyone think otherwise?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> If this is what you truly think then you're basically saying the same as us subjectivists. Your entire issue seems to be that "we" can't explain why many consider Bach or certain composers great. I've tried to explain that that's a question only science can truly, definitively answer. Anything else is just a guess, and while objective musical analysis is fine it's only ever going to get us part of the way there.


All the rancor aside, I would agree. I do not pretend to know and be able to pinpoint every single thing that makes Bach great to me and to millions of others, or Handel or Mozart or Beethoven or the Rolling Stones for that matter. I don't think even experts in music theory can do such. They may be able to identify and express some things with a little more precision. But the problem I have with the debate is that there seems to be this tendency among, shall we say, card-carrying subjectivists that if someone says "Bach is the greatest composer ever" -- or Beethoven or Wagner or whoever -- _then_ we get the sermons about how there really is no good, better, best, worst. And that doesn't resolve or explain anything. Nor does the pointless Strange Magic type of trollish badgering for "proof". I don't need any proof, nor have I ever asked for proof in support of someone else's preferences.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> A glimmer of understanding. ...


There's that condescension again. There is no "glimmer of understanding". Nobody has really stated anything much different from that.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> All the rancor aside, I would agree. I do not pretend to know and be able to pinpoint every single thing that makes Bach great to me and to millions of others, or Handel or Mozart or Beethoven or the Rolling Stones for that matter. I don't think even experts in music theory can do such. They may be able to identify and express some things with a little more precision. But the problem I have with the debate is that there seems to be this tendency among, shall we say, card-carrying subjectivists if someone says "Bach is the greatest composer ever". Or Beethoven or Wagner or whoever. I think such hierarchies are completely natural even if I may not agree with some else's ranking. _Then_ we get the sermons about how there really is no good, better, best, worst. And that doesn't resolve or explain anything. Nor does the pointless Strange Magic type of trollish badgering for "proof". I don't need any proof, nor have I ever asked for proof in support of someone else's preferences.


We almost entirely agree here. The irony is I've spent much of my life writing criticism (mostly film, but some music/literature) for various websites and I focused primarily on objective analysis. I've spent much of life studying the arts, even owning multiple textbooks on film, music, and poetry. It's just that, try as I might, I never could find any unifying feature that made every work I felt was great great. That lead me to thinking more about just how my own subjectivity influenced that perception, especially with works that hit me on a profound level, which also kickstarted my thinking about how different subjectivities could interact with different art in different ways.

I agree about hierarchies being natural and inevitable, I just get skittish when some people (not all) move from accepting such hierarchies as subjective phenomenon to thinking they're objective, which often leads to very negative opinions and views on people who disagree. As long as one isn't doing that then there's no problem. Though I do share SM's skepticism when it comes to certain claims on a variety of issues, music and otherwise.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Actually, I think you'd fine that one side (mostly myself and SM) were quite certain that we were UNcertain about what was being discussed, and despite our continued querying of what was meant by certain terms, no (or very little, and all very late) clarification was forthcoming.
> 
> Also, I dislike the dichotomous split between "those with specific knowledge" and "those without it." As I've said, I'm somewhere in the middle when it comes to music theory: I'm not an expert, but I understand it well enough to follow most scores and musical analysis. However, I'm also a rationalist with a strong distaste for woo and fake authority.


Woo and fake authority? In musicology, music theory, musical analysis? i'd like to hear thoughts about this.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> All the rancor aside, I would agree. I do not pretend to know and be able to pinpoint every single thing that makes Bach great to me and to millions of others, or Handel or Mozart or Beethoven or the Rolling Stones for that matter. I don't think even experts in music theory can do such. They may be able to identify and express some things with a little more precision. But the problem I have with the debate is that there seems to be this tendency among, shall we say, card-carrying subjectivists that if someone says "Bach is the greatest composer ever" -- or Beethoven or Wagner or whoever -- _then_ we get the sermons about how there really is no good, better, best, worst. And that doesn't resolve or explain anything. Nor does the pointless Strange Magic type of trollish badgering for "proof". I don't need any proof, nor have I ever asked for proof in support of someone else's preferences.


Give me a break! Anybody can say whatever they like about whether Bach is the Greatest Ever. Just don't insist that if I think otherwise and rank Engelbert Humperdink the Greatest (not likely from me: I would say--if true--that I prefer his music.), then my esthetic values are invalid, my joy is fake or shallow, etc. All I do is to bring to the individual complete control over and confidence in their choices in the arts. In the arts, the experts and critics and the clusters are of only passing interest--one can follow them or not, but one's own tastes and preferences are supreme.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Is Bach objectively better than Justin Bieber?


Yes. I listed some categories in post #450.

Understanding each starts with the facts from the two scores.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> Fine. What I meant was that each side argued a particular meaning of particular terms and felt they knew the clear meaning _of what they were arguing. _Because each side was arguing about a different meaning of the same terms (e.g. "inexorable logic" and subjective/objective), little progress was made..


Like the unstoppable force against the immovable object, this is the unstoppable philosophy against the immovable objectivity.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> We almost entirely agree here. The irony is I've spent much of my life writing criticism (mostly film, but some music/literature) for various websites and I focused primarily on objective analysis. I've spent much of life studying the arts, even owning multiple textbooks on film, music, and poetry. It's just that, try as I might, I never could find any unifying feature that made every work I felt was great great. That lead me to thinking more about just how my own subjectivity influenced that perception, especially with works that hit me on a profound level, which also kickstarted my thinking about how different subjectivities could interact with different art in different ways.
> 
> I agree about hierarchies being natural and inevitable, I just get skittish when some people (not all) move from accepting such hierarchies as subjective phenomenon to thinking they're objective, which often leads to very negative opinions and views on people who disagree. As long as one isn't doing that then there's no problem. Though I do share SM's skepticism when it comes to certain claims on a variety of issues, music and otherwise.


Well whatever our disagreements I do hereby officially apologize for mocking your learning and your commenting style, which is really a cheap shot. Unless I'm going to engage in a point by point response it's much more decent to be politely quiet. By the way I think your comments on Wagner and atonality in another thread were thought-provoking. I had never considered the connection or lack thereof in quite that way.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> Woo and fake authority? In musicology, music theory, musical analysis? i'd like to hear thoughts about this.


It may be worth its own thread, but my concern is that a lot of people don't know where musicology, music theory, and music analysis ends and where philosophy begins, and being an expert in the former doesn't make you an expert in the latter. Discussing the objective features of scores--forms, keys, harmony, melody--or factual matters like dates, influences, intended audiences, etc. are all perfectly fine subjects for music theory and musicology: but notions of understanding, greatness, objective/subjective, logic, etc. are all innately philosophical, and being an expert on the former doesn't lend expertise to the latter. The latter is full of woo and other forms of irrationality, and it's easy for people without sound epistemologies (which most don't have) to easily lapse into woo. 

To me, fake authority comes from two sources: one is someone who isn't actually an expert on musicology or theory making comments about such things as if they are. I mean, I can reiterate what I've learned from reading/watching music analysis, but I would never pretend to be an expert or authority. The other source of fake authority is simply what I describe above about being an expert on music theory/musicology not making one an expert on the philosophy related to these subjects, yet many think it does. 

To use a non-music example, I've often lamented how ignorant many scientists are of philosophy, including the philosophy of science. This often leads to them getting trounced in debates on philosophy by woo-peddlers who simply know more about philosophy and results in them making some really dumb comments about philosophy. It's why I prefer someone like Sean Carroll who, while being a formidable theoretical physicist (and a great teacher of physics) is also quite philosophically informed, at least more than enough to handle the woo-peddlers.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> Give me a break! Anybody can say whatever they like about whether Bach is the Greatest Ever. Just don't insist that if I think otherwise and rank Engelbert Humperdink the Greatest (not likely from me: I would say--if true--that I prefer his music.), then my esthetic values are invalid, my joy is fake or shallow, etc. ...


Have I in particular ever done that? Whose ranking, tastes or choices have I denigrated? I told hammeredklavier that if he thinks Michael Haydn is the greatest of all time, that's fine with me.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

dissident said:


> By the way I think your comments on Wagner and atonality in another thread were thought-provoking. I had never considered the connection or lack thereof in quite that way.


Thanks, though I'd be dishonest if I were to take credit for it as I actually got it from Jacques Chailley who is quoted on Wiki's page about The Tristan Chord:


> "_Tristan'_s chromaticism, grounded in appoggiaturas and passing notes, technically and spiritually represents an _apogee of tension_. I have never been able to understand how the preposterous idea that _Tristan_ could be made the prototype of an _atonality_ grounded in destruction of all tension could possibly have gained credence. This was an idea that was disseminated under the (hardly disinterested) authority of Schoenberg, to the point where Alban Berg could cite the Tristan Chord in the _Lyric Suite_, as a kind of homage to a precursor of atonality. This curious conception could not have been made except as the consequence of a destruction of normal analytical reflexes leading to an artificial isolation of an aggregate in part made up of foreign notes, and to consider it—an abstraction out of context—as an organic whole. After this, it becomes easy to convince naive readers that such an aggregation escapes classification in terms of harmony textbooks."


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Thanks, though I'd be dishonest if I were to take credit for it as I actually got it from Jacques Chailley who is quoted on Wiki's page about The Tristan Chord:


Well I'll give you credit for fleshing it out. We all have our sources and influences.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> Have I in particular ever done that? Whose ranking, tastes or choices have I denigrated?


My reply deliberately said *somebody *as not to get into direct personal confrontation with anybody still active in the thread. There are others--no longer posting here now--who repeatedly denigrated and mocked the tastes of others which they did not share.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> My reply deliberately said *somebody *as not to get into direct personal confrontation with anybody still active in the thread. There are others--no longer posting here now--who repeatedly denigrated and mocked the tastes of others which they did not share.


Well then take that up with them. You're fighting phantoms, man.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> Woo and fake authority? In musicology, music theory, musical analysis? i'd like to hear thoughts about this.


I wish I had some examples but, particularly in the older days of theoretical/formal analysis, I've definitely seen some inane, bizarre exegesis on music which was based, or at least purportedly based in music theory. 

I don't think this is very unusual because these things happen all the time- how many woo-salesmen dress their stuff in the language of quantum theory?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Actually I do have an example - I think the oft shared (especially on social media) "chart" on which keys correspond to which emotions is basically pseudoscience masquerading as music theory.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> Actually I do have an example - I think the oft shared (especially on social media) "chart" on which keys correspond to which emotions is basically pseudoscience masquerading as music theory.


Yeah, but affect represented by key signature was in the minds of composers in the 18th and probably on into the 19th centuries. Not trying to be pedantic really. It's an interesting thing to take into consideration as far as key signature choices by earlier composers are concerned. It seems to be a moot point given equal temperament.


> We lose a part of the meaning of their music if we are ignorant of their affective choices. Although these characteristics were, of course, subjective, it was possible to conceive of each key as unique because each key actually sounded distinct within unequal temperaments. When equal temperament became the dominant tuning after 1917, the aural quality of every key became the same, and therefore these affective characteristics are mostly lost to us. ...





Musical Key Characteristics


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

It's off-topic but I don't so much object to the idea of it so much as the "viral" versions of these things tend to portray things in an oversimplified way that portrays it in a pseudoscientific manner, but that's sort of a case of bad pop-sci content more than anything.


e) like it's one thing to go "composers, by convention use key _x_ to create an affect _y_" but what I usually see instead bypasses artistic conventions and goes into like, pop-science neuroscience instead


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> Well then take that up with them. You're fighting phantoms, man.


I have no intention of taking it up with them--I did at the time. I offer it as an observation.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

fbjim said:


> Actually I do have an example - I think the oft shared (especially on social media) "chart" on which keys correspond to which emotions is basically pseudoscience masquerading as music theory.


I take your point. And yet, isn't there a grain of truth in the idea that some keys are more likely to provoke certain emotions? Film composers build their careers on such connections, and one of the basic appeals of pop music is that it does the same.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> It's not emotional for me. A piano concerto by JC Bach and one by Mozart. Where is it better and how is it better? Let's look at them. Let's learn something specific.





Luchesi said:


> Compare two scores. Wouldn't it be obvious to a trained person? You can see what both composers were doing. [...]


In a perhaps overlooked post, I asserted that comparing scores is not a valid of way of being able to determine which is better (assuming we're comparing the comparable). So, Luchesi (or anyone else) how would you argue that such comparison would help such a determination?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> I have no intention of taking it up with them--I did at the time. I offer it as an observation.


No you offer it as a rationalization for browbeating everyone as if they just made fun of your playlist.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> No you offer it as a rationalization for browbeating everyone as if they just made fun of your playlist.


You never tire, it seems, of questioning the motives of other posters. It does your argument (such as it is) no good at all.

The issue is and has been what EB means when he posts of "inexorable logic" in music.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> You never tire, it seems, of questioning the motives of other posters. It does your argument (such as it is) no good at all.
> 
> The issue is and has been what EB means when he posts of "inexorable logic" in music.


Some motivations are fairly obvious. You never tire of badgering over someone's comment. I think the subject is pretty well exhausted.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Forster said:


> In a perhaps overlooked post, I asserted that comparing scores is not a valid of way of being able to determine which is better (assuming we're comparing the comparable). So, Luchesi (or anyone else) how would you argue that such comparison would help such a determination?


It's a big subject. A piano concerto by JC Bach vs one by Mozart, which one is better and specifically why? 

Better for learning
Better for teaching.
Better for our time.
Better for the future. 
Better ideas overall.
Better arrangement.
Better figurations.
Better harmony.

Too mysterious. Can't be done?

Perhaps we're fooling ourselves.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> It's a big subject. A piano concerto by JC Bach vs one by Mozart, which one is better and specifically why?
> 
> Better for learning
> Better for teaching.
> ...


So, comparing scores won't work?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Forster said:


> So, comparing scores won't work?


If we're fooling ourselves, then there's no way of determining. The same as in any other subject.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> If we're fooling ourselves, then there's no way of determining. The same as in any other subject.


What are you saying here? I am mystified. Please flesh out in clear language what you want others to take away from this post. Can one demonstrate whether the scores of works by Bach and Mozart are A) equal, B) One is "better " than the other, C) One cannot reach any conclusion, or D) something else?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Forster said:


> I take your point. And yet, isn't there a grain of truth in the idea that some keys are more likely to provoke certain emotions? Film composers build their careers on such connections, and one of the basic appeals of pop music is that it does the same.


Unless you're a trained musician with really good ear for pitch you aren't going to hear keys in equal temperament tuning. Most of the emotional effect of tonal music doesn't come from what key it's in, but from the chord/harmonic progressions. Basically, a I-V-vi-IV chord progression is going to have a similar emotional effect regardless of what key it's in. The only way keys will have an effect on this is that it will slightly chance the "tone color" of the instruments playing the notes given that every instrument will sound slightly different (have slightly different harmonics) depending on exactly what notes it's playing. There is probably some differences in emotional effects from tonal coloring, but it's also probably a subtler one than chord progressions.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> What are you saying here? I am mystified. Please flesh out in clear language what you want others to take away from this post. Can one demonstrate whether the scores of works by Bach and Mozart are A) equal, B) One is "better " than the other, C) One cannot reach any conclusion, or D) something else?


B B B
When I compare scores, the 'betters' I listed aren't subjective, because I'm looking at the scores. For me, in the arts, subjective means subject to likes and dislikes. For me, it's a waste of time collating them, and trying to derive something reliable and universally applicable.
Here's a thought. If we cling to the absolutes of Newton we won't appreciate how the universe balances its books. So therefore, "If we're fooling ourselves, then there's no way of determining. The same as in any other subject."


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Unless you're a trained musician with really good ear for pitch you aren't going to hear keys in equal temperament tuning. Most of the emotional effect of tonal music doesn't come from what key it's in, but from the chord/harmonic progressions. Basically, a I-V-vi-IV chord progression is going to have a similar emotional effect regardless of what key it's in. The only way keys will have an effect on this is that it will slightly chance the "tone color" of the instruments playing the notes given that every instrument will sound slightly different (have slightly different harmonics) depending on exactly what notes it's playing. There is probably some differences in emotional effects from tonal coloring, but it's also probably a subtler one than chord progressions.


Yes, it might be how it looks on the page. Here again, how will I convince people that the look of a key is this affective?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> B B B
> When I compare scores, the 'betters' I listed aren't subjective, because I'm looking at the scores. For me, in the arts, subjective means subject to likes and dislikes. For me, it's a waste of time collating them, and trying to derive something reliable and universally applicable.
> Here's a thought. If we cling to the absolutes of Newton we won't appreciate how the universe balances its books. So therefore, "If we're fooling ourselves, then there's no way of determining. The same as in any other subject."


An answer that is not an answer. The elliptical reply is something you have mastered and I salute you for it. It's obviously a gift.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> An answer that is not an answer. The elliptical reply is something you have mastered and I salute you for it. It's obviously a gift.


You look at the scores. JC Bach did what was predictable for the time. What Mozart did still impresses us today. For the specifics you need to know about what you're looking at, but are you conversant with the language in front of you?

A lot of none-answers are attempts to avoid what would surely sound like condescension. I respect CM enthusiasts and I'm just trying to be helpful. 

I downloaded this and gave them a donation.

Ludmila Ulehla - Contemporary Harmony - Free Download PDF

Ludmila Ulehla - Contemporary Harmony


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> You look at the scores. JC Bach did what was predictable for the time. What Mozart did still impresses us today. For the specifics you need to know about what you're looking at, but are you conversant with the language in front of you?
> 
> A lot of none-answers are attempts to avoid what would surely sound like condescension. I respect CM enthusiasts and I'm just trying to be helpful.
> 
> ...


Piercing through the mist that seems to enshroud your replies to direct questions, I come away with the idea that you favor Mozart over Bach. I do not expect a reply either affirming or denying this.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Unless you're a trained musician with really good ear for pitch you aren't going to hear keys in equal temperament tuning. Most of the emotional effect of tonal music doesn't come from what key it's in, but from the chord/harmonic progressions. Basically, a I-V-vi-IV chord progression is going to have a similar emotional effect regardless of what key it's in. The only way keys will have an effect on this is that it will slightly chance the "tone color" of the instruments playing the notes given that every instrument will sound slightly different (have slightly different harmonics) depending on exactly what notes it's playing. There is probably some differences in emotional effects from tonal coloring, but it's also probably a subtler one than chord progressions.


I agree with a lot of this (unless you have synesthesia). I would add more to the fact that timbral impact is a major contributor to emotional effect and one exploited as an emotional resource by knowing composers. Consideration of keys (or pitch centres, climactic notes, etc.), are vital if a composer is wanting to reach high levels of timbral intensity and/or drama to match the moment within the tonal/harmonic plan. This can include compositional and scoring pre-planning in order to 'exert' instruments at their extremities in the vital moments if so desired. To give one example, the effort and skill required of 4 players in a French horn section who have to produce a fff unison at the high end of the register, always adds to the drama, excitement and power of the music and the resultant sound can raise the roof. Moments like these have to be meticulously planned and supported in the scoring and often reveal a lot about a composer's orchestral ability.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Unless you're a trained musician with really good ear for pitch you aren't going to hear keys in equal temperament tuning. Most of the emotional effect of tonal music doesn't come from what key it's in, but from the chord/harmonic progressions. Basically, a I-V-vi-IV chord progression is going to have a similar emotional effect regardless of what key it's in. The only way keys will have an effect on this is that it will slightly chance the "tone color" of the instruments playing the notes given that every instrument will sound slightly different (have slightly different harmonics) depending on exactly what notes it's playing. There is probably some differences in emotional effects from tonal coloring, but it's also probably a subtler one than chord progressions.


OK, I see that; how important chord progression is, but for the untrained, chord progressions aren't easy to pick out either, whereas it's easier to hear an affective difference between a C Maj and a G Min symphony...isn't it?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> Yes, it might be how it looks on the page. Here again, how will I convince people that the look of a key is this affective?


By performing it


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> When I compare scores, the 'betters' I listed aren't subjective, because I'm looking at the scores.


There is nothing about "looking at a score" that makes your conclusions objective. The score is simply the raw data of the work, the pitches, the tempo markings, slurs, articulation and other performance indications the composer included. How you interpret this information is subjective.

Specifically:
If you look at a score by Mozart and perform some analysis of it, your decision of what Mozart did that was "better" is a subjective conclusion based on the musical qualities you prioritize and consider important. And your assessment that Mozart accomplished these qualities of the work better than another composer's work is also a subjective judgment made by you.

You decided that Mozart and e.g. J.C. Bach had exactly the same goal, intention, and priorities, when writing their respective works. And you decided that there was a basis of comparison of the two works. All subjective judgments made by you.

You haven't accomplished anything different from someone who says "I like the Mozart work more than the one by J.C. Bach."


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

^^^^You're saying I'm wrong. It can't be done. What do you get out of musical analysis?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> What do you get out of musical analysis?


A better understanding of what a composer has done; how a work is put together. Its purpose is not to compare one work to another, but to understand from the inside of a work what the composer was about.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fbjim said:


> By performing it


For me, Eb is dark brown and Ab is grey/silver Dm is light brown/tan, Bb is black, F# is bright green, yet Gb is grey (that's helpful), F#m is a light green. Am is white. Unconscious associations. CM is brown but not tan.
I picked these up somewhere along the way, and others also bring a unique color to mind. Not the sound, it's just the mention of the key or the look of the first page.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> For me, Eb is dark brown and Ab is grey/silver Dm is light brown/tan, Bb is black, F# is bright green, yet Gb is grey (that's helpful), F#m is a light green. Am is white. Unconscious associations. CM is brown but not tan.
> I picked these up somewhere along the way, and others also bring a unique color to mind. Not the sound, it's just the mention of the key or the look of the first page.





> To me, Bach’s music is not black and white; it’s full of colours. In my imagination each tonality corresponds to a colour. The WTC with its 24 preludes and fugues in all the major and minor keys provides an ideal opportunity for this fanciful fantasy. Let’s imagine that in the beginning there was innocence and therefore C-major (all white keys) is snow-white. The last piece of both books is in b-minor which is the key to death. Compare the fugue of Book 1 to the Kyrie of the b-minor mass. This has to be pitch-black. Between these two poles we have all the other colours, first the yellows, oranges and ochre (between c-minor and d-minor), all the shades of blue (E-flat major to e-minor), the greens (F-major to g-minor), pinks and reds (A-flat major to a-minor), browns (B-flat), grey (B-major) and finally black.
> 
> Of course this is a very personal interpretation and each of you may have a different opinion. Nevertheless if some of us happen to believe that music is more than just a series of notes and sounds, then a little bit of fantasy is welcome.











Andras Schiff: on playing Bach and the Well-Tempered Clavier - Vancouver Recital Society


Senza pedale ma con tanti colori (Without the pedal but with plenty of colours) Playing J. S. Bach’s keyboard music on the modern piano, pianists are confronted with various fundamental questions. The answers to these are never simple. For example: … Continue reading →




vanrecital.com


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Forster said:


> OK, I see that; how important chord progression is, but for the untrained, chord progressions aren't easy to pick out either, whereas it's easier to hear an affective difference between a C Maj and a G Min symphony...isn't it?


Chord progressions are only hard to "pick out" in the sense of being able to name them by ear, but they're easy to notice in that they've happened; most of the time you just have to listen to the movement of the bass. The difference between C Maj and Gm isn't in the C and the G but in the Major and Minor. Minor keys have a flattened third (and often a flattened 6th and 7th, but the 3rd is the most important one). That flattened third is more unstable and thus lends itself better to drama, sadness, anxiety, etc., but even this major/minor difference is mostly noticed via chord changes. If a work in Cm hung around C, D, F, and G for a long time you wouldn't be able to tell if it was major or minor until it hit E-flat.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

dissident said:


> Andras Schiff: on playing Bach and the Well-Tempered Clavier - Vancouver Recital Society
> 
> 
> Senza pedale ma con tanti colori (Without the pedal but with plenty of colours) Playing J. S. Bach’s keyboard music on the modern piano, pianists are confronted with various fundamental questions. The answers to these are never simple. For example: … Continue reading →
> ...


Thanks, I had read that and I had forgotten. It might be a helpful concept to some people. Another way to approach the WTC as a 'foreseeable' progression. 

My color notions have only helped me quickly distinguish between the chords Fb and Emaj. Because E is vivid green to me, while Fb doesn't have a color, yet. Neither does Cb, while B is a vivid blue.

Liszt, Wagner, Sibelius, Messiaen, Duke Ellington, Billy Joel
reportedly had sound to color synesthesia


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Piercing through the mist that seems to enshroud your replies to direct questions, I come away with the idea that you favor Mozart over Bach. I do not expect a reply either affirming or denying this.


Interesting. Bach and Mozart are so different for playing. I'd usually rather play Bach, but in sullen moods I pull out the Am Rondo (I'm not a fan of the Bm Adagio, I'd rather hear a world-class pianist play it). The Mozart pieces can become too-well known, but not Bach with me, so far..


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> Liszt, Wagner, Sibelius, Messiaen, Duke Ellington, Billy Joel
> reportedly had sound to color synesthesia


Scriabin too.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Scriabin too.


According to the wiki article Scriabin, his was a color concept on the circle of fifths, not an involuntary response. But we'll never know.


----------

