# How do you tell by listening to a piece that it's objectively great?



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

My threads have focused on fundamentals, but frequently haven't been fruitful to linguistic application. After all, answering the tough questions is a rough profession. Many struggle to root their indisputable truths into the relevant context in question: namely the music itself, and instead rest upon secondary proof, a dusty shelf of quos and quotes void of direct dissection. If you feel any pressure to express your point in this mission of musical diction, such feeling is not required or desired. It takes not much to just give an opinion, it will be admired. Be unmoved by an urge to earn favor with any a-poorer man's brand or flavor. This thirst to learn takes openness and time, that I'm hoping we can find.

So unless inclined, find no need to post anything deep or refined. Just bestow your perspective on "what makes music sublime," and refer directly to the music itself in question, not to 'common consent' with the composition. What are the essential reasons and references within that make a work ideal? In your own thoughts and words: which qualities and quirks make lesser works kneel?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I wish you would not have used the term *objectively great* in the title - also because you do not refer to it even once in your OP.

Instead, I'll answer what for me makes music (subjectively) sublime: those rare pieces (be it classical or non-classical) that I really look forward to playing again, and indeed I enjoy listening to them again no matter how often I've already heard them. It is music that has a strong emotional effect on me. I have no musical training, so don't expect reasons along those lines.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

A little extra context: This thread is of a different topic than what you post, namely for the objectivists out there who may not represent the most. They should give some analysis on what makes music great: explaining elements intrinsic in a work, that's the debate. Thank you for your personal response though, there will always be time for another show.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I think there are two incompatible insufficient but necessary conditions.

1. You listen to the piece and see how close it is to the existing canon of great pieces. A necessary condition is that it's close. 

2. You listen to the piece and see how close it is to the existing canon of great pieces. A necessary condition is that it's not close. 


The idea behind 1 is that listeners have limited imaginations and, if the piece is too strange, they won't be able to make head or tail of it. 

The idea behind 2 is that listeners have big imaginations and, if the piece is too familiar, it will be a comforting decoration at best, not art.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Simply put, a great piece of music contains more greatness than one that isn't.


----------



## Agamenon (Apr 22, 2019)

MarkW said:


> Simply put, a great piece of music contains more greatness than one that isn't.


Interesting point of view. Thanks!


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

I cannot think of a better reply than that given by Art Rock to the initial question posed above. For me, it all comes down to feelings, not that which is scientifically or quantifiably verifiable.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

The subjective-objective debate that never goes away is a little tiresome. I'm not sure it concerns a genuine dichotomy, does it? What we hear - whether it be a car backfiring or the Bach B minor mass - is a construction made in our brains in response to vibrations in the air and in our ears. We hear music (something that comes with "meaning" and is likely to involve an emotional response - boredom, joy, excitement, whatever) rather than sensing vibrations. But subjective is a poor term for our perceptions/constructions and objective is a silly word to use to refer merely to vibrations in the air. 

To refer to the OP: 

What makes music sublime? We do but usually by tapping into something that many others also hear in it. That seems to be as close to what is meant in these discussions as "objective" as we can get. And subjective seems to me to refer best to our expectations of a piece of music and how well this fits with what we actually hear.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Ethereality said:


> refer directly to the music itself in question, not to 'common consent' with the composition. What are the essential reasons and references within that make a work ideal?


needs not be ideal to become a masterpiece though... music is a narrative, diverse and encompassing one, from which images emanate, that are then crowned with symbols.

take for instance Khachaturian 'Masquerade Suite' - the walz, it picks up rotating and swaying force, that gives birth to passionate glances the dancing partners exchange with each other, but then the main theme decsends into a discreet and cautios looks melody, alienation sets in where there has just been a call of love, and then all starts over again, moving ever closer to a tragedy:


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Brahmsian Colors said:


> I cannot think of a better reply than that given by Art Rock to the initial question posed above. For me, it all comes down to feelings, not that which is scientifically or quantifiably verifiable.


Does "objective" mean to be "scientifically or quantifiably verifiable?" Please do not misunderstand me; I am not challenging you personally on this. If anyone can suggest a good source on this question (outside of TalkClassical), please let me know.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

*How do you tell by listening to a piece that it's objectively great? *

You can't. The best you can do is decide, using your own metrics, if it seems great to you. However, I have never done this since I think the entire "greatness" thing is irrelevant, a useless waste of time, and has nothing to do with my enjoyment of music.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I suspect that if one follows all the rules of classical composition (no parallel fifths, no straying into unrelated keys, etc.) one will produce a piece of music that is "objectively great".

I'm not sure Beethoven ever wrote a piece of music that was objectively great. And I'm glad he didn't.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Great to my own ears is my only concern. I'm not interested in arguing the point to convert others.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Ethereality said:


> A little extra context: This thread is of a different topic than what you post, namely for the objectivists out there who may not represent the most. They should give some analysis on what makes music great: explaining elements intrinsic in a work, that's the debate...


What is your definition of 'objectivists' and why do you assume 'they may not represent the most'? And do I read the above to mean that the purpose of the thread is to have these 'objectivists', however you define them, explain themselves?


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

Roger Knox said:


> Does "objective" mean to be "scientifically or quantifiably verifiable?" Please do not misunderstand me; I am not challenging you personally on this. If anyone can suggest a good source on this question (outside of TalkClassical), please let me know.


Yes, it can be one way of explaining or concluding based on repeatable or consistent results using statistical analysis or sometimes universally acceptable data or standards. How does one accept the notion of "objectively great" when it seems crushed under the weight of so much variety or difference of opinion?


----------



## Mark Dee (Feb 16, 2021)

A 'great piece' does one (or more) of many things - stirs emotions, helps to recall favourite memories, raises spirits, brings tears. A great piece may mean so much to one person, and nothing to someone else. Yet they may still class that piece as 'great.' Saint-Saens Symphony No. 3 (Organ) is a great piece, but because it was the first LP my late brother bought me when I was 10 years old (in 1978), there is an added layer of 'greatness' added to it from a personal point of view. When he passed from cancer in 2013 it was one of the first pieces of music I listened to, as a kind of tribute to him.

A 'great piece' can also be referred to in terms of its musical prowess, but as I don't read a single note of music, I'll leave that one for the experts...


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

To me great compositions are flowingly organized accumulations of elements each of which could be the main point of interest in a lesser composition, and rewarding structural relations made possible by one great thing leading to another.

No PhD in philosophy required


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

In my opinion, a great piece is one that is original, influential, innovative, expressive, has technical details and requires considerable amount of skill to produce. "Expression" is the most important parameter of greatness to me, and _what_ a work expresses (or at least what _I think_ it does) and _how_ are central to my view of it.

I may, of course, enjoy pieces that I don't consider particularly great. I like _Wellington's Victory_ for example, and Beethoven himself acknowledged that it wasn't one of his best works.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I think it has to have more than just a nice melody to be objectively great. Otherwise it is would be just a matter of taste. The skill can be heard in some well-composed music.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

This is a question that is frequently addressed in this forum.

And my answer has not changed.

I do not know how.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> I think it has to have more than just a nice melody to be objectively great. Otherwise it is would be just a matter of taste. The skill can be heard in some well-composed music.


So no Schubert songs? Indeed hardly any 19th century songs! This would be a reductio.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

If it's an objective approach and you don't read music/play with other players then watching chess games and not knowing the rules of the game? It's all very attractive and stimulating.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> So no Schubert songs? Indeed hardly any 19th century songs! This would be a reductio.


I'm saying it can't be just melody. Schubert can do more than just melody.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

*How do you tell if a composition is objectively great?*

You do so by using artistic objective assessment.

*Please note: objective greatness of a composition is separate to whether or not you enjoy a work.*

1. Posterity is a form of objective assessment. If Handel's _The Messiah_ has been performed every year since the middle of the 18th century, studied, updated (e.g. by Mozart), recorded and written about many times, it is therefore a great work.

2. If a Japanese person who knows nothing about _The Messiah_ can enjoy it, and millions others like her, then it is also therefore a great work.

3. If Handel composed it fluently with incredible creativity (notwithstanding some borrowings in the work here and there), exhibit a dazzling amount of creativity that shows unusual brilliancy, then it too is a great work.

4. If a new composition is rejected listeners by and large today because it in not accessible, then it is unlikely to be a great composition.

5. Good art will always be studied, performed and recorded in abundance. It is a natural allocation of man's time and resources to do so. Weaker art might also be but it will certainly be done in a much less extent.

You will therefore very consistently find the above five rules to be the basis for assessing whether a composition is great or not. I always do.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> Schubert songs


compare






with





(I'm not necessarily saying one of them is "objectively worse" than the other though)


----------



## Conrad2 (Jan 24, 2021)

ArtMusic said:


> 4. If a new composition is rejected listeners by and large today because it in not accessible, then it is unlikely to be a great composition.


Thank you, ArtMusic for laying out the objective perspective's main points as it's informative for a newcomer to classical music like myself.

However, I'm a bit concern about the 4th point. If I'm not mistaken, "The Rite of Spring" by Igor Stravinsky was not welcomed by the contemporary generation. There is a Ted-ed video that explain their reaction more than me.




However, over time the work become more highly regarded. Thus, this lead me to believe that contemporary reaction to work cannot be an objective point, as there are examples that display the contrary across all field, such as Vincent Van Gogh.

Granted, you stated that


> it is *unlikely *to be a great composition


 rather than "never". Yet, I find your assertion that the rules you lay out will


> consistently ... be the basis for assessing whether a composition is great or not


 is troublesome for me. The word "consistently" means "in every case or on every occasion" according to the Oxford Dictionary, yet here I found an exception to that rule, where there is a work that violate one of the principles you lay out which was later deemed to be a "great work".

Thus, my questions to you, is, in an objectivist framework, can exceptions exists, where there is a work that doesn't fulfilled your principles, yet still be a great work? If so, how can one still be objective if exceptions existed, as exceptions to my novice knowledge seems to be a subjective matter? Lastly, can you link a website or source by an eminent music expert that explain the objective cause in more detail?

I'm not attacking your position, I just want to clear up some confusion I have with the rules you lay out.

*Edit:* I think my example of "The Rite of Spring" meets the criteria of being rejected as it's not accessible as accessible means "easily understood or appreciated" according to the Oxford dictionary. It was not appreciated by its inaugural audience as it overturned orchestra's tradition. If I'm mistaken, please offer me an explanation.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> *How do you tell if a composition is objectively great?*
> 
> You do so by using artistic objective assessment.
> 
> ...


The only points here that are objective facts about a piece of music are A) Point 1, above. That Handel's _Messiah_ has been played for many years is a true fact. (Parts of the _Messiah_ do greatly please me.) And B) Point 4 is also an objective fact easily quantified by polling.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

^ Conrad2, I see your point and examples in history have often been put forth. My response is simple. Today in 2021, we are now extremely seasoned listeners than listeners were in Van Gough's and Stravinsky's time. People back then certainly did not consider a general noise as music, or as John Cage put it "everything we do is music". Today, most people reject such superficial comments that "everything we do is music". In fact, we have come *full circle* in what is regarded as music by composers, everything from silence (_4'33"_) to experimental noise music have been considered to be art music. There is nothing more before us that can be conceptually new. The smorgasbord of "classical music" is right before us now. The pivoting point in time has around the 1950's. It has been seventy years since, and none of that, has really breached popularity to the extent that _The Rite of Spring_ has survived from a posterity point of view.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

As the OP of this thread, please note that there have only been 4 posts on-topic. These posts have been marked by me with a like. The quality of these posts always have room to improve as we discuss more (as I stated originally, don't worry about writing profoundly. Just stay on topic.) The rest of the posts are avoiding the subject, either by a desire to dismiss it, or by misreading the OP. No one has to contribute anything if they _disagree_ with the premise: I want to create a safe space here for those supporting the premise of objectivity, whether quoting critics or preferably using their own words, but it will pain me if nobody wishes to just sit back and listen to the objectivist side for the duration of this thread. To be clear, we're not here to argue with the thread topic. That is for another thread, which you can create any time. *We're also not here to* contribute vague statements like "because you can tell the composer has skills." That defines and analyzes nothing about the music. Instead in this thread I want anyone to feel comfortable exploring the topic, if that's what they want to do, discussing it in context of some music analysis. I would like people to discuss possible theories on great craft and planning within context of the music itself, and in time I hope you can present ideas you have firmly, personally adopted on aesthetic and composition. Thank you for reading this cautionary notice.


----------



## Conrad2 (Jan 24, 2021)

Thank you for your reply, it has explained your reasoning. Your reason of listeners are more knowledgeable than in previous years make sense. Your other reason, that we have reach the extent of classical music, hasn't convinced me as much as the 1st one, but I haven't fully explored classical music so I can't make an assertion on the contrary.

I don't wish to impose on you, but if you could be so kind to clear up another matter.



ArtMusic said:


> *How do you tell if a composition is objectively great?*
> 
> You do so by using artistic objective assessment.
> 
> ...


You stated that "objective greatness of a composition" has to be "separate to whether or not you enjoy a work". However, the 2nd point that the phenonium of people not understanding the context of the work yet enjoyed it is an objective rule, seems to blur the separation between subjective enjoyment and objective greatness as the 2nd point depends on individual enjoyment of a work for it to become a great work because if a great number of listeners who is not accustomed to the work don't enjoy it, then the 2nd point is not fulfilled. Can you explain how the 2nd point can be objective when it relied on a subjective experience of different individuals for it be valid? Once again, I look forward to your reply.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

ArtMusic said:


> *How do you tell if a composition is objectively great?*
> 
> You do so by using artistic objective assessment.
> 
> ...


These can always be objective criteria for yourself; i.e., they are criteria that you yourself can determine greatness with apart from your own personal taste.

I hope you will agree that these assessments do not mean that a work is objectively great in general, only that the work is objectively great for _yourself_ and thus not objective at all outside of the context of your mind.

Your criteria themselves are subjectively assessed; different people will have different criteria and value each criteria differently. For example, I really don't care if a Japanese person enjoys the Messiah. Pop music is also becoming very popular in Japan and China and Russia and other countries that did not have a history of pop; does this say something about the objective greatness of pop music?

Also, your third criteria is completely subjective even within your own frame of mind. Surely what is "dazzling" or "brilliant" has to do entirely with your own personal taste?


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

So please feel free to create or move your discussion to the appropriate thread. I appreciate the discussion, but it's not suited for this specific OP.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Would anyone like to entertain some musical ideas or theories they've had about 'objectively great' composition? Any little comments, quotes or examples will do:



Ethereality said:


> Many struggle to root their indisputable truths into the relevant context in question: namely the music itself, and instead rest upon secondary proof, a dusty shelf of quos and quotes void of direct dissection. Bestow your perspective on "what makes composition objectively sublime," and refer directly to the music itself in question, not to 'others consent' with the composition.
> 
> If you feel any pressure to express your point in this mission of musical diction, such feeling is not required or desired. It takes not much to just give an opinion, it will be admired.





Ethereality said:


> Give your take on what makes music great: highlighting elements intrinsic in a work. That's the debate.





Ethereality said:


> In this thread I want anyone to feel comfortable exploring the topic (a safe space), if that's what they want to do, discussing in context of some music. Or just discuss possible ideas or examples of great craft and planning within music, and in time I hope you might be able to present theories you have personally adopted on great composition.
> 
> I hope people will sit back and listen to the objectivists discuss for the duration of this thread. That's what this particular space is for (if they wish to contribute any impressions they've had.)


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

chu42 said:


> These can always be objective criteria for yourself; i.e., they are criteria that you yourself can determine greatness with apart from your own personal taste.
> 
> I hope you will agree that these assessments do not mean that a work is objectively great in general, only that the work is objectively great for _yourself_ and thus not objective at all outside of the context of your mind.
> 
> ...


The criteria are often used by many other people who are artists and teach art, today and in the past.

My example with _The Messiah_ was based on historical observations: that people in England have considered it worthy of annual performances ever since the mid-18th century. My point was with respect to posterity and that is it seldom wrong. Now, my taste in whether I enjoy a work or not is a separate point (as highlighted in bold font in my post you quoted). Why did Glenn Gould bother with Bach's _Goldberg_, or András Schiff or Jean Rondeau? They share a similar taste by coincidence with Art Music?


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

ArtMusic said:


> The criteria are often used by many other people who are artists and teach art, today and in the past.
> 
> My example with _The Messiah_ was based on historical observations: that people in England have considered it worthy of annual performances ever since the mid-18th century. My point was with respect to posterity and that is it seldom wrong. Now, my taste in whether I enjoy a work or not is a separate point (as highlighted in bold font in my post you quoted).


None of what you said pertains to objectivity in music whatsoever. It is your own private guide to ranking works outside of sheer favoritism, but the ranking is still subjective.



ArtMusic said:


> Why did Glenn Gould bother with Bach's _Goldberg_, or András Schiff or Jean Rondeau? They share a similar taste by coincidence with Art Music?


Uh yeah, probably, concerning that specific work.

But curiously enough, Gould hated Beethoven's Appassionata, a work which seems to fit all 5 of your criteria for an objective greatness. Then I would suppose that Gould is objectively wrong.

While Andras Schiff has recorded and spoke very highly of Elliott Carter, who is a composer that you not only likely despise but also would not be objectively great by your criteria. So I guess Schiff is also objectively wrong as well.






Art Music, it seems like you alone are the sole determiner of objective greatness! Poor Schiff and Gould just did not know what they were talking about.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Art Music, please move your next response here. Thank you! Do you believe in greatness in music?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Ethereality said:


> Art Music, please move your next response here. Thank you! Do you believe in greatness in music?


Thank you, I have done so.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> Schubert can do more than just melody.


What?

I mean there's no counterpoint, the rhythms are standard, the harmonic language is CPT, the form is often strophic . . .


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

This is perfectly fine discussion for this thread  Simple and on topic. Continue!


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Ethereality said:


> As the OP of this thread, please note that there have only been 4 posts on-topic. These posts have been marked by me with a like. The quality of these posts always have room to improve as we discuss more (as I stated originally, don't worry about writing profoundly. Just stay on topic.) The rest of the posts are avoiding the subject, either by a desire to dismiss it, or by misreading the OP. No one has to contribute anything if they _disagree_ with the premise: I want to create a safe space here for those supporting the premise of objectivity, whether quoting critics or preferably using their own words, but it will pain me if nobody wishes to just sit back and listen to the objectivist side for the duration of this thread. To be clear, we're not here to argue with the thread topic. That is for another thread, which you can create any time. *We're also not here to* contribute vague statements like "because you can tell the composer has skills." That defines and analyzes nothing about the music. Instead in this thread I want anyone to feel comfortable exploring the topic, if that's what they want to do, discussing it in context of some music analysis. I would like people to discuss possible theories on great craft and planning within context of the music itself, and in time I hope you can present ideas you have firmly, personally adopted on aesthetic and composition. Thank you for reading this cautionary notice.


The only way to talk objectively is to analyze a score line by line and then compare it with another score. How else could we do it?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Luchesi said:


> The only way to talk objectively is to analyze a score line by line and then compare it with another score. How else could we do it?


I agree, as part of musical analysis taught be schools. One can then conclude if the work is good/strong and from a musicology point of view its historical significance.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> I agree, as part of musical analysis taught be schools. One can then conclude if the work is good/strong and from a musicology point of view its historical significance.


Yes, and no one's saying it's easy or obvious - among the great works. One piece will rise above others in some aspects and another piece will be very different and riser above in some other aspects. Everybody knows this, but most musicians can look at the score and tell if its intent was commercial or something narrative and serious, not just typical entertainment. How do they do it? How do they hear the difference if there's nothing objective to hear? Can't we all tell very quickly whether we're listening to CM or commercial music? Perhaps it's just a mystery..


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I think it's really easy to talk about _actual_ music without need to dissect and compare everything going on in a work, but no one seems to want to, or knows very little about what they're listening to. It's weird for such a forum. But in light of the above comment, it seems people here enjoy composers like Brahms or Sibelius much more than they were actually _influential_ to music. What does that mean. That these composers are not as influential and thus slightly overrated, or that they're actually _too_ advanced that not many have caught on? You seem to speak as though all music understanding is intuitive and no one needs to analyze or talk about the music itself. With that being said, I'd be hard-pressed to find much actual music talk on this forum. And yet 5 different posts above, have tried describing actual music and how it's written, not its associations or backgrounds. This is the whole point of the thread! So good for them.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

This thread wins the internet today. :lol:


----------



## paragraph7 (Mar 4, 2021)

As a musician (non-professional but my two cents), I usually find it "objectively pleasing" if a composer has managed to make a very uncommon or dissonant chord progression sound natural and fitting (or simply arrange a very unstable chord in a way that sounds like the most natural and beautiful thing). 

Even if the composition as a whole would not suit my tastes, that usually strikes me as having some value beyond my subjective tastes. Those can be found everywhere, and it's often what makes a composition stand out. At least for me.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^I think most if not all music lovers find the sorts of things that please you will also please them. Not necessarily the same examples, but the same sort of problems solved and effects produced. But this seems to be entirely subjective all around. The only value such examples have beyond your own subjective taste is the value derived from sharing the same or similar taste with another or others. The "problem" of the objective greatness of any given piece of music is left untouched.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> *How do you tell by listening to a piece that it's objectively great? *
> 
> You can't. The best you can do is decide, using your own metrics, if it seems great to you. However, I have never done this since I think the entire "greatness" thing is irrelevant, a useless waste of time, and has nothing to do with my enjoyment of music.


Yes. That's a GREAT reply. It must be, because I agree with it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Ethereality said:


> This thread is ... for the objectivists out there ... They should give some analysis on what makes music great: explaining elements intrinsic in a work.


What is meant by "intrinsic"? Is formal coherence intrinsic? If I were to suggest it as one necessary (though not sufficient) ingredient of greatness, would someone counter by saying that coherence is an aesthetic quality and that all aesthetic perceptions are subjective and, besides, Joe Schmoe likes his music incoherent and that as far as he's concerned his tastes are all that matters?

Bleah.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

I think I would have to study geology to state what's objective in the appreciation of it. This pretty system of rocks I like, but not that one?


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> What is meant by "intrinsic"? Is formal coherence intrinsic? If I were to suggest it as one necessary (though not sufficient) ingredient of greatness, would someone counter by saying that coherence is an aesthetic quality and that all aesthetic perceptions are subjective and, besides, Joe Schmoe likes his music incoherent and that as far as he's concerned his tastes are all that matters?
> 
> Bleah.


Yes. That would indeed be the counter, and it is logically correct, even if you don't personally enjoy its implications.

The human tendency to draw towards coherence stems from biological, evolutionary or genetic factors; someone who prefers incoherence over coherence is not "objectively wrong" just because they lack those factors or have intentionally overcame these factors.

What's more "bleah" to me is implementing the idea of "objective greatness" based on the biological/genetic dispositions that many humans may share. How very sterile.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> I think I would have to study geology to state what's objective in the appreciation of it. This pretty system of rocks I like, but not that one?


You might notice that no scientific field derives value judgments from their conclusions.

That's what makes scientific data objective while music criticism is subjective.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

chu42 said:


> Yes. That would indeed be the counter, and it is logically correct, even if you don't personally enjoy its implications.
> 
> The human tendency to draw towards coherence stems from biological, evolutionary or genetic factors; someone who prefers incoherence over coherence is not "objectively wrong" just because they lack those factors or have intentionally overcame these factors.
> 
> What's more "bleah" to me is implementing the idea of "objective greatness" based on the biological/genetic dispositions that many humans may share. How very sterile.


I hope you are consistent and willing to embrace sheer incompetence as a legitimate, ''nonsterile'' value. There's plenty of that to satisfy the most discriminating connoisseurs of it. But then discrimination of any kind is so very sterile.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> I hope you are consistent and willing to embrace sheer incompetence as a legitimate, ''nonsterile'' value. There's plenty of that to satisfy the most discriminating connoisseurs of it. But then discrimination of any kind is so very sterile.


Competence to me is whether or not I enjoy it or find it interesting. Anything beyond that is irrelevant.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

chu42 said:


> Competence to me is whether or not I enjoy it or find it interesting. Anything beyond that is irrelevant.


Not for me. I can easily dive into the subjective philosophies of different composers and what sounds and ideas they consider great.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

chu42 said:


> Yes. That would indeed be the counter, and it is logically correct, even if you don't personally enjoy its implications.


As far as I remember, Woodduck does not believe in critical consensus as a measure of greatness predominantly, but in subjectively gauging the intelligence and experience in music said composer is, an attempt to measure musical imagination, brain activity and complexity, etc.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

chu42 said:


> Competence to me is whether or not I enjoy it or find it interesting. Anything beyond that is irrelevant.


Relevance is relative. Competence is not.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> What is meant by "intrinsic"? Is formal coherence intrinsic? If I were to suggest it as one necessary (though not sufficient) ingredient of greatness, would someone counter by saying that coherence is an aesthetic quality and that all aesthetic perceptions are subjective and, besides, Joe Schmoe likes his music incoherent and that as far as he's concerned his tastes are all that matters?
> 
> Bleah.


Coherence sounds like an important thing because in report writing it _is_. In report writing coherence means consistent, without contradictions. And contradictions are a problem for logical reasons - logic matters because the function of report writing is to state the truth.

What coherence is in poetry or music, and whether it matters, needs to be explained and supported. I have absolutely no idea whether op 131 is coherent, for example, and whether it matters. Similarly for Kreisleriana, Jeux, The Missa Solemnis, The Machaut Mass, the Schoenberg string trio, Haydn op 50/4 . . .


----------



## Alinde (Feb 8, 2020)

Ethereality said:


> My threads have focused on fundamentals, but frequently haven't been fruitful to linguistic application. After all, answering the tough questions is a rough profession. Many struggle to root their indisputable truths into the relevant context in question: namely the music itself, and instead rest upon secondary proof, a dusty shelf of quos and quotes void of direct dissection. If you feel any pressure to express your point in this mission of musical diction, such feeling is not required or desired. It takes not much to just give an opinion, it will be admired. Be unmoved by an urge to earn favor with any a-poorer man's brand or flavor. This thirst to learn takes openness and time, that I'm hoping we can find.
> 
> So unless inclined, find no need to post anything deep or refined. Just bestow your perspective on "what makes music sublime," and refer directly to the music itself in question, not to 'common consent' with the composition. What are the essential reasons and references within that make a work ideal? In your own thoughts and words: which qualities and quirks make lesser works kneel?


This sounds to me like a first year philosophy essay topic.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> Coherence sounds like an important thing because in report writing it _is_. In report writing coherence means consistent, without contradictions. And contradictions are a problem for logical reasons - logic matters because the function of report writing is to state the truth.
> 
> What coherence is in poetry or music, and whether it matters, needs to be explained and supported. I have absolutely no idea whether op 131 is coherent, for example, and whether it matters. Similarly for Kreisleriana, Jeux, The Missa Solemnis, The Machaut Mass, the Schoenberg string trio, Haydn op 50/4 . . .


I think it's possible to point out relationships in a piece of music that are marks of coherence and that the composer uses to achieve it, but it is not possible to demonstrate the effect of coherence to anyone who can't perceive it. That's the nature of aesthetic perception. Really, it isn't so different from being able to point to a measurement of wavelength as an indicator of color but being unable to communicate the perception of the color that corresponds to it.

By the way, coherence in writing isn't simply a question of avoiding contradictions. It entails ordering ideas so that they're easily grasped and subsumed under larger concepts. It's an aesthetic question as well. How often have we read writing that doesn't contradict itself but is nonetheless an effing mess?


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

More on-topic posts. I like it!


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

I cant really tell if a piece is great in terms of compositional technique, as it requires a lot of professional skills and years of experiences. But personally, I like pieces that contain more logical and structural developments on its basic music materials, not just a good melody/theme that leads me nowhere. Also, I tend to prefer pieces which generally have more information content per time period.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I hope you are consistent and willing to embrace sheer incompetence as a legitimate, ''nonsterile'' value. There's plenty of that to satisfy the most discriminating connoisseurs of it. But then discrimination of any kind is so very sterile.


Competence in the arts is defined, ultimately, by who likes the art and who doesn't. On the other hand, competence in cardiac surgery, leaving aside unavoidable happenstance, is defined by post-operative alive-and-healthy/dead ratios.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

*Protagoras Says.....*

Sad (to some) as it may seem, there is no objective way to determine greatness in music and the arts. The simple truth is that it comes down to opinion. In my own case, as a raging individualist who asserts the primacy and validity of my own esthetics as subjective and personal, I value my opinion above all others. In the case of many others, they also are subjectivists (though refusing to acknowledge it within themselves) and rely upon the expressed vote or approbation of The Group. The Group may be their perceived peers or betters (Experts). This is allowed to pass as "proof" of objective greatness.

Attempts to invoke competence, coherence, etc. as objective measures of greatness in the arts fail, as these can neither be actually graded as to "quality" or "value" except by assertion and agreement. In fact, sometimes the individual "greatness" for a particular auditor of a passage in a work is a sudden incoherence, a breaking of an established pattern. And human nature tends to strive to impute competence to the creation of things we like and incompetence to things we don't.

Each genre has its own audience, its own enthusiasts. Some love CM, some Rap, some Salsa, whatever else. Yet the same conditions apply throughout all the arts, all esthetics--a mechanism, a consensus among the polled, among the peer group, or among the Experts that A is great--and objectively, demonstrably so--and B is not. But no tool, no measuring parameter can be located that establishes the objective, inherent greatness of any art object, and the attempts to so locate such mechanism dissolve again into the background murmur of pure opinion, individual or group. That's the way it is. To quote Protagoras, "Man [sic] is the Measure of All Things" (in the arts, surely, and the Measurer of All Things).


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Relevance is relative. Competence is not.


Tell me, is this work objectively coherent or not?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

chu42 said:


>


sounds primitive..
"Aboriginal Australian Artist" - An Awesome Alliteration though..


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

It's great music if I can enjoy a performance that is objectively bad.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

wkasimer said:


> It's great music if I can enjoy a performance that is objectively bad.


Difficult. Part of your mind attempts to supply through happy memory the pleasure of what it thinks it should sound like. But another part is annoyed and irritated that it just doesn't sound right. But we can have favorite recordings of some works, but can be relatively easily pleased in other works by a multiplicity of performances. Perfectly subjective.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

chu42 said:


> Tell me, is this work objectively coherent or not?


Sure. It has few elements, and those are set forth in an orderly way. It isn't just random noises. Don't you hear that?


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Sure. It has few elements, and those are set forth in an orderly way. It isn't just random noises. Don't you hear that?


I don't know if it's coherent or not. Certainly I could not detect lines, or structure, or definitive phrases, all of which seem to be prerequisite to coherence in music.

However, I did enjoy it, which I think is more important.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

wkasimer said:


> It's great music if I can enjoy a performance that is objectively bad.


We're on opposite sides here: I can't stand bad performances of music I consider to be truly great.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> *Competence in the arts is defined, ultimately, by who likes the art and who doesn't. * On the other hand, competence in cardiac surgery, leaving aside unavoidable happenstance, is defined by post-operative alive-and-healthy/dead ratios.


No it isn't. Some things "work" in a given work of art and some don't. A piece of music establishes its own formal and expressive premises that determine what can follow effectively. Generally, the longer a work goes on, the narrower the set of options for what can happen subsequently without diluting the work's meaning. Artists know that it's easy to begin something, but harder to end it.

Artistic creation isn't a free-for-all. Only "Sunday painters" do it "to relax," and only non-artists think artists are just "expressing their feelings."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

chu42 said:


> I don't know if it's coherent or not. Certainly I could not detect lines, or structure, or definitive phrases, all of which seem to be prerequisite to coherence in music.


Structure exists on different levels. The piece has an overall trajectory, there's progression in the rhythm, an accumulation of energy and intensity, and the occurrence of the percussion reinforces it.



> However, I did enjoy it, which I think is more important.


I agree.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> No it isn't. Some things "work" in a given work of art and some don't. A piece of music establishes its own formal and expressive premises that determine what can follow effectively. Generally, the longer a work goes on, the narrower the set of options for what can happen subsequently without diluting the work's meaning. Artists know that it's easy to begin something, but harder to end it.


I agree that intention and context define what works and what doesn't work in art. If you mean to write a work within the rules of Western voice-leading and counterpoint, you can objectively fail by breaking said rules.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

chu42 said:


> I agree that intention and context define what works and what doesn't work in art. If you mean to write a work within the rules of Western voice-leading and counterpoint, you can objectively fail by breaking said rules.


The failure will be objective, but your piece is also likely to fail with listeners, who will sense that something is not coherent with the stylistic premises you've set up, whether they understand why or not. You may break the "rules" intentionally if you have a reason to, but without such a reason you'll be be properly viewed as incompetent and your music will be forgotten. Humans have, to varying degrees, an innate sense of what "works" in a given work of art, even if only to the extent of choosing a rug whose color goes well with the furniture. Finding the notes that "work" is the composer's job and his struggle, and we can see the struggle in progress in Beethoven's sketchbooks. We call him "great" largely (though not entirely) because he set himself difficult tasks and his struggles resulted in victory.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> No it isn't. Some things "work" in a given work of art and some don't. A piece of music establishes its own formal and expressive premises that determine what can follow effectively. Generally, the longer a work goes on, the narrower the set of options for what can happen subsequently without diluting the work's meaning. Artists know that it's easy to begin something, but harder to end it.
> 
> Artistic creation isn't a free-for-all. Only "Sunday painters" do it "to relax," and only non-artists think artists are just "expressing their feelings."


Interesting assertions, yet assertions nonetheless. Proponents of alleged "objective" greatness in the arts are pleased, as we can see, yet no clear, testable argument/evidence is put forward to demonstrate the greatness inherent in art beyond the preferences, desires, yearnings, hopes, dreams of art's receptors. I think the reason--this is harsh--is that there is no such logic or evidence; certainly none of the sort that figures in mathematics or the sciences. This is not to in any way "degrade" art; it is to view it clearly, and you can put me down as a great enthusiast for all sorts of art for many scores of years. My life would be inconceivable without its solace, succor, inspiration. One could even make a case for the notion that it is in the infinite plasticity of our several reactions to art that it acquires its most intense and necessary reason for being. To Each His Own.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Greatness exists. We can't define ii, but we know it when we hear it.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Ethereality said:


> My threads have focused on fundamentals, but frequently haven't been fruitful to linguistic application. After all, answering the tough questions is a rough profession. Many struggle to root their indisputable truths into the relevant context in question: namely the music itself, and instead rest upon secondary proof, a dusty shelf of quos and quotes void of direct dissection. If you feel any pressure to express your point in this mission of musical diction, such feeling is not required or desired. It takes not much to just give an opinion, it will be admired. Be unmoved by an urge to earn favor with any a-poorer man's brand or flavor. This thirst to learn takes openness and time, that I'm hoping we can find.
> 
> So unless inclined, find no need to post anything deep or refined. Just bestow your perspective on "what makes music sublime," and refer directly to the music itself in question, not to 'common consent' with the composition. What are the essential reasons and references within that make a work ideal? In your own thoughts and words: which qualities and quirks make lesser works kneel?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(art)
this is likely the only objective criterion to compare works of art. And it is obviously quite insufficient.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

MarkW said:


> Greatness exists. We can't define ii, but we know it when we hear it.


Perfectly true. Each of us has our own criteria for greatness, and that's exactly as it should be.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

if i skip to the last two minutes of the last movement and it is awesome, then the piece is objectively great


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> Perfectly true. Each of us has our own criteria for greatness, and that's exactly as it should be.


The credibility of our opinions on greatness will be judged on the soundness of our criteria. For example, the criteria for greatness of someone who has been listening to classical music for a short period of time are not likely to be as sound as someone who has been listening for many years.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> Interesting assertions, yet assertions nonetheless. Proponents of alleged "objective" greatness in the arts are pleased, as we can see, yet no clear, testable argument/evidence is put forward to demonstrate the greatness inherent in art beyond the preferences, desires, yearnings, hopes, dreams of art's receptors. I think the reason--this is harsh--is that there is no such logic or evidence; certainly none of the sort that figures in mathematics or the sciences. This is not to in any way "degrade" art; it is to view it clearly, and you can put me down as a great enthusiast for all sorts of art for many scores of years. My life would be inconceivable without its solace, succor, inspiration. One could even make a case for the notion that it is in the infinite plasticity of our several reactions to art that it acquires its most intense and necessary reason for being. To Each His Own.


You may find my assertions "interesting," but you give no evidence that you understand them. Certainly, nothing you say here responds to them in any way.

You're right about one thing: the evidence for excellence in a symphony of Brahms is NOT the "sort that figures in mathematics or the sciences." Who is claiming that it is? But is it nonexistent or negligible on that account? You seem to think so.

Do you compose symphonies? Improvise at the piano? Do you draw and paint? Write poetry? Maybe if you did, and did so seriously, you'd have some comprehension of what I say on the subject of art. I've spent most of my life doing all of those things, and I know a silk purse from a sow's ear. It's knowledge from experience, which is in fact the basis of all knowledge, even the knowledge claimed by your beloved mathematics and science. The reality of Bach's greatness is more certain to me than anything Einstein came up with to "explain" reality, and if you were to ask Einstein - a musician as well as a scientist - he might very well agree.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The value of a thing to any individual tells us nothing about its intrinsic quality. Why is this difficult to understand? You may enjoy the music of Nora the piano cat more than that of Mozart. This tells us nothing about the music - or the genius - of cats or of Mozart.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Question: Is a table "great"? It can certainly be large, but I doubt whether we could establish whether any particular table was great. Much depends on the use of the table: for a feast for 20 (or 40) people; for a foursome playing cards; as a work surface for butchering meat; as a stand for a vase of flowers or a bust of Mozart. I grant that any table can be "beautifully" decorated and finished, in one's opinion.

I think that ideas can be great, if we are careful about what we mean. And they may fall into a hierarchy:

Certain mathematical proofs can be great: Euclid's proof of that there is no Largest Prime springs to mind.

Certain scientific theories are great: Evolution, Special and General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Plate Tectonics, the Expansion of the Universe, others--are close enough to observed and inferred reality and are bolstered by enough evidence and experimental demonstrations--repeatable and observable by a host of different minds--to be accepted as universally great ideas.

Certain ideas about humanity are great. Even though not universally agreed upon, the notions that all are, or should be, equal under the law; are members of the same species; should be treated as one would wish oneself to be treated--can be considered great and irrefutable ideas.

But it is a great leap indeed to jump from these notions of greatness to one that greatness is a property intrinsic or inherent within art or artwork. Unlike mathematics or science or even our ideas about universal human worth and equality, imputing greatness to art objects is akin to imputing greatness to tables (or to fine wines, or ice cream flavors); these are much more matters of opinion than the other categories discussed above. We care deeply about our preferences, ideas, choices in art, but they remain subjective and personal, though often shared with others.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> The value of a thing to any individual tells us nothing about its intrinsic quality. Why is this difficult to understand? You may enjoy the music of Nora the piano cat more than that of Mozart. This tells us nothing about the music - or the genius - of cats or of Mozart.


But this is exactly why I would consider music to be subjective. What thousands of people think about Mozart is no less opinion than what a single person thinks about Mozart.

When you combine these thousands of opinions over time, you can come to conclusions about human biology, culture, and genetics, rather than anything objectively inherent in Mozart's music.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Posts #80,81, and 82 clearly indicate that the posters have yet to fully grasp my position, no matter how often or how fully I articulate it. I warned in another post that, instead of proofs of any sort beyond mere assertion, we would see hemming and hawing, distractions, exceptions, and appeals from the posters' personal experiences of "greatness" in the arts to the personal experiences of would-be co-believers. And so we have and we do. I thus make the counter-charge, as I have, that my critics have yet to understand--to compare and contrast--the two positions. And, judging by past history, most will not understand. And that's OK--we can still share what we together enjoy and share in the enjoyment itself.


----------



## Resurrexit (Apr 1, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> Interesting assertions, yet assertions nonetheless. Proponents of alleged "objective" greatness in the arts are pleased, as we can see, yet no clear, testable argument/evidence is put forward to demonstrate the greatness inherent in art beyond the preferences, desires, yearnings, hopes, dreams of art's receptors. I think the reason--this is harsh--is that there is no such logic or evidence; certainly none of the sort that figures in mathematics or the sciences. This is not to in any way "degrade" art; it is to view it clearly, and you can put me down as a great enthusiast for all sorts of art for many scores of years. My life would be inconceivable without its solace, succor, inspiration. One could even make a case for the notion that it is in the infinite plasticity of our several reactions to art that it acquires its most intense and necessary reason for being. To Each His Own.


I think isorhythm summed up the reasons these threads and discussions end up hitting a wall or going round and round in circles without any sort of progress in a response to you over a year ago:



isorhythm said:


> I'll start by saying it looks like you have some deeply rooted beliefs about the basic nature of reality that I'm not likely to uproot in a forum post, but for what it's worth....
> 
> Generally when we say something is an objective fact we mean it can be observed by anyone, as in a scientific observation. When we say the gravitational acceleration on Earth's surface is 9.8 m/s^2, we mean anyone, regardless of cultural background, personal proclivities, etc., can do an experiment and observe the same value. (Worth noting that an _objective_ observation is necessarily _inter-subjective_, to use a word millionrainbows introduced earlier - we need multiple subjects to compare notes before we have an objective observation.)
> 
> ...


There are endless debates on this forum about objectivity vs. subjectivity, but they completely miss the point and ignore the many nuances of aesthetics, which is a philosophy of perception and experience. We don't go to art for information. The content of the information in a work of art is not its defining or primary feature, but rather the experience. And anyways, not all truth is information. We have lots of different ideas about truth; when Christ said famously "I am the way, the truth and the light", he didn't mean truth in the way scientists use the word, that he is somehow a true representation of the world. He meant something deeper, he meant that you can trust in me, and that by trusting in me you come to know something fundamental about yourself. So that idea of truth, that brings in art is perhaps a more important one in consdering art, because we find support in a person we trust, and its like that with art as well. In many works of art, we feel we are in the presence of a genuine spirit. This is a common feeling about the works from an artist like Beethoven for example, who in the preface of his Missa Solemnis described the work as "from the heart, to the heart", meaning it was an utterly sincere outpouring of how he felt, and he expected the audience to engage with it accordingly, trusting in him to be the guardian of their emotions throughout the duration of the experience he was offering.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> The value of a thing to any individual tells us nothing about its intrinsic quality. Why is this difficult to understand? You may enjoy the music of Nora the piano cat more than that of Mozart. This tells us nothing about the music - or the genius - of cats or of Mozart.


A demonstration of the intrinsic quality of Mozart, please! I am a fan.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> You may find my assertions "interesting," but you give no evidence that you understand them. Certainly, nothing you say here responds to them in any way.
> 
> You're right about one thing: the evidence for excellence in a symphony of Brahms is NOT the "sort that figures in mathematics or the sciences." Who is claiming that it is? But is it nonexistent or negligible on that account? You seem to think so.
> 
> Do you compose symphonies? Improvise at the piano? Do you draw and paint? Write poetry? Maybe if you did, and did so seriously, you'd have some comprehension of what I say on the subject of art. I've spent most of my life doing all of those things, and I know a silk purse from a sow's ear. It's knowledge from experience, which is in fact the basis of all knowledge, even the knowledge claimed by your beloved mathematics and science. The reality of Bach's greatness is more certain to me than anything Einstein came up with to "explain" reality, and if you were to ask Einstein - a musician as well as a scientist - he might very well agree.


You seem to think that acknowledging the subjectivity of the greatness of Bach's music somehow makes it less real or tangible. Not so. Humans organize themselves into societies with an elaborate set of shared cultural values and traditions that can be built into a mighty edifice developed over many centuries. People within those societies, especially those who immerse themselves in those cultural traditions in a thorough and sophisticated way, can have a shared set of cultural values that enables them to share an appreciation the greatness of certain of the society's art in the context of those shared values. This appreciation can be intuitive or emotional more or rather than intellectual or arising from any intentional conscious act of perception.

These cultural values won't be entirely arbitrary. In the case of music, they will in significant part arise out of the nature of the way humans hear and make sense of sound. But, here's the thing: no such system of cultural values is entirely inevitable and uniform for everyone inside or outside a particular society. One only has to look at how cultural values differ in a consistent way, sometimes subtly, sometimes dramatically, across different eras, geographic locations, or even demographics or subgroups within a particular society. In the end, each human is different, however subtly, from his or her neighbor, parent or child. There is always a subjective element in how art is perceived and valued.

And no need to try to pull rank based on one's own artistic training or experience. I could sing, or play, the first two or three Goldberg variations, and many other famous Bach works, by ear and from memory, in their entirety, right now, even though in most cases I have never seen the scores. I can play, in many cases from memory, and have performed in public, Bach flute sonatas, Brandenburg concertos, and cantatas. So I understand the greatness of Bach's music.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DaveM said:


> The credibility of our opinions on greatness will be judged on the soundness of our criteria. For example, the criteria for greatness of someone who has been listening to classical music for a short period of time are not likely to be as sound as someone who has been listening for many years.


I have been listening to classical music for at least 75 years. I thought I was worthy of the pleasure and solace it gave me. Why do people so short-change the value of the perceptions and experiences of others in the arts? Or even of their own? I think I know.....


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> I have been listening to classical music for at least 75 years. I thought I was worthy of the pleasure and solace it gave me. Why do people so short-change the value of the perceptions and experiences of others in the arts? Or even of their own? I think I know.....


 Bleibst du mir stumm,
störrischer Wicht?
Weich' von der Stelle, denn dort hin, ich weiß,
führt es zur schlafenden Frau


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> A demonstration of the intrinsic quality of Mozart, please! I am a fan.


It already exists. The demonstration of the excellence of Mozart's music was achieved halfway by the writing of the music. The other half is in your perception of it. A successful demonstration of anything - including the blueness of the sky - requires both a demonstrator and a comprehending audience. If you can't understand that Mozart was mind-blowingly brilliant at doing what he did, no one else can "demonstrate" it to you. If that fact leads you to conclude that Ethelbert Nevin's music is as good as Mozart's, why not found an Ethelbert Nevin Society to gain for his work the reputation it deserves?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> You seem to think that acknowledging *the subjectivity of the greatness of Bach's music* somehow makes it less real or tangible. Not so. Humans organize themselves into societies with an elaborate set of shared cultural values and traditions that can be built into a mighty edifice developed over many centuries. People within those societies, especially those who immerse themselves in those cultural traditions in a thorough and sophisticated way, can have a shared set of cultural values that enables them to share an appreciation the greatness of certain of the society's art in the context of those shared values. This appreciation can be intuitive or emotional more or rather than intellectual or arising from any intentional conscious act of perception.
> 
> These cultural values won't be entirely arbitrary. In the case of music, they will in significant part arise out of the nature of the way humans hear and make sense of sound. But, here's the thing: no such system of cultural values is entirely inevitable and uniform for everyone inside or outside a particular society. One only has to look at how cultural values differ in a consistent way, sometimes subtly, sometimes dramatically, across different eras, geographic locations, or even demographics or subgroups within a particular society. In the end, each human is different, however subtly, from his or her neighbor, parent or child. *There is always a subjective element in how art is perceived and valued.*
> 
> And *no need to try to pull rank based on one's own artistic training or experience.* I could sing, or play, the first two or three Goldberg variations, and many other famous Bach works, by ear and from memory, in their entirety, right now, even though in most cases I have never seen the scores. I can play, in many cases from memory, and have performed in public, Bach flute sonatas, Brandenburg concertos, and cantatas. *So I understand the greatness of Bach's music.*


To accuse me of "pulling rank" is insulting. I'm simply asking what the basis for someone else's understanding of art may be, and offering something of my own.

If your last sentence has any real meaning - if you're saying that Bach's music exhibits a greatness which is there for you to understand - you're arguing with the wrong person. I think you're confusing me with Strange Magic's opponent, who may or may not exist. _Of course_ there is "always a subjective element in how art is perceived and valued." Who has denied that, or even questioned it? Yet Bach is still a great composer, and if you're from outer Mongolia and have some musical sensitivity, you will, with exposure to his music, be capable of understanding that. It happens all the time, all over the world.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> To accuse me of "pulling rank" is insulting. I'm simply asking what the basis for someone else's understanding of art may be, and offering something of my own.
> 
> If your last sentence has any real meaning - if you're saying that Bach's music exhibits a greatness which is there for you to understand - you're arguing with the wrong person. I think you're confusing me with Strange Magic's opponent, who may or may not exist. _Of course_ there is "always a subjective element in how art is perceived and valued." Who has denied that, or even questioned it? Yet Bach is still a great composer, and if you're from outer Mongolia and have some musical sensitivity, you will, with exposure to his music, be capable of understanding that. It happens all the time, all over the world.


Yet that person from Mongolia may always prefer Mongolian music to that of Bach. He may also learn German, yet always communicate better in his native language. He may learn to like sauerbraten, yet always prefer Mongolian barbeque. Or not. It's all in the eye, ear and taste buds of the beholder. I'm not sure why that is so controversial here.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> It already exists. The demonstration of the excellence of Mozart's music was achieved halfway by the writing of the music. The other half is in your perception of it. A successful demonstration of anything - including the blueness of the sky - requires both a demonstrator and a comprehending audience. If you can't understand that Mozart was mind-blowingly brilliant at doing what he did, no one else can "demonstrate" it to you. If that fact leads you to conclude that Ethelbert Nevin's music is as good as Mozart's, why not found an Ethelbert Nevin Society to gain for his work the reputation it deserves?


Again, a failure to understand. I am, as I said, a fan of Mozart's music. I like it. I can even think some of his compositions are great and I do. But it is great because I choose to believe so, not because it is intrinsically great. My alter-ego, the exquisitely cultured Count of T'ang, whom you have met before, has listened attentively to Mozart and found other musics he much prefers. Your position seems to be that greatness pervades certain artworks as a gas, but since not everyone can detect the gas, it clearly therefore can only be discerned by the Best, Wisest, Most Perceptive People. This is the ongoing situation with artistic rankings--a hierarchy of suitability to properly "receive" the work is established, _ex post facto_, along with rationalizations on why it is both intrinsically good and good that we the few (or the many, depending) like it. My raging individualism short-circuits all of that, and I deal with the art and my reaction to it directly, though I enjoy sharing my enjoyment with others and enjoy reading and posting about it. It's all good (if you think it is, and I do.)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> Yet that person from Mongolia may always prefer Mongolian music to that of Bach. He may also learn German, yet always communicate better in his native language. He may learn to like sauerbraten, yet always prefer Mongolian barbeque. Or not. *It's all in the eye, ear and taste buds of the beholder.* I'm not sure why that is so controversial here.


What's controversial is the "it's all." What "all" are you talking about? Bach's incredible contrapuntal skill? If I thought that that was something that existed entirely in my eye, ear or taste buds I'd be looking for ways to get it down on staff paper.

You and Strange Magic think that people's preferences, and the fact that they prefer different things, are arguments against differences in artistic quality. I say that such differences are self-evident, even if not precisely quantifiable.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

If someone listens to a work by Mozart and finds it boring, is that person, 1) stupid, 2) lacking in good taste or 3) both.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> Again, a failure to understand. I am, as I said, a fan of Mozart's music. I like it. I can even think some of his compositions are great and I do. But it is great because I choose to believe so, not because it is intrinsically great. Your position seems to be that greatness pervades certain artworks as a gas, but since not everyone can detect the gas, it clearly therefore can only be discerned by the Best, Wisest, Most Perceptive People. This is the ongoing situation with artistic rankings--a hierarchy of suitability to properly "receive" the work is established, _ex post facto_, along with rationalizations on why it is both intrinsically good and good that we the few (or the many, depending) like it. My raging individualism short-circuits all of that, and I deal with the art and my reaction to it directly, though I enjoy sharing my enjoyment with others and enjoy reading and posting about it. It's all good (if you think it is, and I do.)


It is absolutely true that people differ in their ability to perceive aesthetic qualities. People differ in every sort of ability, and perceptiveness grows with time and practice. Teenagers rebel against this and end up driving into telephone poles. Fortunately no one's inability to distinguish Mozart from Myslivecek ever got them killed, but when the difference dawns on you it does give you a certain sense of accomplishment. And as a bonus, you can go right on enjoying Myslivecek.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> You and Strange Magic think that people's preferences, and the fact that they prefer different things, are arguments against differences in artistic quality. I say that such differences are self-evident, even if not precisely quantifiable.


No one is arguing against differences in artistic quality. We are arguing about Who Decides. Each of us, Objectivist or Subjectivist, has his/her own criteria for quality--it is difficult to even conceive of someone holding that there are no differences--For Them--in artistic quality. The only real difference in reality is whether the receptor of the art is persuaded of the validity of his/her own preferences, or must appeal to an outside Arbiter of Taste--The Group or The Experts. If The Group or The Experts approve, then we glow with satisfaction.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> It is absolutely true that people differ in their ability to perceive aesthetic qualities. People differ in every sort of ability, and perceptiveness grows with time and practice. Teenagers rebel against this and end up driving into telephone poles. Fortunately no one's inability to distinguish Mozart from Myslivecek ever got them killed, but when the difference dawns on you it does give you a certain sense of accomplishment. And as a bonus, you can go right on enjoying Myslivecek.


Where does the notion that one cannot distinguish between Mozart and Myaskovsky and Martinu and Myslivecek come from? I have no idea. Who asserts such a proposition? It has no bearing on this discussion.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> If someone listens to a work by Mozart and finds it boring, is that person, 1) stupid, 2) lacking in good taste or 3) both.


I would rather not choose, since I can be bored by some of Mozart's music! I can never seem to get past act 2 of _The Marriage of Figaro,_ which one member here called the greatest cultural achievement in history (really!). But I don't confuse my lack of personal interest with a judgment of the opera's quality. I can hear the brilliance of it without feeling obligated to care greatly about it. I have no doubt that if I loved it as many do, my high opinion of it would be even higher.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> Where does the notion that one cannot distinguish between Mozart and Myaskovsky and Martinu and Myslivecek come from? I have no idea. Who asserts such a proposition? It has no bearing on this discussion.


What distinguishes Mozart from Myaskovsky is the question.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> Where does the notion that one cannot distinguish between Mozart and Myaskovsky and Martinu and Myslivecek come from? I have no idea. Who asserts such a proposition? It has no bearing on this discussion.


Mozart and Myslivecek were contemporaries who composed stylistically similar music. The ability to hear and declare that Mozart did it better IS the subject of the discussion. Or at least the one I'm having. What one are you having?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

consuono said:


> What distinguishes Mozart from Myaskovsky is the question.


What doesn't? ........


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> What distinguishes Mozart from Myaskovsky is the question.


What distinguishes Mozart and Myaskovsky (in terms of value judgment) is entirely dependent on the people doing the judging.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> What doesn't? ........


I dunno...our hypersubjectivists would say it's all in our taste buds.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

consuono said:


> What distinguishes Mozart from Myaskovsky is the question.


One of them could speak Russian and the other couldn't (to my knowledge). They both wrote lots of symphonies.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> If someone listens to a work by Mozart and finds it boring, is that person, 1) stupid, 2) lacking in good taste or 3) both.


Perhaps that person needs to listen to more Mozart, read books about his music and talk to fellow listeners. However, if the person chooses not to do so, then there is nothing more to do and this is that person's choice. Bear in mind that the person's lack of enjoyment of the music does not in any way diminish the greatness of Mozart's established reputation in the world of classical music.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> What distinguishes Mozart and Myaskovsky (in terms of value judgment) is entirely dependent on the people doing the judging.


Why do you cough out the value judgement parenthesis? Any distinguishing characteristic would be totally subjective. There is no "well made" or "better made" or "cacophony".


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> No one is arguing against differences in artistic quality. We are arguing about Who Decides.


Huh... I didn't know that we were trying to decide who decides. It never occurred to me to put the question of whether Bach is really, in fact, a great musical genius, whose music is evidence of that, up for a vote. It's just something I know, and that other people can know, given the opportunity and interest.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> One of them could speak Russian and the other couldn't (to my knowledge). They both wrote lots of symphonies.


Which are of course of totally equal "value" with nothing much to distinguish one from the other other than the sequence of notes. Right?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Mozart and Myslivecek were contemporaries who composed stylistically similar music. The ability to hear and declare that Mozart did it better IS the subject of the discussion. Or at least the one I'm having. What one are you having?


Again, what actual bearing does this have on our discussion? if I prefer Mozart to Myslivecek, yet find Martinu excellent, and Myaskovsky spotty, does that represent a triumph of Objectivism? Or merely that my views are sometime/often congruent with the views of others. Who would expect a different outcome among CM lovers? If this is Victory, then.......


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> Perhaps that person needs to listen to more Mozart, read books about his music and talk to fellow listeners. However, if the person chooses not to do so, then there is nothing more to do and this is that person's choice. Bear in mind that the person's lack of enjoyment of the music does not in any way diminish the greatness of Mozart's established reputation in the world of classical music.


I can find no fault in this reasoning. Mozart's reputation is indeed secure.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> I can find no fault in this reasoning. Mozart's reputation is indeed secure.


Why is that so?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

consuono said:


> Which are of course of totally equal "value" with nothing much to distinguish one from the other other than the sequence of notes. Right?


Wrong. Go back to the beginning of the thread and begin again. Just a suggestion.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

consuono said:


> Why is that so?


We're into the one-liners now.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> Wrong. Go back to the beginning of the thread and begin again. Just a suggestion.


I've seen enough of these threads to know the general orientation.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> We're into the one-liners now.


It's a question, not a joke.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Huh... I didn't know that we were trying to decide who decides. It never occurred to me to put the question of whether Bach is really, in fact, a great musical genius, whose music is evidence of that, up for a vote. It's just something I know, and that other people can know, given the opportunity and interest.


This is a robust proof of Objectivism in artistic esthetics. We "Just Know".


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> Why do you cough out the value judgement parenthesis? Any distinguishing characteristic would be totally subjective. There is no "well made" or "better made" or "cacophony".


The parenthesis is necessary because obviously Myaskovsky and Mozart are not one and the same in terms of the frequencies and sound waves and all the physical aspects.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> What's controversial is the "it's all." What "all" are you talking about? Bach's incredible contrapuntal skill? If I thought that that was something that existed entirely in my eye, ear or taste buds I'd be looking for ways to get it down on staff paper.
> 
> You and Strange Magic think that people's preferences, and the fact that they prefer different things, are arguments against differences in artistic quality. *I say that such differences are self-evident*, even if not precisely quantifiable.


What's controversial is the "self-evident". Because that is exactly what subjective values are not.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> The parenthesis is necessary because obviously Myaskovsky and Mozart are not one and the same in terms of the frequencies and sound waves and all the physical aspects.


So that really *is* all the separates their work then. Just different notes in a different sequence, but otherwise, yep. The same.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

fluteman said:


> What's controversial is the "self-evident". Because that is exactly what subjective values are not.


I don't know about that. Human rights would seem to be self-evident and fairly objective if not scientifically quantifiable.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> This is a robust proof of Objectivism in artistic esthetics. We "Just Know".


"Robust," "proof," "Objectivism"... Words. I can't argue on the basis of what those words mean to you. Fortunately, humanity doesn't need them to get at, or justify, the experience and knowledge of artistic excellence. As long as you insist on the epistemological view that only "robust, objective proof" constitutes knowledge of reality, the idea of quality in art will be a mere phantom to you. We can describe art works in any amount of detail and explain how they are extraordinary achievements, so there's more to it than "just knowing," but the "just knowing" has to kick in to make sense of it all.

What's the fascination with this? Why talk about it at such length when the subject has no impact on your own tastes, which by your own definitions are not subject to refinement and which you keep saying are the only thing that matters to you? Is my belief that Wagner's _Siegfried_ is a greater work than Reyer's _Sigurd_ so urgently in need of debunking?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> What's controversial is the "self-evident". Because that is exactly what subjective values are not.


"Self-evident" here means evident without need of proof, since proof is irrelevant. "Subjective" vs "objective" is a distraction. Art is both.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

ArtMusic said:


> Perhaps that person needs to listen to more Mozart, read books about his music and talk to fellow listeners. However, if the person chooses not to do so, then there is nothing more to do and this is that person's choice. Bear in mind that the person's lack of enjoyment of the music does not in any way diminish the greatness of Mozart's established reputation in the world of classical music.


This is similar advice when someone says they do not like Stockhausen or any avant-garde composer.

If after listening to twenty different works by Mozart and reading a biography of his life and music, this person still does not enjoy the music, is it possible that Mozart is not self-evidently great?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> This is similar advice when someone says they do not like Stockhausen or any avant-garde composer.
> 
> If after listening to twenty different works by Mozart and reading a biography of his life and music, this person still does not enjoy the music, is it possible that Mozart is not self-evidently great?


If it's self-evidently great to 100 or 1,000 people but not to that one, then that one would be an outlier. I'm an outlier when it comes to various things. It doesn't mean the consensus is ***** and therefore I have to denigrate the consensus.

The irritating thing about threads like these is the wannabe-egghead "do you have empirical scientific proof?" angle. When it reaches that point, discussion over.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

consuono said:


> If it's self-evidently great to 100 or 1,000 people but not to that one, then that one would be an outlier. I'm an outlier when it comes to various things. It doesn't mean the consensus is ***** and therefore I have to denigrate the consensus.
> 
> The irritating thing about threads like these is the wannabe-egghead "do you have empirical scientific proof?" angle. When it reaches that point, discussion over.


What about 95% of the global population?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> Question: Is a table "great"? It can certainly be large, but I doubt whether we could establish whether any particular table was great. .. Unlike mathematics or science or even our ideas about universal human worth and equality, imputing greatness to art objects is akin to imputing greatness to tables


Before I answer that, it would be helpful to know if the table was a prodigy or, if not, if it was blessed with any unique skill compared to other tables. 



Strange Magic said:


> Posts #80,81, and 82 clearly indicate that the posters have yet to fully grasp my position, no matter how often or how fully I articulate it. * I warned in another post that, instead of proofs of any sort beyond mere assertion, we would see hemming and hawing, distractions, exceptions, and appeals from the posters' personal experiences of "greatness" in the arts to the personal experiences of would-be co-believers. And so we have and we do.* I thus make the counter-charge, as I have, that my critics have yet to understand--to compare and contrast--the two positions. *And, judging by past history, most will not understand. * And that's OK--we can still share what we together enjoy and share in the enjoyment itself.


This is an unfortunate post because like some of your 'subjectivist' buddies, it claims that the people you disagree with, rather than putting up any substantive arguments, are simply responding with '_hemming and hawing, distractions, exceptions'._

The fact is that I've given some specific arguments supporting my opinion, particularly on the subject of skill and talent in the arts such that, in the realm of the CPT, there is a correlation between skill and talent of composers and the 'greatness' or lack thereof of the works they create. There is also a correlation between the educated experience of musicians and listeners and the value of their opinions on the subject of the 'greatness' of works.

You and your 'subjective' friends dismiss these opinions just as you do above as comparable to blather. The fact is that this pure 'subjective' position is the outlier which is why there are these continuing attempts to gaslight those who see both subjectivity and objectivity as operative on this subject.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> What about 95% of the global population?


What percent has even heard anything by Mozart? Ninety five percent may not know a Michelangelo sculpture, but that doesn't mean Michelangelo is "no better than" a backwoods woodcarver.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

consuono said:


> What percent has even heard anything by Mozart? Ninety five percent may not know a Michelangelo sculpture, but that doesn't mean Michelangelo is "no better than" a backwoods woodcarver.


Classical music averages 5% of the global music market. So 95% of people choose to listen to other kinds of music. I'm sure that is not because they haven't heard any classical music. More likely they've heard it and didn't like it.

And, btw, a few miles from where I live is a "backwoods carver." His work shows amazing skill and talent. He's got a large eagle with wings spread on display in front of his house; it is phenomenal.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> This is similar advice when someone says they do not like Stockhausen or any avant-garde composer.
> 
> If after listening to twenty different works by Mozart and reading a biography of his life and music, this person still does not enjoy the music, is it possible that Mozart is not self-evidently great?


Perhaps you're sure that that person will never revere Mozart even with more experience and more education? I don't know. Can we discuss this?

Maybe I just want to believe that every human will judge Mozart masterpieces as a cut above given enough experience and education.

In addition, now I'm thinking that even if music can't be ranked as accurately as I would like, according to objective attributes alone, I believe we should continue to tell youngsters and new CM fans that it can be! Because as I see it there's too much at stake to change this traditional view now. Definitely not now during this crisis in CM's future.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> Classical music averages 5% of the global music market. So 95% of people choose to listen to other kinds of music. I'm sure that is not because they haven't heard any classical music. More likely they've heard it and didn't like it.


What makes you so sure of that? Anyway 95% probably never read Shakespeare either. Does that mean Dr Seuss is Shakespeare's artistic peer?


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I've seen enough of these threads to enjoy the back-and-forth they engender, even if nothing can be set in stone. There are enough geezers among us to have probably read and maybe been influenced by it when it first came out (ca 1974), but for the youngins, I strongly recommend reading "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" -- which, apart from being a terrific read, addresses fundamental questions of what Quality is and whether or not it is definable or measurable, objective or subjective or neither. Can't say the author has all the answers, but he asks all the right questions. And the surface plot is compelling enough that you won't consider it a wasted read.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Is my belief that Wagner's _Siegfried_ is a greater work than Reyer's _Sigurd_ so urgently in need of debunking?


Speaking for myself, I have no desire or need to debunk that statement, far from it. Not only are you welcome to your opinion, I suspect nearly anyone (though exceptions are all but inevitable, even in comparisons like this) well-versed in and devoted to the aesthetic values of 19th-century European opera would agree with that assessment. That's why it's possible to reach a consensus on things like that among people who share such common cultural inclinations. On the other hand, your hypothetical Outer Mongolian, or even a lot of ordinary Americans these days, might well find the two works equally unlistenable, despite all attempts to educate them or "train their ears".

I'm even-handed with this issue. People who say it's "self-evident" that, say, String Quartet no. 2 by Morton Feldman or Kontakte by Karlheinz Stockhausen or Notations by Pierre Boulez or Stop Making Sense by the Talking Heads are great masterpieces that are far greater than any overlong, repetitive, boring 19th century opera based on confusing symbolism from ancient Nordic mythology equally receive my scorn.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

consuono said:


> What makes you so sure of that? Anyway 95% probably never read Shakespeare either. Does that mean Dr Seuss is Shakespeare's artistic peer?


So you are sure that given the opportunity everyone will prefer Shakespeare to the fiction (including comic books) they already enjoy? You are convinced that everyone exposed to Mozart or Bach will agree it's better than the non-classical music they previously enjoyed?

I think your premise is simply wrong.

Classical music is widely perceived as boring by a large number of people.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> So you are sure that given the opportunity everyone will prefer Shakespeare to the fiction (including comic books) they already enjoy? You are convinced that everyone exposed to Mozart or Bach will agree it's better than the non-classical music they previously enjoyed?
> 
> I think your premise is simply wrong.
> 
> Classical music is widely perceived as boring by a large number of people.


Does any of the above diminish the achievements of Shakespeare or Bach?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

consuono said:


> Does any of the above diminish the achievements of Shakespeare or Bach?


I haven't met anyone who does not enjoy this work by Bach, let alone consider it a weak composition:


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> Classical music averages 5% of the global music market. So 95% of people choose to listen to other kinds of music. I'm sure that is not because they haven't heard any classical music. More likely they've heard it and didn't like it.


People also don't necessarily pick the music they listen to based on its artistic merit. People tend to prefer the kind of art that is most entertaining and accessible. I also sometimes enjoy a tuneful, easy work more than a complex work, even if I admit that the latter has required a lot more genius to compose. Great works of art are not necessarily the most popular ones because they require a great effort from most people to even grasp (think of Joyce's "Ulysses" for an extreme example). But then there is that 5% of population who happen to enjoy the effort, which has never been an effort for them in the first place.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

ArtMusic said:


> I haven't met anyone who does not enjoy this work by Bach, let alone consider it a weak composition:


Sorry ArtMusic, but I know a lot of hip hop fans who have zero time for Bach. However I know from personal experience that if you sit down at a piano and play something from Bach for someone who knows nothing about him and who is, say, a hip hop fan, the reaction more often than not will be "Wow, that's beautiful."


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

consuono said:


> Does any of the above diminish the achievements of Shakespeare or Bach?


No. But it also does not prove that the other music and fiction people listen to or read does not provide an equal or better artisitic payoff.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

annaw said:


> People also don't necessarily pick the music they listen to based on its artistic merit. People tend to prefer the kind of art that is most entertaining and accessible. I also sometimes enjoy a tuneful, easy work more than a complex work, even if I admit that the latter has required a lot more genius to compose. Great works of art are not necessarily the most popular ones because they require a great effort from most people to even grasp (think of Joyce's "Ulysses" for an extreme example). But then there is that 5% of population who happen to enjoy the effort, which has never been an effort for them in the first place.


People gravitate to certain music because of what it provides to them. Fans of classical music use terms like it is self-evidently better than other music. But I disagree. The only thing that is self-evident is that people value music for a variety of reasons. The attributes of classical music are not universally valued, in fact, only 5% of the world's population places classical music at the top of their list.

There is a lot of music I prefer to Mozart.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> "Robust," "proof," "Objectivism"... Words. I can't argue on the basis of what those words mean to you. Fortunately, humanity doesn't need them to get at, or justify, the experience and knowledge of artistic excellence. As long as you insist on the epistemological view that only "robust, objective proof" constitutes knowledge of reality, the idea of quality in art will be a mere phantom to you. We can describe art works in any amount of detail and explain how they are extraordinary achievements, so there's more to it than "just knowing," but the "just knowing" has to kick in to make sense of it all.
> 
> What's the fascination with this? Why talk about it at such length when the subject has no impact on your own tastes, which by your own definitions are not subject to refinement and which you keep saying are the only thing that matters to you? Is my belief that Wagner's _Siegfried_ is a greater work than Reyer's _Sigurd_ so urgently in need of debunking?


Five hours away from the discussion and still no evidence to support the objective greatness of art. We have more "just knowing", more "we can describe art works in any amount of detail", etc. I showed several gradations of how we might tie objectively verifiable qualities and attributes to various levels of human achievement, from mathematical certainty through overwhelming and reproducingly testable and demonstrable proofs of science, through near-universal axioms of human equality, shared humanity, and mutual compassion. And, below these in demonstrability, opinions about art.

The reason we are discussing this is because it is important and it is fun. Those irritated by it or tired of it can find the exit. And we are still discussing it because A) nobody yet has demonstrated with rigor any evidence that "greatness" is inherent within an art object irrespective of the object's perceiver, (very hard to do, it appears), and B) there are powerful psychological reasons, explained many times, why my thesis is both not widely understood but is shudderingly rejected as anathema, as an entire structure of mental constructs about art are shattered thereby by my thesis. Again, what part of "all esthetics is subjective and personal" is not understood? The ancients, and people in general understand it: "_De gustibus...._, and "To Each his/her Own", "It's All a Matter of Taste". And it is.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> Speaking for myself, I have no desire or need to debunk that statement, far from it. Not only are you welcome to your opinion, I suspect nearly anyone (though exceptions are all but inevitable, even in comparisons like this) well-versed in and devoted to the aesthetic values of 19th-century European opera would agree with that assessment. That's why it's possible to reach a consensus on things like that among people who share such common cultural inclinations. On the other hand, your hypothetical Outer Mongolian, or even a lot of ordinary Americans these days, might well find the two works equally unlistenable, despite all attempts to educate them or "train their ears".
> 
> I'm even-handed with this issue. People who say it's "self-evident" that, say, String Quartet no. 2 by Morton Feldman or Kontakte by Karlheinz Stockhausen or Notations by Pierre Boulez or Stop Making Sense by the Talking Heads are great masterpieces that are far greater than any overlong, repetitive, boring 19th century opera based on confusing symbolism from ancient Nordic mythology equally receive my scorn.


Art is judged, when and if it is, in the context of its own aesthetic premises, premises which guide its creators and the expectations and/or comprehension of its audience. An important part of evaluating anything is having a grasp, whether explicit or intuitive, of what it's trying to be. How a CardiB fan or an Australian aborigine evaluates _Parsifal_ is of little relevance to an estimation of that work's stature as an artistic achievement. On the other hand, CardiB fans and aborigines - as well as the rest of us - are, because we are human, capable of coming to appreciate, and even to love, art in styles and forms originally strange to us. And this happens all the time.

There are reasons for it.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

consuono said:


> If it's self-evidently great to 100 or 1,000 people but not to that one, then that one would be an outlier. I'm an outlier when it comes to various things. It doesn't mean the consensus is ***** and therefore I have to denigrate the consensus.
> 
> The irritating thing about threads like these is the wannabe-egghead "do you have empirical scientific proof?" angle. When it reaches that point, discussion over.


No one is denigrating consensus. But consensus is merely consensus--voting, polling, people agreeing. QAnon is a consensus. And if these threads irritate people by asking for empirical proof, that tells me a lot about people's standards of evidence. Discussion is not over, but thought might be.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I don't think it's impossible to call a work Great based on cultural context and criteria (such as consensus, or influence on other artists in the field) while also acknowledging the limitations of this. We're only human beings, and it's pointless to ask if art can be Great removed from this context because art does not actually work that way. *someone* has to listen to the work, at the end of the day.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Here's a question: if you think art can have intrinsic Greatness which is entirely separate from cultural context, is it then illegitimate to criticize a work for being derivative and unoriginal? After all, those criticisms make no sense without the context of what that work is derivative of.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Art is judged, when and if it is, in the context of its own aesthetic premises, premises which guide its creators and the expectations and/or comprehension of its audience. An important part of evaluating anything is having a grasp, whether explicit or intuitive, of what it's trying to be. How a CardiB fan or an Australian aborigine evaluates _Parsifal_ is of little relevance to an estimation of that work's stature as an artistic achievement. On the other hand, CardiB fans and aborigines - as well as the rest of us - are, because we are human, capable of coming to appreciate, and even to love, art in styles and forms originally strange to us. And this happens all the time.
> 
> There are reasons for it.


This does not address the question of whether art's greatness is intrinsic within the art object.  But we all can agree that "because we are human [we are] capable of coming to appreciate, and even to love, art in styles and forms originally strange to us. And it does happen all the time". Different folks like sometimes the same things, and sometimes different things. For each of them, individually, it's All Good.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> Five hours away from the discussion and still no evidence to support the objective greatness of art.


More than five hours, and you are still asking for a science of aesthetics and asserting that nothing that can't be proved through experiments, equations and syllogisms constitutes a knowable reality.

Artistic experience is not proposition but perception. Perceptions are primary, not derived, knowledge. They are not the consequences of thought but the material of it. They are not demonstrable by one person to another. You have them or you don't, and we can only invite others to see and hear for themselves while, perhaps, suggesting things to look for. There ARE things - objectively existing things - to look for. I can't, and don't have an obligation to, prove that Wagner is a greater artistic genius than Ernest Reyer. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, but I don't even need that to know the difference. The composers' respective places in the world merely confirm what is obvious to me. Again, you perceive what's there, and see why it has merit, or you don't. Denying that things have merit solely because you don't happen to like them is ludicrous.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> More than five hours, and you are still asking for a science of aesthetics and asserting that nothing that can't be proved through experiments, equations and syllogisms constitutes a knowable reality.
> 
> Artistic experience is not proposition but perception. Perceptions are primary, not derived, knowledge. They are not the consequences of thought but the material of it. They are not demonstrable by one person to another. You have them or you don't, and we can only invite others to see and hear for themselves while, perhaps, suggesting things to look for. There ARE things - objectively existing things - to look for. I can't, and don't have an obligation to, prove that Wagner is a greater artistic genius than Ernest Reyer. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, but I don't even need that to know the difference. The composers' respective places in the world merely confirm what is obvious to me. Again, you perceive what's there, and see why it has merit, or you don't. Denying that things have merit solely because you don't happen to like them is ludicrous.


Sorry, but if you carefully examine your post, it almost reads like an argument for subjectivity. Be pleased with Wagner; I am pleased that you are pleased, but the intrinsic greatness of Wagner should radiate out throughout the entire world irrespective of both culture and of individual idiosyncracies of perception or of affection/taste. Yet it does not. That Wagnerites love Wagner is a given. That others may view him with lesser zeal or even indifference should reveal as much as does enthusiasm.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> ... A) nobody yet has demonstrated with rigor any evidence that "greatness" is inherent within an art object irrespective of the object's perceiver, (very hard to do, it appears),


The evidence has been discussed many times before, and there are thousands of such great works by Bach, Haydn, Mozart that please those who seek.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> This does not address the question of whether art's greatness is intrinsic within the art object.


It wasn't meant to. It was meant to answer people who keep saying that someone's inability to understand or like a work of art shows that all artistic values are subjective. It shows no such thing.

What does "within the art object mean"? I think a better, more revealing question is, "What is it in a work of art that causes people to attribute superior quality to it?" (I'm avoiding "greatness" here for clarity's sake.)



> But we all can agree that "because we are human [we are] capable of coming to appreciate, and even to love, art in styles and forms originally strange to us. And it does happen all the time"


I'm glad we can agree on that much. This too is evidence for the existence of qualities in art which transcend culture and other factors in subjective preference. Talk to Mitsuko Uchida, Yo Yo Ma and Yuja Wang about Bach, Beethoven, Schubert et al. I'm quite sure they would be amused at the notion that there's no excellence intrinsic to the (Western) music they play.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> Sorry, but if you carefully examine your post, it almost reads like an argument for subjectivity. Be pleased with Wagner; I am pleased that you are pleased, but *the intrinsic greatness of Wagner should radiate out throughout the entire world irrespective of both culture and of individual idiosyncracies of perception or of affection/taste.* Yet it does not. That Wagnerites love Wagner is a given. That others may view him with lesser zeal or even indifference should reveal as much as does enthusiasm.


This oversimplifies everything. The sentence in bold is not a valid conclusion. It is not true that artistic excellence exists only if everyone sees it. There are plenty of reasons for not seeing it. Wagner's operas, of course, HAVE "radiated" throughout the world, as have Verdi's, Mozart's and Puccini's.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

It's interesting that arguments for the objectivity of aesthetic values reduce to arguments from the power of an aesthete's emotions.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

The underestimated emotion of approval.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> That Wagnerites love Wagner is a given. That others may view him with lesser zeal or even indifference should reveal as much as does enthusiasm.


The similarities in people's responses are much more revealing and significant than the differences. An infinity of factors can account for differences, but when numerous very different people agree on something, the first and most reasonable assumption is that there is some common factor causing the consensus. In this case, the reasons for some people disliking Wagner might be explored case by case, and some of those reasons would be similar, but the reasons for his high status as a composer of opera come down mostly to the content of the works, which have proven capable of "facing down the opposition" (and, for unfortunate historical reasons, no composer of acknowledged stature has faced more opposition).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

science said:


> It's interesting that arguments for the objectivity of aesthetic values reduce to arguments from the power of an aesthete's emotions.


Perception and emotion are not the same. One can perceive excellence in music and not care for it. It's the extreme subjectivist who argues from emotion.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Perception and emotion are not the same. One can perceive excellence in music and not care for it. It's the extreme subjectivist who argues from emotion.


Your truths are beautiful, and your lies inconceivable.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Perception and emotion are not the same. One can perceive excellence in music and not care for it.


It is true that you can acknowledge that other people find excellence in the work, even if you personally don't.

But if you had never heard of Beethoven your whole life, and someone played Beethoven for you, you would have no way of knowing its "excellence" unless you personally found it excellent.

Therefore, what is and isn't excellent (outside your own subjective feelings) is entirely dependent on what beliefs and mindsets you have been exposed to. You must either have prior knowledge of Beethoven or subscribe to certain human constructions-such as Western music theory, or common practice conventions-in order to find "excellence" in a Beethoven work you don't enjoy.

The Polynesian or Amazonian with no exposure to Western culture is hardly going to see "excellence" in a Beethoven work unless they enjoyed it.

Play Beethoven to them for hundreds of years and the ones who enjoy it may come up with reasons and analyses on why they enjoy it and what they can do to write more music like it-ta-da, music theory has been reinvented.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I wonder if it has ever truly occurred to the subjectivist that they are artistically flawed, and that the truth is obvious (in the musical language.) Of course not though, because they have no accessible proof available to themselves for or against either scenario. Dumb comment, but just thought the first sentence was interesting. Have they truly considered that their brain doesn't work?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I mean, I've literally said before that my brain is wired the wrong way to appreciate jazz.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

fbjim said:


> I mean, I've literally said before that my brain is wired the wrong way to appreciate jazz.


But that's not effecting you in a negative way, right? 

Maybe Woodduck would like to point out that those more well-rounded in knowledge are much more likely to produce great music, based on the universality of learning. Though I wonder his thoughts on who are great existential musical philosophers.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Anyway it's silly to contemplate the effects of Bach on someone who doesn't like classical music, or literally has never heard western classical before because of their culture/experience/etc because part of the context of art is the intended audience. This can change over time (which is why we don't have to be catholic to appreciate a Mass) but I don't think Bach needs to be self evidently masterful to someone who hates, or has no reference point for classical music to be great.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> The similarities in people's responses are much more revealing and significant than the differences. An infinity of factors can account for differences, but when numerous very different people agree on something, the first and most reasonable assumption is that there is some common factor causing the consensus. In this case, the reasons for some people disliking Wagner might be explored case by case, and some of those reasons would be similar, but the reasons for his high status as a composer of opera come down mostly to the content of the works, which have proven capable of "facing down the opposition" (and, for unfortunate historical reasons, no composer of acknowledged stature has faced more opposition).


I think you're underestimating how frequently the same reasons crop up for hating Wagner - bombastic, overlong, longueurs, texts which are incoherent . . .


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

chu42 said:


> It is true that you can acknowledge that other people find excellence in the work, even if you personally don't.


But that isn't what I'm claiming. I'm claiming to be able to hear qualities that I myself consider fine even when the music doesn't much appeal to me. Much 18th-century music falls into this category for me. I hear great skill and even inspiration at work and admire them, but the sensibility just isn't mine and I generally don't listen to the music.[



> But if you had never heard of Beethoven your whole life, and someone played Beethoven for you, you would have no way of knowing its "excellence" unless you personally found it excellent.


There was a time when I had never heard Beethoven. When I did hear him I was stunned.



> Therefore, what is and isn't excellent (outside your own subjective feelings) is entirely dependent on what beliefs and mindsets you have been exposed to. You must either have prior knowledge of Beethoven or subscribe to certain human constructions-such as Western music theory, or common practice conventions-in order to find "excellence" in a Beethoven work you don't enjoy.


Understanding anything requires some prior experience, doesn't it?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> I think you're underestimating how frequently the same reasons crop up for hating Wagner - bombastic, overlong, longueurs, texts which are incoherent . . .


You have to ask what the criticisms mean and where they come from. The first three of those are essentially the same, and they'll be leveled at any long work that people aren't enjoying enough relative to the time invested. They're said of Mahler and Bruckner, for example. The fourth shows simply a lack of knowledge; whatever else they are, the texts are not incoherent. There's also the fact that much of what people say about Wagner is not based on the actual experience of his work but on received cliches. I spend a good bit of time on the forum dealing with this phenomenon. Not all opinions are created equal, and many are not created but merely parroted.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fbjim said:


> I mean, I've literally said before that my brain is wired the wrong way to appreciate jazz.


In general, so is mine. But I'll bet we can both appreciate the excellence of many jazz artists.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

science said:


> It's interesting that arguments for the objectivity of aesthetic values reduce to arguments from the power of an aesthete's emotions.


Then better to trust other than aesthetes on musicality :lol:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> Perception and emotion are not the same. One can perceive excellence in music and not care for it. It's the extreme subjectivist who argues from emotion.


This amounts to mere semantics.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> People gravitate to certain music because of what it provides to them. Fans of classical music use terms like it is self-evidently better than other music. But I disagree. The only thing that is self-evident is that people value music for a variety of reasons. The attributes of classical music are not universally valued, in fact, only 5% of the world's population places classical music at the top of their list.
> 
> There is a lot of music I prefer to Mozart.


I'm saying that one should give credit where credit's due.

There is a lot of music I prefer to Mozart too, but it doesn't mean that I lack the ability to recognise his immense artistic creativeness. Me liking or disliking Mozart is by no means a requirement for his artistic greatness and nor is his popularity. If I argued otherwise, Mozart's greatness would be diminishing in time (because his popularity probably is), which would be slightly weird even if I wasn't trying to talk about not-absolutely-subjective greatness. The polls that conclude that only 5% of population likes classical music don't ask people what they think of its "greatness" - only whether they like it or not, but, as I said, I don't think it's necessarily in a perfect correlation with what people think of its greatness, because we can deem something great without personally liking it much.

While I'm not claiming that we can altogether remove our personal perception from our assessment of greatness, I'm also not arguing for greatness being wholly dependent on it and thus entirely subjective.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

science said:


> This amounts to mere semantics.


It does not. Your initial observation is simply inaccurate. It is extreme aesthetic subjectivists who base value judgments on the strength of their emotional responses. In fact they insist on it. This isn't a semantic issue.

Speaking of words, I notice that in just two posts - your very first in this discussion - you dismiss my position with "reduce to" and "mere." Harrrrumph!


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

annaw said:


> We can deem something great without personally liking it much.


Love Mozart. But what does one mean by deem and great?  (Not the music but those two words.)



Woodduck said:


> Harrrrumph!


I need to use this word more. It adds a lot to the table


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> It does not. Your initial observation is simply inaccurate. It is extreme aesthetic subjectivists who base value judgments on the strength of their emotional responses. In fact they insist on it. This isn't a semantic issue.
> 
> Speaking of words, I notice that in just two posts - your very first in this discussion - you dismiss my position with "reduce to" and "mere." Harrrrumph!


You're basically saying that no one who disagrees with you knows anything about what they're talking about, so you'll be okay.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

science said:


> You're basically saying that no one who disagrees with you knows anything about what they're talking about, so you'll be okay.


Just brimming with drastic personal judgments, aren't you? Is that what you came here to do?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Ethereality said:


> Love Mozart. But what does one mean by deem and great?  (Not the music but those two words.)


By "deem" I meant any process you would use if you want to assess the artistic merit of a piece - probably something connected with listening when we're discussing music. (I cannot read musical scores properly, so that's not an option to me personally.)

Defining greatness is where the certain subjectivity comes in. However, to me, artistic greatness is a demonstration of artistic talent - often the greatest works are simply demonstrations of an extreme amount of talent, which makes them unique. That's partly the reason why we don't have two Shakespeares, two Beethovens, or two Wagners - what they did required so much unique skill that their style cannot be easily copied at the same level. Essentially, I want to say that artistic greatness is not equally achievable by all people - not everyone has what it takes to constantly come up with new ideas like Picasso did. Yes, it is in some ways subjective, but it's not entirely so.

Saying that it's all subjective would simply be a bit depressing outlook in my opinion, because then an unparalleled artistic genius wouldn't be anything special at all. I find it awe-inspiring to witness what the brain of an extremely gifted person is able to come up with. Saying that it's all subjective and his talent is meaningless would be... sad.

PS! I have nothing against Mozart and enjoy many of his works, but just tend to struggle with the music of Classical era in general - blame the Romantics .


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

I just hear that it was written by Brahms.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

annaw said:


> I'm saying that one should give credit where credit's due.
> 
> There is a lot of music I prefer to Mozart too, but it doesn't mean that I lack the ability to recognise his immense artistic creativeness. Me liking or disliking Mozart is by no means a requirement for his artistic greatness and nor is his popularity. If I argued otherwise, Mozart's greatness would be diminishing in time (because his popularity probably is), which would be slightly weird even if I wasn't trying to talk about not-absolutely-subjective greatness. The polls that conclude that only 5% of population likes classical music don't ask people what they think of its "greatness" - only whether they like it or not, but, as I said, I don't think it's necessarily in a perfect correlation with what people think of its greatness, because we can deem something great without personally liking it much.
> 
> While I'm not claiming that we can altogether remove our personal perception from our assessment of greatness, I'm also not arguing for greatness being wholly dependent on it and thus entirely subjective.


In the small pond of classical music, I will agree that Mozart is among the "great" composers. He's a big frog for sure. 

There's a lot of "great" music out there, and it seems a bit grandiose to make out like a composer of classical music from the 18th century is the be-all end-all.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I see that others have labored on while I slept (the sleep of the just, and of the correct!), and their labors have borne the same fruit. The objectivists continue to fail utterly to find convincing evidence beyond crowd (which crowd?) consensus for the existence of greatness, wonderfulness, masterpieceness, within certain musics. Or to demonstrate that this greatness, which should therefore radiate out like an aura, is perceived by any other than those very auditors who claim to so perceive it. It's like UFOs or Sasquatch--if it's there, it should be more visible (audible) to an audience infinitely more vast.

Meanwhile, as predicted, the objectivists continue to issue a torrent of side issues and spurious arguments to gloss over their failure to rebut the argument that all esthetics is subjective and personal--a view held by the overwhelming majority of human beings until their own hobbyhorses are examined by a skeptical outsider.

Art (music) just is. Sounds in space and time. Neurology, personal and group history, and psychology can tell us much about why certain sound patterns appeal strongly, in a positive way, to certain groups of people--Leonard Meyer has provided much insight into the non-"sensual" aspects of music; the sensual aspects are of equal importance, and, when teased out fully some day, will more completely help us understand how music works.

But the key idea here is the unique makeup of each individual, which figures both into how the musical sounds trigger their cloak of reaction to and understanding of the sounds they are hearing--and into the validity and authenticity of each individual's experience of music. This validity allows the freedom to enjoy, without needing to consult The Tribe or the Tribal Authorities, any sort of music each of us chooses. And so some of us cast a wide net indeed; some a narrow one. But the power of needing outside approbation of our choices seems to be most pronounced in the case of classical music listeners, and that's both strange and yet maybe understandable, given the centuries of opinion handed down as "fact", such that newcomers entering contact with CM feel they must check around to calibrate their responses with the Authorities. I was fortunate indeed in growing up in a household full of all sorts of musics, heard them all equally, and was free also to acquire new ones of my own (Rock, flamenco).

Musical subjectivism is Freedom! We are all free to enjoy whatever music we want, and need not look over our shoulders for the approval of others. :angel:


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

When reading this discussion, I am continually drawn to a favourite phrase from one of my research colleagues:

"Fuzzy data, consistently measured, is directionally accurate".

The "accurate", objective conclusion, doesn't alter the fact that it's drawn from "fuzzy", subjective data.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> \
> Musical subjectivism is Freedom! We are all free to enjoy whatever music we want, and need not look over our shoulders for the approval of others. :angel:


Yes. But this still doesn't mean attempting to evaluate works within the context of other works, and the artistic movement at large is impossible.

Let's say Phil hates classical music. He likes harsh noise, power electronics, gabber, and hardcore techno. I play Phil the Diabelli Variations and he calls them boring. Does this tell us anything interesting about the Diabelli Variations, or Beethoven? I don't think it does, because "a classical work doesn't appeal to someone who hates classical music" is not useful data. It's bordering on a tautology. And I don't think it follows that, because all viewpoints are valid, we need to consider Phil's standpoint when evaluating the Diabelli Variations because "does it appeal to people who have no esthetic sympathy toward the work" is not really a fair criterion for evaluating art.

To be blunt, I don't think Phil's viewpoint is "invalid" in the sense that he is literally wrong about not liking Beethoven - but this viewpoint is bordering on useless when it comes to evaluating the work in general, because art is not intended to appeal to people who have no interest in its medium!

I play Phil "Tetras" by Xenakis. He thinks it is awesome because he loves harsh, alienating music. Since "Tetras" has therefore shown appeal to people who aren't predisposed to classical, does this make "Tetras" one of the Great Works? (well, maybe).

anyway the point is that there seems to be some confusion with how one approaches and appreciates works on a personal, aesthetic level and how works are critically evaluated at large. The most accurate term I've heard about an art critic is: an art critic's job is to *put art into context*- be it a context of "quality", where the art fits in musical artistic movements at large, the socio-political context of the art, etc etc.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> It is extreme aesthetic subjectivists who base value judgments on the strength of their emotional responses. In fact they insist on it. This isn't a semantic issue.


I agree. My direct and immediate and ongoing confrontation with the music indeed governs my reaction to it and my evaluation of it. The alternative, I take it, is to carefully study--either _ex post facto_ or before the exposure to the music--what I "need to know, need to be told" about the music and of the reactions of others to it, before I form my own evaluation. Nothing wrong with such, as long as it does not distort the direct experience of the music: "Everyone is telling me I had better like this or else there is something wrong (with me)." The question--a variant of Who Decides--is Who is to Be Master? Again, objectivism in music is a consequence of Group Opinion, polling, voting, and the judgment of Experts. Objectivism in musical esthetics reduces to such because it cannot independently adduce real evidence for support of the idea of "greatness" being inherent in the music.

To repeat: each of us can and does adduce greatness to any music we so choose, as a personal and subjective judgment. Nobody sane is saying that greatness does not exist in music--the question is just where it exists, and it exists in individual minds or as a consensus of summed minds.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^fbjim, I have no disagreement with your post above. It does no violence to my subjectivist position.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> More than five hours, and you are still asking for a science of aesthetics and asserting that nothing that can't be proved through experiments, equations and syllogisms constitutes a knowable reality.
> ...


Bingo, there's the impasse. That reality which can be scientifically, empirically proven is the *only* reality. Human rights and dignity are realities which neither I nor anyone else can empirically prove. To say that such self-evident things are totally subjective is to say that Nazi Germany might not have been so "bad" after all, whatever "bad" means. It's a reality that my late parents loved me, but I can't put that on a physical scale and verify it.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

consuono said:


> Bingo, there's the impasse. That reality which can be scientifically, empirically proven is the *only* reality. Human rights and dignity are realities which neither I nor anyone else can empirically prove. To say that such self-evident things are totally subjective is to say that Nazi Germany might not have been so "bad" after all, whatever "bad" means. It's a reality that my late parents loved me, but I can't put that on a physical scale and verify it.


and this is why context matters- what we can't measure directly we can try to measure by its impact on what surrounds it - the entire cultural context of critical opinion, influence, and all that stuff

- regarding how that's "inherent" to the work, it should be pretty clear at this point that it isn't *solely* inherent to the work, but there is no such thing as a "pure" listening experience anyway, uninfluenced by cultural and societal factors, so that doesn't matter.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> I haven't met anyone who does not enjoy this work by Bach, let alone consider it a weak composition:


Then you have a limited circle of acquaintances. Most people I know most likely have never heard that work.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Art is judged, when and if it is, in the context of its own aesthetic premises, premises which guide its creators and the expectations and/or comprehension of its audience. An important part of evaluating anything is having a grasp, whether explicit or intuitive, of what it's trying to be. How a CardiB fan or an Australian aborigine evaluates _Parsifal_ is of little relevance to an estimation of that work's stature as an artistic achievement. On the other hand, CardiB fans and aborigines - as well as the rest of us - are, because we are human, capable of coming to appreciate, and even to love, art in styles and forms originally strange to us. And this happens all the time.
> 
> There are reasons for it.


Yes. But there are also millions of people in Australia, Outer Mongolia, the USA, and everywhere else, who will never appreciate, much less love, Parsifal. This does not diminish the greatness of Parsifal in any way, as there is a general consensus among those within a certain cultural milieu, who appreciate a certain set of aesthetic values built up over centuries as part of a long and extensive cultural tradition, that Parsifal is great stuff. It is an icon of the western classical music tradition of the 19th century. Most likely, even centuries from now, those who take enough of an interest in that particular tradition to learn enough about it in a thorough way will also, in the vast majority of cases, appreciate the greatness of Parsifal. Nothing I have said here is contrary to that.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

consuono said:


> Bingo, there's the impasse. That reality which can be scientifically, empirically proven is the *only* reality. Human rights and dignity are realities which neither I nor anyone else can empirically prove. To say that such self-evident things are totally subjective is to say that Nazi Germany might not have been so "bad" after all, whatever "bad" means. It's a reality that my late parents loved me, but I can't put that on a physical scale and verify it.


Nobody says or said it is the only reality. I provided the outlines of a scale or gradation of assertions in descending order of our ability to demonstrate their validities. Human equality, human dignity, the injunction to treat others as we would be treated were all accounted for as being more--often far more--demonstrable than the hypothesis that greatness objectively exists within artworks. I have this nagging suspicion that my posts are not read, by some, with attention or understanding. But I won't name names.

Nazi Germany makes its first(?) appearance.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

fluteman said:


> Then you have a limited circle of acquaintances. Most people I know most likely have never heard that work.


The above Bach example is what constitutes "proof" of the objectivist position--one favorite piece after another is trotted out and paraded before the folks in the Colosseum as must-convince irrefutable "evidence" that, _ipso facto_, one and all are witnessing objective greatness. Fine if you personally agree; not so fine if you don't. But one's individual agreement is then seized upon as a validation of the general thesis. It is not.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> Bingo, there's the impasse. That reality which can be scientifically, empirically proven is the *only* reality. Human rights and dignity are realities which neither I nor anyone else can empirically prove. To say that such self-evident things are totally subjective is to say that Nazi Germany might not have been so "bad" after all, whatever "bad" means. It's a reality that my late parents loved me, but I can't put that on a physical scale and verify it.


I guess this is where we will have to reach an understanding.

Scientific reality-the unprovable nature of aesthetics, love, art-is sometimes incompatible with practical application.

You cannot scientifically prove that you love someone (other than superficial statistics such as hormone levels, brain waves, etc.), but you can explain your love in a way that humans can understand and relate to.

In the same way, there is no way to scientifically prove that Beethoven was greater than Czerny, but it is practically possible to explain his superiority to a human being in which humans can understand and relate to.

Thus, SanAntone's idea of an informed subjectivity comes into play. I always disagree with "objective greatness" because the word "objective" should never be applied to any sort of value judgment. It implies that certain opinions constitute a scientific reality and others go against scientific reality, which is never the case.

Again, every reputable dictionary agrees that objectivity concerns facts. And every dictionary also agrees that facts must be scientifically provable. Therefore no value judgment is objective, since value judgments do not concern facts.

This doesn't mean that value judgments exist in a space that has no meaning; only that they aren't facts.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

consuono said:


> Bingo, there's the impasse. That reality which can be scientifically, empirically proven is the *only* reality. Human rights and dignity are realities which neither I nor anyone else can empirically prove. To say that such self-evident things are totally subjective is to say that Nazi Germany might not have been so "bad" after all, whatever "bad" means. It's a reality that my late parents loved me, but I can't put that on a physical scale and verify it.


That's right. The only reason we consider Hitler a war criminal is because as a society we have agreed that murder is wrong. But we are not applying objective criteria. A long time ago, in order to safeguard order and safety for a population and territory, laws were created to organize behavior. When the stakes are high, we as a society come together to establish standards and an mechanism to enforce those standards of behavior.

We as a society have not made any similar laws and enforcement concerning the quality of art or music. As a society we generally believe these judgments to be subjective because not much is at stake if we disagree whether Beethoven is a great composer or not.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> The above Bach example is what constitutes "proof" of the objectivist position--one favorite piece after another is trotted out and paraded before the folks in the Colosseum as must-convince irrefutable "evidence" that, _ipso facto_, one and all are witnessing objective greatness. Fine if you personally agree; not so fine if you don't. But one's individual agreement is then seized upon as a validation of the general thesis. It is not.


You've told us that you haven't studied music. You talk like a person from that category of enthusiasts. How much credence should we (objectivists) give to your completely subjective conclusions?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> The above Bach example is what constitutes "proof" of the objectivist position--one favorite piece after another is trotted out and paraded before the folks in the Colosseum as must-convince irrefutable "evidence" that, _ipso facto_, one and all are witnessing objective greatness. Fine if you personally agree; not so fine if you don't. But one's individual agreement is then seized upon as a validation of the general thesis. It is not.


True story about Wachet Auf: Many years ago, late one night, I entered the nearly empty (and enormous) main room of New York's Grand Central Terminal, with its famous vaulted ceiling and celestial mural. Far below and away on the other side, another trench coated businessman, who was just about to exit the room into one of the lower side corridors, whistled the beginning of the second part of the famous theme. I absentmindedly whistled the next few notes of that theme as soon as he finished, before realizing that due to the acoustics and emptiness of that cavernous space, I could be heard everywhere, including by him. I looked down again, and saw he had stopped and turned back, and was looking up at me, smiling and nodding.

He knew that he had come across a fellow member of a special and wonderful club. The fact that many, even most, will never belong to that club doesn't make me glad, but I accept it. I'm not about to lecture or browbeat those who don't want to join.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

chu42 said:


> I guess this is where we will have to reach an understanding.
> 
> Scientific reality-the unprovable nature of aesthetics, love, art-is sometimes incompatible with practical application.
> 
> ...


What are the facts in a piece of music? What is it you study and memorize and repeat as you play if they're not facts? They're something else?


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> What are the facts in a piece of music? What is it you study and memorize and repeat as you play if they're not facts? Thay're someting else?


I study and memorize notes. I don't study and memorize value judgments.

I might use value judgments to help me choose my repertoire, but that doesn't mean that they are scientifically provable.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

You don't study and memorize value judgments. OK, they wouldn't be much helpful, because you need repeatable facts. 

The chord progressions and the rhythms and the musical forms etc. are facts and they're out there in the physical universe AND they're chosen by the composer to attempt to reach his goals.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> You've told us that you haven't studied music. You talk like a person from that category of enthusiasts. How much creedance should we (objectivitcs) give to your completely subjective conclusions?


Up to you. I appreciate your constant flow of questions--they signify, I trust, an inquiring mind. When you have reached some conclusions about the subject at hand, and the questions have (temporarily) ceased, you might share your views with the rest of the forum. Looking forward to it.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Of course, anyone COULD deny the greatness of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner and other titans of classical music , but this person would be laughed at . 
Greatness in music is a kind of gut feeling . But of course, not every listener has exactly the same gut feelings .


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Up to you. I appreciate your constant flow of questions--they signify, I trust, an inquiring mind. When you have reached some conclusions about the subject at hand, and the questions have (temporarily) ceased, you might share your views with the rest of the forum. Looking forward to it.


It's a big subject.
My latest opinion you might be able to agree with.. it's post 131.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Just brimming with drastic personal judgments, aren't you? Is that what you came here to do?


We sometimes sound 'condescending', but considering the subject matter I think it's unavoidable..


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

chu42 said:


> I study and memorize notes. I don't study and memorize value judgments.
> 
> I might use value judgments to help me choose my repertoire, but that doesn't mean that they are scientifically provable.


Yes. Of course, anthropologists can objectively study a society's cultural values. But another society's cultural values, though they may be similar in many ways, will not be the same as ours. And you and I, as we both are interested in western classical music, likely will have musical values that are even more similar, yet still not identical. I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend.

Someone above mentioned murder. There is a very strong consensus in our and other societies that murder is wrong and should be prohibited. Yet, the consensus is not quite as strong for some other crimes, such as marijuana possession, which is now legal in several US states and Canada, and with civil (i.e., non-criminal) laws, the consensus may be weaker still. Why do criminal laws vary from country to country, and civil laws even more so? Because our cultural values are not inevitable and rigidly identical, and the further one strays from a common cultural sphere or background, the more likely one is to encounter significant differences.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> The chord progressions and the rhythms and the musical forms etc. are facts and they're out there in the physical universe AND they're chosen by the composer to attempt to reach his goals.


Exactly. But there still is no way to scientifically prove that a composer's choices are objectively good. Many people may _like_ them, and some others may dislike them. The composers we consider to be "greater" are the ones whom more people agree with.

The reason why music theory exists is because at some point, enough people decided that they liked a certain style of music and so they tried to figure out the rules in which one could follow and compose more music like it.

But science does not enter the equation at any point, which was my main idea in post #188.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> You've told us that you haven't studied music. You talk like a person from that category of enthusiasts. How much credence should we (objectivists) give to your completely subjective conclusions?


I have studied western, classical, "common practice" music, and I'd say, quite a bit.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

superhorn said:


> Of course, anyone COULD deny the greatness of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner and other titans of classical music , but this person would be laughed at .
> Greatness in music is a kind of gut feeling . But of course, not every listener has exactly the same gut feelings .


Yes, they would be laughed at in certain circles, but it does not affect reality.

Whereas someone who denied the existence of gravity would not only be laughed at, but also suffer the consequences of gravity when he jumps off a plane.

Thus the difference between subjective and objective facets of existence.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> It's a big subject.
> My latest opinion you might be able to agree with.. it's post 131.


I went back to your Post #131. I see nothing wrong in sharing with The Young our own views about what we think is good, better, and best music. As for CM being in a crisis now, maybe it is in terms of live concert performances, but we now have an immense library of archived material on CDs, YouTube, even vinyl. With a world population approaching 8 billions, and the New Stasis in the arts making every sort of music and art available to everyone everywhere (except North Korea), the crisis is both everywhere and nowhere simultaneously, so it's too soon to know how it all will turn out. I know my kind of traditional _cante flamenco_ is just about extinct, but there is now more of it available via recordings of various sorts than ever before.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The title of this thread may be intended as a tease or a provocation. "Great" is a word that designates no particular quality or quantity of anything, and "objectively great" is thus an empty formulation, however important and "philosophical" it may sound. 

We can tell many things about a piece of music by listening that lead us to evaluate it in certain ways: we can hear its overall formal plan and the ways in which its parts relate to each other and to the whole; we can hear the character and shape of its themes, and the way in which a melody is extended and shaped; we can hear its gestures and how they relate, progress and develop over time; we can hear whether its material is striking, original and memorable, both inherently and with reference to other, similar music; we can hear whether the work is rich or poor in ideas; we can hear whether expectations set up by the piece - in style, form, and expression - are carried out as the work progresses, and whether, when our expectations are frustrated or contradicted, there is a rationale for it, such that events which surprise in the moment are seen in the end as meaningful parts of an overall concept that's clear and satisfying.

All the above, and more, are things we can hear and evaluate by listening, and they are the sorts of things the composer is continuously conscious of and working on as he writes the music with the intention that we should hear and comprehend them. A composer's powers of invention, and his skill and success in carrying out the implications of his ideas, are to a very great extent audible to listeners capable of hearing them. They are actually embodied in the music; they are not mere subjective impressions or attributions made by the listener. And the normal human response to them is a positive one: approval, pleasure, admiration. Values and feelings extraneous to the musical experience inevitably color that response and often overwhelm or supplant it, and thus lead to the diversity of personal evaluations among listeners. But it's the objectively existing qualities of excellence inherent in the music, embodying audibly the specificity, clarity, richness and originality of a composer's conception along with his skill in realizing it, that lead to the much more significant agreement among listeners in according to some music special esteem.

Not all music exhibits the human creative mind functioning at the same remarkable level of invention and skill, and to ignore this fact is perverse. It's completely reasonable to use, in everyday parlance, the word "great" to refer to music which exhibits certain audible aesthetic virtues in abundance. But apparently simple debates about whether greatness is objective or subjective, as if greatness had a specific referent in reality, are empty. Much more worthwhile are questions about what is actually in music - what its sounds and forms actually mean, and why and how they mean. Music isn't just random sound to which we arbitrarily attribute meaning and value. Sorry, Mr. Cage.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Composers cna be ranked objectively in at least two ways:

1. Alphabetically
2. Chronologically

There can be no disagreement that Beethoven will always come before Haydn in a list according to #1. Also, there can be no denying that on a list according to #2 Beethoven would come after Haydn.

So this is for those arguing that there is an objective standard for ranking composers: Please make your undeniable list of composers ranked according to objective greatness.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> Composers cna be ranked objectively in at least two ways:
> 
> 1. Alphabetically
> 2. Chronologically
> ...


Has anyone argued for such a standard? I can't recall seeing that.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> Has anyone argued for such a standard? I can't recall seeing that.


Then you are describing a subjective judgment. Otherwise what is the point of insisting that music can be judged using objective criteria. Objective criteria is specific, undeniable, and easily demonstrable.

Although you and others have said that greatness in music is self-evident and with similar terms, no one has been able to demonstrate this claim. Either the judgment is based on objective data or it isn't. It cannot be kind of objective, or a lot like an objective assessment.

Anything other than a 100% objective undeniable criteria is a form of subjective judgment. But not all subjective assessments are as meaningful as others. I have used the phrase informed subjectivity to describe peers, professional communities, with members that have more knowledge and experience and whose subjective judgment carries more weight than the average man on the street.

But it is still subjective.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> Then you are describing a subjective judgment. Otherwise what is the point of insisting that music can be judged using objective criteria. Objective criteria is specific, undeniable, and easily demonstrable.
> 
> Although you and others have said that greatness in music is self-evident and with similar terms, no one has been able to demonstrate this claim. Either the judgment is based on objective data or it isn't. It cannot be kind of objective, or a lot like an objective assessment.
> 
> ...


Yes, the objective data is historical facts, musicological analysis consistently done by different academics, students, performers alike to prove that works of art are great or weak. That is why we use the words "canon", "repertoire", why students and performers practice Chopin and not many others etc. There are not subjective nor coincidental.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

ArtMusic said:


> Yes, the objective data is historical facts, musicological analysis consistently done by different academics, students, performers alike to prove that works of art are great or weak. That is why we use the words "canon", "repertoire", why students and performers practice Chopin and not many others etc. There are not subjective nor coincidental.


And all these historical judgments agree? You know Beethoven did get negative reviews.

Are all the composers included in "the canon" equally great? If they are not equally great then you ought to be able to assemble an undeniable list of great composers, starting with Bach. Or Beethoven? Or Mozart?

Ultimately some level of subjectivity will be at work. Because the historical "facts" you allude to (other than dates, places, births, deaths) are subjective judgments themselves.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> Woodduck: And the normal human response to them is a positive one: approval, pleasure, admiration."


I disagree that the normal human response to music--actual, specific music--is positive. It may be positive; it may be negative; it may be indifference. A whole lot of every kind of music is of little or no interest to virtually everyone.

Your 2nd paragraph says, essentially: "We listen to the music......"

The 3rd paragraph says, essentially: "We like what we hear if we are capable of sensing its excellence....."

The last paragraphs says: "Some music sounds better to us than others."

We have not addressed whether greatness resides within the music. Many properties do so reside, but greatness is imputed to the music by an individual listener, or group thereof.


----------



## Agamenon (Apr 22, 2019)

Music is ...: Melody + Rythm + Harmony = MUSIC. 

feelings are not contained ON music. Your feelings are your feelings. 

Put aside your feelings, and musically you can identify a Masterpiece.

If you are unable to do it, think that not everybody is gifted for this analysis. 

Regards.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> Then you are describing a subjective judgment. Otherwise what is the point of insisting that music can be judged using objective criteria. Objective criteria is specific, undeniable, and easily demonstrable.
> 
> Although you and others have said that greatness in music is self-evident and with similar terms, no one has been able to demonstrate this claim. Either the judgment is based on objective data or it isn't. It cannot be kind of objective, or a lot like an objective assessment.
> 
> ...


You said that someone proposed an objective standard for ranking composers. I still don't know what you mean by that. I don't see how citing certain criteria of artistic merit constitutes proposing such a standard. Many factors might enter into a person's ranking of composers, but why attempt it at all? It's perfectly obvious that Wagner's music is of greater distinction and importance than Meyerbeer's, and we could discuss how and why, but since all artistic judgments are contextual, and the context includes subjective preferences, a general standard for ranking art is no more meaningful than throwing around "great" as a descriptor. Better to describe real, observable things and qualities than to make fuzzy global judgments. I suggest some things in post #204.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> I disagree that the normal human response to music--actual, specific music--is positive. It may be positive; it may be negative; it may be indifference. A whole lot of every kind of music is of little or no interest to virtually everyone.
> 
> Your 2nd paragraph says, essentially: "We listen to the music......"
> 
> ...


My whole statement was:

"*A composer's powers of invention, and his skill and success in carrying out the implications of his ideas, are to a very great extent audible to listeners capable of hearing them.* They are actually embodied in the music; they are not mere subjective impressions or attributions made by the listener. And *the normal human response to them is a positive one*: approval, pleasure, admiration. *Values and feelings extraneous to the musical experience inevitably color that response and often overwhelm or supplant it, and thus lead to the diversity of personal evaluations among listeners.*"

The parts I've bolded should make clear that the subject of my statement is not specific music, but rather the audible evidences of a composer's achievement. If and when such evidence is perceived by a listener, that listener's normal human response will be positive, except when other factors intervene.

I go on to say:

"But it's the objectively existing qualities of excellence inherent in the music, embodying audibly the specificity, clarity, richness and originality of a composer's conception along with his skill in realizing it, that lead to the much more significant agreement among listeners in according to some music special esteem."

I stand by these statements, and I hope I've now made them clear to you. As to your last point, my post also expresses my opinion of "greatness" as a descriptor. We may not be in disagreement here.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Music isn't just random sound to which we arbitrarily attribute meaning and value. Sorry, Mr. Cage.


Awwwww, 10 points off for bringing up John Cage. He'd be happy that he forced you to think about what music is. And 5 points off for bringing up skill. For what is artistic skill other than the ability to most closely, most comprehensively, and most accurately down to the last subtle nuance serve the aesthetic values of the intended audience, values that were quite extensive and elaborate when it came to the refined and educated of 18th and 19th century Europe. Skills however great that did not serve those particular values would get the 18th and 19th century European composer nowhere. Do top composers and performers of traditional Indian sitar and Japanese koto music have less skill? I don't know, but I don't think the question is very interesting. I'm with you otherwise in that post.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> Awwwww, 10 points off for bringing up John Cage. He'd be happy that he forced you to think about what music is. And 5 points off for bringing up skill. For *what is artistic skill other than the ability to most closely, most comprehensively, and most accurately down to the last subtle nuance serve the aesthetic values of the intended audience*, *values that were quite extensive and elaborate when it came to the refined and educated of 18th and 19th century Europe. Skills however great that did not serve those particular values would get the 18th and 19th century European composer nowhere. Do top composers and performers of traditional Indian sitar and Japanese koto music have less skill?* I don't know, but I don't think the question is very interesting. I'm with you otherwise in that post.


I'm surprised and baffled by this. I can't see a composer's skill as audience-determined. Don't today's audiences fully appreciate the skills of composers of all periods? And why are the skills of sitar players in question? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, unless of course you're misunderstanding me. Anything is possible.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> I went back to your Post #131. I see nothing wrong in sharing with The Young our own views about what we think is good, better, and best music. As for CM being in a crisis now, maybe it is in terms of live concert performances, but we now have an immense library of archived material on CDs, YouTube, even vinyl. With a world population approaching 8 billions, and the New Stasis in the arts making every sort of music and art available to everyone everywhere (except North Korea), the crisis is both everywhere and nowhere simultaneously, so it's too soon to know how it all will turn out. I know my kind of traditional _cante flamenco_ is just about extinct, but there is now more of it available via recordings of various sorts than ever before.


In so many words, if we don't continue tell everyone that CM is great, it will continue to dwindle and fade away. The easier music will drown it out. That's a logical conclusion. Prevalent relativism even in institutions of learning, and great literature, great music etc. lose their pride of place for the requisite effort, and the money for CM (we've already seen that in schools) and with it an understanding of the great achievements. I hope you're right and I'm wrong.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fluteman said:


> I have studied western, classical, "common practice" music, and I'd say, quite a bit.


And you don't think CM is better.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> And all these historical judgments agree? You know Beethoven did get negative reviews.
> 
> Are all the composers included in "the canon" equally great? If they are not equally great then you ought to be able to assemble an undeniable list of great composers, starting with Bach. Or Beethoven? Or Mozart?
> 
> Ultimately some level of subjectivity will be at work. Because the historical "facts" you allude to (other than dates, places, births, deaths) are subjective judgments themselves.


"You know Beethoven did get negative reviews."

And you don't think they were wrong?


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

How does this concept of objective greatness square with composers falling, for want of a better term, out of favour? I'm thinking JS Bach from his death until Mendelssohn revived his work, Mahler from 1911 to 1955.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Chilham said:


> How does this concept of objective greatness square with composers falling, for want of a better term, out of favour? I'm thinking JS Bach from his death until Mendelssohn revived his work, Mahler from 1911 to 1955.


I don't think J. S. Bach was as forgotten as we sometimes think, and there were quite a few recordings of Mahler before 1955.

https://mahlerfoundation.org/mahler/discography/


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> "You know Beethoven did get negative reviews."
> 
> And you don't think they were wrong?


I was thinking of a negative review of Op. 133 - with which I agree. It is not a work I enjoy.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> You said that someone proposed an objective standard for ranking composers. I still don't know what you mean by that. I don't see how citing certain criteria of artistic merit constitutes proposing such a standard. Many factors might enter into a person's ranking of composers, but why attempt it at all?


I was extrapolating from the premise that there is objective criteria for judging music. If such criteria exists it should be an easy matter to rank composers based on the number of "great works" they've composed based on the objective data.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> I was extrapolating from the premise that there is objective criteria for judging music. If such criteria exists it should be an easy matter to rank composers based on the number of "great works" they've composed based on the objective data.


It is relatively easy to rank composers' works. I do that with academics all the time. We group them into "tiers" (like grading students with A, B, C, D, Fail etc.).


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

The ‘disappearance’ of Bach’s music or his falling into ‘disfavor’ until the ‘revival’ by Mendelssohn in 1829 is a myth, although the latter did serve to increase general interest. Johann Forkel wrote a JS Bach biography in 1802 and it is known that Bach was discussed among musicians and composers such as Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven and by music ‘intellectuals’ of the early 19th century.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Historical fact that Bach's music did not disappear. His students and sons propagated the music and in effect, made Bach's music indirectly influential. CPE was one of the most influential composers in the great second half of the 18th century. Bach's music was regularly performed in the elite aristocratic circles before reaching to Mozart.

The Romantics revived it for the consistent reason why we still love Bach's music today - that it is objectively great.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I'm surprised and baffled by this. I can't see a composer's skill as audience-determined. Don't today's audiences fully appreciate the skills of composers of all periods? And why are the skills of sitar players in question? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, unless of course you're misunderstanding me. Anything is possible.


I'm baffled by your comment too. I've studied piano, voice and flute, played in orchestras, bands and chamber music groups, and sung in choruses, and I've always understood that musical performance skills are absolutely, 100 percent audience determined. This may not be immediately obvious to beginners, but by the time you're putting on a tux and getting on stage with a famous conductor, a stage I reached as a serious student, it's pretty well drilled into you. Talking to experienced, full-time pro performers many years past their conservatory days, you learn how expert they are in what makes a positive impression on the audience and which techniques need to be perfected to achieve that. And, no audience, no money. There is no time to waste on perfecting skills that do not help make a positive impression on the audience. It's a very practical discipline.
I imagine the same thing applies to non-western musical traditions.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> Just brimming with drastic personal judgments, aren't you? Is that what you came here to do?


I didn't actually engage with you initially.

But the fact-value distinction is no respecter of persons.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> In the small pond of classical music, I will agree that Mozart is among the "great" composers. He's a big frog for sure.
> There's a lot of "great" music out there, and it seems a bit grandiose to make out like a composer of classical music from the 18th century is the be-all end-all.


Exactly. It's way too big as a genre, so it needs to be divided into separate categories. I would want to be in a forum where mostly common practice stuff is discussed. John Cage should belong in another category, "philosophical art music" or whatever you want to call it; there should be a separate forum for discussing that sort of stuff.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> I'm baffled by your comment too. I've studied piano, voice and flute, played in orchestras, bands and chamber music groups, and sung in choruses, and I've always understood that musical performance skills are absolutely, 100 percent audience determined. This may not be immediately obvious to beginners, but by the time you're putting on a tux and getting on stage with a famous conductor, a stage I reached as a serious student, it's pretty well drilled into you. Talking to experienced, full-time pro performers many years past their conservatory days, you learn how expert they are in what makes a positive impression on the audience and which techniques need to be perfected to achieve that. And, no audience, no money. There is no time to waste on perfecting skills that do not help make a positive impression on the audience. It's a very practical discipline.
> I imagine the same thing applies to non-western musical traditions.


I'm sure it's important to a performer to know how to make an impression on an audience, though in my own limited career as a performer I was too busy trying to realize the music to the best of my ability to worry about it. People seemed to enjoy me, so that was that. But I can't see how this relates to the subject of the thread or to my post that prompted your response, which had to do with the composition of music and how music's composed content is perceived.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

consuono said:


> I don't think J. S. Bach was as forgotten as we sometimes think, and there were quite a few recordings of Mahler before 1955.
> 
> https://mahlerfoundation.org/mahler/discography/


It doesn't matter. The greater value in their accomplishments doesn't depend upon whether they're in or out of favor. The scores don't change. The audiences catch up.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> I was thinking of a negative review of Op. 133 - with which I agree. It is not a work I enjoy.


That's a wild statement. Subjectivism will do it inevitably. Relativism grows from witihin itself and it's poisonous. That's what I see in this debate. 
I mean, you can't believe that LvB composed it for a listener's enjoyment.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> That's a wild statement. Subjectivism will do it inevitably. Relativism grows from witihin itself and it's poisonous. That's what I see in this debate.
> I mean, you can't believe that LvB composed it for a listener's enjoyment.


I believe he did. He composed it for those who would enjoy it, and those who didn't, well, tough.
(edit)I will amend that a little bit, though. I do think that a Bach's music and some of Beethoven's is actually a sort of prayer in which human approval means absolutely nothing; but still, especially in the case of Bach, pursuing excellence was a form of worship.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> My whole statement was:
> 
> "*A composer's powers of invention, and his skill and success in carrying out the implications of his ideas, are to a very great extent audible to listeners capable of hearing them.* They are actually embodied in the music; they are not mere subjective impressions or attributions made by the listener. And *the normal human response to them is a positive one*: approval, pleasure, admiration. *Values and feelings extraneous to the musical experience inevitably color that response and often overwhelm or supplant it, and thus lead to the diversity of personal evaluations among listeners.*"
> 
> ...


Your response to my post is to essentially repeat your post. And mine is to, perforce, repeat mine. FWIW I've made the case for my "radical" individualism that stresses the personal, subjective nature of my esthetics and the freedom it allows for like-minded individuals to enjoy the music that they will free of any compulsion--real or imagined--to somehow justify their choices. So I leave this thread with a sense of real accomplishment--the opposition alone often makes my argument by failing IMO utterly.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> That's a wild statement. Subjectivism will do it inevitably. Relativism grows from witihin itself and it's poisonous. That's what I see in this debate.
> I mean, you can't believe that LvB composed it for a listener's enjoyment.


Here's some info from Wikipedia:



> Music analysts and critics have described the Grosse Fuge as "inaccessible",[3] "eccentric",[4] "filled with paradoxes",[5] and "Armageddon".[6] "[It] stands out as the most problematic single work in Beethoven's output and ... doubtless in the entire literature of music," writes critic and musicologist Joseph Kerman of the fugue.
> 
> Some analysts and musicians see the fugue as an early assault on the diatonic tonal system that prevailed in Classical music.
> 
> After the first performance as the original finale to the op. 130 quartet in 1826, the fugue is not known to have been publicly performed again until 1853 in Paris by the Maurin Quartet.[49] One hundred years after its publication, it still had not entered the standard quartet repertoire. "The attitude of mind in which most people listen to chamber music must undergo a radical change" to understand this piece, wrote Joseph de Marliave in 1928.[50] "This fugue is one of the two works by Beethoven-the other being the fugue from the piano sonata, Op. 106-which should be excluded from performance." As late as 1947, Daniel Gregory Mason called the fugue "repellent".


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> I was extrapolating from the premise that there is objective criteria for judging music. If such criteria exists it should be an easy matter to rank composers based on the number of "great works" they've composed based on the objective data.


It would not be an easy matter at all. Art is infinitely diverse and there is no "best" or "greatest," even though there is better and worse. I have no desire to explain this, since my explanations seem to go over a number of heads and my hands are in pain from too much computer use during the isolation of Covid-19.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> Your response to my post is to essentially repeat your post. And mine is to, perforce, repeat mine. FWIW I've made the case for my "radical" individualism that stresses the personal, subjective nature of my esthetics and the freedom it allows for like-minded individuals to enjoy the music that they will free of any compulsion--real or imagined--to somehow justify their choices. So I leave this thread with a sense of real accomplishment--the opposition alone often makes my argument by failing IMO utterly.


I repeated my statements with important words emphasized because you misstated what I said and I thought a correction would be helpful. Obviously not. i believe some here will see the difference between what I said and what you're claiming I said.

Your claiming some sort of victorious "accomplishment" is utterly laughable, as well as gratuitously insulting. I make my arguments in good faith and a little respect is the least you owe me.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> Exactly. It's way too big as a genre, so it needs to be divided into separate categories. I would want to be in a forum where mostly common practice stuff is discussed. John Cage should belong in another category, "philosophical art music" or whatever you want to call it; there should be a separate forum for discussing that sort of stuff.


I agree. This will unite us more than divide us. My list *here* provided an excellent example of how one best creates genre forums, as it directly calculates the average niches of forum members. That's what people didn't grasp about the list's mathematical usefulness (as I described throughout that thread.) Names near the top of that list must be considered the highest priority to have their own forum, with *some inevitable overlap* in forums. (As you'll see in the following descriptions, *one forum is naturally listed in part description of another forum *and visa versa.)

So one way is like this:

*Early Music*
Tallis, Dufay, Josquin, Monteverdi, Machaut, nearby eras

*Classical and Baroque*
Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Haydn, Handel, nearby eras

*Neo-Classical*
Brahms, Schubert, Beethoven, Wolf, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Classical and Romanticism allowed

*Romanticism*
Wagner, Mahler, Sibelius, Program music, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Verdi, Neo-Classical and other Romanticism allowed

*Neo-Romanticism and Impressionism*
This music is all similar genre to me: Music with a tonal focus, Debussy, Weinberg, Ravel, related eras ie. Shostakovich, Film music, Korngold, Williams

*Contemporary and Avante-garde*
Messiaen, Ligeti, Experimental, Shostakovich and related eras, Challenging music, Film music

*General Classical Forum*
Discuss Classical music and its traditions, from Palestrina to Prokofiev. (or should it say from Hildegard to Hindemith?)

*General Music Forum*
Discuss any music, discuss relationships with Classical music

So if you wanted to talk about Prokofiev for instance, there are at least five forums available to you, depending on what context you want to talk about him. The *main forum* will be the most popular option still.

*If you want to talk about composers like Schubert or Beethoven*, there are about five forums you could end up going with too, depending on the context you care about.

If you wanted to talk about John Williams, the descriptions say you could even go so far to bring Neo-Romantic to the Romantic forum. Both can have similar musical structure.

Whereas if you want to talk about Tchaikovsky, you can easily sneak into the Neo-Classical forum or the Neo-Romantic forum (if you wanted to.) This multiple forum idea is what people need to open their minds to.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> ..So I leave this thread with a sense of real accomplishment--the opposition alone often makes my argument by failing IMO utterly.


And another one bites the dust. The leader of the army falling back reassures the troops that leaving the battle is, in truth, a winning position.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DaveM said:


> And another one bites the dust. The leader of the army falling back reassures the troops that leaving the battle is, in truth, a winning position.


I could wish I had said that, but I'm actually happier that someone else did.

:tiphat:


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

_Message deleted._


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

DaveM said:


> The 'disappearance' of Bach's music or his falling into 'disfavor' until the 'revival' by Mendelssohn in 1829 is a myth....





ArtMusic said:


> ... The Romantics revived it for the consistent reason why we still love Bach's music today ... .


:lol:

Okay. ....................


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I'm sure it's important to a performer to know how to make an impression on an audience, though in my own limited career as a performer I was too busy trying to realize the music to the best of my ability to worry about it. People seemed to enjoy me, so that was that. But I can't see how this relates to the subject of the thread or to my post that prompted your response, which had to do with the composition of music and how music's composed content is perceived.


This principle very much applies to the composer, if he or she is not the same person as the performer. Composers who say the audience doesn't matter (as some have according to some posters here) are either lying, kidding themselves and/or us, or referring to the traditional classical music audience when they are looking to reach someone else. Of course, at some point the creative artist has to work on the assumption that what is meaningful to him or her also will be meaningful to others, which is at least partly a leap of faith. That's why it takes courage to be artistically creative.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Chilham said:


> :lol:
> 
> Okay. ....................


This is from Wikipedia, but I've seen this referenced elsewhere:

"The Mass was described in the 19th century by the editor Hans Georg Nägeli as "The Announcement of the Greatest Musical Work of All Times and All People" ("Ankündigung des größten musikalischen Kunstwerkes aller Zeiten und Völker").[46] Even though it had never been performed, its importance was appreciated by some of Bach's greatest successors: by the beginning of the 19th century Forkel and Haydn possessed copies."

That's long before Mendelssohn.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> This is from Wikipedia, but I've seen this referenced elsewhere:
> 
> "The Mass was described in the 19th century by the editor Hans Georg Nägeli as "The Announcement of the Greatest Musical Work of All Times and All People" ("Ankündigung des größten musikalischen Kunstwerkes aller Zeiten und Völker").[46] Even though it had never been performed, its importance was appreciated by some of Bach's greatest successors: by the beginning of the 19th century Forkel and Haydn possessed copies."
> 
> That's long before Mendelssohn.


Yes, certainly Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven knew of Bach before Mendelssohn revived him.

This doesn't mean that he wasn't relatively unknown by the listening public.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> Yes, certainly Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven knew of Bach before Mendelssohn revived him.
> 
> This doesn't mean that he wasn't relatively unknown by the listening public.


What listening public are you talking about? The one in Leipzig or Vienna or Dresden or...? And what data for each do you have? Mozart is reported as hearing BWV 225 in Leipzig.

"At the instigation of Doles, the cantor of the Thomasschule in Leipzig, the choir surprised Mozart by performing the motet for double choir, 'Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied,' by the patriarch of German music, Sebastian Bach. As soon as the choir had sung a few bars, Mozart started; after a few more he exclaimed: 'What is that?' And now his whole soul seemed to be centered in his ears. When the song was ended, he cried out with delight: 'Now, here is something one can learn from!'


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

It's entirely possible for works to be regarded as great by musicians and academics while not in the repertoire. See virtually every polyphony master - when's the last time an average listener went "Boy, I should put some Palestrina on!"


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> What listening public are you talking about? The one in Leipzig or Vienna or Dresden or...? And what data for each do you have? Mozart is reported as hearing BWV 225 in Leipzig.
> 
> "At the instigation of Doles, the cantor of the Thomasschule in Leipzig, the choir surprised Mozart by performing the motet for double choir, 'Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied,' by the patriarch of German music, Sebastian Bach. As soon as the choir had sung a few bars, Mozart started; after a few more he exclaimed: 'What is that?' And now his whole soul seemed to be centered in his ears. When the song was ended, he cried out with delight: 'Now, here is something one can learn from!'


He was "surprised", and he didn't recognize it, presumably because Bach wasn't commonly performed!


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> He was "surprised", and he didn't recognize it, presumably because Bach wasn't commonly performed!


In Vienna and environs. It doesn't mean it wasn't ever performed at all.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Ethereality said:


> I agree. This will unite us more than divide us. My list *here* provided an excellent example of how one best creates genre forums, as it directly calculates the average niches of forum members. That's what people didn't grasp about the list's mathematical usefulness (as I described throughout that thread.) Names near the top of that list must be considered the highest priority to have their own forum, with *some inevitable overlap* in forums. (As you'll see in the following descriptions, *one forum is naturally listed in part description of another forum *and visa versa.)
> 
> So one way is like this:
> 
> ...


You didn't mention Chopin. He's an attractive subject whether you're interested in music history, musical development, daring harmonies, musical forms, music theory/excessive self-criticism. Also his short life and the kind pf person he became from all the influences and tragedies. CM fans think they know him, but there's been more discoveries and speculations about his attitudes. Unlike with other composers, we can follow how he improved his pieces before publication.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Ethereality said:


> I agree. This will unite us more than divide us. My list *here* provided an excellent example of how one best creates genre forums, as it directly calculates the average niches of forum members.


Actually a great idea! Now, about the implementation...


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Luchesi said:


> You didn't mention Chopin. He's an attractive subject whether you're interested in music history, musical development, daring harmonies, musical forms, music theory/excessive self-criticism. Also his short life and the kind pf person he became from all the influences and tragedies. CM fans think they know him, but there's been more discoveries and speculations about his attitudes. Unlike with other composers, we can follow how he improved his pieces before publication.


That list in the hyperlink is meticulously mechanized to find niches that people feel are inclusive to them, instead of popular or great composers (if you see the explanation.) Hence each name near the top is incredibly important to represent by finding an equal number of composers for their niche (making certain niches equally sized, much less popular, but much more representative to people.) Chopin is one of the least niche composers on this forum as he shows up in just about every list alongside any composer. Hence in my categories above he ends up being with the other Neoclassicists, but is not listed as a niche benchmark. It's very important not to add extra composers to the priority list in the hyperlink, but can add them to the later categories already formed. It's a bit of complex math.

You're right that once forum categories are created (however way one chooses, so long as they divide up the hyperlink list equally with composers near the top being in different niches) that other popular composers like Chopin should be added to the category's description.

My final categories above are just an example of how one might divide the list equally. Please don't use them because I think there is a better way to categorize these names.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Luchesi said:


> You didn't mention Chopin. He's an attractive subject whether you're interested in music history, musical development, daring harmonies, musical forms, music theory/excessive self-criticism. Also his short life and the kind pf person he became from all the influences and tragedies. CM fans think they know him, but there's been more discoveries and speculations about his attitudes. Unlike with other composers, we can follow how he improved his pieces before publication.


There is the Chopin University of Music in Poland. Obviously Chopin was a great enough composer to have a whole institution names after him in the pursuit of music in higher education.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> There is the Chopin University of Music in Poland. Obviously Chopin was a great enough composer to have a whole institution names after him in the pursuit of music in higher education.


Just like his compatriot Karol Lipinski!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Lipiński_Academy_of_Music


----------

