# A thought experiment for the objectivists



## RogerWaters

Imagine an alien race visits earth.

Luckily, this alien race has something very like human ears - human ears being one kind of sensor that responds with fine-grained causal specificity to _acoustic waves_ (a type of energy propagation through a medium by means of adiabatic compression and decompression), passing this fine-grained sensory information to auditory centres in the brain which process it, in concert with a range of emotional and cognitive centres, delivering us an 'experience' that may be pleasant or unpleasant.

_Imagine that these aliens happen to experience Bach as it would sound to us played underwater_, due to the unique nature of their neural wiring between ears and brain centres (which is in turn due to adaptation to their own unique terrestrial atmosphere). The result is a complex canvass of stimulation, but one that leaves them emotionally unmoved.

Are these creatures _wrong_ to not find Bach 'Great' to listen to?

Upshot: If they are not wrong, then the greatness of Bach cannot be objective, at least to subjectivists on this forum.

If you think the aliens are not wrong, but that the greatness of Bach is still objective, you have a different *concept *of objectivity from the subjectivists: perhaps you limit objectivity to a specific species of animal.

But would you do the same with objectivity in other domains? Do you think a mathematical or scientific proposition (1+1=2; the earth is more round than it is flat) can be true for one intelligence species and false for another (taking into considering these propositions would be expressed in different languages)?

If not (and you shouldn't), then why are you using a concept one way when it comes to art, and another way when it comes to other domains? Is this not a strange way to use language?


----------



## Fabulin

RogerWaters said:


> Is this not a strange way to use language?


Not at all. Language is context-dependent.


----------



## RogerWaters

Fabulin said:


> Not at all. Language is context-dependent.


'Do you want to get out of here' uttered in a nightclub has a different meaning from the same uttered in a lecture.

However, this is because the speaker's intention in uttering it is different in the first case than in the last. It's not because the meaning of the words has changed.

Can you provide other examples in which the meaning of a technical word like 'objectivity' differs so drastically between domains? I am doubtful this is a common occurrence.

Do you think 'truth' differs between domains? Is religious truth different from scientific truth? What about 'honesty'? Is being honest in politics something different to being honest in the home? &c.


----------



## mbhaub

Forget aliens, I know plenty of human people who don't find Bach great. Or Beethoven, Schubert, Mahler, Tchaikovsky and the whole panorama of western classical music. If human beings with the same sensory organs as the rest of us can't appreciate Great Music why in the world should we expect someone from a whole other world, where indeed acoustics are likely quite different, appreciate it? I still can't convince my granddaughters that Cardi B is NOT even good music.


----------



## Ethereality

Any sound or series of sounds can be great as long as you interpret it in its own light. The popular composers and their reknown craft and harmonies ie. The Big 3, sound defaultly _good_ to most people, and throughout time! That's definitely saying something culturally and biologically, by default. But that's not an experiment to test greatness, where you have people exploring vastly new sounds throughout their life, and analyze these shifts in patterns for at least numerous centuries to land a hypothesis. I can prove some 'odd number' is great by the fact that one person loves it; I can prove this if nobody loves it: a new perspective on art is no less valid than the mass's traditions, because that perspective can be infinitely explored without a conclusion.


----------



## ArtMusic

I'm not particularly concerned about intelligent aliens who might not enjoy Bach. Bach was a homo sapiens who wrote his legendary works for homo sapiens to be enthralled with. Likewise there are many species of animals who sing their "song" to communicate to each other in a way not originally for homo sapiens to understand.


----------



## DaveM

I don’t know what the OP accomplishes. The argument for subjectivity is an easy one. It requires no thought beyond the fact that when it comes to the evaluation of composers and their music everything is subjective. Case closed. However, to do so makes irrelevant the contribution of skill of the earlier composers and, as time passed, the innovation and the implementation of techniques and lessons learned from those who came before, resulted in works that could not have been even imagined just a few decades in the past.

Those supporting the subjectivist position post as if to think otherwise is on some level of ignorance. It’s surprising how strident the message is when the fact is that it is not the prevalent one outside this forum, where people with a long history associated with CM congregate. All these years with my own history with CM and I read with dismay people rejecting any serious use of the word ‘great’ and the premise that there are objective reasons to suggest Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are among our greatest composers.

I have no interest in caring about what aliens might think about anything. I am interested to finally find out if the Engineers created the Xenomorph XX-121 on planetoid LV-426.


----------



## Ethereality

I don't know what knowledge (ie. your buzzword 'skill') has to do with it. You can have the vast knowledge of Beethoven or Isaac Newton, it won't be able to prove you can write greater music or sounds, if the knowledge is wrong to begin with. The knowledge being wrong to _one_ person, or no person, is not a falsifiable argument. That's why science sets up parameters for its arguments, so they can be demonstrated and proven.

You can argue what's great according to your select academics and composers. Or great Classical music according to average people. That's one subjective belief to surely hold, out of infinites!


----------



## DaveM

Ethereality said:


> I don't know what knowledge (ie. your buzzword 'skill') has to do with it.


That's obvious and explains a lot.



> You can have the vast knowledge of Beethoven or Isaac Newton, it won't be able to prove you can write greater music or sounds, if the knowledge is wrong to begin with. If the knowledge is wrong to one person, or no person, it is not a falsifiable argument.


 That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Surely you can do better than that.


----------



## Ethereality

DaveM said:


> That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.


Touché.



DaveM said:


> Surely you can do better than that.


Impossible. My arguments are the greatest.  Perhaps you're the one needing to study greatness?


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> Imagine an alien race visits earth.
> 
> Luckily, this alien race has something very like human ears - human ears being one kind of sensor that responds with fine-grained causal specificity to _acoustic waves_ (a type of energy propagation through a medium by means of adiabatic compression and decompression), passing this fine-grained sensory information to auditory centres in the brain which process it, in concert with a range of emotional and cognitive centres, delivering us an 'experience' that may be pleasant or unpleasant.
> 
> _Imagine that these aliens happen to experience Bach as it would sound to us played underwater_, due to the unique nature of their neural wiring between ears and brain centres (which is in turn due to adaptation to their own unique terrestrial atmosphere). The result is a complex canvass of stimulation, but one that leaves them emotionally unmoved.
> 
> Are these creatures _wrong_ to not find Bach 'Great' to listen to?
> 
> Upshot: If they are not wrong, then the greatness of Bach cannot be objective, at least to subjectivists on this forum.


I, and I presume others, have probably been using "objective" to mean "objective as a part of the human experience" or something along those lines assuming that (perhaps unreasonably) everyone understands that this is a discussion amongst humans meant to pertain to humans.

Regardless, basing an argument on objective truth on hypothetical beings who may not even exist does not strike me as a recipe for an infallible argument.



RogerWaters said:


> If you think the aliens are not wrong, but that the greatness of Bach is still objective, you have a different *concept *of objectivity from the subjectivists: perhaps you limit objectivity to a specific species of animal.
> 
> But would you do the same with objectivity in other domains? Do you think a mathematical or scientific proposition (1+1=2; the earth is more round than it is flat) can be true for one intelligence species and false for another (taking into considering these propositions would be expressed in different languages)?
> 
> If not (and you shouldn't), then why are you using a concept one way when it comes to art, and another way when it comes to other domains? Is this not a strange way to use language?


The statement "Bach is objectively a good composer to humans" would still be true to the aliens I presume (hard to know, since, I don't know any aliens).

However, there are no obligations that other intelligent life would have the same "facts" as us. Even working in the realm of the less crazy, they could perceive a different dimensionality of spacetime than us. If you believe some more radical interpretations of quantum mechanics it might not be too out there to wonder if they don't perceive reality to be very, very differently from us in ways that could be quite incomprehensible.

Regardless, this speculation is of the completely unscientific sort best left to bored philosophers since we have no examples of non-native-to-Earth intelligent life forms.


----------



## RogerWaters

DaveM said:


> I don't know what the OP accomplishes. The argument for subjectivity is an easy one. It requires no thought beyond the fact that when it comes to the evaluation of composers and their music everything is subjective. Case closed. However, to do so makes irrelevant the contribution of skill of composers and, as time passed, the innovation and the implementation of techniques and lessons learned from those who came before, resulting in works that could not have been even imagined just a few decades in the past.
> 
> *Those supporting the subjectivist position post as if* to think otherwise is on some level of ignorance. It's surprising how strident the message is when the fact is that it is not the prevalent one outside this forum, where people with a long history associated with CM congregate. All these years with my own history with CM and I read with dismay people rejecting any serious use of the word 'great' and the premise that there are objective reasons to suggest Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are among our greatest composers.
> 
> I have no interest in caring about what aliens might think about anything. I am interested to finally find out if the Engineers created the Xenomorph XX-121 on planetoid LV-426.


You are attributing to me (in bold) intentions that I don't have.

The rest of your post is immaterial to the fact of the matter: whether musical taste is objective or subjective.

I've tried to point out a clear difference between the 'objectivity' of musical judgements, on the one hand, and mathematic and scientific judgements, on the other. The goal is to show, using a thought experiment, that the purported 'objectivity' of musical judgements is anything but.


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> I, and I presume others, have probably been using "objective" to mean "objective as a part of the human experience" or something along those lines


Ok, but then your notion of 'objectivity' is idiosyncratic, I submit.

Imagine a scientists saying "my theory is true, but only as applied to human experience!", in order to vindicate the existence of Ghosts, which seems to be a very widespread human experience despite being objectively false!



BachIsBest said:


> Regardless, this speculation is of the completely unscientific sort best left to bored philosophers since we have no examples of non-native-to-Earth intelligent life forms.


As opposed to bored non-philosophers who choose to respond to the speculation? What is your point saying something like this? Thought experiments are perfectly valid tools for probing people's concepts.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> I don't know what the OP accomplishes. The argument for subjectivity is an easy one. It requires no thought beyond the fact that when it comes to the evaluation of composers and their music everything is subjective.


Do you believe that "subjectivists" think that when evaluating music "everything is subjective"? They could agree on aspects of skill, innovation, influence, but the final assessment still requires subjective input.


----------



## RogerWaters

ArtMusic said:


> I'm not particularly concerned about intelligent aliens who might not enjoy Bach. Bach was a homo sapiens who wrote his legendary works for homo sapiens to be enthralled with.


You may have missed the point of the thought experiment, which is to probe the contents of people's concepts: in this case 'objectivity'.

I tried to show that some objectivists hold an idiosyncratic concept of objectivity.


----------



## ArtMusic

RogerWaters said:


> You've missed the point of the thought experiment, which is to probe the contents of people's concepts: in this case 'objectivity'.
> 
> I tried to show that some objectivists hold an idiosyncratic concept of objectivity.


I don't think I missed the point. I poised an equivalent situation with other species of animals on earth singing their "songs" but we don't get it because those "songs" aren't for us. What's hard to understand about that?


----------



## RogerWaters

ArtMusic said:


> I don't think I missed the point. I poised an equivalent situation with other species of animals on earth singing their "songs" but we don't get it because those "songs" aren't for us. What's hard to understand about that?


What is the ramification for my thought experiment and the conclusion I drew from it?

Perhaps _I_ missed the point!


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough

I think this is just overcomplicating things. No one thinks the greatness of any music is objective like a mathematical constant. My feeling is thst people are arguing for an objective component, that the existence of an established canon is evidence for common neurological tendencies to like certain kinds of patterns, and that the existence of these tendencies in human beings on Earth is objective.

Someone is free to prefer 8 identical notes in a row in 4/4 to the Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies. It doesn't change that the particular kind of tunefulness present in Tchaikovsky or whoever else is a real phenomenon that manifests from certain patterns, and that even a person who hates tunefulness could recognize. 

Everyone finds different kinds of people beautiful, but even a personal preference for the perfect opposite of conventional attractiveness does not prevent one from understanding the concept. The aesthetic "balance" of a typical model's features, regardless of any perceived beauty in your subjective experience, has objective roots in the brain. Music is similar in my opinion.


----------



## RogerWaters

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> I think this is just overcomplicating things. No one thinks the greatness of any music is objective like a mathematical constant. My feeling is thst people are arguing for an objective component, that the existence of an established canon is evidence for common neurological tendencies to like certain kinds of patterns, and that the existence of these tendencies in human beings on Earth is objective.
> 
> Someone is free to prefer 8 identical notes in a row in 4/4 to the Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies. It doesn't change that the particular kind of tunefulness present in Tchaikovsky or whoever else is a real phenomenon that manifests from certain patterns, and that even a person who hates tunefulness could recognize.
> 
> Everyone finds different kinds of people beautiful, but even a personal preference for the perfect opposite of conventional attractiveness does not prevent one from understanding the concept. The aesthetic "balance" of a typical model's features, regardless of any perceived beauty in your subjective experience, has objective roots in the brain. Music is similar in my opinion.


No subjectivist would disagree with this. Everyone in their right mind would accept there are 'objective' roots in the brain for any shared experience. I.e. auditory brain regions. These objectively exist. We can all stand round an operating table and look at someone's auditory brain regions.

My statement "God exists" has an objective root: it is enabled by really-existing parts of my brain. But this doesn't make the statement itself an objective truth!



Clairvoyance Enough said:


> No one thinks the greatness of any music is objective like a mathematical constant


Right. So they think music is great in an _objective*_ sense, where _objective*_ is not at all like _objective _in other domains. It was precisely the point of my OP to (try to) illustrate this.


----------



## Ethereality

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> The aesthetic "balance" of a typical model's features, regardless of any perceived beauty in your subjective experience, has objective roots in the brain. Music is similar in my opinion.


Right, but you're paraphrasing what everyone already said. Human instinct is not quite the topic of dicussion, especially when those of experience, a null word, mostly gravitate lazily as they age, let alone by their initial instinctual bias, be that variant from one to the next. Definitely not my standard of objectivity, and I think everyone is entitled to rationally hold their own. One doesn't hurt anyone by passively appreciating art in a sensible way to them.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> Do you believe that "subjectivists" think that when evaluating music "everything is subjective"? They could agree on aspects of skill, innovation, influence, but the final assessment still requires subjective input.


I have not read one post from those pushing the subjectivist message that allows for anything else. Maybe I've missed it; please point one out. And note the post above that within minutes of my posting rejected skill as nothing but a 'buzzword'. I have been flexible on the subject insofar as I allow for subjectivity. I do not hear any of that flexibility from the other side. Who are those posters on the subjectivist side you suggest exist who allow for even a modicum of objectivity?


----------



## RogerWaters

DaveM said:


> I have not read one post from those pushing the subjectivist message that allows for anything else. Maybe I've missed it; please point one out. And note the post above that within minutes of my posting rejected skill as nothing but a 'buzzword'. I have been flexible on the subject insofar as I allow for subjectivity. I do not hear any of that flexibility from the other side. Who are the posters who allow for even a modicum of objectivity?


You have to give reasons for there being this objectivity, before you expect posters to accept it.

I provided a thought experiment suggesting there is no objectivity tied to judgements of 'greatness', in the sense of the term 'objective' as applied more generally to a range of domains. Was I right or wrong?


----------



## Ethereality

DaveM said:


> Who are those posters on the subjectivist side you suggest exist who allow for even a modicum of objectivity?


Unless you refer to the objective facts resulting from polling famous composers, then not me. Any notion that similarly-minded artistic and instinctual knowledge is infallible, is an illusory concept. Same for the opposite. Science deals in the objectivity of contextual parameters, "Bach and Beethoven are critically acclaimed." Practical for people getting into music, but nothing to do with any final or thorough say. I can analyze other perspectives all day without an objective law being concluded one way or the other.


----------



## DaveM

RogerWaters said:


> You have to give reasons for there being this objectivity, before you expect posters to accept it.
> 
> I provided a thought experiment suggesting there is no objectivity tied to judgements of 'greatness', in the sense of the term 'objective' as applied more generally to a range of domains. Was I right or wrong?


Are you speaking for posters now? Do you think I haven't given reasons up the ying-yang already. This is a repeated response of those who haven't been paying attention. And aren't you the one who suggested some intellectual limitation on my part not long ago? And I should take your thought experience above seriously?


----------



## DaveM

Ethereality said:


> I analyze other perspectives all day without an objective law being concluded one way or the other.


 I'm sure you do alone in the quiet of your room.


----------



## chu42

ArtMusic said:


> I'm not particularly concerned about intelligent aliens who might not enjoy Bach. Bach was a homo sapiens who wrote his legendary works for homo sapiens to be enthralled with. Likewise there are many species of animals who sing their "song" to communicate to each other in a way not originally for homo sapiens to understand.





ArtMusic said:


> I don't think I missed the point. I poised an equivalent situation with other species of animals on earth singing their "songs" but we don't get it because those "songs" aren't for us. What's hard to understand about that?


So would you say a whale song is objectively good or bad?

If we can't understand or judge it, thus exists "songs" that cannot be objectively judged, and thus there is no objective standard for music.


----------



## ArtMusic

mmsbls said:


> Do you believe that "subjectivists" think that when evaluating music "everything is subjective"? They could agree on aspects of skill, innovation, influence, but the final assessment still requires subjective input.


While you might think the final assessment requires subjective input, this final step was arrived at after the previous steps on aspects of skill, innovation etc. as you wrote, all of which is practically objective. This is the crux.


----------



## ArtMusic

ArtMusic said:


> I'm not particularly concerned about intelligent aliens who might not enjoy Bach. Bach was a homo sapiens who wrote his legendary works for homo sapiens to be enthralled with. Likewise there are many species of animals who sing their "song" to communicate to each other in a way not originally for homo sapiens to understand.


Further to the above, a good example is that of the American Woodpecker (many of that genre) who not just burrow into the trunk of the trees but also use the knocking of the wood as a means of communication. Needless to say, this is not a bird song and certainly not intended for homo sapiens. You might think the American Woodpecker is using the tree trunk as a musical instrument in a way not understandable to homo sapiens.


----------



## Zhdanov

RogerWaters said:


> Imagine an alien race visits earth.


imagine they were the very same ones who once gave us the very technology of music we now call as classical.


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> Ok, but then your notion of 'objectivity' is idiosyncratic, I submit.
> 
> Imagine a scientists saying "my theory is true, but only as applied to human experience!", in order to vindicate the existence of Ghosts, which seems to be a very widespread human experience despite being objectively false!


I mean, quantum mechanics literally has an axiom that says "when an experimenter (presumably human) makes an observation blah happens". This created a mass of controversy at the time as formulating the laws of physics in terms of humans seems a bit weird (as you mention). However, it's widely accepted today because it works, there are no alternatives that work as well, and ultimately physicists accepted that they are concerned with reproducible experiments rather than "truth independent of human experience" which falls outside reproducible experiments presuming the experimenter who is experiencing the experiment is human.

Oddly enough, on the topic of ghosts and quantum mechanics, there is a theorem in quantum field theory called the "no ghosts theorem" (not actually related to spooky ghosts). I personally don't believe in ghosts and think that people who experience them are likely mistaking. If there were actually ghosts, I would think that we could find conditions that would reliably allow us to produce evidence of their existence. Regardless, basing truth on human experience (which everyone does anyway whether they admit it or not) does not mean everything that is a part of human experience is true.



RogerWaters said:


> As opposed to bored non-philosophers who choose to respond to the speculation? What is your point saying something like this? Thought experiments are perfectly valid tools for probing people's concepts.


I responded primarily to your non-alien speculation and yes, I was sorta bored when I did so and am not a philosopher. Thought experiments can be useful, but they should be about scenarios that are experimentally challenging or impossible to create, but still physically possible in a sense. A thought experiment requiring specific alien visitations may be entirely impossible if no such aliens exist. We're still not exactly sure how life emerged and the conditions required, so it is virtually impossible to even assign a good probability on the existence of such aliens.


----------



## RogerWaters

DaveM said:


> Are you speaking for posters now? Do you think I haven't given reasons up the ying-yang already. This is a repeated response of those who haven't been paying attention. And aren't you the one who suggested some intellectual limitation on my part not long ago? And I should take your thought experience above seriously?


You are still not addressing the issue in the OP, which challenged objectivists to clarify their concept of 'objectivity'.

If the aliens are not wrong in not considering Bach great, then how can musical judgement be objective in anything like the sense other judgements are objective?

If you think musical judgements are objective in a different sense of other judgements, then why are you not using language idiosyncratically?


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> I mean, quantum mechanics literally has an axiom that says "when an experimenter (presumably human) makes an observation blah happens". This created a mass of controversy at the time as formulating the laws of physics in terms of humans seems a bit weird (as you mention). However, it's widely accepted today because it works, there are no alternatives that work as well, and ultimately physicists accepted that they are concerned with reproducible experiments rather than "truth independent of human experience" which falls outside reproducible experiments presuming the experimenter who is experiencing the experiment is human.
> 
> Oddly enough, on the topic of ghosts and quantum mechanics, there is a theorem in quantum field theory called the "no ghosts theorem" (not actually related to spooky ghosts). I personally don't believe in ghosts and think that people who experience them are likely mistaking. If there were actually ghosts, I would think that we could find conditions that would reliably allow us to produce evidence of their existence. Regardless, basing truth on human experience (which everyone does anyway whether they admit it or not) does not mean everything that is a part of human experience is true.
> 
> I responded primarily to your non-alien speculation and yes, I was sorta bored when I did so and am not a philosopher. Thought experiments can be useful, but they should be about scenarios that are experimentally challenging or impossible to create, but still physically possible in a sense. A thought experiment requiring specific alien visitations may be entirely impossible if no such aliens exist. We're still not exactly sure how life emerged and the conditions required, so it is virtually impossible to even assign a good probability on the existence of such aliens.


A thought about aliens listening to Bach is entirely possible and entirely conceivable: hence, a fine test of our concepts. There is nothing wrong with scenarios that don't exist being the basis of thought experiments in philosophy (the famous trolley experiment in ethics, is but one example). They just can't be incoherent (i.e. logically impossible).


----------



## RogerWaters

ArtMusic said:


> Further to the above, a good example is that of the American Woodpecker (many of that genre) who not just burrow into the trunk of the trees but also use the knocking of the wood as a means of communication. Needless to say, this is not a bird song and certainly not intended for homo sapiens. You might think the American Woodpecker is using the tree trunk as a musical instrument in a way not understandable to homo sapiens.


You are yet to connect your line of thinking with the OP, as far as I can tell.


----------



## BachIsBest

Look, googling it subjective means "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions" whereas objective means "not based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions". I don't know why it is such a crazy thing to point out there seem to be components of music that can be evaluated independently of one's "personal feelings, tastes, or opinions" including, to some degree, components of musical quality.

Nobody is arguing that music evaluation is not partly subjective, but the extraordinary level of consensus among people who devote their lives to music on what constitutes the crème de la crème in music surely is at least evidence for the existence of components, within the music, that is not dependent upon their "personal feelings, tastes, or opinions".

Anyway, I'm going to read Dickens. Why, I don't know. To many, I'm sure he is less eloquent than the lexically lucid and ever-so-gracefully-worded Donald Trump in their entirely subjective evaluation of writing.


----------



## Zhdanov

RogerWaters said:


> If the aliens are not wrong in not considering Bach great,


why on earth consider aliens to be stupid and uninformed beforehand?


----------



## Woodduck

mmsbls said:


> Do you believe that "subjectivists" think that when evaluating music "everything is subjective"? They could agree on aspects of skill, innovation, influence, but the final assessment still requires subjective input.


What is the nature of the "agreement" on aspects of skill, innovation, influence, etc.? If there is such agreement, these things appear not to be considered indicators of quality for many "subjectivists." If they were, it couldn't rationally be asserted that no music is better than any other. It doesn't take much musical knowledge for many of us to be able to hear that some works and composers exhibit creative powers superior to those exhibited by other works and composers. Works may be conspicuously richer in ideas, more original, more ambitious, and more impressive in their compositional skills (melodic freshness and memorability, virtuosic handling of harmony or counterpoint, sonorous orchestration suiting the material, well-judged proportions, unity and variety, consistency of purpose, etc.). Are (some) "subjectivists unable to perceive such points of superiority, or do they think that superior artistic abilities embodied and audible in a work don't equate, all else being equal, to superior music?

Either superior creativity and skill is far harder to detect than I think it is, or "subjectivists" are so committed to their quantitative, materialist, Cartesian epistemology that they cannot concede that any of these things have real - i.e. objective - existence, can really be heard, or can, for whatever reason, be considered important in judging music.

Every artist knows better, but few here seem interested in hearing from us.


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> A thought about aliens listening to Bach is entirely possible and entirely conceivable: hence, a fine test of our concepts. There is nothing wrong with scenarios that don't exist being the basis of thought experiments in philosophy (the famous trolley experiment in ethics, is but one example). They just can't be incoherent (i.e. logically impossible).


I'm afraid I must agree with those who don't find your experiment valid. Music is a human phenomenon. It's an expression of human nature, grounded in very deep and complex ways - ways which we can understand intuitively to a considerable extent, and which science can explore - in the structures and functions of the human brain and body. These groundings are objectively existing realities - a triple redundancy, but it seems one must resort to such formoulations to get the point across here in this hothouse of dedicated subjectivism. If aliens could perceive our music well enough to understand it, they would have to be human.


----------



## annaw

There's a branch of science called neuroaesthetics. I would suggest that anyone interested in the objectivity/subjectivity debate should look into it, because the universality of perception (and the lack of it) is one of the areas neuroaesthetics deals with and they do so scientifically.


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> I'm afraid I must agree with those who don't find your experiment valid. Music is a human phenomenon. It's an expression of human nature, grounded in very deep and complex ways - ways which we can understand intuitively to a considerable extent, and which science can explore - in the structures and functions of the human brain and body. *These groundings are objectively existing realities* - a triple redundancy, but it seems one must resort to such formulations to get the point across here in this hothouse of dedicated subjectivism. If aliens could understand our music well enough to understand it, they would have to be human.


But this says nothing about the objectivity or not of judgements of musical greatness.

All it amounts to is the relatively unremarkable point, with all due respect, that the brain areas _causing _people to proclaim certain music objectively great over other music are objectively real.

Beginning from your described 'groundings' of shared experience to the conclusion that the content of these shared experiences is true is like saying: "there are brain areas that, when damaged in a very particular way, produce the experience of angels descending from the top to the bottom on one's visual field. Look! I've proved angels are objectively real!"


----------



## science

annaw said:


> There's a branch of science called neuroaesthetics. I would suggest that anyone interested in the objectivity/subjectivity debate should look into it, because the universality of perception (and the lack of it) is one of the areas neuroaesthetics deals with and they do so scientifically.


It's very interesting -- but it's important to remember that 9 billion subjective judgments do not equal objectivity. It only tells us what kind of brains we have.


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> But this says nothing about the objectivity or not of judgements of musical greatness.


There are differing usages of the word "objective." We say we are objective about something when our perceptions correspond to reality and are not biased and distorted by emotions and prejudices. The narrower definition you use seems to carry with it an implication that the only things we can be objective about are logical propositions or things to which we can apply some kind of quantitative measurement (length, weight, duration, brightness, etc.). This pretty much confines "objectivity" to physical nature and statements about it; psychological phenomena - perception, thought, feeling, intuition, aesthetics - would all be subjective, and statements about them would have less truth value than statements about tangible, measurable things. Does this sound right?

i don't think music can be judged good or bad, by either hiumans or aliens, by a concept of objectivity that takes only the material and quantitative into account. Music consists of sounds, and those have meaning and value, even in their quantitative aspects, only in relation to human psychology and physiology. We have to decide whether that relationship can be considered to have objective components - objective in that their nature is determined by the actual structure of the human organism and perceivable, in some part, undistorted by emotions and prejudices. Aliens could not determine this, and music would therefore be meaningless sound to them, or have a meaning determined by the structure of their own beings rather than ours.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> It doesn't take much musical knowledge for many of us to be able to hear that some works and composers exhibit creative powers superior to those exhibited by other works and composers. Works may be conspicuously richer in ideas, more original, more ambitious, and more impressive in their compositional skills (melodic freshness and memorability, virtuosic handling of harmony or counterpoint, sonorous orchestration suiting the material, well-judged proportions, unity and variety, consistency of purpose, etc.).


Even when such things can be described objectively, valuing them and judging how strongly to weigh them against each other are purely subjective.

Any amount of objective description of a work of art is possible. But the moment someone says, thinks, or feels anything like, "This is good," or, "This is bad," it's a subjective judgment. It might be one that they share with the rest of humanity or even other kinds of minds. It might be based on a lifetime of intense engagement with the tradition. It might be based on extremely nuanced awareness that most of us cannot achieve. But despite all that, it is, by definition, subjective.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> There are differing usages of the word "objective." We say we are objective about something when our perceptions correspond to reality and are not biased and distorted by emotions and prejudices. The narrower definition you use seems to carry with it an implication that the only things we can be objective about are logical propositions or things to which we can apply some kind of quantitative measurement (length, weight, duration, brightness, etc.). This pretty much confines "objectivity" to physical nature and statements about it; psychological phenomena - perception, thought, feeling, intuition, aesthetics - would all be subjective, and statements about them would have less truth value than statements about tangible, measurable things. Does this sound right?


That's pretty much the actual definition of objective and subjective.

Except the "less truth" part. That's just something weird. If I think peaty Scotch is lovely, and you think it's not, neither one of us is right or wrong. Neither of our judgements are "true" or not.

Of course a community of people who share some values can discuss how good things are in terms of their values. But that's not objectivity. And when that community uses their shared values as a reason to look down on people who do not share those values, that's basically a form of Social Darwinism.

But we all know these things. I'm surprised they even need to be stated.


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> But this says nothing about the objectivity or not of judgements of musical greatness.


How did we get to "greatness" from what I said?



> All it amounts to is the relatively unremarkable point, with all due respect, that the brain areas _causing _people to proclaim certain music objectively great over other music are objectively real.
> 
> Beginning from your described 'groundings' of shared experience to the conclusion that the content of these shared experiences is true is like saying: "there are brain areas that, when damaged in a very particular way, produce the experience of angels descending from the top to the bottom on one's visual field. Look! I've proved angels are objectively real!"


I don't think so. What it really implies is that there are objectively existing neurological, psycho-physical reasons why certain musical sounds produce certain effects and elicit certain value judgments _*and not others.*_ Not, for example, visions of angels! Visions of angels may occur to some people under any circumstances and have nothing to do with music.


----------



## science

RogerWaters said:


> Imagine an alien race visits earth.
> 
> Luckily, this alien race has something very like human ears - human ears being one kind of sensor that responds with fine-grained causal specificity to _acoustic waves_ (a type of energy propagation through a medium by means of adiabatic compression and decompression), passing this fine-grained sensory information to auditory centres in the brain which process it, in concert with a range of emotional and cognitive centres, delivering us an 'experience' that may be pleasant or unpleasant.
> 
> _Imagine that these aliens happen to experience Bach as it would sound to us played underwater_, due to the unique nature of their neural wiring between ears and brain centres (which is in turn due to adaptation to their own unique terrestrial atmosphere). The result is a complex canvass of stimulation, but one that leaves them emotionally unmoved.
> 
> Are these creatures _wrong_ to not find Bach 'Great' to listen to?
> 
> Upshot: If they are not wrong, then the greatness of Bach cannot be objective, at least to subjectivists on this forum.
> 
> If you think the aliens are not wrong, but that the greatness of Bach is still objective, you have a different *concept *of objectivity from the subjectivists: perhaps you limit objectivity to a specific species of animal.
> 
> But would you do the same with objectivity in other domains? Do you think a mathematical or scientific proposition (1+1=2; the earth is more round than it is flat) can be true for one intelligence species and false for another (taking into considering these propositions would be expressed in different languages)?
> 
> If not (and you shouldn't), then why are you using a concept one way when it comes to art, and another way when it comes to other domains? Is this not a strange way to use language?


This is a perfect thought experiment, and we don't even need aliens.

Those of you who have pets -- can you tell what music they like better?

We can go in the other direction as well. Apparently in some species of birds, the females discriminate among the males according to their songs. If we listen to the males of those species singing, will we feel more attracted to one of them?


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> There are differing usages of the word "objective." We say we are objective about something when our perceptions correspond to reality and are not biased and distorted by emotions and prejudices. The narrower definition you use seems to carry with it an implication that the only things we can be objective about are logical propositions or things to which we can apply some kind of quantitative measurement (length, weight, duration, brightness, etc.). This pretty much confines "objectivity" to physical nature and statements about it; psychological phenomena - perception, thought, feeling, intuition, aesthetics - would all be subjective, and statements about them would have less truth value than statements about tangible, measurable things. Does this sound right?
> 
> i don't think music can be judged good or bad, by either hiumans or aliens, by a concept of objectivity that takes only the material and quantitative into account. Music consists of sounds, and those have meaning and value, even in their quantitative aspects, only in relation to human psychology and physiology. We have to decide whether that relationship can be considered to have objective components - objective in that their nature is determined by the actual structure of the human organism and perceivable, in some part, undistorted by emotions and prejudices. Aliens could not determine this, and music would therefore be meaningless sound to them, or have a meaning determined by the structure of their own beings rather than ours.


I agree with your first definition, actually:

_We say we are objective about something when our perceptions correspond to reality and are not biased and distorted by emotions and prejudices_

The problem for aesthetics is that there is no 'reality' that decides, separate from human wants, what is Great and what is Ordinary. Compare to more objective claims like 1+1=2 or the earth orbits the sun. The 'truth-makers' for these claims are not human preferences. What makes them true is mind-independent reality. The truth makers for aesthetic claims are human preferences, shaped by similar neural structures. What we prefer makes no difference to mathematical truth, nor scientific truth. What we prefer provides ALL the content of aesthetic claims, when you really get down to it!


----------



## science

DaveM said:


> Those supporting the subjectivist position post as if to think otherwise is on some level of ignorance. It's surprising how strident the message is when the fact is that it is not the prevalent one outside this forum, where people with a long history associated with CM congregate. All these years with my own history with CM and I read with dismay people rejecting any serious use of the word 'great' and the premise that there are objective reasons to suggest Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are among our greatest composers.


I really don't think this is right. Outside of this forum, people seem to agree and happily accept that musical taste is subjective, and they react critically just about the first moment they suspect that anyone looks down on someone for their taste. They realize that's just pretentious BS.

Of course "outside of this forum" for me is the American working class. Those of you who are more middle class and upper class may actually be accustomed to people using (professed) taste in music as a measurement of someone's social worth. We might actually know completely different people.


----------



## Portamento

Woodduck said:


> What is the nature of the "agreement" on aspects of skill, innovation, influence, etc.? If there is such agreement, these things appear not to be considered indicators of quality for many "subjectivists." If they were, it couldn't rationally be asserted that no music is better than any other. It doesn't take much musical knowledge for many of us to be able to hear that some works and composers exhibit creative powers superior to those exhibited by other works and composers. Works may be conspicuously richer in ideas, more original, more ambitious, and more impressive in their compositional skills (melodic freshness and memorability, virtuosic handling of harmony or counterpoint, sonorous orchestration suiting the material, well-judged proportions, unity and variety, consistency of purpose, etc.). Are (some) "subjectivists unable to perceive such points of superiority, or do they think that superior artistic abilities embodied and audible in a work don't equate, all else being equal, to superior music?
> 
> Either superior creativity and skill is far harder to detect than I think it is, or "subjectivists" are so committed to their quantitative, materialist, Cartesian epistemology that they cannot concede that any of these things have real - i.e. objective - existence, can really be heard, or can, for whatever reason, be considered important in judging music.
> 
> Every artist knows better, but few here seem interested in hearing from us.


I have posted previously on the existence of factors such as originality and influence. But you're right - I tend to take these as an indicator of _value_, not objective quality. If a listener is judging a piece of music to be good _as music_, what usually gets cited is what Jerrold Levinson calls "low-level criteria" - an attractive melody, rhythm, timbre, nature of expression, inventive harmony, intelligible musical form, and so on. You cite them as well. Such criteria, I would argue, are not especially relevant to judging music as music due to how general they are. Webern's Symphony doesn't have attractive melodies, Satie's First Gymnopédie doesn't have much rhythmic interest, Bach's keyboard works don't have a wide array of timbres, and Nancarrow's piano player studies aren't thought of as emotionally expressive; yet, all these things can be thought of as "good." Thus, the reasoning for judging music to be good as music should have to do with the intrinsic value of experiencing the work with some sort of understanding (be it cultural context, technical analysis, or retrospective contemplation). It's the difference between saying "I like how it sounds" and "I like how it _goes_": the second statement locates the music's artistic value in - shamelessly ripping off Levinson here - "the satisfaction of apprehending and responding to music's expressive aspect."

At the end of the day, judgements of artistic value will never be nearly as objective as originality- or influence-value. I think we can be much more confident in stating that Schoenberg's Three Piano Pieces has been more influential than, say, Korngold's F-sharp major Symphony; thus, Schoenberg's piece is - at least in one aspect - of more value than Korngold's. However, I do not conflate value with quality/goodness. Schoenberg's Three Pieces is not objectively better as music than Korngold's Symphony, which is a statement I think many here on TC would agree with.

Final point - so far I've been discussing evaluating music _as music_ (or an aesthetic object), but music can be so many other things. If we're discussing music _as something to play when guests arrive_, to use a recent example, I can see the argument being made that Korngold's Symphony is better than Schoenberg's Three Pieces. But once again, that doesn't mean it is objectively better; for a piece of music to be "objectively better" than another, it needs to be better for all the things music can be.


----------



## science

BachIsBest said:


> I, and I presume others, have probably been using "objective" to mean "objective as a part of the human experience" or something along those lines...


And I've been using "green" to mean "red." How could I possibly be misunderstood?


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> A thought about aliens listening to Bach is entirely possible and entirely conceivable: hence, a fine test of our concepts. There is nothing wrong with scenarios that don't exist being the basis of thought experiments in philosophy (the famous trolley experiment in ethics, is but one example). They just can't be incoherent (i.e. logically impossible).


I mean, the trolly experiment could be done; it just would be highly unethical so we don't do it. We don't know anything about whether or not your thought experiment could conceivably even exist.

However, I think those in the "objectivist" camp have made it clear when discussing objectivity in music that they are using it to mean "objectively true to human beings" and not (shocking - I know) "objectively true to hypothetical alien species that probably don't exist" where "objective" is taken to mean the regular dictionary definition one gets by googling it, clicking on the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and reading the first definition (first indicating the most common usage): "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations". Why all this doesn't go without saying, I have no idea.


----------



## Zhdanov

science said:


> If I think peaty Scotch is lovely, and you think it's not,


how about comparing whiskey and water, not whiskey and another strong liquor? Mozart and Beethoven - hard to tell who is greater, for example; but we sure know that classical is music, and mass culture stuff is not.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> Even when such things can be described objectively, valuing them and judging how strongly to weigh them against each other are purely subjective.


Why is the possibility that anyone may like or dislike just anything at all an interesting or useful fact? isn't it more interesting, enlightening and worthwhile to figure out why human beings tend to evaluate certain things in certain ways, why things can reasonably be characterized in some ways and not others, why certain aesthetic choices which artists make are perceived as successful and others unsuccessful, etc.?



> Any amount of objective description of a work of art is possible. But the moment someone says, thinks, or feels anything like, "This is good," or, "This is bad," it's a subjective judgment.


Not necessarily. We can often tell with absolute certainty whether an artist really knows what he's doing, in any number of respects. When it's clear that he does know and has carried out his intentions well, we can say, with objective certainty, that his work is good. The idea that we can't "objectively" pronounce the work of Vermeer superb and just short of miraculous, and that of Aunt Edna sloppy, crude and amateurish, is silly.


----------



## BachIsBest

science said:


> And I've been using "green" to mean "red." How could I possibly be misunderstood?


I dared, in a discussion between human beings, about a human endeavour, to use words to mean what they mean, but pertaining specifically to humans and not hypothetical alien beings that probably don't exist. But this is exactly the same as calling "green" "red".


----------



## science

Zhdanov said:


> how about comparing whiskey and water, not whiskey and another strong liquor? Mozart and Beethoven - hard to tell who is greater, for example; but we sure know that classical is music, and mass culture stuff is not.


If this is what you need to see yourself as better than the masses, there is no way you'll reason beyond it.

At least you're being more or less straightforward about it, though. I'll give you credit for that.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> Why is the possibility that anyone may like or dislike just anything at all an interesting or useful fact? isn't it more interesting, enlightening and worthwhile to figure out why human beings tend to evaluate certain things in certain ways, why things can reasonably be characterized in some ways and not others, why certain aesthetic choices which artists make are perceived as successful and others unsuccessful, etc.?
> 
> Not necessarily. We can often tell with absolute certainty whether an artist really knows what he's doing, in any number of respects. When it's clear that he does know and has carried out his intentions well, we can say, with objective certainty, that his work is good. The idea that we can't "objectively" pronounce the work of Vermeer superb and just short of miraculous, and that of Aunt Edna sloppy, crude and amateurish, is silly.


Maybe we can say that "he knew and carried out his intentions well" is an objective truth, but we can only say that his work is good when we say "knowing what you're doing and carrying out your intentions well is good."


----------



## Portamento

Woodduck said:


> The idea that we can't "objectively" pronounce the work of Vermeer superb and just short of miraculous, and that of Aunt Edna sloppy, crude and amateurish, is silly.


It's possible to "objectively" pronounce Vermeer's paintings better _as paintings_, but not without that qualification.


----------



## Zhdanov

science said:


> If this is what you need to see yourself as better than the masses,


the masses have always been wrong, they are ignorant fools.


----------



## science

BachIsBest said:


> I dared, in a discussion between human beings, about a human endeavour, to use words to mean what they mean, but pertaining specifically to humans and not hypothetical alien beings that probably don't exist. But this is exactly the same as calling "green" "red".


Um, yeah. Because as you know but apparently refuse to acknowledge, the point of the thought experiment is to illustrate something about human beings.

There are humans whose subjective judgments (i.e. about a work of music) disagree with yours. They're not objectively wrong - and pretending that they are is a transparent strategy to denigrate them and elevate yourself. But hey, if "green is red" is the thing that is going to make you feel superior to other people, you're not going to change your mind.


----------



## science

Zhdanov said:


> the masses have always been wrong, they are ignorant fools.


They await your enlightenment, o great sage.


----------



## Portamento

Zhdanov said:


> the masses have always been wrong, they are ignorant fools.


Zhdanov, you are like the grim reaper of TC threads. Whenever you show up, the threads seem to mysteriously close within a few days. I wish I had that power.


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> I agree with your first definition, actually:
> 
> _We say we are objective about something when our perceptions correspond to reality and are not biased and distorted by emotions and prejudices_
> 
> The problem for aesthetics is that there is no 'reality' that decides, separate from human wants, what is Great and what is Ordinary. Compare to more objective claims like 1+1=2 or the earth orbits the sun. The 'truth-makers' for these claims are not human preferences. What makes them true is mind-independent reality. The truth makers for aesthetic claims are human preferences, shaped by similar neural structures. *What we prefer makes no difference to mathematical truth, nor scientific truth. What we prefer provides ALL the content of aesthetic claims, when you really get down to it!*


I don't agree that claims of artistic quality are necessarily matters of preference. I like some Strauss waltzes much more than Stravinsky's violin concerto, but I don't consider them better works of art, or Strauss a better composer. For that matter I enjoy some simple and rather unremarkable folk music more than many works of classical music which I recognize as achievemnts of unusual distinction, and I'm content to know that these works receive their due appreciation from other listeners. There is no reason for taste and judgment of excellence to coincide.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> Maybe we can say that "he knew and carried out his intentions well" is an objective truth, but we can only say that his work is good when we say "knowing what you're doing and carrying out your intentions well is good."


In what universe is incompetence good?


----------



## science

Portamento said:


> It's possible to "objectively" pronounce Vermeer's paintings better _as paintings_, but not without that qualification.


Right. "Given that we value certain things," Vermeer's paintings are better (to them that share those values).


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> In what universe is incompetence good?


What difference does it make?

The fact-value distinction is true in every universe that has any sentient beings capable of valuing something.


----------



## Woodduck

Portamento said:


> It's possible to "objectively" pronounce Vermeer's paintings better _as paintings_, but not without that qualification.


Well, they ARE paintings. What else would one pronounce them better as?


----------



## Portamento

Woodduck said:


> I don't agree that claims of artistic quality are necessarily matters of preference. I like some Strauss waltzes much more than Stravinsky's violin concerto, but I don't consider them better works of art, or Strauss a better composer. For that matter I enjoy some simple and rather unremarkable folk music more than many works of classical music which I recognize as achievemnts of unusual distinction, and I'm content to know that these works receive their due appreciation from other listeners. There is no reason for taste and judgment of excellence to coincide.


Makes sense. I think many people have a conception of an ideal critic and seek to modify their own aesthetic taste accordingly, but at some point one's own personality wins out and "perfection" loses.


----------



## Zhdanov

science said:


> They await your enlightenment,


er, not really... better leave them as they are, to their own devices...


----------



## science

Portamento said:


> Zhdanov, you are like the grim reaper of TC threads. Whenever you show up, the threads seem to mysteriously close within a few days. I wish I had that power.


In this case, he's merely being a little more straightforward about his attitudes than our other esteemed interlocutors.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> What difference does it make?
> 
> The fact-value distinction is true in every universe that has any sentient beings capable of valuing something.


You said, "we can only say that his work is good when we say 'knowing what you're doing and carrying out your intentions well is good.'"

Well, since in THIS universe competence is, as far as I know, always considered better than incompetence, it must follow that we can call Vermeer's work good.

We can't evaluate statements about reality by suggesting unreal hypotheticals as possible exceptions.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> You said, "we can only say that his work is good when we say 'knowing what you're doing and carrying out your intentions well is good.'"
> 
> Well, since in THIS universe competence is, as far as I know, always considered better than incompetence, it must follow that we can call Vermeer's work is good.
> 
> We can't evaluate statements about reality by suggesting unreal hypotheticals as possible exceptions.


"... competence is, as far as I know, always considered better than incompetence..."

Even were it so, 9 billion subjective judgements do not constitute an objective judgment.


----------



## Portamento

Woodduck said:


> Well, they ARE paintings. What else would one pronounce them better as?


Here's a silly but illustrative example from Donald Crawford:

"A pyromaniac may develop a fondness for objects in proportion to their combustibility, and he may like a particular painting because it is highly combustible. But except in _very_ peculiar cases he cannot be said nor can he legitimately claim to like the painting _as a painting_ because it is highly combustible, because combustibility is not relevant to its being a painting and thus is not a relevant reason for liking it as a painting."


----------



## Woodduck

annaw said:


> There's a branch of science called neuroaesthetics. I would suggest that anyone interested in the objectivity/subjectivity debate should look into it, because the universality of perception (and the lack of it) is one of the areas neuroaesthetics deals with and they do so scientifically.


This is unlikely to interest those to whom the fact that they just happen to have a subjective preference for certain things over others justifies the existence of six redundant threads. So far I'm your only "like," but that's my subjective preference for ideas that might actually produce some knowledge of art and its human significance.


----------



## Woodduck

Portamento said:


> Here's a silly but illustrative example from Donald Crawford:
> 
> "A pyromaniac may develop a fondness for objects in proportion to their combustibility, and he may like a particular painting because it is highly combustible. But except in _very_ peculiar cases he cannot be said nor can he legitimately claim to like the painting _as a painting_ because it is highly combustible, because combustibility is not relevant to its being a painting and thus is not a relevant reason for liking it as a painting."


I'm sure that no one is concerned with the combustibility of Vermeer, nor with his edibilty, nor his use as an aphrodisiac (although the girl with the pearl earring is awfully cute). In my experience, he is normally judged on the quaiity of his painting, which is transcendental.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

RogerWaters said:


> Imagine an alien race visits earth.
> 
> Luckily, this alien race has something very like human ears - human ears being one kind of sensor that responds with fine-grained causal specificity to _acoustic waves_ (a type of energy propagation through a medium by means of adiabatic compression and decompression), passing this fine-grained sensory information to auditory centres in the brain which process it, in concert with a range of emotional and cognitive centres, delivering us an 'experience' that may be pleasant or unpleasant.


You forgot the main component of the human being that allows him, unlike animals to enjoy music and art.


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> I mean, the trolly experiment could be done; it just would be highly unethical so we don't do it. We don't know anything about whether or not your thought experiment could conceivably even exist.


Literally thousands of novels, tv shows and movies about aliens visiting earth say otherwise. If ET were not conceivable, audiences would be as perplexed by the movie as being asked to think of nothing but square circles for 3 hours straight. Instead, they are taken into a perfectly conceivable world and love it (notwithstanding mondernist critics of the music).



> However, I think those in the "objectivist" camp have made it clear when discussing objectivity in music that they are using it to mean "objectively true to human beings" and not (shocking - I know) "objectively true to hypothetical alien species that probably don't exist" where "objective" is taken to mean the regular dictionary definition one gets by googling it, clicking on the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and reading the first definition (first indicating the most common usage): "expressing or dealing with *facts* or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations". Why all this doesn't go without saying, I have no idea.


Facts are not relative to human beings. Your definition of 'objective' refers to facts, but you think something can be objective only to human beings. This makes no sense.


----------



## RogerWaters

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> You forgot the main component of the human being that allows him, unlike animals to enjoy music and art.


Go on.............


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

RogerWaters said:


> Go on.............


the immaterial part of course, the soul.


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> I don't agree that claims of artistic quality are necessarily matters of preference. I like some Strauss waltzes much more than Stravinsky's violin concerto, but I don't consider them better works of art, or Strauss a better composer. For that matter I enjoy some simple and rather unremarkable folk music more than many works of classical music which I recognize as achievemnts of unusual distinction, and I'm content to know that these works receive their due appreciation from other listeners. There is no reason for taste and judgment of excellence to coincide.


Ok so what makes you judge pieces you don't enjoy as great? Surely your preference that pieces include this or that (great) feature? Why is this preference objective in the sense of corresponding to reality independent of human preferences?!


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> "... competence is, as far as I know, always considered better than incompetence..."
> 
> Even were it so, 9 billion subjective judgements do not constitute an objective judgment.


What matters is the truth of things, not their philosophical designation. What matters in this instance is whether competence is, in every way and for every purpose one can think of, better than incompetence. This fetish for the words "objectivity" and "subjectivity," filling six threads, is a form of madness.


----------



## science

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> the immaterial part of course, the soul.


I'd completely forgotten about the apologetics angle.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> What matters is the truth of things, not their philosophical designation. What matters in this instance is whether competence is, in every way and for every purpose one can think of, better than incompetence. This fetish for the words "objectivity" and "subjectivity," filling six threads, is a form of madness.


It's about what is correct and what is not correct.

And that matters a lot when you turn around and use your perceptions of value as a justification for belittling people who disagree with you.


----------



## Portamento

Woodduck said:


> This is unlikely to interest those to whom the fact that they just happen to have a subjective preference for certain things over others justifies the existence of six redundant threads. So far I'm your only "like," but that's my subjective preference for ideas that might actually produce some knowledge of art and its human significance.


I passed over his post earlier, but I gave it another like because I also have a "subjective preference for ideas that might actually produce some knowledge of art and its human significance."



Woodduck said:


> I'm sure that no one is concerned with the combustibility of Vermeer, nor with his edibilty, nor his use as an aphrodisiac (although the girl with the pearl earring is awfully cute). In my experience, he is normally judged on the quaiity of his painting, which is transcendental.


When you say that Vermeer is "objectively better" than Aunt Edna, you are talking about usage _as a painting_. So do you concede that "objectively better" without such a qualification doesn't exist because it is implausible that something is better for _all_ uses? Or will you maintain that there is only one use of a painting, and that is use as an aesthetic object?


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> Ok so what makes you judge pieces you don't enjoy as great? Surely your preference that pieces include this or that feature? Why is this preference objective in the sense of corresponding to reality independent of preferences?!


Artistic values refer, represent, express and reflect deeper human values. How we judge artistic qualities relates to our larger value systems, whether in obvious or conscious ways or not. This is an immense subject however, challenging even when I'm wide awake, and it's almost 1:00 AM where I live. I'm not running on all cylinders at this hour and need to retire for the night. I have to say, too, that six concurrent threads of this stuff is getting to be a bit much.


----------



## Portamento

Woodduck said:


> This fetish for the words "objectivity" and "subjectivity," filling six threads, is a form of madness.


If there's a fetish for the words "objectivity" and "subjectivity," it exists on both sides.


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> What matters is the truth of things, not their philosophical designation. What matters in this instance is whether competence is, in every way and for every purpose one can think of, better than incompetence. This fetish for the words "objectivity" and "subjectivity," filling six threads, is a form of madness.


You are just pushing the question back. In this case, to what is 'competent' or 'incompetent'. My Aliens might judge Bach as quite incompetent at entertaining them.

If aesthetics is objective (in anything like the meaning of this concept in other domains like maths and science), then they must be wrong. But that is absurd.


----------



## Portamento

Woodduck said:


> This is an immense subject however, challenging even when I'm wide awake, and it's almost 1:00 AM where I live. I'm not running on all cylinders at this hour and need to retire for the night. I have to say, too, that six concurrent threads of this stuff is getting to be a bit much.


I'm in Portland, so... same.


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> Artistic values refer, represent, express and reflect deeper human values. How we judge artistic qualities relates to our larger value systems, whether in obvious or conscious ways or not. This is an immense subject however, challenging even when I'm wide awake, and it's almost 1:00 AM where I live. I'm not running on all cylinders at this hour and need to retire for the night. I have to say, too, that six concurrent threads of this stuff is getting to be a bit much.


I like my thread on the topic. It at least tried to sort out conceptual issues using a method in analytic philosophy (thought experiment). objectivists, when forced to admit something very modest and reasonable (that artistic greatness is not objective in the sense that claims in other domains are: in response to acknowledging that, of course the aliens can't be judged _wrong_ for disliking Bach), have generated 6 pages of argument so far!


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> It's about what is correct and what is not correct.
> 
> And that matters a lot when you turn around and use your perceptions of value as a justification for *belittling people who disagree with you.*


I knew it was too good to last. You really ought to find a therapist - or just somebody to give you a good spanking when you start righteously reproaching people out of your bottomless well of defensiveness. It's so childish.


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> I like my thread on the topic. It at least tried to sort out conceptual issues. Instead, objectivists, when asked to admit something very simple and reasonable (that artistic greatness is not objective in the sense that claims in other domains are), have generated 6 pages of argument so far!
> 
> This says something.


There is nothing to "admit." No one has said that artistic greatness is to be understood "_in the sense that_ claims in other domains are." If there are 6 pages of argument, it's because people are trying to understand each other's meaning and express their own. If there is something reprehensible about this please tell us what it is so that we can reform our errant ways.


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> There is nothing to "admit." No one has said that artistic greatness is to be understood "_in the sense that_ claims in other domains are." If there are 6 pages of argument, it's because people are trying to understand each other's meaning and express their own. If there is something reprehensible about this please tell us what it is so that we can reform our errant ways.


Much of it has been people trying to discredit the original thought experiment, I would wager because they done't like the conclusions it, yes, forces (on pain of logical consistency only - I would never dream of compelling conclusions any other way!)

Perhaps I am projecting. Goodnight!


----------



## Woodduck

Portamento said:


> If there's a fetish for the words "objectivity" and "subjectivity," it exists on both sides.


No doubt. I try to avoid them, along with "greatness." After a while they have a sort of hypnotic effect. In fact I'm falling asleep right now. Good night.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

RogerWaters said:


> Imagine an alien race visits earth.
> 
> Luckily, this alien race has something very like human ears - human ears being one kind of sensor that responds with fine-grained causal specificity to _acoustic waves_ (a type of energy propagation through a medium by means of adiabatic compression and decompression), passing this fine-grained sensory information to auditory centres in the brain which process it, in concert with a range of emotional and cognitive centres, delivering us an 'experience' that may be pleasant or unpleasant.
> 
> _Imagine that these aliens happen to experience Bach as it would sound to us played underwater_, due to the unique nature of their neural wiring between ears and brain centres (which is in turn due to adaptation to their own unique terrestrial atmosphere). The result is a complex canvass of stimulation, but one that leaves them emotionally unmoved.
> 
> Are these creatures _wrong_ to not find Bach 'Great' to listen to?
> 
> Upshot: If they are not wrong, then the greatness of Bach cannot be objective, at least to subjectivists on this forum.
> 
> If you think the aliens are not wrong, but that the greatness of Bach is still objective, you have a different *concept *of objectivity from the subjectivists: perhaps you limit objectivity to a specific species of animal.
> 
> But would you do the same with objectivity in other domains? Do you think a mathematical or scientific proposition (1+1=2; the earth is more round than it is flat) can be true for one intelligence species and false for another (taking into considering these propositions would be expressed in different languages)?
> 
> If not (and you shouldn't), then why are you using a concept one way when it comes to art, and another way when it comes to other domains? Is this not a strange way to use language?


How about we deal with the world we live in and not an imaginary one?


----------



## science

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> the immaterial part of course, the soul.


We perceive beauty because we have a soul.



Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> How about we deal with the world we live in and not an imaginary one?


I think I'm giving up on humans.


----------



## Nereffid

DaveM said:


> I have not read one post from those pushing the subjectivist message that allows for anything else. Maybe I've missed it; please point one out. And note the post above that within minutes of my posting rejected skill as nothing but a 'buzzword'. I have been flexible on the subject insofar as I allow for subjectivity. I do not hear any of that flexibility from the other side. Who are those posters on the subjectivist side you suggest exist who allow for even a modicum of objectivity?


I've said on one of the other threads that the score can be called objective, in as much as the notes on the page are an actual real thing independent of any value judgement. I also would say - and I would think this would also be the view of other subjectivists, though I'm not sure I've seen much comment on it - that it's an objective fact that there are various sets of rules/conventions, _something like a language_, a framework within which a given composer can compose and an audience can listen. That's how a composer can deliberately set out to write a piece of music that will prompt a particular emotion in the listener - the shared language. It's an objective fact that some compositions are more successful at affecting listeners in particular ways.

But once we go any further - the listener's response; how and why we agree on a given language in the first place; the extent to which the composer can break conventions - it all becomes subjective.


----------



## Nereffid

Woodduck said:


> What it really implies is that there are objectively existing neurological, psycho-physical reasons why certain musical sounds produce certain effects and elicit certain value judgments _*and not others.*_


I would agree with that. But the crux of the matter, surely, is in three words you left out: *in certain people*.

Realistically we can only talk about the _probability _of certain sounds producing certain effects and judgements, and this probability can be altered by factors that are outside of the music.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

How do we know what a sad tune is? How do we know what a happy tune is?

If its entirely subjective then there shouldn't be sad or happy tunes.


----------



## science

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> How do we know what a sad tune is? How do we know what a happy tune is?
> 
> If its entirely subjective then there shouldn't be sad or happy tunes.


Good point. The fact that we share subjective experiences proves that the experiences aren't subjective.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> How do we know what a sad tune is? How do we know what a happy tune is?
> 
> If its entirely subjective then there shouldn't be sad or happy tunes.


Wouldn't that prove the objective nature of music, everyone around the world would recognise a certain melody as being sad or happy?


----------



## science

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Wouldn't that prove the objective nature of music, everyone around the world would recognise a certain melody as being sad or happy?


I doubt everyone around the world would recognize such a thing - but even if so, no. It would show something about how that melody affects the human mind. But every single one of the responses to it would be subjective.

"Objectively sad" doesn't even make sense. What are feelings without feelings?


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

science said:


> I doubt everyone around the world would recognize such a thing - but even if so, no. It would show something about how that melody affects the human mind. But every single one of the responses to it would be subjective.
> 
> "Objectively sad" doesn't even make sense. What are feelings without feelings?


I remember hearing a lecture where they mentioned this being tested in different countries and cultures and they all identified the same melody as sad/happy.

I don't understand your last sentence.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> I remember hearing a lecture where they mentioned this being tested in different countries and cultures and they all identified the same melody as sad/happy.
> 
> I don't understand your last sentence.


Feelings are inherently subjective in nature. They exist as personal experiences of sentient beings.

We can talk about typical neurological responses to music as being objective. "Sadness" isn't an object.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Feeling: an emotional state or reaction.

Certain music (happy/sad) evokes the same emotional reaction or feeling from us.


----------



## Nereffid

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Feeling: an emotional state or reaction.
> 
> Certain music (happy/sad) evokes the same emotional reaction or feeling from us.


Not from all of us, and not always.

I may hear a piece of music as sad, you may hear it as trite. You may hear a piece of music on Tuesday as heroically triumphal, and on Thursday hear it as shallowly bombastic.

Can we say there can be _some_ correlation between a piece of music and its effect on listeners? Yes. Will that be a correlation of 1.0? Never, and hardly ever even close, unless we start imposing extremely specific contexts on what's being listened to, who's listening, and why they're listening.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Even if you could extract some perfect correlation (which is impossible as Nereffid says), it still would not demonstrate objectivity.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Nereffid said:


> Not from all of us, and not always.
> 
> I may hear a piece of music as sad, you may hear it as trite. You may hear a piece of music on Tuesday as heroically triumphal, and on Thursday hear it as shallowly bombastic.
> 
> Can we say there can be _some_ correlation between a piece of music and its effect on listeners? Yes. Will that be a correlation of 1.0? Never, and hardly ever even close, unless we start imposing extremely specific contexts on what's being listened to, who's listening, and why they're listening.


Do you think there's no such thing as sad music?


----------



## consuono

> Imagine that these aliens happen to experience Bach as it would sound to us played underwater


That's like asking "would they like the sound of a cello covered in cotton balls?" If their understanding of logic is like ours, then they could at least have some appreciation of Bach's music. The greatness of Bach's music lies not just in sound but also in structure.


----------



## Enthusiast

Seven pages of discussion for a new thread! It is hard to find the time to get involved but I will recommend the work of Lisa Feldman Barrett whose book "How Emotions Are Made" demonstrates - more or less convincingly - that emotions and perceptions are not at all as we intuitively think them to be. Quite apart from its other qualities, I found that, despite it not being at all about art and aesthetics, it explained to me how it is that we constantly get bogged down with discussions of "objective" vs "subjective", "beautiful" vs "ugly" and so on. As the evidence she musters in support of her claims - which I will not attempt to summarise here as it can get quite complex because so much of our language takes us in the wrong direction - change the game as far as talking about feelings and emotions, I wonder if we are not wasting our time in discussions that rely on fallacious concepts.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Subjectivity is a position that cannot be defended.

*In order to defend subjectivity you must use objectivity. *

The person who is for subjectivity say's "everything is subjective".

Thus making an objective statement.

You cannot even believe "everything is subjective" because that would be an objective belief.

Subjectivity therefore defeats itself.


----------



## science

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Subjectivity is a position that cannot be defended.
> 
> *In order to defend subjectivity you must use objectivity. *
> 
> The person who is for subjectivity say's "everything is subjective".
> 
> Thus making an objective statement.
> 
> You cannot even believe "everything is subjective" because that would be an objective belief.
> 
> Subjectivity therefore defeats itself.


Subjectivity does not need to be defended.

I'd imagine there is someone in your life who* you love more than I do. You do not need to defend that; nor do I. You're right to love who* you love, and I'm right to love who* I love. Neither of us is wrong for loving different people.

That's subjectivity.

*That's "whom" to the grammar not-sees.


----------



## MarkW

I've thought a lot about what we might expect about an alien's perception of music when I tried to figure out what I would put on Sagan's Golden record that he sent out on Voyager filled with an incomprehensible mishmash of all different human musics. I think we have to assume harmonic awareness and pattern recognition, but can't translate any sort of emotional makeup that would allow them to react emotionally the way we do. "Greatness" cannot be part of the equation, because being "great" requires too many value judgments, objective and subjective.


----------



## science

MarkW said:


> I've thought a lot about what we might expect about an alien's perception of music when I tried to figure out what I would put on Sagan's Golden record that he sent out on Voyager filled with an incomprehensible mishmash of all different human musics. I think we have to assume harmonic awareness and pattern recognition, but can't translate any sort of emotional makeup that would allow them to react emotionally the way we do. "Greatness" cannot be part of the equation, because being "great" requires too many value judgments, objective and subjective.


We actually have the songs and other sounds of other species here on our own planet for us to use in our thought experiments.

I suppose that a right-leaning bottlenose dolphin would insist that the distress call of a bottlenose dolphin is objectively distressing and that any sentient being who failed to recognize it as such is inferior to himself.

A female tungara frog must find a certain male tungara frog's mating calls absolutely divine, and might insist that any sentient being who failed to recognize it as such is inferior to herself. (Like Woodduck, she might wax wondrously eloquent about how much effort her beau has put into perfecting the subtlest nuances of his call, and like so many others here, she might point out that nearly every female of her species also finds it irresistible, so surely the failure of the females of our species to find it so is a mark of their inferiority.)

I suspect that the predators who also find the frog's call attractive feel "similar yet different," and surely they too would insist that any sentient being who failed to feel the same way they do about it is inferior to themselves.

Etc....


----------



## Nereffid

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Do you think there's no such thing as sad music?


I think you're combining two questions in one here.

Do I think there is music that can evoke sadness in people? Yes.

Do I think there is music that always evokes sadness in everybody under every circumstance? No.

So, do I think there's such a thing as "sad music"? I suppose yes, as a convenient shorthand for "music that usually evokes sadness in many people". But not in the same sense that I think there's such a thing as "music written in D minor".


----------



## Nereffid

I wonder what would happen if we replaced "aliens" with "residents of 12th-century Paris"? Or "residents of 12th-century Brazil"?


----------



## science

We should test exactly how well we recognize the emotion of a particular tune. If we all heard, say, this music --






-- would all human beings from all cultures all over the world come up with basically the same words to describe their reactions to it?

If so, I'd be pretty surprised.

To take a more familiar example, how many people in our own culture would hear the first theme in the opening movement of Mozart's 40th symphony as anything like "dark?" I doubt many people out there feel that way about it. Based on what most people -- even most people who consider themselves classical music listeners -- say about classical music, I'd bet a lot of people would probably consider it something like "relaxing."


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

science said:


> Subjectivity does not need to be defended.
> 
> I'd imagine there is someone in your life who* you love more than I do. You do not need to defend that; nor do I. You're right to love who* you love, and I'm right to love who* I love. Neither of us is wrong for loving different people.
> 
> That's subjectivity.
> 
> *That's "whom" to the grammar not-sees.


"Subjectivity does not need to be defended"....which of course is a subjective statement, therefore cannot be true.

The fact that we love different people proves there is no objective truth how???

Human beings have some room in which our preferences may move, but there are limits.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Nereffid said:


> I think you're combining two questions in one here.
> 
> Do I think there is music that can evoke sadness in people? Yes.
> 
> Do I think there is music that always evokes sadness in everybody under every circumstance? No.
> 
> So, do I think there's such a thing as "sad music"? I suppose yes, as a convenient shorthand for "music that usually evokes sadness in many people". But not in the same sense that I think there's such a thing as "music written in D minor".


Why do film makers use certain music in certain scenes? They know that different music evokes different reactions and emotions in us. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to use music as they do.

Its sad when people try to deny the obvious.


----------



## Nereffid

science said:


> To take a more familiar example, how many people in our own culture would hear the first theme in the opening movement of Mozart's 40th symphony as anything like "dark?" I doubt many people out there feel that way about it. Based on what most people -- even most people who consider themselves classical music listeners -- say about classical music, I'd bet a lot of people would probably consider it something like "relaxing."


Whenever my mother (not a classical listener) heard Renaissance choral music, no matter what the piece, she would always refer to it as "that _depressing_ music".


----------



## Nereffid

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Why do film makers use certain music in certain scenes? They know that different music evokes different reactions and emotions in us. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to use music as they do.
> 
> Its sad when people try to deny the obvious.


What did I say in the quoted post? I said there is such a thing as "music that usually evokes sadness in many people".

I literally just said what you claim I denied.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Nereffid said:


> What did I say in the quoted post? I said there is such a thing as "music that usually evokes sadness in many people".
> 
> I literally just said what you claim I denied.


Apologies.

"Do I think there is music that can evoke sadness in people? Yes" - So there is something in the music inherently that evokes (generally) these emotions?


----------



## fbjim

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Apologies.
> 
> "Do I think there is music that can evoke sadness in people? Yes" - So there is something in the music inherently that evokes (generally) these emotions?


not inherently but when combined with contextual and learned cultural norms on music etc etc etc.

when you see (to use a cliche example) a camera zoom in on someone's face, a dissolve effect, and then a scene of the same character, you instantly think "oh, this is a flashback". nothing about this is inherent. it's an accepted artistic convention. these conventions can be intuitive (for instance, it makes sense that, unless otherwise specified, the scenes in a movie are in linear order, because that intuitively matches up with how we experience time as humans)


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

fbjim said:


> not inherently but when combined with contextual and learned cultural norms on music etc etc etc.
> 
> when you see (to use a cliche example) a camera zoom in on someone's face, a dissolve effect, and then a scene of the same character, you instantly think "oh, this is a flashback". nothing about this is inherent. it's an accepted artistic convention. these conventions can be intuitive (for instance, it makes sense that, unless otherwise specified, the scenes in a movie are in linear order, because that intuitively matches up with how we experience time as humans)


So some notes/Chords, by themselves, with no other context don't convey to you darkness/sadness and others lightness/happiness?


----------



## fbjim

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> So some notes/Chords, by themselves, with no other context don't convey to you darkness/sadness and others lightness/happiness?


well, you never listen to art with no other context, is the point

and this isn't entirely trivial, I find it hard to acclimatize myself to the context and conventions that let people find deep emotions jazz, for instance.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Musical appreciation is a bit subjective and a bit objective.
Some music is closer to deserving the label of great than other music, but that's a bit subjective and a bit objective too.
Some music is a bit more cheerful than other music, for most people, but maybe not for you.
Flat surfaces are never quite flat.
A room might be dark if you come in from the bright outdoors, but light if you come up from a cellar, despite the same light bulb shining.
An object might feel hot or cold, while being at the same temperature, depending on where your hand has been before.
Something can be a particular colour (in terms of how it reflects light) while looking different depending on what is next to it.

There are no absolute absolutes, but there is a degree of objectivity to things. It all depends. You're all a bit right and a bit wrong. Deal with it.


----------



## Portamento

This is the most concise way I can put it:

The argument can be made for one piece to be objectively better than another _as music_ - or an aesthetic object - but not without that qualification because music has many, many uses; for a piece of music to be objectively better than another in the truest sense, it must be better for _all_ uses of music (which is not plausible).


----------



## chu42

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Apologies.
> 
> "Do I think there is music that can evoke sadness in people? Yes" - So there is something in the music inherently that evokes (generally) these emotions?


Yes, because of biological, genetic, cultural, factors.

Why do babies look cute to humans? Is there some objective fount of cuteness out there?

More likely it is that cuteness is part of a leftover biological mechanism that allows humans to become more protective towards the young and vulnerable and thus help enhance the survival chances of a family.

Someone who doesn't think babies are cute isn't objectively wrong. It's not something where there is a "right" or "wrong" that can affect the way we go about reality.


----------



## fbjim

yup. we associate slim weight with beauty nowadays because of cultural associations with good health, hygene, etc. At some point, some cultures in the past associated obesity with wealth, and therefore desirability. these things are always up for change.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

chu42 said:


> More likely it is that cuteness is part of a leftover biological mechanism that allows humans to become more protective towards the young and vulnerable and thus help enhance the survival chances of a family.


Honestly this is a fascinating statement.

The "biological mechanism" did this on purpose?


----------



## fbjim

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Honestly this is a fascinating statement.
> 
> The "biological mechanism" did this on purpose?


if this is true, theoretically, via evolution, it'd be more accurate to say it was a trait more likely to survive and be passed on, rather than anything intentional


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

fbjim said:


> if this is true, theoretically, via evolution, it'd be more accurate to say it was a trait more likely to survive and be passed on, rather than anything intentional


A biological mechanism unintentionally endowed babies with "cuteness" so they would survive?


----------



## fbjim

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> A biological mechanism unintentionally endowed babies with "cuteness" so they would survive?


kinda? this is all theoretical and i'm not really the biggest fan of evopsych anyway, but the theoretical argument is that humans possessing traits which led them to associate shapes and forms which remind us of babies with "cuteness" made them more likely to reproduce and pass those markers on.


----------



## science

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> "Subjectivity does not need to be defended"....which of course is a subjective statement, therefore cannot be true.
> 
> The fact that we love different people proves there is no objective truth how???
> 
> Human beings have some room in which our preferences may move, but there are limits.


I don't think anyone here is trying to prove that there is no objective truth.

I was simply explaining what the word subjectivity means.


----------



## fbjim

i also think the hypothetical question in the OP is excessively out-there. you could easily substitute "aliens" with "non-westerners who have entirely different norms of what constitutes 'good music'", or "someone who hates classical music, and whose ears start to bleed when they hear Beethoven"


----------



## science

Portamento said:


> This is the most concise way I can put it:
> 
> The argument can be made for one piece to be objectively better than another _as music_ - or an aesthetic object - but not without that qualification because music has many, many uses; for a piece of music to be objectively better than another in the truest sense, it must be better for _all_ uses of music (which is not plausible).


There is that, and behind that is lurking another insight, which is that valuing something in any way -- i.e. as a painting to make a living room prettier, as a painting to make an interesting exhibit in a museum, as a painting to get money from a patron.... as music to aid sleep, as music to get you pumped up for an MMA fight, as music to create a reverent mood in church, as music to express how much one person loves another, as music to keep you awake when you've been driving fourteen hours and you've got a couple more to go... -- is only possible thanks to entire constellations of desires, needs, experiences, associations, etc. that suffuse the entire issue with various forms of subjectivity.

I mean, Bach's WTC would keep me awake because I'd be listening for the interplay between the voices, which is fascinating. Someone else is going to go to sleep because they hear the pretty tinkling of a harpsichord. Someone else is going to go to sleep because they've studied it so much that it no longer engages them.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

fbjim said:


> kinda? this is all theoretical and i'm not really the biggest fan of evopsych anyway, but the theoretical argument is that humans possessing traits which led them to associate shapes and forms which remind us of babies with "cuteness" made them more likely to reproduce and pass those markers on.


It must have both endowed the baby with cuteness and also given the parents the ability to appreciate "cuteness". This unintelligible, unguided, unintentional biological mechanism is amazing.

I wonder how it did all that and how it "knew" that that would work seeing its unintelligent?


----------



## fbjim

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> It must have both endowed the baby with cuteness and also given the parents the ability to appreciate "cuteness". This unintelligible, unguided, unintentional biological mechanism is amazing.


the argument would be that if there existed traits that caused humans to associate the forms associated with babies as repulsive, this would be harder to pass on because those humans would be less likely to reproduce

once again this is theoretical and i'm not the world's biggest evopsych fan anyway, but it's not really talking about an intentional process, it's an unintentional filtering/selection.


----------



## Zhdanov

Nereffid said:


> hear a piece of music on Tuesday as heroically triumphal, and on Thursday hear it as shallowly bombastic.


that could only happen to someone who has no idea about music.



Nereffid said:


> unless we start imposing extremely specific contexts on what's being listened to,


and we do have standards established by opera and used since then.


----------



## fbjim

Zhdanov said:


> that could only happen to someone who has no idea about music.


i listen to Beethoven's 9th. I think it's fabulous.

I listen to it 50 times in a row. By time 50, I never want to hear another set of descending chords in D minor again in my life.

what have we learned


----------



## Portamento

science said:


> There is that, and behind that is lurking another insight, which is that valuing something in any way -- i.e. as a painting to make a living room prettier, as a painting to make an interesting exhibit in a museum, as a painting to get money from a patron.... as music to aid sleep, as music to get you pumped up for an MMA fight, as music to create a reverent mood in church, as music to express how much one person loves another, as music to keep you awake when you've been driving fourteen hours and you've got a couple more to go... -- is only possible thanks to entire constellations of desires, needs, experiences, associations, etc. that suffuse the entire issue with various forms of subjectivity.


For sure. And that's not to say that there aren't more relevant and less relevant reasons for liking music as something. If we're evaluating music as music, a memorable melody is not a particularly relevant reason to call Schumann's _Kinderszenen_ good because it's so general; that _Kinderszenen_ gives unique insight into childhood memories is a much more relevant reason because it speaks to the intrinsic value of experiencing the work.


----------



## Nereffid

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> So there is something in the music inherently that evokes (generally) these emotions?





fbjim said:


> not inherently but when combined with contextual and learned cultural norms on music etc etc etc.


That's my answer too.


----------



## Zhdanov

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Even if you could extract some perfect correlation (which is impossible as Nereffid says), it still would not demonstrate objectivity.


listen to opera and watch it with subtitles, this will put an end to all doubts.

why ignore opportunities the era of vids can provide?


----------



## Zhdanov

fbjim said:


> i listen to Beethoven's 9th. I think it's fabulous. I listen to it 50 times in a row. By time 50, I never want to hear another set of descending chords in D minor again in my life.


its not about a set of chords... the 9th's 1st movement portrays a genocide perpetrated by horsemen armed with sabres, 2nd portrays reincarnation process with a stopover for a pastoral, 3rd portrays death in limbo or maybe nirvana, 4th - a crowd sex before the eyes of some god who is as distant as he looks on frrom behind the stars.


----------



## chu42

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> A biological mechanism unintentionally endowed babies with "cuteness" so they would survive?


Regardless of whether you think it was by God or evolution, this is the scientific explanation.

Oxford: Babies don't just look cute


----------



## chu42

I have seen many complaints from objectivists that science needs not enter the equation, science cannot explain the human condition, etc. 

The silliest statement so far has been that "some things are just self-evident." 

OK? I guess gravity and magnetism and earthquakes are self-evident as well? 

I sure wouldn't want to live in a society that just assumes "self-evidence" and then seeks no rational explanation for any of the seemingly unexplainable phenomena that pervade us on this planet. 

The same people today who are ignoring the scientific ideas behind music preference are the same kind of people who believed that demons caused mental illness in the 19th century.


----------



## SanAntone

The fact (objective fact) that there have been a number of threads, dozens of pages, maybe a combined total of over 100 pages, devoted to this difference of opinion (subjective opinion) about whether music can be judged objectively ought to demonstrate that nothing about it is "self-evident."


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> Literally thousands of novels, tv shows and movies about aliens visiting earth say otherwise. If ET were not conceivable, audiences would be as perplexed by the movie as being asked to think of nothing but square circles for 3 hours straight. Instead, they are taken into a perfectly conceivable world and love it (notwithstanding mondernist critics of the music).


TV shows often portray all sorts of things that are, in actuality, impossible. Regardless, I have clarified many times that when I claim Bach is a good composer, I mean Bach is a good composer for human listeners, presuming, I now realise unreasonably, that everyone understood Bach wrote for humans and not aliens.



RogerWaters said:


> Facts are not relative to human beings. Your definition of 'objective' refers to facts, but you think something can be objective only to human beings. This makes no sense.


My definition of objective literally said "facts or conditions" so no invocation of fact was required. I might be tempted to consider this more of a "conditions" type thing, but have no problem considering the statement "Bach composed good music for human listeners" to be factually correct where the definition of a fact is "a thing that is known or proved to be true" where this particular fact is known rather than proven to be true.

Regardless, using the dictionary definition of fact as "a thing that is known or proved to be true" it seems pretty clear to me that something can be known to be true only relative to humans.


----------



## chu42

> I might be tempted to consider this more of a "conditions" type thing, but have no problem considering the statement "Bach composed good music for human listeners" to be factually correct


This is only factually (objectively) true in the sense that you can ask at least two people whether or not Bach is "good music" and get an affirmative response.

I doubt this is useful information.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

> Regardless, I have clarified many times that when I claim Bach is a good composer, I mean Bach is a good composer for human listeners, presuming, I now realise unreasonably, that everyone understood Bach wrote for humans and not aliens.


Did he? Bach wrote for God, the most enigmatic of all aliens. 

But even "Bach is a good composer for human listeners" is not at all an objective statement. "Good" in what sense?


----------



## SanAntone

I very much enjoy Bach's music, he is one of my favorite composers. But sometimes his music is the last thing I want to hear.

Not only is the appreciation of music different for different people it is also different for the same person over time.

It is subjective.


----------



## Zhdanov

think of 'objective' as of a 'goal' or 'aim' - not only an objective truth, so you will see what should be achieved, how to build and create, using what's best out there, avoiding what's bad.


----------



## Portamento

_"The sonatas of Beethoven are very badly written for the piano; they are, more exactly, especially the last ones, orchestral pieces arranged for piano.... On the other hand, Chopin and Schumann really wrote for piano"_ - Debussy

In the quote above, Debussy makes the argument that Beethoven's piano sonatas are objectively bad as piano music. You can't disregard his judgement offhand because he _is_ using relevant reasoning: that the writing is not "pianistic." It's not like he ate something crappy for lunch and decided to take it out on Beethoven (at least, that scenario is not very likely). However, while Debussy diminishes the music's intrinsic artistic value, it doesn't mean everyone has to follow suit. And that's not been the case. So either this stuff is subjective or Debussy used irrelevant reasoning to reach his judgement; I obviously think it's the former.

Does anyone disagree with this or am I just making redundant arguments that we all already agree with?


----------



## BachIsBest

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Did he? Bach wrote for God, the most enigmatic of all aliens.
> 
> But even "Bach is a good composer for human listeners" is not at all an objective statement. "Good" in what sense?


Bach wrote to glorify God, but his music was intended for human listeners.


----------



## Nereffid

BachIsBest said:


> Regardless, I have clarified many times that when I claim Bach is a good composer, I mean Bach is a good composer for human listeners, presuming, I now realise unreasonably, that everyone understood Bach wrote for humans and not aliens.


Is Bach a good composer for _all_ humans, though? Upthread I suggested replacing "aliens" with "residents of 12th-century Paris" or indeed "residents of 12th-century Brazil".

If they were to hear Bach's music, somehow magically appearing in their own time and place (I know - still a thought experiment, but there it is), would they agree that Bach is a good composer? Or maybe would it be the case that in order for these groups of humans to consider that Bach is a good composer, you'll first have to persuade them to accept _all the various musical, social, and technological factors, evolving over time, that allowed Bach to compose his music in the first place_? In which case you're basically rigging the system...


----------



## Zhdanov

Nereffid said:


> Is Bach a good composer for _all_ humans, though?


what is good for a golem, that must be good for man, or at least his babies, since the WTC and Goldberg Variations appear to be part of a project associated with Kabbalah; a music for programming an artificial intellect.


----------



## Strange Magic

My difficulty with the objectivist position is the idea that there are factors or conditions or parameters beyond the individual or collective majoritarian opinions/views of perceivers that imbue the art object with such qualities that _even if no one_ liked them or even was aware of them, they would still be Platonically "excellent". That, it seems to me, is the heart of the objectivist thesis. We have heard the argument that the few (we're talking CM here) who are properly trained, or sufficiently intelligent, or of refined taste and discernment, can sense the excellence that permeates certain works as an interstitial fluid. But can we not imagine an art object so refined, so exquisite that only its creator can fully grasp the excellence? I suppose so, but it seems that the determination of excellence always requires a (variable) quorum of perceivers agreeing among themselves that something is not only excellent but, because the excellence is inherent, it must be perceived as excellent by all except the infirm. The fallback is always "You didn't try hard enough; you're not sensitive enough; you didn't put in the necessary time." Or, said by some, the entire structure of art and of our ability to discriminate within the arts, is hopelessly shattered by the destruction of the idea of inherent excellence.

And so we get, instead of robust and cogent arguments for objectivist views, a torrent of rhetorical questions and fun comparisons of our favorite, Justin Bieber, vs. Beethoven, etc. I will cheerfully assert that I prefer Beethoven to Bieber, and most CM lovers will also (brave prediction!), yet these sorts of "arguments" bounce harmlessly off the armor of the subjectivist viewpoint--it is what it is, no matter the consequences--all esthetics--ALL esthetics--is subjective, idiosyncratic, and personal at the granular level of the individual perceiver, though broad generalizations--accurate, and objective--can be made about who and how many likes what.


----------



## DjPooChoo

Nereffid said:


> Is Bach a good composer for _all_ humans, though? Upthread I suggested replacing "aliens" with "residents of 12th-century Paris" or indeed "residents of 12th-century Brazil".


Was Michael Jordan a good basketball player for _all_ humans? There are people who don't know a thing about the sport, and would have no way of gauging what they were seeing. But that is irrelevant. For those that understand the game and understand his achievements in the sport, he obviously was. Same goes for Bach.


----------



## Portamento

DjPooChoo said:


> Was Michael Jordan a good basketball player for _all_ humans? There are people who don't know a thing about the sport, and would have no way of gauging what they were seeing. But that is irrelevant. For those that understand the game and understand his achievements in the sport, he obviously was. Same goes for Bach.


Berlioz didn't like Bach, and I think we can all agree that he understood music.


----------



## Strange Magic

My soulmate, the Count of T'ang, listened attentively to the Bach I played for him and pronounced himself indifferent to the music. He did agree with me that it was a valid assertion to say that many people did like Bach's music. But he said he preferred other musics by other composers.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Portamento said:


> _"The sonatas of Beethoven are very badly written for the piano; they are, more exactly, especially the last ones, orchestral pieces arranged for piano.... On the other hand, Chopin and Schumann really wrote for piano"_ - Debussy
> 
> In the quote above, Debussy makes the argument that Beethoven's piano sonatas are objectively bad as piano music. You can't disregard his judgement offhand because he _is_ using relevant reasoning: that the writing is not "pianistic." It's not like he ate something crappy for lunch and decided to take it out on Beethoven (at least, that scenario is not very likely). However, while Debussy diminishes the music's intrinsic artistic value, it doesn't mean everyone has to follow suit. And that's not been the case. So either this stuff is subjective or Debussy used irrelevant reasoning to reach his judgement; I obviously think it's the former.
> 
> Does anyone disagree with this or am I just making redundant arguments that we all already agree with?


I think you make a "good" point here, in the sense that the word "good" can mean different things. If Debussy meant that good relates to how naturally pianistic those pieces are then he is quite an expert, so his opinion needs to be treated seriously. On the other hand, if "good" means something relating to the ability to stimulate an emotional response or to pique intellectual interest then Beethoven's last sonatas are pretty good (- his last is my favourite amongst them all). I'm not really with Debussy here, not because I disagree with him about the pianistic point (- after all, I'm no Debussy to judge), but because I think the purpose of music is not to be pianistic, but to generate a response in the listener, and I think those works are triumphantly successful at that (and are therefore "good").

Like a lot of these threads, you just get people arguing because they want to lay claim to the meaning of a word (when what they are really doing is using it to mean different things), and at the same time they are unwilling to compromise in the absolutism of their attachment to the meaning they favour.


----------



## DjPooChoo

Portamento said:


> Berlioz didn't like Bach, and I think we can all agree that he understood music.


Ah, but aesthetic evaluation doesn't come down solely to preferences, any more than when evaluating human achievement in any field of endeavor.

Thus I can say I do not like Michael Jordan as a basketball player without denying his greatness. And I can say I enjoy the English dances of Malcolm Arnold more than I enjoy Beethoven's Grosse Fugue, while acknowledging the fugue is a work of greater significance, imagination, and a more astonishing artistic achievement.

This is a distinction that's obvious to me, and yet from the position of pure subjectivity everything boils down to personal taste. Well no, aesthetics are far more complicated than that.


----------



## Zhdanov

Portamento said:


> Berlioz didn't like Bach,


but that was the Berlioz, himself a great composer, not some non-entity.


----------



## Strange Magic

DjPooChoo said:


> Ah, but aesthetic evaluation doesn't come down solely to preferences, any more than when evaluating human achievement in any field of endeavor.
> 
> Thus I can say I do not like Michael Jordan as a basketball player without denying his greatness. And I can say I enjoy the English dances of Malcolm Arnold more than I enjoy Beethoven's Grosse Fugue, while acknowledging the fugue is a work of greater significance, imagination, and a more astonishing artistic achievement.
> 
> This is a distinction that's obvious to me, and yet from the position of pure subjectivity everything boils down to personal taste. Well no, aesthetics are far more complicated than that.


Actually, it does come down entirely to personal taste. The interesting thing is to speculate on the many variables that are at work to determine personal tastes--neurology, history (both general and personal), sensory acuity, "attitudes" toward novelty vs. continuity, etc. Lots of research done and being done. The ability of a composer--consciously or unconsciously or by pure accident to fit a musical key into one's own personal lock is another aspect that continues to engage our interest. But in the end, it's still _de gustibus..._.


----------



## Eclectic Al

I will venture a statement that I believe to be true.

If I compose a piece of music and perform it myself, and I think it is great but everyone who listens to it thinks it is rubbish, then it is not great.

I believe this to be true, and therefore I cannot subscribe to the wholly subjective position.

Equally, in order to subscribe wholly to the objective position about the quality of music I think it would be necessary to establish precisely what objective criteria are used to measure the quality. And if you want to get into greatness then you would need to define the minimum score to pass the threshold into greatness. I think that's not really a meaningful way of looking at things. Therefore I cannot subscribe wholly to the objective position.

The answer is a bit of both.


----------



## fbjim

DjPooChoo said:


> Was Michael Jordan a good basketball player for _all_ humans? There are people who don't know a thing about the sport, and would have no way of gauging what they were seeing. But that is irrelevant. For those that understand the game and understand his achievements in the sport, he obviously was. Same goes for Bach.


if only there was some qualitative, objective measure for determining with a relative amount of reliability if a basketball team playing in a structured competition is good or not


----------



## Portamento

DjPooChoo said:


> Ah, but aesthetic evaluation doesn't come down solely to preferences, any more than when evaluating human achievement in any field of endeavor.
> 
> Thus I can say I do not like Michael Jordan as a basketball player without denying his greatness. And I can say I enjoy the English dances of Malcolm Arnold more than I enjoy Beethoven's Grosse Fugue, while acknowledging the fugue is a work of greater significance, imagination, and a more astonishing artistic achievement.
> 
> This is a distinction that's obvious to me, and yet from the position of pure subjectivity everything boils down to personal taste. Well no, aesthetics are far more complicated than that.


This is a very common argument against subjectivity. If "good work of art" means "work of art that I like," the statement "this work of art is good but I don't like it" contradicts itself; then it is claimed that statements such as these are in fact _not_ self-contradicting, but are meaningful and significant. Clearly, when someone states "I don't like Bach but accept his greatness," they are really saying "I don't like Bach, but people who understand music better than I do probably will." This begs the question: "Is music good simply because those who understand music the best like it, or do those who understand music the best like it _because_ the music is good?"

Objectivists would claim that attempts to analyze "good" in terms of "liking" are implausible, or that they mean some people's tastes are better than others. But there's no need to reject subjectivity based on any of this. The statement "I don't like Bach, but people who understand music better than I do probably will" doesn't imply that good taste is objective - there are many different reasons that people may respect/want to have the tastes of others. Even if that _is_ the implication, then everything depends upon whether good taste is subjective, and that's a separate argument than the one we're having now.


----------



## DjPooChoo

Strange Magic said:


> Actually, it does come down entirely to personal taste. The interesting thing is to speculate on the many variables that are at work to personal tastes--neurology, history (both general and personal), sensory acuity, "attitudes" toward novelty vs. continuity, etc. Lots of research done and being done. The ability of a composer--consciously or unconsciously or by pure accident to fit a musical key into one's own personal lock is another aspect that continues to engage our interest. But in the end, it's still _de gustibus..._.


I disagree. Your position has no way to explain my evaluation of Beethoven's Grosse fugue as a work of greater genius, singularity and expressive capability over Arnold's Dances, other than to say I'm conceding to some greater authority. But I'm not. I'm conceding to my own perceptions and judgments. Aesthetic excellence can be demonstrated, and one can learn to recognize it without necessarily enjoying it. There can be more sensitive and perceptive listeners, as well as less perceptive. And a person can be taught to understand the genius and monumental achievement in a truly great work of art like Wagner's Ring while still preferring a simple and effective waltz. If you listen to Deryck Cooke's introduction to Der Ring for example, a person can begin to grasp the supreme task it was to conceive and construct it, and how astutetly Wagner went about completing it, whether or not the person is indifferent to Wagner or maybe opera itself.


----------



## DjPooChoo

fbjim said:


> if only there was some qualitative, objective measure for determining with a relative amount of reliability if a basketball team playing in a structured competition is good or not


There is no absolutely objective, qualitative way to determine "greatness" in any human endeavor.


----------



## fbjim

Strange Magic said:


> We have heard the argument that the few (we're talking CM here) who are properly trained, or sufficiently intelligent, or of refined taste and discernment, can sense the excellence that permeates certain works as an interstitial fluid. But can we not imagine an art object so refined, so exquisite that only its creator can fully grasp the excellence? I suppose so, but it seems that the determination of excellence always requires a (variable) quorum of perceivers agreeing among themselves that something is not only excellent but, because the excellence is inherent, it must be perceived as excellent by all except the infirm. The fallback is always "You didn't try hard enough; you're not sensitive enough; you didn't put in the necessary time." Or, said by some, the entire structure of art and of our ability to discriminate within the arts, is hopelessly shattered by the destruction of the idea of inherent excellence.
> 
> And so we get, instead of robust and cogent arguments for objectivist views, a torrent of rhetorical questions and fun comparisons of our favorite, Justin Bieber, vs. Beethoven, etc. I will cheerfully assert that I prefer Beethoven to Bieber, and most CM lovers will also (brave prediction!), yet these sorts of "arguments" bounce harmlessly off the armor of the subjectivist viewpoint--it is what it is, no matter the consequences--all esthetics--ALL esthetics--is subjective, idiosyncratic, and personal at the granular level of the individual perceiver, though broad generalizations--accurate, and objective--can be made about who and how many likes what.


so here's the thing, and i'm not convinced i disagree with you

there are a billion ways to engage with art, but when we're evaluating classical works it's pretty clear that some viewpoints are going to "matter more" in terms of _facilitating our understanding of the work_ than others.

for a facile example you can "engage" with Bach by seeing how well your Complete Bach Edition box set works as a doorstop. it should be clear that this is not actually telling us anything useful about Bach's work, but hey, it's engagement

for a less facile example, let's say someone hates classical music. this person hears Bach. surprise, they hate Bach. the question is how much this view "matters" in terms of our understanding of Bach's work, and i think it's reasonable to say "it doesnt", and that we can probably just ignore it when we discuss whether Bach is good or not, because we generally do not evaluate classical music based on "do people who hate classical music like this?". This is different from trying to qualify that Bach is specifically better than pop music or something, or evaluations of classical versus pop versus jazz etc in general.


----------



## Portamento

Eclectic Al said:


> I will venture a statement that I believe to be true.
> 
> If I compose a piece of music and perform it myself, and I think it is great but everyone who listens to it thinks it is rubbish, then it is not great.


So do you think that some people objectively have better taste than others?

And yes, I do think the answer is a bit of both - it's just where we draw that imaginary line.


----------



## Portamento

DjPooChoo said:


> I disagree. Your position has no way to explain my evaluation of Beethoven's Grosse fugue as a work of greater genius, singularity and expressive capability over Arnold's Dances, other than to say I'm conceding to some greater authority. But I'm not. I'm conceding to my own perceptions and judgments. Aesthetic excellence can be demonstrated, and one can learn to recognize it without necessarily enjoying it. There can be more sensitive and perceptive listeners, as well as less perceptive. And a person can be taught to understand the genius and monumental achievement in a truly great work of art like Wagner's Ring while still preferring a simple and effective waltz. If you listen to Deryck Cooke's introduction to Der Ring for example, a person can begin to grasp the supreme task it was to conceive and construct it, and how astutetly Wagner went about completing it, whether or not the person is indifferent to Wagner or maybe opera itself.


If you look at my "dumb poll," you'll see that the majority of users acknowledge Schoenberg's Three Piano Piece to have more originality- and influence-value than Korngold's Symphony, but not necessarily more artistic value. However, there are some that _do_ think the Schoenberg has greater artistic value, and even one who thinks the Korngold is more original, more influential, and of more artistic value. If there's no consensus, it can only mean that artistic value judgements are subjective. Or maybe the Schoenberg is artistically superior and everyone voting otherwise just needs to be taught better?


----------



## Nereffid

DjPooChoo said:


> And a person can be taught to understand the genius and monumental achievement in a truly great work of art like Wagner's Ring while still preferring a simple and effective waltz.


And yet there's nothing objective about a "monumental" achievement being more valuable than a "simple" one.

Try making the same argument with Stockhausen's Licht and Bach's C-major prelude and see how quickly simplicity becomes more valuable!


----------



## DjPooChoo

Portamento said:


> If you look at my "dumb poll," you'll see that the majority of users acknowledge Schoenberg's Three Piano Piece to have more originality- and influence-value than Korngold's Symphony, but not necessarily more artistic value. However, there are some that _do_ think the Schoenberg has greater artistic value, and even one who thinks the Korngold is more original, more influential, and of more artistic value. If there's no consensus, that can only mean that artistic value judgements are subjective. Or maybe the Schoenberg is artistically superior and everyone voting otherwise just needs to be taught better?


There's not even consensus about whether the earth is flat or round.

Not all artistic value judgements are subjective though. I've already pointed that out.


----------



## DjPooChoo

Nereffid said:


> And yet there's nothing objective about a "monumental" achievement being more valuable than a "simple" one.
> 
> Try making the same argument with Stockhausen's Licht and Bach's C-major prelude and see how quickly simplicity becomes more valuable!


Notice how I didn't use the term objective at all. Aesthetics can't be boiled down to objective vs. subjective, and demonstrating the subjectiveness in the aesthetic experience, something I've never denied, doesn't change that.


----------



## fluteman

DjPooChoo said:


> There is no absolutely objective, qualitative way to determine "greatness" in any human endeavor.


Yes and no. In competitive sport, one team or player wins and the other loses. That is the main attraction of competitive sport - it provides unambiguous, absolute, objectively determinable winners, where real life never does. Now, you could reply that competitive sport is entertainment, and like all entertainment, deals in fantasies, myths and illusions, and that the concept of the winner is merely one such fantasy, myth or illusion. All of that is true. But once you accept a certain framework of rules that goes along with a competitive sport, you can accept that fantasy. A skillfully designed sport has a set of rules that favors those with valuable real-life skills -- strength, speed, agility, quick thinking, self-confidence, and intelligence. That makes the fantasy of the winner much more convincing. But in the end it's still just a fantasy.


----------



## Portamento

DjPooChoo said:


> Not all artistic value judgements are subjective though. I've already pointed that out.


No artistic value judgements are objective, but some are less subjective than others.


----------



## DjPooChoo

fluteman said:


> Yes and no. In competitive sport, one team or player wins and the other loses. That is the main attraction of competitive sport - it provides unambiguous, absolute, objectively determinable winners, where real life never does. Now, you could reply that competitive sport is entertainment, and like all entertainment, deals in fantasies, myths and illusions, and that the concept of the winner is merely one such fantasy, myth or illusion. All of that is true. But once you accept a certain framework of rules that goes along with a competitive sport, you can accept that fantasy. A skillfully designed sport has a set of rules that favors those with valuable real-life skills -- strength, speed, agility, quick thinking, self-confidence, and intelligence. That makes the fantasy of the winner much more convincing. But in the end it's still just a fantasy.


What is the definitive, precise, objective difference between an average sports athlete, an above average or "good" athlete, and a "great" athlete? Every year, a list of nominees in every respected sport are up for induction into the hall of fame -- a place among the "greats". And a select group of fellow athletes and connoseieurs debate about whether players are deserving of the designation and inclusion into their celebrations of their greatest athletes. Some nominees are unamimously or nearly unamiously voted in, while others have to incur heated debate and pros and cons about why they are deserving and why they aren't. If there were an absolute, qualitative way to determine greatness, no such debates would be necessary.


----------



## ArtMusic

Portamento said:


> So do you think that some people objectively have better taste than others?
> 
> And yes, I do think the answer is a bit of both - it's just where we draw that imaginary line.


Taste/preference is a totally different matter.

I personally enjoy listening to many classical works that are fine but nothing outstanding as a composition. For example, some concertos by unknown/recently discovered Baroque composers who have been obscure for over 200 years and are likely to remain mostly unknown. This is my preference. It has nothing to do whether my taste is better than yours or vice-versa. I am however totally comfortable in providing a separate, an objective analysis, of whether this composition has any merit from a musicological point of view. This framework is not hard to understand.


----------



## Zhdanov

Portamento said:


> No artistic value judgements are objective,


composition skills are objective values.


----------



## Portamento

ArtMusic said:


> I am however totally comfortable in providing a separate, an objective analysis, of whether this composition has any merit from a musicological point of view. This framework is not hard to understand.


Yet you voted in a poll that Korngold's Symphony is more original, more influential, AND objectively of more artistic value than Schoenberg's Three Piano Pieces. That makes me doubt whether you are able to assess "merit from a musicological point of view."



Zhdanov said:


> composition skills are objective values.


What do you mean by that? Are Beethoven's harmonies objectively a 10/10?


----------



## Eclectic Al

Portamento said:


> So do you think that some people objectively have better taste than others?
> 
> And yes, I do think the answer is a bit of both - it's just where we draw that imaginary line.


I don't know about the answer to your question, but I do know that if I insist my creation is great when everyone else disagrees then I need to show some humility. My taste is not better than everyone else's.


----------



## ArtMusic

Zhdanov said:


> composition skills are objective values.


At its very core, compositional skills is indeed the most objective skillset in art music.


----------



## Portamento

Eclectic Al said:


> I don't know about the answer to your question, but I do know that if I insist my creation is great when everyone else disagrees then I need to show some humility. My taste is not better than everyone else's.


Do you think Schoenberg needed "to show some humility" when virtually everyone outside a close circle of friends/pupils hated his atonal experiments? I dunno, but we would've lost some valuable music if he did.


----------



## chu42

Eclectic Al said:


> I don't know about the answer to your question, but I do know that if I insist my creation is great when everyone else disagrees then I need to show some humility. My taste is not better than everyone else's.


But what if people 50 years after your death believe your creation is great? After all, this is what happened with Beethoven's _Grosse Fuge_, which virtually every critic despised.


----------



## ArtMusic

Eclectic Al said:


> I don't know about the answer to your question, but I do know that if I insist my creation is great when everyone else disagrees then I need to show some humility. My taste is not better than everyone else's.


Taste and merit of a work are separate things. The former is indeed a personal preference while the latter is objective in terms of musicological assessment. Showing humility is an esteemed trade of character, which has little to do with the quality of the composition if at all.


----------



## Portamento

chu42 said:


> But what if people 50 years after your death believe your creation is great? After all, this is what happened with Beethoven's _Grosse Fuge_, which virtually every critic despised.


There's always the classic _Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung_ review of _Grosse Fuge_:

"[T]he reviewer does not dare to interpret the sense of the fugal finale; for him it was incomprehensible, like Chinese. If the instruments in the regions of the south and north poles have to struggle with gigantic difficulties; if each of them is differently figured and they cross over each other per transitum irregularem amid countless dissonances; if the players, not trusting themselves, probably also do not play completely accurately, then the Babylonian confusion is certainly complete. There then exists a concert at which Moroccans might possibly enjoy themselves-those who, during their presence at the Italian opera here, found nothing pleasing but the instruments harmonizing in empty fifths, and the customary preluding by all the instruments at once. Perhaps so much would not have been written down if the master were also able to hear his own creations. But we do not wish thereby to pronounce a negative judgment prematurely; perhaps the time is yet to come when that which at first glance appeared to us dismal and confused will be recognized as clear and pleasing in form."

At least the reviewer was perceptive enough to realize that tastes may change in the future.


----------



## chu42

Portamento said:


> There's always the classic _Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung_ review of _Grosse Fuge_:
> 
> "[T]he reviewer does not dare to interpret the sense of the fugal finale; for him it was incomprehensible, like Chinese. If the instruments in the regions of the south and north poles have to struggle with gigantic difficulties; if each of them is differently figured and they cross over each other per transitum irregularem amid countless dissonances; if the players, not trusting themselves, probably also do not play completely accurately, then the Babylonian confusion is certainly complete. There then exists a concert at which Moroccans might possibly enjoy themselves-those who, during their presence at the Italian opera here, found nothing pleasing but the instruments harmonizing in empty fifths, and the customary preluding by all the instruments at once. Perhaps so much would not have been written down if the master were also able to hear his own creations. But we do not wish thereby to pronounce a negative judgment prematurely; perhaps the time is yet to come when that which at first glance appeared to us dismal and confused will be recognized as clear and pleasing in form."
> 
> At least the reviewer was perceptive enough to realize that tastes may change in the future.


If you've ever read Slominsky's Lexicon of Musical Invective, you'd certainly be aware that other reviews had no such discernment in their evaluation!


----------



## ArtMusic

People often cite the masterful _Grosse Fugue_. I would rather cite Beethoven's oeuvre as a whole.


----------



## Portamento

ArtMusic said:


> People often cite the masterful _Grosse Fugue_. I would rather cite Beethoven's oeuvre as a whole.


Why, because _Grosse Fuge_'s initial reception doesn't fit with your made-up narrative?


----------



## ArtMusic

Portamento said:


> Why, because _Grosse Fuge_'s initial reception doesn't fit with your made-up narrative?


Because the _Grosse Fugue_ is but one of Beethoven's consistent masterpieces. My narrative is based on reading, research and thought.


----------



## chu42

ArtMusic said:


> Because the _Grosse Fugue_ is but one of Beethoven's consistent masterpieces. My narrative is based on reading, research and thought.


Many of Beethoven's more innovative works received very mixed reviews upon premiere.

On the Eroica:



> Musical connoisseurs and amateurs were divided into several parties. One group, Beethoven's very special friends, maintains that precisely this symphony is a masterpiece.... The other group utterly denies this work any artistic value ... [t]hrough strange modulations and violent transitions ... with abundant scratchings in the bass, with three horns and so forth, a true if not desirable originality can indeed be gained without much effort. ...The third, very small group stands in the middle; they admit that the symphony contains many beautiful qualities, but admit that the context often seems completely disjointed, and that the endless duration ... exhausts even connoisseurs, becoming unbearable to the mere amateur. To the public the symphony was too difficult, too long ... Beethoven, on the other hand, did not find the applause to be sufficiently outstanding.


----------



## science

Eclectic Al said:


> I will venture a statement that I believe to be true.
> 
> If I compose a piece of music and perform it myself, and I think it is great but everyone who listens to it thinks it is rubbish, then it is not great.
> 
> I believe this to be true, and therefore I cannot subscribe to the wholly subjective position.
> 
> Equally, in order to subscribe wholly to the objective position about the quality of music I think it would be necessary to establish precisely what objective criteria are used to measure the quality. And if you want to get into greatness then you would need to define the minimum score to pass the threshold into greatness. I think that's not really a meaningful way of looking at things. Therefore I cannot subscribe wholly to the objective position.
> 
> The answer is a bit of both.


To me, the former point means you value the subjective opinions of others.

That's probably the right thing to do! After all, no one is an island.


----------



## RogerWaters

ArtMusic said:


> Taste and merit of a work are separate things. The former is indeed a personal preference while *the latter is objective in terms of musicological assessment*. Showing humility is an esteemed trade of character, which has little to do with the quality of the composition if at all.


What makes musicological assessment objective?

It's surely not objective in the way a mathematical or scientific judgement is objective?

I'm taking you back to be OP.


----------



## consuono

RogerWaters said:


> What makes musicological assessment objective?


If it's all totally subjective, can I set myself up as a musicologist?


----------



## RogerWaters

consuono said:


> If it's all totally subjective, can I set myself up as a musicologist?


Good question for thought-food.

I would think musicological analysis of technique is more or less objective: this is a fugue, this is how the particular fugue works, this is how it's different to a fugue by someone else (&c.); you could not set yourself up to do this, unless you have the required knowledge.

I recall a youtube clip with Charles Rosen explaining what makes Bach different from Handel, as he sits at a piano comparing chords from each composer (a documentary on Bach by Gardiner, I think). Bach's chords have much more internal dissonance. But whether this makes Bach a better composer is a leap of logic. There is no valid argument that starts with the premise 'More chord dissonances' and concludes 'better music'. There is a suppressed premise here, namely 'music with more chord dissonances is better music': and this premise is surely utterly subjective.


----------



## consuono

RogerWaters said:


> Good question for thought-food.
> 
> I would think musicological analysis of technique is more or less objective: this is a fugue, this is how the particular fugue works, this is how it's different to a fugue by someone else (&c.).


 So all you need is a semester or two of theory and you're good to go. Right?


> I recall a youtube clip with Charles Rosen explaining what makes Bach different from Handel, as he sits at a piano comparing chords from each composer (a documentary on Bach by Gardiner, I think). Bach's chords have much more internal dissonance. But whether this makes Bach a better composer is a leap of logic. There is no valid argument that starts with the premise 'More chord dissonances' and concludes 'better music'. There is a suppressed premise here, namely 'music with more chord dissonances is better music'.


I think the point was "Bach's music is richer, especially in the middle voices, and had a huge influence on later composers". Care to disagree?


----------



## RogerWaters

consuono said:


> So all you need is a semester or two of theory and you're good to go. Right?


If you're so sure about that, off you go. It might get something off your chest.



consuono said:


> I think the point was "Bach's music is richer, especially in the middle voices, and had a huge influence on later composers". Care to disagree?


I don't care to disagree, strictly speaking, unless 'richer' means 'better'. If it simply means there is more variation in the inner voices, then fine.

However, I know my own preference, and it is for richer chords (i.e. Bach). So _for me_ Bach is better than Handel (and for a variety of other reasons). I am not so presumptuous to think this preferences is somehow reflected in the cosmos, though, or the 'rational logos'...


----------



## BachIsBest

chu42 said:


> Many of Beethoven's more innovative works received very mixed reviews upon premiere.
> 
> On the Eroica:


Many scientific theories received mixed reviews when they were published. I'm not sure what your point is.


----------



## ArtMusic

BachIsBest said:


> Many scientific theories received mixed reviews when they were published. I'm not sure what your point is.


There are formal conjectures in mathematics that are basically statements that appear true but have not been rigorously proven. I'm not a mathematician. But I do know that even mathematicians work with conjectures (in their strict sense of the word) and theorems that are only true under certain conditions (i.e. not a generalization).


----------



## Portamento

consuono said:


> "Bach's music is richer, especially in the middle voices,


Fairly objective.



> and had a huge influence on later composers".


Also fairly objective. But neither of the claims are 100% objective. No claim is.


----------



## consuono

RogerWaters said:


> If you're so sure about that, off you go. It might get something off your chest.


No, I'm asking. Is that all that's really required?



> I don't care to disagree, strictly speaking, unless 'richer' means 'better'. If it simply means there is more variation in the inner voices, then fine.
> 
> However, I know my own preference, and it is for richer chords (i.e. Bach). So _for me_ Bach is better than Handel (and for a variety of other reasons). I am not so presumptuous to think this preferences is somehow reflected in the cosmos, though, or the 'rational logos'...


Hmm. So why do you think do many others over the past 300 or so years expressed that same preference? Because "richer" is "worse"?


----------



## RogerWaters

consuono said:


> No, I'm asking. Is that all that's really required?


Probably a bit more time, but yes. What else did you think is required?



consuono said:


> Hmm. So why do you think do many others over the past 300 or so years expressed that same preference? Because "richer" is "worse"?


Homo sapiens over the past 200,000 years or so have generally preferred eating sugar and fat over plant roots.

This doesn't make sugar and fat are _objectively _great. Why Not?

Sugar and fat have been considered 'good' entirely due to human preferences. But 1+1 is two, and the earth revolves around the sun, irrespective of human preferences. What we desire/find pleasant doesn't enter into it one iota.

Similarly with music. Bach has been influential (in part) because he taps into human auditory preferences better than forgotten composers. But 1+1 is two, and the earth revolves around the sun, irrespective of human preferences.

If human beings were suddenly wiped from the planet, Bach would no longer be 'good' but 1+1 would still be 2 and the earth would still revolved around the sun.

Surely you can see an important difference here? What do you make of it, if you don't like terms I employ to mark it (subjective vs objective)?

My sneaking suspicion is that you are religious and some kind of Platonist, so you might not even accept my premises above: you might think, because God and a 'rational logos' exist (whatever that means), Bach is great _separately from human preferences_ - because of God's view point, or because of the 'rational structure' of Bach's music, or something esoteric like that.

If this is the case, then no wonder subjectivists and objectivists are talking past one another and it is simply useless to continue discussing this.


----------



## BachIsBest

ArtMusic said:


> There are formal conjectures in mathematics that are basically statements that appear true but have not been rigorously proven. I'm not a mathematician. But I do know that even mathematicians work with conjectures (in their strict sense of the word) and theorems that are only true under certain conditions (i.e. not a generalization).


I'm actually a grad student in mathematics. Regardless, my post was about scientific theories for a reason as there is, disregarding some notable exceptions, very little controversy about mathematical results as they can be proven rigorously.


----------



## DaveM

ArtMusic said:


> There are formal conjectures in mathematics that are basically statements that appear true but have not been rigorously proven. I'm not a mathematician. But I do know that even mathematicians work with conjectures (in their strict sense of the word) and theorems that are only true under certain conditions (i.e. not a generalization).


I tend to take your posts seriously, but it's hard with that new avatar. Seriously.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

BachIsBest said:


> Very little controversy about mathematical results as they can be proven rigorously.


Well the results themselves are at best bound to axiomitic inferences and rules governing logical reasoning. But, ignoring that, there is even in math a lot of debate about the meaning, beauty, and value ("greatness", you might say) to be found in mathematical truths. I am curious: do you also believe beauty in math is objective? Do you believe "greatness" in mathematicians and mathematical discoveries is objective?

If I enjoy algebraic geometry but find measure theory a bunch of pedantic bull****, am I deficient?


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

DjPooChoo said:


> Was Michael Jordan a good basketball player for _all_ humans? There are people who don't know a thing about the sport, and would have no way of gauging what they were seeing. But that is irrelevant. For those that understand the game and understand his achievements in the sport, he obviously was. Same goes for Bach.


Basketball is a game in which the goals of the participants are set and their efficacy in achieving those goals can be determined - at least to a reasonable degree - by objective metrics.

Not at all the case with music.


----------



## DjPooChoo

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Basketball is a game in which the goals of the participants are set and their efficacy in achieving those goals can be determined - at least to a reasonable degree - by objective metrics.
> 
> Not at all the case with music.


That maybe true. Although the goals of the participants in art and their efficacy at achieving those goals -- or even creating works that are truly extraordinary -- can be perceived and demonstrated. And it doesn't all boil down to taste.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

DjPooChoo said:


> That maybe true. Although the goals of the participants in art and their efficacy at achieving those goals -- or even creating works that are truly extraordinary -- can be perceived and demonstrated. And it doesn't all boil down to taste.


Ok I'll bite ... what are those goals?


----------



## consuono

RogerWaters said:


> Probably a bit more time, but yes.


A bit more time? Why?



> Homo sapiens over the past 200,000 years or so have generally preferred eating sugar and fat over plant roots.
> 
> This doesn't make sugar and fat are _objectively _great. Why Not?


Probably for the same reason that tofu isn't considered "great".


> Similarly with music. Bach has been influential (in part) because he taps into human auditory preferences better than forgotten composers.


That's just restating the question.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Jazz received mixed reviews when it was first played in Europe.


----------



## DjPooChoo

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Ok I'll bite ... what are those goals?


Doesn't that obviously vary? I think there are generalizations ast to what people generally respond to in the greatest works of art -- things like the sense of meaning that is delivered by a work as a part of a process; something is put before us and gradually worked out, so that the ending is experienced as the conclusion and resolution of something. This is why the coda to Mann's Death in Venice or the Mahler's Der Abschied affect us so profoundly. They are the answer to what procedes them, the resolution of the given problem. We share the affirmation that these works express and feel that affirmation as a necessity, contained withith the very experience of loss. Great works of art endow empirical emotions with a completeness and purity that in everyday life they could never attain. They move us to ask, in the wake of some intense experience, what does this work mean? Why does it affect me so deeply, and why has my world been so radically changed by experiencing it?

Of course, not all art is capable of being transformative, or profound, and invoking these kinds of responses out of people. But its often not created to be, and can be genuinely enjoyed for the lighter distractions or mere passing pleasures they provide. But there is a qualitative difference between works with different aesthetic goals, and some works' "ability, quality, or eminence considerably above the normal or average" can be recognized.


----------



## fluteman

DjPooChoo said:


> What is the definitive, precise, objective difference between an average sports athlete, an above average or "good" athlete, and a "great" athlete? Every year, a list of nominees in every respected sport are up for induction into the hall of fame -- a place among the "greats". And a select group of fellow athletes and connoseieurs debate about whether players are deserving of the designation and inclusion into their celebrations of their greatest athletes. Some nominees are unamimously or nearly unamiously voted in, while others have to incur heated debate and pros and cons about why they are deserving and why they aren't. If there were an absolute, qualitative way to determine greatness, no such debates would be necessary.


True, of course. Competitive sport offers the fantasy of the absolute, unambiguous, undeniable, heroic best, and -- sports fans don't always act like they want it! They still want to argue! But even if they sometimes pretend to be too sophisticated to fall for it, deep down, they want and enjoy the fantasy.


----------



## RogerWaters

consuono said:


> A bit more time? Why?
> 
> Probably for the same reason that tofu isn't considered "great".
> That's just restating the question.


Thanks for your massively considered response.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it think.


----------



## fluteman

ArtMusic said:


> There are formal conjectures in mathematics that are basically statements that appear true but have not been rigorously proven. I'm not a mathematician. But I do know that even mathematicians work with conjectures (in their strict sense of the word) and theorems that are only true under certain conditions (i.e. not a generalization).


Yes. Assumptions must be made before anything can be decreed absolutely, objectively true.


----------



## Woodduck

Nereffid said:


> I would agree with that. But the crux of the matter, surely, is in three words you left out: *in certain people*.
> w
> Realistically we can only talk about the _probability _of certain sounds producing certain effects and judgements, and this probability can be altered by factors that are outside of the music.


Of course you're correct. A similar phenomenon may be a gene that can express itself in different ways under different conditions. The essential nature of the gene - the limited range of things it can and can't do - remains the same.


----------



## ArtMusic

fluteman said:


> Yes. Assumptions must be made before anything can be decreed absolutely, objectively true.


I'm not even referring to assumptions. Conjectures in mathematics appear to be a conclusion or a proposition which is suspected to be true due to preliminary supporting evidence, but for which no proof or disproof has yet been found. Yet mathematicians, the most objective of all learned professions, are happy to work with conjectures. We should not be so naive to even think of scientific proofs for music, but only artistic objective criteria.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> Because "richer" is "worse"?


O RLY? Why then, would you prefer Joseph over Michael -which is essentially like "valuing pomposity over inner harmonies" imv?


----------



## DaveM

RogerWaters said:


> If human beings were suddenly wiped from the planet, Bach would no longer be 'good' but 1+1 would still be 2 and the earth would still revolved around the sun.


You would be laughed out of the room if this was an official debate and that was your argument.



> My sneaking suspicion is that you are religious and some kind of Platonist, so you might not even accept my premises above: you might think, because God and a 'rational logos' exist (whatever that means), Bach is great _separately from human preferences_ - because of God's view point, or because of the 'rational structure' of Bach's music, or something esoteric like that.
> 
> If this is the case, then no wonder subjectivists and objectivists are talking past one another and it is simply useless to continue discussing this.


So you are assuming Platonism and a belief system of God on the part of a single poster and then transposing that to a reason that _'subjectivists and objectivists are talking past one another'_?

Geez!


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> You would be laughed out of the room if this was an official debate and that was your argument.


I don't see why that is. I thought the narrative was that most schools and academics taught subjectivity and egalitarianism.



> So you are assuming Platonism and a belief system of God on the part of a single poster and then transposing that to a reason that 'subjectivists and objectivists are talking past one another'?
> 
> Geez!


I would agree that particularly weak arguments concerning religion and metaphysical philosophies should not be associated or bring down any stronger arguments that the objectivist side has.


----------



## RogerWaters

DaveM said:


> You would be laughed out of the room if this was an official debate and that was your argument.


From what I can gather, you have contributed very little to any interesting dialectic going on around these issues.

Perhaps you would care to explain what you think is wrong with my reasoning, rather than saying it would be laughed at. I don't see any glaring issues.

Educate me.



DaveM said:


> So you are assuming Platonism and a belief system of God on the part of a single poster and then transposing that to a reason that _'subjectivists and objectivists are talking past one another'_?


It was a suggestion. I wasn't presenting it as the definitive reason. Can you not comprehend the meaning of 'if'?


----------



## Woodduck

Portamento said:


> This is the most concise way I can put it:
> 
> The argument can be made for one piece to be objectively better than another _as music_ - or an aesthetic object - but not without that qualification because music has many, many uses; *for a piece of music to be objectively better than another in the truest sense, it must be better for all uses of music* (which is not plausible).


Does this mean that Bach's Chaconne from his Partita #2 would have to be better for a 4th of July parade than "The stars & Stripes Forever" in order to be considered the greater work "in the truest sense"?


----------



## Portamento

Woodduck said:


> Does this mean that Bach's Chaconne from his Partita #2 would have to be better for a 4th of July parade than "The stars & Stripes Forever" in order to be considered the greater work "in the truest sense"?


Yes, that is correct.


----------



## DaveM

RogerWaters said:


> Educate me.


An exercise in futility and it would take minutes of my life I couldn't get back.



> It was a suggestion. I wasn't presenting it as the definitive reason. Can you not comprehend the meaning of 'if'?


Yes, and I can detect when someone wishes they could take a post back.


----------



## RogerWaters

DaveM said:


> An exercise in futility and it would take minutes of my life I couldn't get back.


In my experience, this kind of dismissive comment betrays an inability to engage in reasoning and constructive argument.

It puts on an air of authority, while totally avoiding any test of said authority.

You are asserting my reasoning is 'laughable' without pointing out why. Well, let's see why you think this. 'Put up or shut up', as they say.

I've asserted that musical judgements cannot be objective, in the sense mathematical and scientific claims can be, because the former depend for their 'truth' on human preferences, while the truth of mathematical and scientific claims do not.

Illustration of above point: 1+1 would equal 2 even if human beings died tomorrow. Bach would not be good music in the absence of human beings.

Do you agree with my assumption, that if the truth of a claim depends on human preferences as opposed to the mind-independent world it cannot be objective? If not, why not?



DaveM said:


> Yes, and I can detect when someone wishes they could take a post back.


I don't wish I could take any post back. What are you talking about? Are you simply a troll?


----------



## annaw

RogerWaters said:


> If human beings were suddenly wiped from the planet, Bach would no longer be 'good' but 1+1 would still be 2 and the earth would still revolved around the sun.


The thing is that there're philosophers who have argued that in fact you _cannot_ prove that earth would still revolve around the sun if no human is there to observe that it is. On the other hand, 1 + 1 = 2 is probably by most considered _a priori_, meaning that it's proved through logical deduction and thus does not require to be ovserved.

Your argument seems to be more connected with questions about existence and perception, not so much obejctivity/subjectivity.


----------



## RogerWaters

annaw said:


> you _cannot_ prove that earth would still revolve around the sun if no human is there to observe that it is. On the other hand, 1 + 1 = 2 is probably by most considered _a priori_, meaning that it's proved through logical deduction and thus does not require to be ovserved.


This mixes up the question of how we would know something with whether that thing is true.

No one in their right mind thinks that, for the earth to revolve around the sun, human beings would need to be there to observe it.

However, Bach counting as 'great music' depends _intimately _on human beings being around. Without human preferences, the greatness of bach's music is non-existent (unless you believe in some cosmic standard, like God, who would 'see' Bach's greatness in the absence of human beings).


----------



## Woodduck

Portamento said:


> Yes, that is correct.


Ummm...aaaah...well... OK...


----------



## BachIsBest

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Well the results themselves are at best bound to axiomitic inferences and rules governing logical reasoning. But, ignoring that, there is even in math a lot of debate about the meaning, beauty, and value ("greatness", you might say) to be found in mathematical truths. I am curious: do you also believe beauty in math is objective? Do you believe "greatness" in mathematicians and mathematical discoveries is objective?
> 
> If I enjoy algebraic geometry but find measure theory a bunch of pedantic bull****, am I deficient?


To a certain extent greatness in mathematical results are objective. A successful proof of the Riemann hypothesis is a great result regardless of anyone subjective opinion. I'm not sure about beauty, maybe "elegance" would be a better word.

If you find measure theory a bunch of pedantic crap, then you are wrong; measure theory is highly useful (I realise this is just a random example). There is even a not-entirely-remote chance that all the remaining mysteries of the universe are due to our poor understanding of measure theory.

Most mathematicians report being mathematical platonists in polls.


----------



## BachIsBest

Portamento said:


> Yes, that is correct.


Luckily, the argument of the "objectivists" is not about Portamento's "truest sense" but confines itself to occupy just a reasonable sense.


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> Bach counting as 'great music' depends intimately on human beings being around. Without human preferences, the greatness of Bach's music is non-existent.


Funny that clicking "reply with quote" brings up a different statement than the one that appears in your post. Was this a first draft?

Regardless, I find strange the idea that what was once great music should cease to be such merely because there's no longer anyone around to hear it. The extraordinary qualities Bach put into it are still there. The B-minor Mass could only have been produced by a musical genius of the first order. Nothing can change that.


----------



## annaw

RogerWaters said:


> This mixes up the question of how we would know something with whether that thing is true.
> 
> No one in their right mind thinks that, for the earth to revolve around the sun, human beings would need to be there to observe it.
> 
> However, Bach counting as 'great music' depends _intimately _on human beings being around. Without human preferences, the greatness of bach's music is non-existent (unless you believe in some cosmic standard, like God, who would 'see' Bach's greatness in the absence of human beings).


Never argued that... I have not participated in this debate actively and do not wish to take over someone else's argument.

There _have_ been philosophers who disagree with your premise. I'm not saying if I do or don't. I'm simply saying that there was a reason why the theory of critical realism was developed and not taken for granted.


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> To a certain extent greatness in mathematical results are objective. A successful proof of the Riemann hypothesis is a great result regardless of anyone subjective opinion


Why is it a great result regardless of anyone's opinion?!


----------



## RogerWaters

annaw said:


> Never argued that... I have not participated in this debate actively and do not wish to take over someone else's argument.
> 
> There _have_ been philosophers who disagree with your premise. I'm not saying if I do or don't. I'm simply saying that there was a reason why the theory of critical realism was developed and not taken for granted.


I'm not following you, sorry.


----------



## annaw

RogerWaters said:


> I'm not following you, sorry.


I'll leave it at that. I just think that the whole debate *is* a debate about an extremely philosophical matter. I think my own skills to argue about it are lacking, to be honest.


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> Funny that clicking "reply with quote" brings up a different statement than the one that appears in your post. Was this a first draft?


I have the bad habit of proof reading _after_ I've made a post. It means much last minute editing, often while someone is replying!



Woodduck said:


> Regardless, I find strange the idea that what was once great music should cease to be such merely because there's no longer anyone around to hear it. The extraordinary qualities Bach put into it are still there. The B-minor Mass could only have been produced by a musical genius of the first order. Nothing can change that.


I guess this gets down to the crux of the disagreement.

You know the old adage 'if the tree falls down and there is no one to hear it, did it really happen'? In the case of the tree, the obviously right answer is 'yes'. When it comes to the greatness of Bach, there is no way to even define 'greatness' rigorously without referring back to human preferences (you will always come back to them, at some point: you might define, say, musical complexity objectively, but then it will be the _preference_ for complexity that makes complex music great).


----------



## DaveM

RogerWaters said:


> In my experience, this kind of dismissive comment betrays an inability to engage in reasoning and constructive argument.


But you apparently haven't considered that sometimes someone simply chooses when and with who they engage. You raise a premise and demand that people respond to it. I may or may not respond as per my choosing.



> It puts on an air of authority, while totally avoiding any test of said authority.


I never thought about that. Do you have a concern about authority figures?



> I've asserted that musical judgements cannot be objective, in the sense mathematical and scientific claims can be, because the former depend for their 'truth' on human preferences, while the truth of mathematical and scientific claims do not.


Now that I choose to respond to. I would agree that musical judgments ordinarily do not have the overall objectivity of that of mathematical and sciencific claims.



> I don't wish I could take any post back. What are you talking about? Are you simply a troll?


You have responded to posts of mine that had nothing to do with you including one where you questioned my intellect. Are you a troll?


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> This mixes up the question of how we would know something with whether that thing is true.


The two are inseparable. If we don't know what constitutes knowing, we don't know what qualifies as knowledge.



> No one in their right mind thinks that, for the earth to revolve around the sun, human beings would need to be there to observe it.


Perhaps, but it still can't be proved. Neither can the idea that anything causes anything else. We observe one kind of event following another in a consistent way over time, but causality remains an inference, not an observable fact.

Questions about what can be known and how it can be known are not settled.


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> I guess this gets down to the crux of the disagreement.
> 
> You know the old adage 'if the tree falls down and there is no one to hear it, did it really happen'? In the case of the tree, the obviously right answer is 'yes'. When it comes to the greatness of Bach, there is no way to even define 'greatness' rigorously without referring back to human preferences (you will always come back to them, at some point: you might define, say, musical complexity objectively, but then it will be the _preference_ for complexity that makes complex music great).


I'd say that a number of things contribute to making music worthy of being called "great." In this case, and in many others, one test is, "Could anything other than a great creative mind have produced this?" Answering this question adequately presupposes some knowledge of music and what goes into the writing of it; to some people any music at all is miraculous, but the more you know about music, the more you appreciate the qualities that make the best stand out and the more you see why the "consensus" that some here like to talk about exists. These folks seem to want to attribute that consensus to everything but the qualities of the music itself! But when something goes on being considered a masterpiece for three hundred years, attempts to explain its durability by "tradition" or "culture" wear pretty thin.


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> The two are inseparable. If we don't know what constitutes knowing, we don't know what qualifies as knowledge.


Just to be clear, I'm saying whether or not a star has exploded does not depend on us. This is not a question of how we know the star has exploded (we may observe it with a telescope, and/or use maths to deduce its nonexistence from disturbed orbits).



Woodduck said:


> Perhaps, but it still can't be proved.


Perhaps? _Perhaps_ the earth revolves around the sun whether or not human beings are there to observe this?!

I don't think the universe depends on human beings for its existence, that's just me though. I find the opposite idea somewhat solipsistic (not that I'm attributing that motivation to you).


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> I'd say that a number of things contribute to making music worthy of being called "great." In this case, and in many others, one test is, "Could anything other than a great creative mind have produced this?" Answering this question adequately presupposes some knowledge of music and what goes into the writing of it; to some people any music at all is miraculous, but the more you know about music, the more you appreciate the qualities that make the best stand out and the more you see why the "consensus" that some here like to talk about exists. These folks seem to want to attribute that consensus to everything but the qualities of the music itself! But when something goes on being considered a masterpiece for three hundred years, attempts to explain its durability by "tradition" or "culture" wear pretty thin.


From what I can tell, none of this separates 'greatness' from human preferences.

Which means, Bach's greatness still depends on human preferences (collective or individual, it doesn't matter in this case).


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> Just to be clear, I'm saying whether or not a star has exploded does not depend on how we know it has exploded.
> 
> Perhaps? _Perhaps_ the earth revolves around the sun whether or not human beings being there to observe this?!
> 
> I don't think the universe depends on human beings for its existence, that's just me though. I find the opposite idea somewhat solipsistic (not that I'm attributing that motivation to you).


I'm saying that there is no _proof_ that the appearances of material reality are not the products of mind, whether the mind of God or of some collective consciousness in which we participate. In philosophy that's called Idealism. I'm not saying I believe that, but the existence of mind in a universe of matter, and the relationship between these two seemingly unrelated orders of being, remains a major problem for philosophy and science. Science, in fact, has nothing to say about it that makes any sense.


----------



## science

There are really only three lines:

1. Just mixing up "subjective" and some other thing that you don't like, like total relativism, rejecting expertise, disobeying laws, or even just being rude.

2. Pretending that "subjective" only refers to the relatively superficial pleasures rather than deeply felt and/or subtle feelings that something is right or good. Or that "subjective" only refers to naive impressions, whereas impressions that have been refined by many years of study or practice cease to be anything like feelings or impressions.

3. Pretending that if everyone -- which of course means "everyone who matters" -- agrees, then their agreement constitutes objectivity. Related to this is pretending that being able to guess more-or-less accurately about how other people (or perhaps only people "who matter") will feel about a thing somehow means the feelings themselves (rather than the guess) are objective. (This is part of what lays behind the attempts to portray "I like" as subjective but "I recognize as good art" as objective.)

So those are the lines we see over and over throughout these threads, expressed in a wide variety of linguistic and rhetorical forms.

But I really can't believe anyone able to participate in this discussion genuinely falls for any of that. It's grasping at straws to save the sense that "people like us" (not including people like me of course) really are superior to people who have different tastes because our taste is "objectively" better. I give Zhdanov credit for daring to be honest about this. It's what taste was used for in the 19th and early 20th centuries, before democratic and anti-colonial thought jarred everyone out of it, though of course it continued in elitist circles well into the late 20th century. I'm a little surprised to find it hanging on, but I suppose if it's going to hang on it'd be at a place like this, where people with such views come expecting to be validated. But we're too far from the era of kings and aristocrats to take this stuff seriously: in our hearts of hearts we all know that all truly aesthetic judgment is subjective, and none of us are capable of fooling ourselves with any of the lines above.

Sorry guys. We're all just regular people here, and any ideologies that deny that in order to elevate some of us above others will not persuade many people who don't find themselves flattered by them.

Now you might _know_ more than other people. You might have read more books, thought about an issue more, have more practical experience. Seize on that if you can. But in the instance when you experience a thing and you judge "this is good" or "I like this," you're just a person.


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> From what I can tell, none of this separates 'greatness' from human preferences.
> 
> Which means, Bach's greatness still depends on human preferences (collective or individual, it doesn't matter in this case).


So you believe that Bach's ability to utilize the tools of his art at a level no one else could equal is just something we're led to imagine because we prefer what he does to what, say, Joseph Rheinberger does? That would come as a surprise to every musician on earth for the last three centuries, definitely including Joseph Rheinberger (and maybe to some observant aliens too).


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> I'm saying that there is no _proof_ that the appearances of material reality are not the products of mind, whether the mind of God or of some collective consciousness in which we participate. In philosophy that's called Idealism. I'm not saying I believe that, but the existence of mind in a universe of matter, and the relationship between these two seemingly unrelated orders of being, remains a major problem for philosophy and science. Science, in fact, has nothing to say about it that makes any sense.


Well, I'll make a post in a group because this is off-topic, but I don't think it's even really that mysterious.


----------



## ArtMusic

If Bach is suddenly brought back from the dead today, then he would be deeply flattered by the enormously respect and love of his music we have today. He would also be rather surprised to see that much of his religious music have been taken to the stage for secular performances. He would most likely express humility as he had done when he was alive. He would certainly continue to compose masterpieces one after another in his idiom assuming he can/feel as inspired to do so as he was in 1750. I have no doubt.

Edit: And he would be a multi-millionaire very quickly.


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> I'm saying that there is no _proof_ that the appearances of material reality are not the products of mind, whether the mind of God or of some collective consciousness in which we participate. In philosophy that's called Idealism. I'm not saying I believe that, but the existence of mind in a universe of matter, and the relationship between these two seemingly unrelated orders of being, remains a major problem for philosophy and science. Science, in fact, has nothing to say about it that makes any sense.


People have bagged getting too 'philosophical', but I'm starting to get the sense that disagreements between subjectivists and objectivists depend on quite deep philosophical issues.

It seems we are finding agreement difficult around my assertion that there is a difference between facts about Bach's greatness and facts about material reality (the first depend on human minds the latter do not, I have alleged) because you are worried that _all_ facts might be mind dependant!


----------



## science

RogerWaters said:


> People have bagged getting too 'philosophical', but I'm starting to get the sense that disagreements between subjectivists and objectivists depend on quite deep philosophical issues.
> 
> It seems we are finding agreement difficult around my assertion that there is a difference between facts about Bach's greatness and facts about material reality (the first depend on human minds the latter do not, I have alleged) because you are worried that _all_ facts might be mind dependant!


Even if we agree that Bach did something very well in terms of the principles of his tradition (or his goals or whatever), the fundamental question is why we think those principles, goals, or even having done it well matters.

A calculator would attribute no value to any of that. There are simply no values without feelings.


----------



## Woodduck

I think the question of what constitutes knowledge is relevant to the perception and evaluation of art. Aesthetics is, after all, considered a branch of philosophy, and I think rightly so. Aesthetic experience seems to me a unique category of experience. But that's too long an essay for tonight. I'm off to bed.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> Even if we agree that Bach did something very well in terms of the principles of his tradition (or his goals or whatever), the fundamental question is why we think those principles, goals, or even having done it well matters.


Those are different questions, and I don't see either of them as "fundamental." The fact that an extraordinary achievement won't matter to everyone strikes me as obvious and trivial.



> A calculator would attribute no value to any of that. There are simply no values without feelings.


True - but, again, what difference does it make? Calculators tell us no more about Bach than space aliens.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Portamento said:


> Do you think Schoenberg needed "to show some humility" when virtually everyone outside a close circle of friends/pupils hated his atonal experiments? I dunno, but we would've lost some valuable music if he did.


That would be a matter of taste.


----------



## ArtMusic

Woodduck said:


> True - but, again, what difference does it make? Calculators tell us no more about Bach than space aliens.


Calculators are simple tools. Bach's music are conceptually complex works, demanding virtuosic performance and meticulous understanding of every note. We should not reduce it to plastic chips that churn out numbers. I have read posts elsewhere that compare objectivity of say 4 x 7 = 28 with the apparent lack of objectivity in masterpieces; I mean really, do we have to reduce it down to 4 x 7 = 28?


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> Those are different questions, and I don't see either of them as "fundamental." The fact that an extraordinary achievement won't matter to everyone strikes me as obvious and trivial.
> 
> True - but, again, what difference does it make? Calculators tell us no more about Bach than space aliens.


So you acknowledge that it's subjective but you don't care.

Fine.

The difference is what is true versus what isn't true. Is it true that the value you place on Bach's music is "objective?" No. It might be based on any number of objectively present attributes, but the value you put on any of them is by definition (as you have admitted from time to time) subjective.

And that matters because a lot of people who realize that will conclude that they have no right to belittle people whose values differ -- whether they differ a little or a lot. You might belittle someone for not knowing as much as you do, that's up to you, but for feeling differently about things... well, that's up to you too, but it's good for people to see exactly what basis that rests on rather than being fooled by the claims that your opinions are purely objective and correct while others' are simply wrong.


----------



## science

ArtMusic said:


> ... I have read posts elsewhere that compare objectivity of say 4 x 7 = 28 with the apparent lack of objectivity in masterpieces...


And I have read posts where people pretended that bothering their neighbors at 2 AM had something to do with whether aesthetic impressions are objective or not.


----------



## ArtMusic

science said:


> And I have read posts where people pretended that bothering their neighbors at 2 AM had something to do with whether aesthetic impressions are objective or not.


I was responding with my example concerning the notion that values are or are not subjective. It is.


----------



## ArtMusic

science said:


> So you acknowledge that it's subjective but you don't care.
> 
> Fine.
> 
> The difference is what is true versus what isn't true. Is it true that the value you place on Bach's music is "objective?" No. It might be based on any number of objectively present attributes, but the value you put on any of them is by definition (as you have admitted from time to time) subjective.
> 
> And that matters because a lot of people who realize that will conclude that they have no right to belittle people whose values differ -- whether they differ a little or a lot. You might belittle someone for not knowing as much as you do, that's up to you, but for feeling differently about things... well, that's up to you too, but it's good for people to see exactly what basis that rests on rather than being fooled by the claims that your opinions are purely objective and correct while others' are simply wrong.


Member Woodduck in my view is one of the most informed and respected members here. I enjoy reading his posts.


----------



## Eclectic Al

annaw said:


> The thing is that there're philosophers who have argued that in fact you _cannot_ prove that earth would still revolve around the sun if no human is there to observe that it is. On the other hand, 1 + 1 = 2 is probably by most considered _a priori_, meaning that it's proved through logical deduction and thus does not require to be ovserved.
> 
> Your argument seems to be more connected with questions about existence and perception, not so much obejctivity/subjectivity.


1+1 = 2 is a statement in mathematics, derived from certain axioms and rules of reasoning. (And even in the mathematical realm, people may differ about what constitutes valid reasoning.)

If you try to apply 1+1=2 to the physical world you would need to define criteria whereby different Objects (A and B) are deemed for this purpose to be the same and so each to count as "1". That is you will need a rule of set membership which A and B both satisfy.

You will need to have tested A and B against the rule of set membership. This requires, prior to that, that you have identified what A is and what B is. Suppose A is a cat, and B is a cat, but they are not the same cat. The concept of cat is subtle: it derives from much experience of the world, well away from the world of logic. Here's an example, you have a domestic cat and a tiger. Do you have 1+1 = 2? Yes, if the rule of set membership relates to membership of the wider cat family; no if the rule of set membership relates to the common usage of cat to mean a domestic cat. Is a kitten a cat? Is a fertilised cat egg a cat, or does it need to develop in order to be a cat? Is a dead cat a cat? If so, how decomposed does it have to be before it is not a cat anymore. At what point does a cat transition from being alive to being dead? If the cat species had predecessors in evolution were they cats? What if they couldn't cross-breed with cats? At what point did they diverge? Where does the cat object end anyway. The atoms at its surface are (I guess) a seething mass of physical stuff with no clear boundary to the rest of the non-cat universe. Where does the cat end? Search me.

1+1 = 2 is only a true statement in a logical mathematical realm which has been constructed by human thought. Who knows if aliens would find that manner of thought meaningful? Aliens might be more sophisticated than us and find that counting things by reference to integers is not meaningful: perhaps their senses perceive connections which mean that to them there is only one connected entity which is the whole universe, and as a result they never came up with the concept of counting. Perhaps as a result of that their physics developed differently, and they had insights which enabled them to develop a "warp" engine, which our theorising currently suggests is impossible. Who knows?

There's not much about music in this post, but just a suggestion that if you employ 1+1=2 outside its home in the mathematical realm, then it loses its logical clarity, and becomes very much a matter of human musing. Just like arguments about music perhaps. No logical clarity possible.


----------



## science

ArtMusic said:


> I was responding with my example concerning the notion that values are or are not subjective. *It is.*


What is?

....


----------



## science

ArtMusic said:


> Member Woodduck in my view is one of the most informed and respected members here. I enjoy reading his posts.


Excellent illustration!

(a) "Member Woodduck in my view is one of the most informed... members here." This is an objective claim, and an investigation could offer various kinds of evidence for or against it. And if the evidence for it is solid, you'd be (speaking informally) proven correct.

(b) "Member Woodduck in my view is one of the most.. respected members here." Ditto!

(c) "I enjoy reading his posts." This is a statement about your own psychological state during a given experience. To that extent, it must be true (assuming you know yourself well and are being honest about it). But that doesn't meant that all sentient beings will have the same psychological state during that experience. You know why?


----------



## ArtMusic

science said:


> Excellent illustration!
> 
> (a) "Member Woodduck in my view is one of the most informed... members here." This is an objective claim, and an investigation could offer various kinds of evidence for or against it. And if the evidence for it is solid, you'd be (speaking informally) proven correct.
> 
> (b) "Member Woodduck in my view is one of the most.. respected members here." Ditto!
> 
> (c) "I enjoy reading his posts." This is a statement about your own psychological state during a given experience. To that extent, it must be true. But that doesn't meant that all sentient beings will have the same psychological state during that experience. You know why?


I think you are extrapolating far, far too much of a simple sentence or two that I wrote. I am honored; truly, but I would prefer to go back to discuss the complexities of Baroque music by Bach etc.


----------



## Eclectic Al

RogerWaters said:


> I have the bad habit of proof reading _after_ I've made a post. It means much last minute editing, often while someone is replying!
> 
> I guess this gets down to the crux of the disagreement.
> 
> You know the old adage 'if the tree falls down and there is no one to hear it, did it really happen'? In the case of the tree, the obviously right answer is 'yes'. When it comes to the greatness of Bach, there is no way to even define 'greatness' rigorously without referring back to human preferences (you will always come back to them, at some point: you might define, say, musical complexity objectively, but then it will be the _preference_ for complexity that makes complex music great).


I am with you that there is "something out there" which is objective.
However, I don't think that "trees" fall without there being thinking entities that perceive some stuff and decide to refer to that stuff as a "tree".
I find all this stuff very mysterious (consciousness, and the closely related concept of time, being the real mysteries) but as far as the physical world goes I guess there is just some sort of bubbling of something. I guess that has some sort of principles guiding how it bubbles. "Trees" though are a construct of a thinking mind, which relates to part of that mind's theorising about how the bubbling behaves.


----------



## annaw

Eclectic Al said:


> 1+1 = 2 is a statement in mathematics, derived from certain axioms and rules of reasoning. (And even in the mathematical realm, people may differ about what constitutes valid reasoning.)
> 
> If you try to apply 1+1=2 to the physical world you would need to define criteria whereby different Objects (A and B) are deemed for this purpose to be the same and so each to count as "1". That is you will need a rule of set membership which A and B both satisfy.
> 
> You will need to have tested A and B against the rule of set membership. This requires, prior to that, that you have identified what A is and what B is. Suppose A is a cat, and B is a cat, but they are not the same cat. The concept of cat is subtle: it derives from much experience of the world, well away from the world of logic. Here's an example, you have a domestic cat and a tiger. Do you have 1+1 = 2? Yes, if the rule of set membership relates to membership of the wider cat family; no if the rule of set membership relates to the common usage of cat to mean a domestic cat. Is a kitten a cat? Is a fertilised cat egg a cat, or does it need to develop in order to be a cat? Is a dead cat a cat? If so, how decomposed does it have to be before is it not a cat anymore. At what point does a cat transition from being alive to being dead? If the cat species had predecessors in evolution were they cats? What if they couldn't cross-breed with cats? At what point did they diverge? Where does the cat object end anyway. The atoms at its surface are (I guess) a seething mass of physical stuff with no clear boundary to the rest of the non-cat universe. Where does the cat end? Search me.
> 
> 1+1 = 2 is only a true statement in a logical mathematical realm which has been constructed by human thought. Who knows if aliens would find that manner of thought meaningful? Aliens might be more sophisticated than us and find that counting things by reference to integers is not meaningful: perhaps their senses perceive connections which mean that to them there is only one connected entity which is the whole universe, and as a result they never came up with the concept of counting. Perhaps as a result of that their physics developed differently, and they had insights which enabled them to develop a "warp" engine, which our theorising currently suggests is impossible. Who knows?
> 
> There's not much about music in this post, but just a suggestion that if you employ 1+1=2 outside its home in the mathematical realm, then it loses its logical clarity, and becomes very much a matter of human musing. Just like arguments about music perhaps. No logical clarity possible.


An interesing idea. I have to think about this. But still, I assume that you agree that 1 + 1 = 2 as an abstract statement is relatively objective if one stays in the mathematical realm.


----------



## Portamento

BachIsBest said:


> Luckily, the argument of the "objectivists" is not about Portamento's "truest sense" but confines itself to occupy just a reasonable sense.


What is "a reasonable sense"? Music as an aesthetic object?



RogerWaters said:


> People have bagged getting too 'philosophical', but I'm starting to get the sense that disagreements between subjectivists and objectivists depend on quite deep philosophical issues.


Yup! Let's get philosophical. Here's some food for thought.

I've been reading some of Jerrold Levinson's work recently. I agree with him that judgements of artistic value are generally a function of the music's worthwhileness as a listening experience. However, in describing this experience we can't resort to low-level criteria such as melody, harmonic invention, rhythmic interest, pleasing timbres, or evident emotional expressiveness. There are examples of music that can relatively objectively be deemed "good" as music which don't satisfy at least one of these criteria. Monroe Beardsley claimed that we can identify general properties of works of art that result in artistic goodness because those properties are inherently satisfying to experience… but I'm skeptical of this. For Leonard Meyer, valuable music provides a structure in which there is a delayed - but not indefinitely postponed - fulfillment of expectations. Essentially, music is valued insofar as the listener takes satisfaction in _following_ it; this is more than any low-level criterion can evidence. It's interesting to consider whether there can be any "mid-level criteria": ones which aren't so damn abstract as the intrinsic rewardingness of the listening experience, but not as limited as low-level criteria. Any suggestions?

Levinson builds on Meyer's view to suggest that the experiential value of music lies in "the satisfaction of apprehending and responding to music's expressive aspect." I like this because it adds human agency into the mix - that how music "goes" is a process being interpreted in terms of human life. We find how the music "goes" to be intrinsically rewarding, but even more intrinsically rewarding is how this fuses with what the music "conveys." (This is not a new concept by any means.) Finally, Levinson lists three criteria for evaluating experiential goodness in music:


"how rewarding it is to experience how the music goes, that is, how rewarding it is to follow as tonal [_not_ tonal as in CPT] process"
"how rewarding it is to register or respond to what it conveys"
"how rewarding it is to experience what it conveys in relation to, or as embodied in, how it goes"

So that's Levinson's model, which I think is quite nice. Does this eliminate subjectivity? Of course not, but it establishes grounds by which Bach's music can be thought of as (relatively) objectively better than Rheinberger's _as an aesthetic object_.

I'm still reading Levinson's stuff and digesting it as I go, so there's a chance I'll change my mind on something (I know, what a crime!).


----------



## science

ArtMusic said:


> I think you are extrapolating far, far too much of a simple sentence or two that I wrote. I am honored; truly, but I would prefer to go back to discuss the complexities of Baroque music by Bach etc.


Of course, as you are aware, that was not the topic in this thread.


----------



## Portamento

ArtMusic said:


> Member Woodduck in my view is one of the most informed and respected members here. I enjoy reading his posts.


I can always tell that there is a coherent thought process behind WD's opinions, which is more than I can say for some of yours.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Woodduck said:


> Questions about what can be known and how it can be known are not settled.


We have to trust our senses, our experience, our brains...which all came about by an unintelligible accident.

We have to trust things for which we have no good reason to trust.


----------



## Eclectic Al

annaw said:


> An interesing idea. I have to think about this. But still, I assume that you agree that 1 + 1 = 2 as an abstract statement is relatively objective if one stays in the mathematical realm.


Yes - contingently :lol:

The next step is to consider 1+2. You might say that 1+2=3, but you could equally have 1+2=1, if you are playing with modular arithmetic with modulus 2. (For example, if all that matters to you is odd or even then you would collapse everything down to 1s and 2s, or better 1s and 0s). Mod 7, of course, no one has any problem with the idea the Monday + 1 day = Tuesday, and Monday + 8 days = Tuesday as well, or equivalently that 7 days = 0 days for the purposes of determining day of the week (if not for the purpose of waiting for a lockdown to end).

A trite example, perhaps, but I guess the point is that in maths you are supposed to be extraordinarily pedantic about your axioms and your reasoning (so in my little example you would need to have been clear whether you were working in arithmetic mod 2). I then suspect that if you try and translate mathematical thinking to the physical world you could not hope to be sufficiently pedantic to be sure of the validity of your reasoning.

You may detect that I think platonism in mathematics (as in most things) is complete nonsense: it is the ego of mathematicians extended to encompass the whole universe. All you can hope is that maths is useful for doing physics and physics is reasonably successful at generating testable theories which appear to test quite well (to the limits of our ability to think up and carry out tests).

Oh, and by the way, I think the use of maths in the grubby world of physics, is to prostitute a noble intellectual activity.


----------



## science

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> We have to trust our senses, our experience, our brains...which all came about by an unintelligible accident.
> 
> We have to trust things for which we have no good reason to trust.


I don't know of anything we can trust. As far as I know, all we can do is (a) do our best to confirm or disconfirm what other people say about the world; and (b) try to create institutions that incentivize people to tell the truth about the world.


----------



## science

Portamento said:


> Monroe Beardsley claimed that we can identify general properties of works of art that result in artistic goodness because those properties are inherently satisfying to experience… but I'm skeptical of this.


The problem is "inherently." It's okay as long as we realize that this satisfaction depends on the nature of the mind undergoing the experience.



Portamento said:


> Does this eliminate subjectivity? Of course not, but it establishes grounds by which Bach's music can be thought of as (relatively) objectively better than Rheinberger's _as an aesthetic object_.


Another way to think of this is that we are participants in communities that have agreed that we value certain properties of art and music. At that point an objective analysis becomes possible: given those values, anyone -- even someone who does not share the values or experience the art/music in that way at all -- can predict with some degree of accuracy how highly we will value the music.

It might be helpful to imagine a simpler model. Let's say there's some community of people who value nothing but how orange a painting is. You and I probably don't share those values at all -- we don't experience art the way they do, our subjective experience is different from theirs -- but if we look at two paintings, we'll usually be able to predict which one they'll esteem more highly because they have "established grounds by which" one of the paintings "can be thought of as (relatively) objectively better than" the other.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

science said:


> I don't know of anything we can trust. As far as I know, all we can do is (a) do our best to confirm or disconfirm what other people say about the world; and (b) try to create institutions that incentivize people to tell the truth about the world.


To tell the truth about the world? If we cant know our senses, experiences, brains are reliable how do we know what is true?


----------



## science

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> To tell the truth about the world? If we cant know our senses, experiences, brains are reliable how do we know what is true?


We don't. We just test our models.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Regardless, I find strange the idea that what was once great music should cease to be such merely because there's no longer anyone around to hear it. The extraordinary qualities Bach put into it are still there. The B-minor Mass could only have been produced by a musical genius of the first order. Nothing can change that.


A fine exposition of the thesis that excellence resides within the art object itself. Offered without evidence beyond assertion.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

science said:


> We don't. We just test our models.


"We just test our models" ....using our senses and brain


----------



## Nereffid

science said:


> It might be helpful to imagine a simpler model. Let's say there's some community of people who value nothing but how orange a painting is. You and I probably don't share those values at all -- we don't experience art the way they do, our subjective experience is different from theirs -- but if we look at two paintings, we'll usually be able to predict which one they'll esteem more highly because they have "established grounds by which" one of the paintings "can be thought of as (relatively) objectively better than" the other.


I was thinking about something along these lines yesterday, in the context of how objectivity would work in a "paradigm shift".

Taking a simpler model than yours, imagine a community that has only ever had paintings with colours ranging from red (255,0,0 on the RGB scale) to black (0,0,0) - no green or blue in there. And the redder the painting is (i.e. the closer R is to 255), the higher they value it. Then someone comes along with a painting that has a little bit of green & blue, say (255,40,40). Yes, the R is 255 so it's of high value - but it's not a shade of red they've ever encountered before. So how do they value it, and how do they decide whether the objective criteria change, if not through subjectivity?

Obviously this is so simplistic there's no real-world musical equivalent. But it's pertinent to anyone who's noticed that it was OK for the "objective" rules of good composition to change, over many centuries, _until suddenly it wasn't_.


----------



## fbjim

science said:


> There are really only three lines:
> 
> 3. Pretending that if everyone -- which of course means "everyone who matters" -- agrees, then their agreement constitutes objectivity. Related to this is pretending that being able to guess more-or-less accurately about how other people (or perhaps only people "who matter") will feel about a thing somehow means the feelings themselves (rather than the guess) are objective. (This is part of what lays behind the attempts to portray "I like" as subjective but "I recognize as good art" as objective.)


there are legitimate, non-snobbish reasons to "limit" this, because audiences for works of art are themselves limited. Few works of art have true, universal mass appeal- and while I disagree with saying "piece A is great because Dr. Schweikenhocker, PHD said so", there are absolutely reasons why we might want to discount, eg, the opinions of people who don't like classical music, or are not attuned to it (euphemism for: are used to non-western modes of tonality or musicality), - in the same way that if someone hates all hip-hop pre-emptively, any opinion they have for an *individual* work of hip-hop is not going to tell us much.


----------



## Strange Magic

ArtMusic said:


> If Bach is suddenly brought back from the dead today, then he would be deeply flattered by the enormously respect and love of his music we have today. He would also be rather surprised to see that much of his religious music have been taken to the stage for secular performances. He would most likely express humility as he had done when he was alive. He would certainly continue to compose masterpieces one after another in his idiom assuming he can/feel as inspired to do so as he was in 1750. I have no doubt.
> 
> Edit: And he would be a multi-millionaire very quickly.


All true.  Yet what does it have to do with the discussion? (Though this is your second instance of bringing money into the equation as a stand-in for objective excellence.) We are strengthening the link between consensus and money as "arguments" for inherent greatness. Again, keep it coming.


----------



## fluteman

ArtMusic said:


> I'm not even referring to assumptions. Conjectures in mathematics appear to be a conclusion or a proposition which is suspected to be true due to preliminary supporting evidence, but for which no proof or disproof has yet been found. Yet mathematicians, the most objective of all learned professions, are happy to work with conjectures. We should not be so naive to even think of scientific proofs for music, but only artistic objective criteria.


Yes, there are conjectures, like the famous Riemann conjecture, still not proved. But also, even something we take for granted as true, like geometry, is actually based on a postulate, i.e., something we assume is true but can't be proved. It is called the parallel postulate, which can be stated as, given a line and a point not on that line, exactly one line passes through that point and is parallel to that line. If one assumes another theorem of geometry is true without proof, then one can prove the parallel postulate. But the whole system depends on assuming one of its principles somewhere in the system is true without proof.

That is why conventional geometry that we learned in high school is called Euclidean geometry. Other systems that assume the parallel postulate is not true are called non-Euclidean geometries. Then there is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, that states that the velocity and position of an object cannot be exactly measured at the same time, even in theory.

So certainty is an unattainable goal, even in theory, and we are left with empiricism. The principles of "Euclidian" geometry were figured out well before the Greek mathematician Euclid, by the ancient Egyptians, who noticed certain properties of right triangles created when rectangular plots of their land were diagonally bisected by a river. And empiricism shows that different people have different artistic criteria, whether slightly or vastly different, and no doubt always will.


----------



## science

fbjim said:


> there are legitimate, non-snobbish reasons to "limit" this, because audiences for works of art are themselves limited. Few works of art have true, universal mass appeal- and while I disagree with saying "piece A is great because Dr. Schweikenhocker, PHD said so", there are absolutely reasons why we might want to discount, eg, the opinions of people who don't like classical music, or are not attuned to it (euphemism for: are used to non-western modes of tonality or musicality), - in the same way that if someone hates all hip-hop pre-emptively, any opinion they have for an *individual* work of hip-hop is not going to tell us much.


I'm actually a very snobby snob. It's just that I don't ground my snobbishness in fidelity to traditional taste, but in knowledge. Not that I have so much of it, but I value people's knowledge very highly, and I value knowledgeable people's opinions (about what they're knowledgeable in) very highly.

Those are my values -- and of course, they're based on a jillion subjective factors, most of which I'm unaware, so I can't much blame anyone who disagrees!


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> I'm saying that there is no _proof_ that the appearances of material reality are not the products of mind, whether the mind of God or of some collective consciousness in which we participate. In philosophy that's called Idealism. I'm not saying I believe that, but the existence of mind in a universe of matter, and the relationship between these two seemingly unrelated orders of being, remains a major problem for philosophy and science. *Science, in fact, has nothing to say about it that makes any sense.*


And wisely so. It really isn't an issue for science, or, actually, for 99.99999% of humanity. Even David Hume lived and behaved as though cause and effect were real, struggling to follow perhaps, years before Ernest Nagel said it, the advice that philosophers should live and believe outside the classroom what they preached inside it. I agree that there is no proof that the material universe is not the product of some Master Mind or one's personal mind; rather it is an _a priori_ axiom that the material universe exists. One very suggestive clue is the reproducability of experimental results and the ability to predict things--especially astronomical events--with fantastic accuracy obvious to all observers.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Nereffid said:


> I was thinking about something along these lines yesterday, in the context of how objectivity would work in a "paradigm shift".
> 
> Taking a simpler model than yours, imagine a community that has only ever had paintings with colours ranging from red (255,0,0 on the RGB scale) to black (0,0,0) - no green or blue in there. And the redder the painting is (i.e. the closer R is to 255), the higher they value it. Then someone comes along with a painting that has a little bit of green & blue, say (255,40,40). Yes, the R is 255 so it's of high value - but it's not a shade of red they've ever encountered before. So how do they value it, and how do they decide whether the objective criteria change, if not through subjectivity?
> 
> Obviously this is so simplistic there's no real-world musical equivalent. But it's pertinent to anyone who's noticed that it was OK for the "objective" rules of good composition to change, over many centuries, _until suddenly it wasn't_.


I'm quite happy with a bit of subjectivity in my objectivity. For example: I could define a group of people (say a sample from among people who identify themselves as listening to a lot of classical music) and I could ask them if they thought Bach was a great composer. I could set a threshold (perhaps at 60%). If 60% or more of them respond Yes to my question, then I might define objectively that Bach is a great composer, and if less than 60% say Yes then he is not.

Of course there is a whole load of subjectivity in my test of his objective greatness, and it might vary according to the sample, so sometimes he is great and sometimes he is not (- if I test the proposition more than once). That doesn't bother me too much. It certainly bothers me to suggest that my opinion is enough on its own (pure subjectivity) and it also bothers me to hazard that there are absolute criteria which can be determined unarguably that will tell us whether he is great (pure objectivity).

However, I think there is also a load of subjectivity in questions like "is that object orange?". You need to define orange somehow, decide whether you're talking about wavelengths of reflected (or transmitted) light (and what sort of light) or about people saying something looks orange to them, allow for the fact that an object will not be perfectly uniform in colour, and that light impacting on it will not do so in a perfectly uniform fashion, allow for the possibility of experimental error, etc, etc. Pretty soon you end up having to define all sorts of things in somewhat subjective ways.

Hence, I think the puzzle about this thread is not so much that people are happy to go on endlessly about subjectivity and objectivity in music, but that they seem to accept implicitly that it might be a straightforward distinction in relation to other stuff.


----------



## science

Eclectic Al said:


> I'm quite happy with a bit of subjectivity in my objectivity.  For example: I could define a group of people (say a sample from among people who identify themselves as listening to a lot of classical music) and I could ask them if they thought Bach was a great composer. I could set a threshold (perhaps at 60%). If 60% or more of them respond Yes to me question, then I might define objectively that Bach is a great composer, and if less than 60% say Yes then he is not.
> 
> Of course there is a whole load of subjectivity in my test of his objective greatness, and it might vary according to the sample, so sometimes he is great and sometimes he is not (- if I test the proposition more than once). That doesn't bother me too much. It certainly bothers me to suggest that my opinion is enough on its own (pure subjectivity) and it also bothers me to hazard that there are absolute criteria which can be determined unarguably that will tell us whether he is great (pure objectivity).
> 
> However, I think there is also a load of subjectivity in questions like "is that object orange?". You need to define orange somehow, decide whether you're talking about wavelengths of reflected (or transmitted) light (and what sort of light) or about people saying something looks orange to them, allow for the fact that an object will not be perfectly uniform in colour, and that light impacting on it will not do so in a perfectly uniform fashion, allow for the possibility of experimental error, etc, etc. Pretty soon you end up having to define all sorts of things in somewhat subjective ways.
> 
> Hence, I think the puzzle about this thread is not so much that people are happy to go on endlessly about subjectivity and objectivity in music, but that they seem to accept implicitly that it might be a straightforward distinction in relation to other stuff.


It really does get complex when you get into the details, but we can't even get people to admit that aesthetic impressions are subjective, so I don't know how we're ever going to have a more interesting conversation!


----------



## Eclectic Al

fluteman said:


> Yes, there are conjectures, like the famous Riemann conjecture, still not proved. But also, even something we take for granted as true, like geometry, is actually based on a postulate, i.e., something we assume is true but can't be proved. It is called the parallel postulate, which can be stated as, given a line and a point not on that line, exactly one line passes through that point and is parallel to that line. If one assumes another theorem of geometry is true without proof, then one can prove the parallel postulate. But the whole system depends on assuming one of its principles somewhere in the system is true without proof.
> 
> That is why conventional geometry that we learned in high school is called Euclidean geometry. Other systems that assume the parallel postulate is not true are called non-Euclidean geometries. Then there is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, that states that the velocity and position of an object cannot be exactly measured at the same time, even in theory.
> 
> So certainty is an unattainable goal, even in theory, and we are left with empiricism. The principles of "Euclidian" geometry were figured out well before the Greek mathematician Euclid, by the ancient Egyptians, who noticed certain properties of right triangles created when rectangular plots of their land were diagonally bisected by a river. And empiricism shows that different people have different artistic criteria, whether slightly or vastly different, and no doubt always will.


Yes, picking up on the point I make elsewhere about things being complicated.

When is a conjecture not a conjecture? When it's an axiom.

If you have a conjecture, one possibility is that you might be able to prove it, so you then have a valid theorem. Another possibility is that you can prove it's negation, which is another theorem (although maybe not the one you wanted ). Another possibility (courtesy of Godel) is that it might be undecidable in your system, while still being true.

While your conjecture is in limbo (not proved but not established to be independent of the other axioms) you can assume it as an additional axiom, but you are running the risk that someone clever comes along and shows that your axiom is in fact true (phew - no great harm done) or that it is false (whoops - calamity ).

What's the connection to music? Well, given that even mathematics is so slippery it beggars belief that there's going to be any certainty about the quality of music.

Mind you suppose that there was an algorithm for producing great music. That would be good in that it could just be churned out, but somewhat disappointing on a human level. Let's hope there is a Godel Theorem for music: that a piece of music may be great but that you cannot prove it by arguing logically within the musical system. Greatness is not decidable.


----------



## Portamento

Questions to consider:

- Why is any music valuable? How does music (of any genre) add to or enrich human life?
- What makes one piece of music more valuable than another? In other words, what makes music good?
- What is the nature of the experience musical works typically offer, so far as the _intrinsic value_ of such experience is concerned?
- What - more specifically - are the aspects of the listening experience in which intrinsic value resides?


----------



## Strange Magic

Portamento said:


> Questions to consider:
> 
> - Why is any music valuable? How does music (of any genre) add to or enrich human life?
> - What makes one piece of music more valuable than another? In other words, what makes music good?
> - What is the nature of the experience musical works typically offer, so far as the _intrinsic value_ of such experience is concerned?
> - What - more specifically - are the aspects of the listening experience in which intrinsic value resides?


Music is valuable because people seek and enjoy happiness, euphoria, pleasure, a sense of exultation and exaltation, and listening to music provides those.. Endorphins released, etc. Neurology, and the flux of both satisfying and thwarting expectations.

What make one piece more valuable to any individual is the degree to which listening to it makes them happier, _et al_ above.

What the experience musical works offer is some combination of the above "altered states". The intrinsic value of these experiences seems to lie in their desirability--people choose pleasure over both emotional neutrality and pain. Biology, neurology.

I cannot locate, beyond Leonard Meyer's work on the pleasure, the titillation, of expectations both thwarted and satisfied, and ongoing work on the neurology of the autonomic nervous system regarding the sensual aspects of music, anything more "intrinsic" than these. And these of course vary widely and wildly among diverse populations, though as we poll our way through audiences, we get more people liking sort of the same things due to shared history, feelings of communal bonding, respect for precedent and authority figures.

At the level of the individual, this makes all esthetics personal, idiosyncratic, and subjective.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> And wisely so. It really isn't an issue for science, or, actually, for 99.99999% of humanity. Even David Hume lived and behaved as though cause and effect were real, struggling to follow perhaps, years before Ernest Nagel said it, the advice that philosophers should live and believe outside the classroom what they preached inside it. I agree that there is no proof that the material universe is not the product of some Master Mind or one's personal mind; rather it is an _a priori_ axiom that the material universe exists. One very suggestive clue is the reproducability of experimental results and the ability to predict things--especially astronomical events--with fantastic accuracy obvious to all observers.


Yes, empiricism is the fundamental principle of the scientific method, and with good reason. But science and art are not the same. Scientific truth by definition isn't absolute truth, it merely is as close to the absolute truth as we can get at any particular time. As telescopes and microscopes get better and more sensitive, we get ever closer to absolute scientific truth, though still without ever reaching it. With music, we'll always only have our own ears. After all, you can't take the "human" out of the humanities. And as you keep saying here, our ability to perceive has its limits, and it never will be perfect, or identical from one person to the next.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> So you acknowledge that it's subjective but you don't care.
> 
> Fine.


What is the "it" that you think I acknowledge is subjective? Bach was a musical genius who wrote extraordinary music. That can't be what you mean by "it."



> The difference is what is true versus what isn't true. Is it true that the value you place on Bach's music is "objective?" No. It might be based on any number of objectively present attributes, but the value you put on any of them is by definition (as you have admitted from time to time) subjective.


This way of speaking is imprecise. Let's try to be precise. The act of valuing is subjective. One's feelings are subjective. The excellence of Bach's music is not subjective. It is perceptible, not imaginary, and not a matter of opinion. We may reasonably differ in our specific valuation of it; that is subjective. We may personally - subjectively - value it or not. But if we claim that it is not good music, or that no one can tell whether it's good or not, or that the concept of "good" refers merely to our personal feelings, or that music can't be good because computers or little green men don't share our perceptions, we are talking nonsense.



> And that matters because a lot of people who realize that will conclude that they have no right to belittle people whose values differ -- whether they differ a little or a lot. You might belittle someone for not knowing as much as you do, that's up to you, but for feeling differently about things... well, that's up to you too, but it's good for people to see exactly what basis that rests on rather than being fooled by the claims that your opinions are purely objective and correct while others' are simply wrong.


No one is being belittled for not liking Bach. You, however, belittle people constantly for stating views contrary to yours and accuse them of not really believing what they say and trying to "fool" others. That is behavior that deserves to be belittled.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> A fine exposition of the thesis that excellence resides within the art object itself. Offered without evidence beyond assertion.


_Woodduck:_ "I find strange the idea that what was once great music should cease to be such merely because there's no longer anyone around to hear it. The extraordinary qualities Bach put into it are still there. The B-minor Mass could only have been produced by a musical genius of the first order. Nothing can change that."

_SM:_ "A fine exposition of the thesis that excellence resides within the art object itself. Offered without evidence beyond assertion."

For which of my sentences is there no evidence?

"Resides within the art object itself" is a tricky phrase. What does it mean? Is it legitimate to call _anything_ excellent? Are you recommending that we lose part of our language? Part of our brains?


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Let's try to be precise. The act of valuing is subjective. One's feelings are subjective. *The excellence of Bach's music is not subjective. It is perceptible, not imaginary, and not a matter of opinion.* We may reasonably differ in our specific valuation of it; that is subjective. We may personally - subjectively - value it or not. But if we claim that it is not good music, or that no one can tell whether it's good or not, or that the concept of "good" refers merely to our personal feelings, or that music can't be good because computers or little green men don't share our perceptions, *we are talking nonsense.*


But the bolded statements are pure assertion, given without evidence, just conviction. And we are not talking nonsense. Let's also drop the references to belittling. People disagree. Some deal with it better than others.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> _Woodduck:_ "I find strange the idea that what was once great music should cease to be such merely because there's no longer anyone around to hear it. The extraordinary qualities Bach put into it are still there. The B-minor Mass could only have been produced by a musical genius of the first order. Nothing can change that."
> 
> _SM:_ "A fine exposition of the thesis that excellence resides within the art object itself. Offered without evidence beyond assertion."
> 
> For which of my sentences is there no evidence?
> 
> "Resides within the art object itself" is a tricky phrase. What does it mean? Is it legitimate to call _anything_ excellent? Are you recommending that we lose part of our language? Part of our brains?


It means that you postulate that the extraordinary qualities that Bach put into his music are there--reside as an excellence within the art object. I happen to appreciate much of Bach's music but I dispute that this means it is in the music itself; it is entirely in my reaction to/interaction with the music. How do we account for those who choose not to value Bach's music highly, or who value much more those pieces you do not care for? Or do you equally like everything Bach wrote? I am sure you do not.

Each of us is free to call anything we think is excellent, excellent. My brain is fully engaged and accounted for.


----------



## Woodduck

Portamento said:


> What makes one piece of music more valuable than another? In other words, what makes music good?


A frequent confusion in these discussions is in thinking that these two questions mean the same thing. They don't.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> But the bolded statements are pure assertion, given without evidence, just conviction. And we are not talking nonsense. Let's also drop the references to belittling. People disagree. Some deal with it better than others.


I'm not the one talking about belittling. That's science's bugaboo. I've suggested that he drop it. Discuss it with him.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> It means that you postulate that the extraordinary qualities that Bach put into his music are there--reside as an excellence within the art object. I happen to appreciate much of Bach's music but I dispute that this means it is in the music itself; it is entirely in my reaction to/interaction with the music. How do we account for those who choose not to value Bach's music highly, or who value much more those pieces you do not care for? Or do you equally like everything Bach wrote? I am sure you do not.
> 
> Each of us is free to call anything we think is excellent, excellent. My brain is fully engaged and accounted for.


This is semantics. If a created object takes the form it does because exceptional qualities of thought, feeling, invention, etc. made it possible, and we are able to see those qualities embodied and expressed by that object, we attribute excellence to that object. This is a normal use of language which applies to every sort of human creative endeavor.

The sense in which the only things actually "in" a piece of music are sounds is trivial.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> A frequent confusion in these discussions is in thinking that these two questions mean the same thing. They don't.


Yes, in the sense that the first question can be answered once we all accept a given set of at least partly random and indeterminate values. I'm reminded of a line from one of my favorite authors, Tom Stoppard: "Everything has to be taken on trust; truth is only that what is taken to be true. It's the currency of living. There may be nothing behind it, but it doesn't make any difference so long as it is honoured. One acts on assumptions. What do you assume?"

Stoppard also observed: "_f Beethoven had been killed in a plane crash at twenty-two, the history of music would have been very different. As would the history of aviation, of course."_


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> This is semantics. If a created object takes the form it does because exceptional qualities of thought, feeling, invention, etc. made it possible, and we are able to see those qualities embodied and expressed by that object, we attribute excellence to that object. This is a normal use of language which applies to every sort of human creative endeavor.
> 
> The sense in which the only things actually "in" a piece of music are sounds is trivial.


Many sunsets and sunrises and landscapes are beautiful beyond description, even "sublime". _What went into them to make them seem so was entirely the interposition of a human sensory system, conception of beauty, and mind. _ All over the Earth, as it rotates, depending on the expansiveness of one's insight, there is occurring both a sunset and a sunrise, separated roughly by half the circumference of the planet. It is in this sense that the only things within a piece of music are sounds is not a trivial statement.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> Yes, in the sense that the first question can be answered once we all accept a given set of at least partly random and indeterminate values. I'm reminded of a line from one of my favorite authors, Tom Stoppard: "Everything has to be taken on trust; truth is only that what is taken to be true. It's the currency of living. There may be nothing behind it, but it doesn't make any difference so long as it is honoured. One acts on assumptions. What do you assume?"
> 
> Stoppard also observed: "_f Beethoven had been killed in a plane crash at twenty-two, the history of music would have been very different. As would the history of aviation, of course."_


_

That isn't what I meant. "Valuable" and "good" are different. ANY music can be valuable - "able to be valued" - if someone can value it. The more restricted meaning of valuable - having objective value in a particular context, as in a "valuable" contribution to medical science - applies to music only when music is put to particular uses (valuable as funeral music, for example). "Good" or "excellent" or "great," when not applied to music merely because we like it, refers to qualities of the music itself.

Knowing and saying exactly what we mean is hard._


----------



## Eclectic Al

Strange Magic said:


> Many sunsets and sunrises and landscapes are beautiful beyond description, even "sublime". _What went into them to make them seem so was entirely the interposition of a human sensory system, conception of beauty, and mind. _ All over the Earth, as it rotates, depending on the expansiveness of one's insight, there is occurring both a sunset and a sunrise, separated roughly by half the circumference of the planet. It is in this sense that the only things within a piece of music are sounds is not a trivial statement.


Now that is an interesting parallel!

I think there is a world of difference between appreciating the beauty of a sunset and appreciating the beauty of a piece of composed music. But I accept that not all may agree with the distinction.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Many sunsets and sunrises and landscapes are beautiful beyond description, even "sublime". _What went into them to make them seem so was entirely the interposition of a human sensory system, conception of beauty, and mind. _ All over the Earth, as it rotates, depending on the expansiveness of one's insight, there is occurring both a sunset and a sunrise, separated roughly by half the circumference of the planet.


I don't disagree with this, but it isn't a response to my statement about the legitimacy of calling music inherently excellent.



> It is in this sense that the only things within a piece of music are sounds is not a trivial statement.


Sorry, I just don't see what you're saying. "The only things within a piece of music are sounds" is a physical description, but the arrangement of those sounds embodies and expresses the mental and emotional qualities and the skills of the composer. Not all mental and emotional qualities and skills are equal, and we find the evidence for that IN the music. I don't understand the objection to this.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> That isn't what I meant. "Valuable" and "good" are different. ANY music can be valuable - "able to be valued" - if someone can value it. The more restricted meaning of valuable - having objective value in a particular context, as in a "valuable" contribution to medical science - applies to music only when music is put to particular uses (valuable as funeral music, for example). "Good" or "excellent" or "great," when not carelessly applied to music merely because we like it, refers to qualities of the music itself.
> 
> Knowing and saying exactkly what we mean is hard.


What I meant was, the question "What makes music valuable?" can be answered definitively once we agree upon a certain set of values. The question "What makes music good?" cannot be answered definitively, unless we define "good" to be synonymous with "valuable". It may just be a semantic issue, but for me, "good" as an adjective is equivalent to favorable or agreeable, and always relates to personal, individual, unique, and of course subjective, preference. As a lawyer, I've always been conscious that saying "good laws" and "bad laws" is bad usage. It is one of those subtle, passive-aggressive rhetorical tricks where the writer or speaker is trying to impose his or her personal values on the audience as a forgone conclusion. If you say "valuable law", or "useful law", you are accepting your responsibility to defend your position and explain why the law is valuable or useful based on criteria most in the audience, or society at large, are willing to accept.

Music, like laws, has no inherent good qualities. It is only 'good' to the extent it serves and fulfills our values. As I and others have repeatedly said, those values in part are based on how the human mind and ear naturally function in all normal, healthy persons, and in part on environmental factors that are not identical in any two individuals.


----------



## Portamento

Woodduck said:


> A frequent confusion in these discussions is in thinking that these two questions mean the same thing. They don't.





fluteman said:


> Yes, in the sense that the first question can be answered once we all accept a given set of at least partly random and indeterminate values. I'm reminded of a line from one of my favorite authors, Tom Stoppard: "Everything has to be taken on trust; truth is only that what is taken to be true. It's the currency of living. There may be nothing behind it, but it doesn't make any difference so long as it is honoured. One acts on assumptions. What do you assume?"
> 
> Stoppard also observed: "_f Beethoven had been killed in a plane crash at twenty-two, the history of music would have been very different. As would the history of aviation, of course."_


_

You're right, I screwed up. When asking those questions, "alternatively" would've been a better choice than "in other words." I've also argued in some of my posts that "valuable" and "good" are two different things, so... clearly wasn't thinking straight there._


----------



## Portamento

Would you guys agree that judgements of artistic value are generally a function of the music's worthwhileness as a listening experience?


----------



## fluteman

Portamento said:


> You're right, I screwed up. When asking those questions, "alternatively" would've been a better choice than "in other words." I've also argued in some of my posts that "valuable" and "good" are two different things, so... clearly wasn't thinking straight there.


No problemo, compadre. I get where you're coming from.


----------



## Strange Magic

Portamento said:


> Would you guys agree that judgements of artistic value are generally a function of the music's worthwhileness as a listening experience?


Put me down as a "Yes". If I don't listen to it because I heard it several times (gave it a chance) and set it aside, the alleged excellence residing within it is like, again, the tree falling in the forest and there is no one to hear it. Its value (potential) is utterly vitiated, moot, nil.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I also consider Bach to be the greatest of the Baroque (if not the greatest), but it's baffling sometimes that any mention of the fact that Beethoven admired Handel more (for Handel's use of effect) is always regarded as some sort of "blasphemy" by people like consuono, who always tries to refute the fact by saying "Beethoven didn't know all of Bach's work." I mean, you can never win against their argument. 



hammeredklavier said:


> I think we talked about this already. This basically summarizes Beethoven's admiration for Handel: "Go to him to learn how to achieve great effects, by such simple means."
> Which works of Bach, unknown at the time, would have changed Beethoven's mind if they were known?
> Van swieten had copies of Bach's B minor mass, Musical offering, the Art of the fugue.
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=sYAPAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA239
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_van_Swieten#Beethoven
> https://www.talkclassical.com/66998-bachs-wtc-your-favourite-4.html#post1883609


https://www.bartleby.com/library/prose/692.html
On Bach
By Hector Berlioz (1803-1869)

From Berlioz's Autobiography

YOU will not, my dear Demarest, expect an analysis from me of Bach's great work: such a task would quite exceed my prescribed limits. Indeed, the movement performed at the Conservatoire three years ago may be considered the type of the author's style throughout the work. The Germans profess an unlimited admiration for Bach's recitatives; but their peculiar characteristic necessarily escaped me, as I did not understand the language and was unable to appreciate their expression. Whoever is familiar with our musical customs in Paris must witness, in order to believe, the attention, respect, and even reverence with which a German public listens to such a composition. Every one follows the words on the book with his eyes; not a movement among the audience, not a murmur of praise or blame, not a sound of applause; they are listening to a solemn discourse, they are hearing the gospel sung, they are attending divine service rather than a concert. And really such music ought to be thus listened to. They adore Bach, and believe in him, without supposing for a moment that his divinity could ever be called into question. A heretic would horrify them, he is forbidden even to speak of him. God is God and Bach is Bach. Some days after the performance of Bach's chef d'œuvre, the Singing Academy announced Graun's 'Tod Jesu.' This is another sacred work, a holy book; the worshipers of which are, however, mainly to be found in Berlin, whereas the religion of Bach is professed throughout the north of Germany.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> I also consider Bach to be the greatest of the Baroque (if not the greatest), but it's baffling sometimes that any mention of the fact that Beethoven admired Handel more (for Handel's use of effect) is always regarded as some sort of "blasphemy" by people like consuono,


What?? Bach admired a lot of composers: Vivaldi, Albinoni, Corelli, Couperin etc etc. I don't think Bach felt any sort of inferiority to Handel. And hey, I love Handel too. I don't have to tear Handel down the way you go after Haydn. :lol:


> ...who always tries to refute the fact by saying "Beethoven didn't know all of Bach's work." I mean, you can never win against their argument.


Beethoven's knowledge of Bach's work was sketchy compared to what he knew of Handel. Mozart's too. Beethoven apparently ranked Handel above Mozart as well and had a high opinion of Cherubini. So?


----------



## consuono

science said:


> ...
> And that matters because a lot of people who realize that will conclude that they have no right to belittle people whose values differ -- whether they differ a little or a lot. You might belittle someone for not knowing as much as you do, that's up to you, but for feeling differently about things... well, that's up to you too, but it's good for people to see exactly what basis that rests on rather than being fooled by the claims that your opinions are purely objective and correct while others' are simply wrong.


Well, except for those who objectively believe that everything is subjective. With all the talk of cold hard evidence, I haven't seen any from either position.


----------



## ArtMusic

consuono said:


> What?? Bach admired a lot of composers: Vivaldi, Albinoni, Corelli, Couperin etc etc. I don't think Bach felt any sort of inferiority to Handel. And hey, I love Handel too. I don't have to tear Handel down the way you go after Haydn. :lol:
> 
> Looks like a non sequitur. Refute what fact? Beethoven's knowledge of Bach's work was sketchy compared to what he knew of Handel. Mozart's too


As long as we all acknowledge that Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven are musical Gods, it is perfectly fine to rank with them who is the best :lol:


----------



## Nereffid

Portamento said:


> Would you guys agree that judgements of artistic value are generally a function of the music's worthwhileness as a listening experience?


Yes, I should think that pretty much covers it - we vary quite a bit in what we find worth our while.


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> Well, except for those who objectively believe that everything is subjective. With all the talk of cold hard evidence, I haven't seen any from either position.


The burden of proof that musical excellence is an inherent, integral ingredient in an art object irrespective of the perceiver is on the proponents of such a position. The default position is, and has always been for millions, and for thousands of years, that beauty is in the eye or ear of the beholder. There remains not an iota of evidence to support the objectivist position other than appeals to consensus, experts, and sometimes money now, it seems. These are slender reeds with which to hold up an assertion.


----------



## Ethereality

ArtMusic said:


> As long as we all acknowledge that Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven are musical Gods, it is perfectly fine to rank with them who is the best :lol:


Some of those are just popular choices, the others I'm not even sure. Maybe they're the best among stringent and colorless minds. Definitely doesn't sound correct to me.


----------



## DaveM

Ethereality said:


> Some of those are just popular choices, the others I'm not even sure. Maybe they're the best among stringent and colorless minds. Definitely doesn't sound correct to me.


Well, there's a shot across the bow. I'm trying to process that with my stringent and colorless mind. And what was that I've heard about people being snarky about contemporary music?


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> I love Handel too. I don't have to tear Handel down


O RLY?



consuono said:


> I don't doubt it. Now I have a lot of respect and admiration for Handel, but if the following were attributed to Bach it would be considered "bad", I'm sure. This fugue really doesn't seem to go anywhere:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And imagine if this were in Bach's catalogue of works and not Handel's:





consuono said:


> It's "bad" compared to the rest of Bach. If it had Handel's name on it it might be called a masterpiece.


-----



consuono said:


> the way you go after Haydn. :lol:


You mean Michael? A great composer indeed


----------



## consuono

> Now I have a lot of respect and admiration for Handel,


Uh, yes, RLY....


----------



## consuono

Strange Magic said:


> The burden of proof that musical excellence is an inherent, integral ingredient in an art object irrespective of the perceiver is on the proponents of such a position. The default position is, and has always been for millions, and for thousands of years, that beauty is in the eye or ear of the beholder. There remains not an iota of evidence to support the objectivist position other than appeals to consensus, experts, and sometimes money now, it seems. These are slender reeds with which to hold up an assertion.


A corollary to that seems to be that the ones who are most admired reach that status for reasons other than their "excellence", in which case the burden of proof is on those who hold that view. Otherwise it's just idle speculation . If that isn't the case, then the burden of "proof" is on anyone to demonstrate where that excellence lies other than in my own brain cells. When you have so many subjective tastes pointing in the same direction, I don't think it's totally subjective. To cut it short, despite the smug *let's see your evidence...what are your criteria?" stuff, I don't feel I have anything to prove.


----------



## Ethereality

Then I probably don't care for most of these admirers' subjective definition of musical excellence. If I want an opinion on good music, I'll go to someone who knows about good music.


----------



## consuono

Ethereality said:


> Then I probably don't care for most of these admirers' subjective definition of musical excellence. If I want an opinion on good music, I'll go to someone who knows about good music.


And that is just fine and dandy.

I'll repeat a question that I put forth in that other thread that was later locked:

Well here's a genuine question and I'll bow out on discussions of the topic, since it really goes nowhere. But frequently there will be a composer or work that so-and-so doesn't particularly care for. Others will say "well you have to give X a chance and see what X is doing here..." That's actually happened recently with me regarding Bruckner, whose work I had heard but was apathetic about. Now I'm a big Bruckner fan. So, when you ask someone to give X a chance, are you appealing to someone to change their subjective tastes -- in which case I don't see the point since all tastes should be respected -- or are you saying that there's some objective quality to this work or composer that perhaps is being missed or overlooked?


----------



## Ethereality

Objective qualities exist but some are good and some are bad. So I direct my recommendations to anyone who actually understands the difference between good and bad qualities, even to some degree.


----------



## DaveM

Ethereality said:


> Then I probably don't care for most of these admirers' subjective definition of musical excellence. If I want an opinion on good music, I'll go to someone who knows about good music.


Interesting comment insofar as, after all the emphasis on 'subjectivity, it sounds like you're going to seek out someone who has some objective information on some objectivity good music.


----------



## Ethereality

Well that would mostly be me. Finding rare souls who know as much about good music is a difficult task.


----------



## chu42

consuono said:


> So, when you ask someone to give X a chance, are you appealing to someone to change their subjective tastes -- in which case I don't see the point since all tastes should be respected -- or are you saying that there's some objective quality to this work or composer that perhaps is being missed or overlooked?


We should all understand that since there is no inherent greatness to any work, some people may just not get a piece no matter how much they listen to it. Even if it is by a composer they like.

So I agree with you here. But there is never any harm in making suggestions about certain facets of a work that can possibly make them more interesting to the listener. Like pointing out missed details in a movie.


----------



## ArtMusic

Ethereality said:


> Some of those are just popular choices, the others I'm not even sure. Maybe they're the best among stringent and colorless minds. Definitely doesn't sound correct to me.


Maybe you might be wrong perhaps? I might be wrong indeed, too.


----------



## chu42

ArtMusic said:


> Maybe you might be wrong perhaps? I might be wrong indeed, too.


The beauty of music is that there is no right or wrong. If you can get enjoyment out of something that someone else doesn't enjoy, then more power to you.

I wish I could enjoy most pop music so I wouldn't be so annoyed at the supermarket.


----------



## ArtMusic

consuono said:


> And that is just fine and dandy.
> 
> I'll repeat a question that I put forth in that other thread that was later locked:
> 
> Well here's a genuine question and I'll bow out on discussions of the topic, since it really goes nowhere. But frequently there will be a composer or work that so-and-so doesn't particularly care for. Others will say "well you have to give X a chance and see what X is doing here..." That's actually happened recently with me regarding Bruckner, whose work I had heard but was apathetic about. Now I'm a big Bruckner fan. So, when you ask someone to give X a chance, are you appealing to someone to change their subjective tastes -- in which case I don't see the point since all tastes should be respected -- or are you saying that there's some objective quality to this work or composer that perhaps is being missed or overlooked?


Yes, I have listened again to some of Bruckner's symphonies and they do come around better each time.


----------



## Ethereality

ArtMusic said:


> Maybe you might be wrong perhaps? I might be wrong indeed, too.


It would be hard to accept, since later composers clearly understood the quality of past composers, but there was no need or passion to prove they could rewrite music like it. What would be hard to to accept is that someone of even reasonable knowledge would want to rewrite similar music that has already been proven to be createable, once they already preformed certain tests themselves, they were convinced of its possibility. Right? A wish of a petty and knowledgeless person is to actually be Bach or Beethoven. Talent and genius don't grow on a magic tree that got chopped down in 1820. Instead, later composers have expanded upon that knowledge that they heard and clearly acknowledged, in many greater ways, because it was their duty as rational thinkers. Only the few can hear it. What is impossible to say is that early composers could imagine these compositions, but various later composers could do both, because they had more knowledge. Equal talent: talent doesn't grow on a magic tree of old. Instead, many later composers are greater simply because they had much greater knowledge of music, and only some learned can hear it in their music: Bach and Handel only had x amount of access to this knowledge. The experiments by later music scientists, ie. composers, made more knowledge available, thus made talented people greater. Which great composer, even though quickly proved through inquiry that it was possible, even tried to become some old composer?


----------



## ArtMusic

Ethereality said:


> It would be hard to accept, since later composers clearly understood the quality of past composers, but there was no need or passion to prove they could rewrite music like it. What would be hard to to accept is that someone of even reasonable knowledge would want to rewrite similar music that has already been proven to be createable. A wish of a petty and talentless person. Instead, later composers have expanded upon that knowledge that they heard and clearly acknowledged, in many greater ways, because it was their duty as rational thinkers. What is impossible to say is that early composers could imagine these compositions, but later composers could do both, because they had more knowledge. Equal talent: talent doesn't grow on a magic tree that got chopped down in 1820. Instead, many later composers are greater simply because they had much greater knowledge of music. Bach and Handel only had x amount of access to this knowledge. The experiments by later music scientists, ie. composers, made new knowledge available.


So are you inferring that for example by 1950, the composers who wrote avant-garde music then had the most knowledge and wrote the best? I can see the parallel with listeners, that we today, have the full range of 500 years of art music and we should be most discernible listeners.


----------



## Ethereality

ArtMusic said:


> So are you inferring that for example by 1950, the composers who wrote avant-garde music then had the most knowledge and wrote the best?


I can't say that many avant-garde composers have distinct intelligence. But the ones who do surely wouldn't have a petty desire to convince everyone they do, whereas the old composers running these tests needed to convince themselves it was possible to do those things. The more detached a group is from the Classical tradition, the less likely they are to produce great composers. But we see great composers being produced today, not because they invest in being someone else, if they're clearly one of their own heroes of the mission, they're investing in continuing the scientific search of greatness.

To say who is the greatest composer, isn't a poll of 'who agrees the most that Beethoven wrote the best music.' Blah blah. It's a very simppe question of who has the most _talent_ and _knowledge_ despite them having no reason to manifest it apparently. Nor even admitting they might. The learned can hear which composers have more knowledge. It reflects in their music. If one has no knowledge, they will try to become like Beethoven. Simultaneously they can't, because Beethoven had clear knowledge and would know such a life endeavor to become Handel, for instance, would be fruitless to any knowledgeable. The question is, are people here of the knowledgeable?


----------



## DaveM

Ethereality said:


> It would be hard to accept, since later composers clearly understood the quality of past composers, but there was no need or passion to prove they could rewrite music like it. What would be hard to to accept is that someone of even reasonable knowledge would want to rewrite similar music that has already been proven to be createable, once they already preformed certain tests themselves, they were convinced of its possibility. Right? A wish of a petty and knowledgeless person is to actually be Bach or Beethoven. *Talent and genius doesn't grow on a magic tree that got chopped down in 1820. Instead, later composers have expanded upon that knowledge that they heard and clearly acknowledged, in many greater ways, because it was their duty as rational thinkers. What is impossible to say is that early composers could imagine these compositions, but various later composers could do both, because they had more knowledge.* Equal talent: talent doesn't grow on a magic tree of old. *Instead, many later composers are greater simply because they had much greater knowledge of music, and only the few learned can hear it in their music:* Bach and Handel only had x amount of access to this knowledge. *The experiments by later music scientists, ie. composers, made more knowledge available, thus made talented people greater.* Which great composer, even though quickly proved through inquiry that it was possible, even tried to become some old composer?


I'm seeing the words 'talent', 'genius', 'more knowledge', 'talent doesn't grow on a magic tree', 'greater'. Sounds like some of those objective elements and superlatives I've been talking about.


----------



## Ethereality

DaveM said:


> I'm seeing the words 'talent', 'genius', 'more knowledge', 'talent doesn't grow on a magic tree', 'greater'. Sounds like some of those objective elements and superlatives I've been talking about.


Correct. I've readily admitted a few times in these threads that I'm an objectivist. Hunt for the clues. The confusion arises in my posts that ardently and empathically support most of the subjectivists here and their desire to belong. 'Is there objective greatness in music?' No, because what many of you have deemed greatness and 'music' is much more subjective than my own knowledge. If you read above, it's not something a knowledgeable person would care to reveal much. Too much emotion and drama gets in the way of the truth.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> A frequent confusion in these discussions is in thinking that these two questions mean the same thing. They don't.


What is the difference?


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> I'm not the one talking about belittling. That's science's bugaboo. I've suggested that he drop it. Discuss it with him.


"Suggested" is a lovely euphemism!


----------



## science

fluteman said:


> what i meant was, the question "what makes music valuable?" can be answered definitively once we agree upon a certain set of values. The question "what makes music good?" cannot be answered definitively, unless we define "good" to be synonymous with "valuable". It may just be a semantic issue, but for me, "good" as an adjective is equivalent to favorable or agreeable, and always relates to personal, individual, unique, and of course subjective, preference. As a lawyer, i've always been conscious that saying "good laws" and "bad laws" is bad usage. It is one of those subtle, passive-aggressive rhetorical tricks where the writer or speaker is trying to impose his or her personal values on the audience as a forgone conclusion. If you say "valuable law", or "useful law", you are accepting your responsibility to defend your position and explain why the law is valuable or useful based on criteria most in the audience, or society at large, are willing to accept.
> 
> Music, like laws, has no inherent good qualities. It is only 'good' to the extent it serves and fulfills our values. As i and others have repeatedly said, those values in part are based on how the human mind and ear naturally function in all normal, healthy persons, and in part on environmental factors that are not identical in any two individuals.


amen brother preach


----------



## ArtMusic

Ethereality said:


> I can't say that many avant-garde composers have distinct intelligence. But the ones who do surely wouldn't have a petty desire to convince everyone they do, whereas the old composers running these tests needed to convince themselves it was possible to do those things. The more detached a group is from the Classical tradition, the less likely they are to produce great composers. But we see great composers being produced today, not because they invest in being someone else, if they're clearly one of their own heroes of the mission, they're investing in continuing the scientific search of greatness.
> 
> To say who is the greatest composer, isn't a poll of 'who agrees the most that Beethoven wrote the best music.' Blah blah. It's a very simppe question of who has the most _talent_ and _knowledge_ despite them having no reason to manifest it apparently. Nor even admitting they might. The learned can hear which composers have more knowledge. It reflects in their music. If one has no knowledge, they will try to become like Beethoven. Simultaneously they can't, because Beethoven had clear knowledge and would know such a life endeavor to become Handel, for instance, would be fruitless to any knowledgeable. The question is, are people here of the knowledgeable?


I don't think Beethoven ever wanted to emulate Handel or Mozart, but certainly be influenced to some degree or at least study the old scores and understand Handel better. This makes Beethoven a better composer. However, come the 1950's to today, because there is "all before us", there is greater compelling urge by many composers from the 1950's to want to breach the old traditions into the new for new's sake. It is arguable whether with all the knowledge of "all before us" that this has taken art to higher levels of development or a perverse meandering.


----------



## science

Portamento said:


> Would you guys agree that judgements of artistic value are generally a function of the music's worthwhileness as a listening experience?


Kind of. I've been wondering whether this would matter, but we've been doing a lot of talking as if the paradigmatic experience of music is what happens at a concert, when in fact from an anthropological POV that's actually rather strange behavior.

Just kind of brainstorming, trying to take a less provincial POV, perhaps the most general value of music would be its function as a group-bonding experience. Especially in a context of dancing, ritual, and potentially some sort of trance or possession. Most of the "listeners" would be participating in some sense, whether by actually dancing or by encouraging the dancers and musicians.

I mean I don't know how much this matters but as long as we're striving to make universalist pronouncements about music, it's probably best to bear in mind how strange the situation that we take for granted actually is.


----------



## science

consuono said:


> When you have so many subjective tastes pointing in the same direction, I don't think it's totally subjective.


Doesn't it just mean the minds in question have something in common?

I mean, just about all house flies probably agree that rotting food smells lovely and is a delightful place to lay eggs. Does that tell us that they are objectively correct or simply that they have similar kinds of minds?


----------



## science

consuono said:


> And that is just fine and dandy.
> 
> I'll repeat a question that I put forth in that other thread that was later locked:
> 
> Well here's a genuine question and I'll bow out on discussions of the topic, since it really goes nowhere. But frequently there will be a composer or work that so-and-so doesn't particularly care for. Others will say "well you have to give X a chance and see what X is doing here..." That's actually happened recently with me regarding Bruckner, whose work I had heard but was apathetic about. Now I'm a big Bruckner fan. So, when you ask someone to give X a chance, are you appealing to someone to change their subjective tastes -- in which case I don't see the point since all tastes should be respected -- or are you saying that there's some objective quality to this work or composer that perhaps is being missed or overlooked?


There are a few possibilities, all highly likely to happen in real life:

a) You notice something about the music you hadn't noticed before. Presumably this is something that could be objectively described. However, not only can you objectively describe it, it's something that you actually admire, respect, like, etc... -- some variety of subjective judgement. So once you realize it's there, your appreciation for that transfers to the work as a whole.

b) Your subjective experience is actually transformed, perhaps by listening to the music or by other factors like aging, knowing that someone you respect likes it, and so on. You might find yourself valuing something you hadn't valued before, or not valuing something that you had valued before.

c) You are simply in a different "mood" or situation than you have been in your previous experiences of the music. Perhaps, for example, you were hungry the last time you listened, so you weren't giving it the right kind of attention.

One final note -- I don't see how recognizing that any taste has a subjective element means that "all tastes should be respected." I understand very well that three year olds like Baby Shark because of where they are in their development as musical people, but I don't exactly respect their taste. In the same way, I wouldn't expect Maurizio Pollini to respect my taste in piano performance. After all, he is subjectively responding to many (objectively existing) elements in the music -- elements that I'm often not even aware of.


----------



## mmsbls

consuono said:


> ...So, when you ask someone to give X a chance, are you appealing to someone to change their subjective tastes -- in which case I don't see the point since all tastes should be respected -- or are you saying that there's some objective quality to this work or composer that perhaps is being missed or overlooked?


The answer could be both. Those who understand a lot about music may indeed recognize objective qualities in certain music and wish others to see those qualities. Of course just because someone recognizes objective qualities in certain music doesn't mean they will enjoy the music.

To enjoy music one doesn't presently enjoy one must "train" one's brain and learn to hear the music differently. The music is the same, but one's response to it changes. When I came to TC, I disliked (to say the least) much modern/contemporary music. Over the net few years, I listened repeatedly to many composers' works that I previously disliked. I eventually learned to enjoy much of that music. I didn't learn about objective qualities. I changed my subjective view of the music.


----------



## Ethereality

ArtMusic said:


> I don't think Beethoven ever wanted to emulate Handel or Mozart, but certainly be influenced to some degree or at least study the old scores and understand Handel better. This makes Beethoven a better composer. However, come the 1950's to today, because there is "all before us", there is greater compelling urge by many composers from the 1950's to want to breach the old traditions into the new for new's sake. It is arguable whether with all the knowledge of "all before us" that this has taken art to higher levels of development or a perverse meandering.


A shrewd composer can conclude knowledge, however difficult. The intelligent by which not knowing every answer, know which questions to probe.


----------



## science

We might all agree that it is good to be alive and it is bad to be in great pain, but despite our agreement and the strength of our feeling about them, those are subjective values.


----------



## ArtMusic

Ethereality said:


> A shrewd composer can conclude knowledge, however difficult. The intelligent by which not knowing every answer, know which questions to probe.


A good example with Bach, where he probed every single form of musical genre available to him and he composed examples of them all, except grand opera. (Even with opera, Bach composed secular cantatas that were operatic in idiom). He excelled these examples with his genius. This is a precise example of a composer developing art onto a higher plane.


----------



## RogerWaters

science said:


> Doesn't it just mean the minds in question have something in common?
> 
> I mean, just about all house flies probably agree that rotting food smells lovely and is a delightful place to lay eggs. Does that tell us that they are objectively correct or simply that they have similar kinds of minds?


If you admit this then you admit that everything is relative and that nothing is better than anything else and Cardi B is just as 'good' as Mozart and everything comes crashing down.

But this is false.

You can _choose_ to value certain things at a fundamental level: say, skill or profundity. Then you scale up and those bits of music or composers who embody these traits the most, as a matter of fact or, failing this, according to your brain, you find great.

You then congregate with likeminded people who share your fundamental values and inferences and you don't have to worry about there being nothing that is, strictly speaking (i.e. separate from human preferences), objectively great.

This is enough for me.

From what I can gather, though, this is not enough for some of the objectivists, possibly because a big part of their sense of self revolves around admiration for/participation in human effort that, in some sense, connects with the Stars or the Cosmos or God(s).

The thought that, after the earth is swallowed by the sun and the solar system dies, the existence of Mozart and Beethoven was meaningless, from the cosmic point of view, is a 404 error. It cannot be computed. Entertaining this thought opens the door up to the Void, ever so slightly, and the door is promptly slammed shut.


----------



## Portamento

science said:


> Kind of. I've been wondering whether this would matter, but we've been doing a lot of talking as if the paradigmatic experience of music is what happens at a concert, when in fact from an anthropological POV that's actually rather strange behavior.
> 
> Just kind of brainstorming, trying to take a less provincial POV, perhaps the most general value of music would be its function as a group-bonding experience. Especially in a context of dancing, ritual, and potentially some sort of trance or possession. Most of the "listeners" would be participating in some sense, whether by actually dancing or by encouraging the dancers and musicians.
> 
> I mean I don't know how much this matters but as long as we're striving to make universalist pronouncements about music, it's probably best to bear in mind how strange the situation that we take for granted actually is.


Good points. But when someone says "piece A is great," they're talking about music's function _as a listening experience_, not whatever it's general function might be (if we can even say music has a general function). Either way, it's probably best to limit our pronouncements to the Western concert-hall tradition and its various offshoots.


----------



## science

RogerWaters said:


> If you admit this then you admit that everything is relative and that nothing is better than anything else and Cardi B is just as 'good' as Mozart


We generally agree, but I don't see that this is so.

I mean, I hardly know anything about Cardi B so I shouldn't talk about her specifically, but acknowledging that my reasons for valuing something are subjective does not mean that I stop valuing it. Given the things that I care about, how I respond to things, and so on, Mozart is better than pop music. Most people don't share my values -- they feel differently, they have been shaped by different experiences, they have different goals, and so on -- but so what?


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> The burden of proof that musical excellence is an inherent, integral ingredient in an art object irrespective of the perceiver is on the proponents of such a position. The default position is, and has always been for millions, and for thousands of years, that beauty is in the eye or ear of the beholder. There remains not an iota of evidence to support the objectivist position other than appeals to consensus, experts, and sometimes money now, it seems. These are slender reeds with which to hold up an assertion.


Claiming your view as "the default position" is as absurd as your grindingly repetitive shouts of victory. As an artist with considerable knowledge of artists' "default positions," I can assure you that your belief that judging art is no more meaningful than wine-tasting is horse pucky. Could you pause long enough in your endless Dionysian dithyramb to listen to what the artist's default position is?

You may get a great kick out of sneering knowingly at the creators of art as "experts" whom you don't have to respect. Ater all, they only _make _the stuff you enjoy, and they face, day in and day out, continual challenges to their always-growing understanding of how to put together the structures that make your pleasure possible. Artists devise, and then solve, real problems, one after another, endlessly, and their happiness consists in finding real solutions to them. They can and do fail - more often than they succeed, in fact - and the art life can be more frustrating than it is rewarding. But artists always hope, if only faintly, that when they discover those elusive next notes or lines or words, they will find among all the wide eyes and rapturous "oohs" and "ahs" of the art crowd some perceptive minds who have a just appreciation of what they've done well - and, indeed, what they haven't. The audience that knows and appreciates as well as merely enjoys is small, but it's at least some reward for their labor and some consolation for the accidents of fashion and the predictable ignorance, among the wine-tasters, of the real nature of their work.

_The "default position" of the composer of any work of music you can name is that in composing it_ _some procedures and choices are right and others wrong - some better and some worse - and that, when he finds the notes which best carry out his conception and solve the problems implicit in it, he is writing better music._ He knows this as an "objective" fact; the "object" is the music itself, and the music itself contains the evidence of quality that you claim not to have found an iota of anywhere. It's unfortunate that you (and many other wine-tasters) don't really know a right note from a wrong one - that you can only say, when something strikes you as agreeable or disagreeable, that you "like" it or not, and that your "scientifically objective" philosophy compels you to believe that the composer himself is guided by no more meaningful a standard. At this an artist can only shake his head and say, "Gosh! Who knew it was so simple?" Listening to music _should_ be simplefor the audience. It's a wonderful respite from what's called "real life." But for the composer, to whom making music _is _real life, the struggle to find the right notes can make a chain gang look like rest. You may be philosophically and psychologically incapable of calling his music good or bad, but he knows better. His music is best when he finds the notes that fit together best. The composers we call "great" did this regularly; they set significant, original problems for themselves, and they solved them brilliantly, realizing visions that others could not imagine or carry to fruition.

Speaking as someone who has been creating in one art or another for more than sixty years, and who has always done so with much thought given to the process of creation, I became aware early on of the many levels of understanding of that process exhibited by different people. Generally speaking, non-artists' awareness of what an artist actually does is rudimentary to nonexistent. But not until I came onto this forum about seven years ago did I see up close what that lack of understanding looks like when articulated in words framed in the form of arguments. It has been a dispiriting experience, and the more repetitions I hear of the claim that the powers of judgment an artist spends his life fine-tuning are the equivalent of taste buds, the more dispiriting - and frankly tiresome - it gets.

(I suppose I should point out that your post is - again - playing with semantics, as well as misstating others' positions. But I'm just too worn out from explaining these imprecisions and then being thoroughly ignored in your next repetition of the standard post you've been flooding the forum with for several years, which says "art is good because I like it." You could vary your posts a little by actually addressing what I say, but I know that the nitty-gritty is much less exhilarating than victory dances and the celebration of oneself.)


----------



## ArtMusic

Strange Magic said:


> ....There remains not an iota of evidence to support the objectivist position other than appeals to consensus, experts, and sometimes money now, it seems.


Funny that Mozart thought Handel was a great master as did Beethoven with some famous quotes from Louis. Such is so affirming to know that these musical Gods share my view, too.


----------



## Ethereality

ArtMusic said:


> A good example with Bach, where he probed every single form of musical genre available to him and he composed examples of them all, except grand opera. (Even with opera, Bach composed secular cantatas that were operatic in idiom). He excelled these examples with his genius. This is a precise example of a composer developing art onto a higher plane.


It's a terrific example to consider within the lower dimensions of commonplace musical inference, largely because of his influence. Unfortunately, the notion of many capable of understanding high levels of talent, quickly unfolds the more essential ethics amongst those of knowledge


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> Claiming your view as "the default position" is as absurd as your grindingly repetitive shouts of victory. As an artist with considerable knowledge of artists' "default positions," I can assure you that your belief that judging art is no more meaningful than wine-tasting is horse pucky. Could you pause long enough in your endless Dionysian dithyramb to listen to what the artist's default position is?
> 
> You may get a great kick out of sneering knowingly at the creators of art as "experts" whom you don't have to respect. Ater all, they only _make _the stuff you enjoy, and they face, day in and day out, continual challenges to their always-growing understanding of how to put together the structures that make your pleasure possible. Artists devise, and then solve, real problems, one after another, endlessly, and their happiness consists in finding real solutions to them. They can and do fail - more often than they succeed, in fact - and the art life can be more frustrating than it is rewarding. But artists always hope, if only faintly, that when they discover those elusive next notes or lines or words, they will find among all the wide eyes and rapturous "oohs" and "ahs" of the art crowd some perceptive minds who have a just appreciation of what they've done well - and, indeed, what they haven't. The audience that knows and appreciates as well as merely enjoys is small, but it's at least some reward for their labor and some consolation for the accidents of fashion and the predictable ignorance, among the wine-tasters, of the real nature of their work.
> 
> _The "default position" of the composer of any work of music you can name is that in composing it_ _some procedures and choices are right and others wrong - some better and some worse - and that, when he finds the notes which best carry out his conception and solve the problems implicit in it, he is writing better music._ He knows this as an "objective" fact; the "object" is the music itself, and the music itself contains the evidence of quality that you claim not to have found an iota of anywhere. It's unfortunate that you (and many other wine-tasters) don't really know a right note from a wrong one - that you can only say, when something strikes you as agreeable or disagreeable, that you "like" it or not, and that your "scientifically objective" philosophy compels you to believe that the composer himself is guided by no more meaningful a standard. At this an artist can only shake his head and say, "Gosh! Who knew it was so simple?" Listening to music _should_ be simplefor the audience. It's a wonderful respite from what's called "real life." But for the composer, to whom making music _is _real life, the struggle to find the right notes can make a chain gang look like rest. You may be philosophically and psychologically incapable of calling his music good or bad, but he knows better. His music is best when he finds the notes that fit together best. The composers we call "great" did this regularly; they set significant, original problems for themselves, and they solved them brilliantly, realizing visions that others could not imagine or carry to fruition.
> 
> Speaking as someone who has been creating in one art or another for more than sixty years, and who has always done so with much thought given to the process of creation, I became aware early on of the many levels of understanding of that process exhibited by different people. Generally speaking, non-artists' awareness of what an artist actually does is rudimentary to nonexistent. But not until I came onto this forum about seven years ago did I see up close what that lack of understanding looks like when articulated in words framed in the form of arguments. It has been a dispiriting experience, and the more repetitions I hear of the claim that the powers of judgment an artist spends his life fine-tuning are the equivalent of taste buds, the more dispiriting - and frankly tiresome - it gets.
> 
> (I suppose I should point out that your post is - again - playing with semantics, as well as misstating others' positions. But I'm just too worn out from explaining these imprecisions and then being thoroughly ignored in your next repetition of the standard post you've been flooding the forum with for several years, which says "art is good because I like it." You could vary your posts a little by actually addressing what I say, but I know that the nitty-gritty is much less exhilarating than victory dances and the celebration of oneself.)


This very poetic argument from authority basically means that you feel something so strongly and deeply that it can't be subjective.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

I'm kind of thinking out loud....

*What about this:
*

Music is language. Like language it is spoken and then we formulate a way of writing it down.

So music, like spoken language is an objective reality.

There are many different kinds of languages in the world, but all are languages.

There are many different kinds of music, but all are music.

*So comes the subjective experience of the individual...*

To someone that doesn't speak English their subjective experience when encountering English will be not to understand.

But English remains an objective reality regardless of their failure to comprehend it. It is still a language.

A person who has only "spoken" pop music their entire life will find it difficult to understand classical music when they encounter it, this is their subjective experience.

The reason they don't like it is because they don't understand it, they don't "speak" classical-ese!

Even to those who are accustomed to some classical music it can take time for them to appreciate the different "languages" of different composers.

To summarise, languages are an objective reality, our experience of these languages are subjective. But our subjective experience of languages doesn't alter the objective nature of the languages.

Now you need to tell me I've gone mad and am speaking nonsense :lol:

or refine the analogy?


----------



## Art Rock

There are some nice potential analogies here.

Just like English is not inherently "better" than say Greek, one type of music is not inherently "better" than another. But people who can speak English can learn to speak Greek with some effort, and vice versa. And then there are those who already speak more than one language, i.e. listen to more than one type of music with understanding.

One could even distinguish various versions (dialects, accents) within one language and couple them to variations of music styles like common practice period, impressionism, 20th century tonal, atonal, etc.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Art Rock said:


> There are some nice potential analogies here.
> 
> Just like English is not inherently "better" than say Greek, one type of music is not inherently "better" than another. But people who can speak English can learn to speak Greek with some effort, and vice versa. And then there are those who already speak more than one language, i.e. listen to more than one type of music with understanding.
> 
> One could even distinguish various versions (dialects, accents) within one language and couple them to variations of music styles like common practice period, impressionism, 20th century tonal, atonal, etc.


Some languages are considered to be more beautiful than others. Some maybe more complex. Also many languages may have come from one mother language, say classical music being the mother of other western genres of music.


----------



## Portamento

Woodduck said:


> Claiming your view as "the default position" is as absurd as your grindingly repetitive shouts of victory. As an artist with considerable knowledge of artists' "default positions," I can assure you that your belief that judging art is no more meaningful than wine-tasting is horse pucky. Could you pause long enough in your endless Dionysian dithyramb to listen to what the artist's default position is?
> 
> You may get a great kick out of sneering knowingly at the creators of art as "experts" whom you don't have to respect. Ater all, they only _make _the stuff you enjoy, and they face, day in and day out, continual challenges to their always-growing understanding of how to put together the structures that make your pleasure possible. Artists devise, and then solve, real problems, one after another, endlessly, and their happiness consists in finding real solutions to them. They can and do fail - more often than they succeed, in fact - and the art life can be more frustrating than it is rewarding. But artists always hope, if only faintly, that when they discover those elusive next notes or lines or words, they will find among all the wide eyes and rapturous "oohs" and "ahs" of the art crowd some perceptive minds who have a just appreciation of what they've done well - and, indeed, what they haven't. The audience that knows and appreciates as well as merely enjoys is small, but it's at least some reward for their labor and some consolation for the accidents of fashion and the predictable ignorance, among the wine-tasters, of the real nature of their work.
> 
> _The "default position" of the composer of any work of music you can name is that in composing it_ _some procedures and choices are right and others wrong - some better and some worse - and that, when he finds the notes which best carry out his conception and solve the problems implicit in it, he is writing better music._ He knows this as an "objective" fact; the "object" is the music itself, and the music itself contains the evidence of quality that you claim not to have found an iota of anywhere. It's unfortunate that you (and many other wine-tasters) don't really know a right note from a wrong one - that you can only say, when something strikes you as agreeable or disagreeable, that you "like" it or not, and that your "scientifically objective" philosophy compels you to believe that the composer himself is guided by no more meaningful a standard. At this an artist can only shake his head and say, "Gosh! Who knew it was so simple?" Listening to music _should_ be simplefor the audience. It's a wonderful respite from what's called "real life." But for the composer, to whom making music _is _real life, the struggle to find the right notes can make a chain gang look like rest. You may be philosophically and psychologically incapable of calling his music good or bad, but he knows better. His music is best when he finds the notes that fit together best. The composers we call "great" did this regularly; they set significant, original problems for themselves, and they solved them brilliantly, realizing visions that others could not imagine or carry to fruition.
> 
> Speaking as someone who has been creating in one art or another for more than sixty years, and who has always done so with much thought given to the process of creation, I became aware early on of the many levels of understanding of that process exhibited by different people. Generally speaking, non-artists' awareness of what an artist actually does is rudimentary to nonexistent. But not until I came onto this forum about seven years ago did I see up close what that lack of understanding looks like when articulated in words framed in the form of arguments. It has been a dispiriting experience, and the more repetitions I hear of the claim that the powers of judgment an artist spends his life fine-tuning are the equivalent of taste buds, the more dispiriting - and frankly tiresome - it gets.
> 
> (I suppose I should point out that your post is - again - playing with semantics, as well as misstating others' positions. But I'm just too worn out from explaining these imprecisions and then being thoroughly ignored in your next repetition of the standard post you've been flooding the forum with for several years, which says "art is good because I like it." You could vary your posts a little by actually addressing what I say, but I know that the nitty-gritty is much less exhilarating than victory dances and the celebration of oneself.)


There's a lot here, and I promise to respond in detail when it's not 2:40 AM... but this reeks of snobbery.


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> A corollary to that seems to be that the ones who are most admired reach that status for reasons other than their "excellence", in which case the burden of proof is on those who hold that view. Otherwise it's just idle speculation . If that isn't the case, then the burden of "proof" is on anyone to demonstrate where that excellence lies other than in my own brain cells. When you have so many subjective tastes pointing in the same direction, I don't think it's totally subjective. To cut it short, despite the smug *let's see your evidence...what are your criteria?" stuff, I don't feel I have anything to prove.


That is no corollary. We are not dealing with a pure random-number phenomenon when it comes to art appreciation or much of anything else--as Woodduck reminds us accurately, there are certain similarities among human brains that favor some responses over others and show up when we poll. Examined over nearly 8 blllion people, we will find trends and preferences will both vary some and show some clumping. But none of this establishes "excellence", merely congruence. We're back to voting and polling and experts.


----------



## consuono

Art Rock said:


> There are some nice potential analogies here.
> 
> Just like English is not inherently "better" than say Greek, one type of music is not inherently "better" than another. But people who can speak English can learn to speak Greek with some effort, and vice versa. And then there are those who already speak more than one language, i.e. listen to more than one type of music with understanding.
> 
> One could even distinguish various versions (dialects, accents) within one language and couple them to variations of music styles like common practice period, impressionism, 20th century tonal, atonal, etc.


But the literature in this language or dialect may be richer than the literature in that one. Different musical genres may be different languages using the same phonemes. And then it's "oh yeah?.Well then prove that Homer or Vergil is 'richer' than this oral folk tradition..." It's a dog chasing its tail.


----------



## Strange Magic

science said:


> This very poetic argument from authority basically means that you feel something so strongly and deeply that it can't be subjective.





> *Woodduck:* "Claiming your view as "the default position" is as absurd as your grindingly repetitive shouts of victory. As an artist with considerable knowledge of artists' "default positions," I can assure you that your belief that judging art is no more meaningful than wine-tasting is horse pucky. Could you pause long enough in your endless Dionysian dithyramb to listen to what the artist's default position is?"


I admired and continue to admire Woodduck's purple, and respect his defense of the artist's path, at least as understood by Woodduck. But the main issue remains untouched. It is true that, say Ingres, Cot, and Alma-Tadema, and many composers best left to the opinions of others labored long and hard to achieve certain goals, but on the granular level of the individual receptor of/participant in the art experience, failed to arouse interest or aroused active dislike. Judging art is exactly like judging wines, fine or otherwise. Sad--for some, not for me--but true. I get to enjoy an enormous spectrum of things others think I shouldn't.


----------



## Zhdanov

Art Rock said:


> English is not inherently "better" than say Greek,


a language should be compared against own slang in this case.


----------



## Zhdanov

like a slang is not the language, so mass culture is not the music.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Zhdanov said:


> like a slang is not the language, so mass culture is not the music.


What the hell is that supposed to mean?


----------



## Art Rock

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> What the hell is that supposed to mean?


You do not speak Zhdanov?


----------



## science

Portamento said:


> Good points. But when someone says "piece A is great," they're talking about music's function _as a listening experience_, not whatever it's general function might be (if we can even say music has a general function). Either way, it's probably best to limit our pronouncements to the Western concert-hall tradition and its various offshoots.


Even within those limits, I probably don't know enough to issue pronouncements, but it's good to reflect that the context of a concert-hall and that tradition includes so many long-enshrined values. It's even more interesting to think about what changes and what stays the same when the music of (for example) a monastery is moved into a concert hall. Or vice-versa. If we wanted, we could expand the question to wonder what what changes and what stays the same when the music of a no-longer-existing royal court is performed for tourists.

I find lines of thought like this very stimulating. It's unfortunate to be bogged down in arguments about what the words "subjective" and "objective" actually mean and/or whether there is some kind of transcendent aesthetic truth to which we must surrender our own judgment.


----------



## EdwardBast

RogerWaters said:


> Imagine an alien race visits earth.
> 
> Luckily, this alien race has something very like human ears - human ears being one kind of sensor that responds with fine-grained causal specificity to _acoustic waves_ (a type of energy propagation through a medium by means of adiabatic compression and decompression), passing this fine-grained sensory information to auditory centres in the brain which process it, in concert with a range of emotional and cognitive centres, delivering us an 'experience' that may be pleasant or unpleasant.
> 
> _Imagine that these aliens happen to experience Bach as it would sound to us played underwater_, due to the unique nature of their neural wiring between ears and brain centres (which is in turn due to adaptation to their own unique terrestrial atmosphere). The result is a complex canvass of stimulation, but one that leaves them emotionally unmoved.
> 
> Are these creatures _wrong_ to not find Bach 'Great' to listen to?
> 
> Upshot: If they are not wrong, then the greatness of Bach cannot be objective, at least to subjectivists on this forum.
> 
> If you think the aliens are not wrong, but that the greatness of Bach is still objective, you have a different *concept *of objectivity from the subjectivists: perhaps you limit objectivity to a specific species of animal.
> 
> But would you do the same with objectivity in other domains? Do you think a mathematical or scientific proposition (1+1=2; the earth is more round than it is flat) can be true for one intelligence species and false for another (taking into considering these propositions would be expressed in different languages)?
> 
> *If not (and you shouldn't), then why are you using a concept one way when it comes to art, and another way when it comes to other domains? Is this not a strange way to use language?*


Aliens who can't really hear Bach because they have different sensory and processing apparatus are, for the purposes of this discussion, analogous to aliens who can't count and who live in two dimensional space, not to ones who do math like us and see in three dimensions. You've drawn an improper comparison that renders your argument meaningless.


----------



## fluteman

Art Rock said:


> You do not speak Zhdanov?


Great post. But not inherently great, of course.


----------



## DaveM

Portamento said:


> There's a lot here, and I promise to respond in detail when it's not 2:40 AM... but this reeks of snobbery.


Maybe it would have been better to wait until morning.


----------



## mmsbls

Strange Magic said:


> The burden of proof that musical excellence is an inherent, integral ingredient in an art object irrespective of the perceiver is on the proponents of such a position. The default position is, and has always been for millions, and for thousands of years, that beauty is in the eye or ear of the beholder. There remains not an iota of evidence to support the objectivist position other than appeals to consensus, experts, and sometimes money now, it seems. These are slender reeds with which to hold up an assertion.





Woodduck said:


> Claiming your view as "the default position" is as absurd as your grindingly repetitive shouts of victory. As an artist with considerable knowledge of artists' "default positions," I can assure you that your belief that judging art is no more meaningful than wine-tasting is horse pucky....
> 
> _The "default position" of the composer of any work of music you can name is that in composing it_ _some procedures and choices are right and others wrong - some better and some worse - and that, when he finds the notes which best carry out his conception and solve the problems implicit in it, he is writing better music._ He knows this as an "objective" fact; the "object" is the music itself, and the music itself contains the evidence of quality that you claim not to have found an iota of anywhere. ...


I believe both Strange Magic (SM) and Woodduck are mostly talking about different things, but there is some overlap.

SM says the default position on beauty is "in the eye of the beholder." I agree that a large percentage of those thinking about or writing on beauty (not just composers, but philosophers and the general public) believe it is subjective and up to individual assessment. SM also talk about musical excellence which is distinctly different from beauty. So the comment "in the eye of the beholder" in the post may or may not refer to musical excellence.

Woodduck discusses how composers work on problems posed by their music. I view this in a similar way to how engineers work on problems posed by their projects. Sometimes composers and engineers find workable solutions, sometimes good ones, and sometimes brilliant ones. Composers (I think) and engineers generally agree on which solutions are workable, good, or brilliant. They would say that one composer or engineer found better solutions. A composer or engineer who consistently finds good to brilliant solutions writes excellent music or designs excellent products.

I don't know enough about music to comment directly, but let me try to make an analogy to music using engineering. An automobile engineer might find a brilliant solution to make a car have very high power with high fuel economy. Other engineers would agree that the solution is excellent. However, the resulting vehicle might have very high emissions as well. When viewed by others in the transportation field, they might believe that many different solutions with somewhat lower power and fuel economy but also lower emissions are better. It depends on what is valued most.

Perhaps, the composer finds brilliant solutions to the musical problems she faces, but others do not find the resulting composition beautiful, and therefore, subjectively judge it as a lesser work than another work that does not demonstrate excellence in musical problems but is considered more beautiful.


----------



## Agamenon

Greek and roman cultures knew the meaning of greatness. Easily, they recognized a masterpiece. In fact, the word masterpiece has roots in the latin expression OPUS MAGNUM.

Aliens? well, for example China, another galaxy, another culture, believes in Bach and Beethoven. Japan, too. They respect these composers as masters of the human spirit. They are not the kind of listeners who claim " I dislike this composer, *thus*, he is not great. I do no like the western culture, in consequence the western civilization is trash".

The evolution of this kind of music (classical...), shows one truth: BACH as a giant of the *Fundamentals of musical composition*. Composers of the past two centuries and living composers, living creators, consider the genius of Leipzig as a cornerstone in this field of the human spirit. This fact is not a matter of personal tastes, neither is a puzzle for the aliens.

Even if tomorrow appears a super master composer, the role of Bach and Beethoven *in the past 250 years* will stand strong. Same to Napoleon, Newton, Einstein, Shakespeare, Churchill, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, etc. To cut ( erease?) those 250 years because " we don´t like such composers" and to deny the impact produced by hundred of masters (in any field), is the obssesive goal of the new iconoclasts living in our falling western civilization.
Plato, wise man, said: "When the truth and greatness are not recognized by the mind and the senses, soul and being are sick"

Meanwhile, China will host the Berlin Ph. Orchestra each summer, for 3 weeks or so, (beginning next year and forever), because they are pretty convinced that Bach, Beethoven, etc are capital pieces of the human spirit. 
China! a different galaxy, believes in greatness. The west is reaching the end? maybe.

There is Black /white , Good/evil, High/low, Bright/dark, et, etc, also there is Objectivity/subjectivity.

Reality is made of those pairs of "elements", and _*both contribute *_to the evolution of everything.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^Re: Post #358 Given a space that needs to be crossed by a bridge, there are many possible solutions--arches, suspension bridges, box structures, combinations of different sorts of structures, few or many pylons, different materials. Usually the criteria are cost, beauty, availability of materials, whether the engineering and/or construction teams are "wired in" with those providing the funds and the legitimacy that the project move forward. It will be a thing worth walking many miles to see if all criteria have been met. Same with lighthouses. I can relate all this to artists working to create things they hope others will appreciate, but it again all boils down to what the deciders decide as to what has "worked" and what hasn't. Architecture is the same thing--is there an "ideal" solution to an architectural problem? I have noted before my lack of enthusiasm for Frank Gehry's bizarre structures. Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> Generally speaking, non-artists' awareness of what an artist actually does is rudimentary to nonexistent. But not until I came onto this forum about seven years ago did I see up close what that lack of understanding looks like when articulated in words framed in the form of arguments. It has been a dispiriting experience, and the more repetitions I hear of the claim that the powers of judgment an artist spends his life fine-tuning are the equivalent of taste buds, the more dispiriting - and frankly tiresome - it gets.


I continue to believe that the common denominator in what you have experienced is the failure by the uneducated or the uninformed to understand or accept that, beyond the amateur level, creating music is a craft and when it is performed at the highest level, it is more likely to result in something objectively superior.

It also has to be remembered that when composers create music for a living, they are performing as professionals and it can be assumed that, in order to be continually employed, they have to create something, more than not, objectively attractive to their employer(s) and audience as a whole, regardless of the fact that the individuals involved have their own subjective responses.


----------



## Agamenon

Subjectivity needs to be SUBJECTIVATED. 

simply like that.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> I continue to believe that the common denominator in what you have experienced is the failure by the uneducated or the uninformed to understand or accept that, beyond the amateur level, creating music is a craft and when it is performed at the highest level, it is more likely to result in something objectively superior.
> 
> It also has to be remembered that when composers create music for a living, they are performing as professionals and it can be assumed that, in order to be continually employed, they have to create something, more than not, objectively attractive to their employer(s) and audience as a whole, regardless of the fact that the individuals involved have their own subjective responses.


What is an objectively superior piece of music? Is it because a poll has shown it to be a favorite of a certain polled group? I do believe that this is what objectivists assert. Most popular equals "objectively best". I will grant this, as has everyone: it is (or can be) objectively demonstrated that more people (connoisseurs) of anything prefer something/anything/whatever. But it is a mighty leap worthy of Superman to reach from this utterly simple premise to stating that a piece of music is itself or bears within itself some sort of integral "excellence" that transcends space, time, and any and all individual characteristics of individual perceivers. This should be clear now after several threads and probably thousands of posts. Yet seemingly it is not.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> I continue to believe that the common denominator in what you have experienced is the failure by the uneducated or the uninformed to understand or accept that, beyond the amateur level, creating music is a craft and when it is performed at the highest level, it is more likely to result in something objectively superior.
> 
> It also has to be remembered that when composers create music for a living, they are performing as professionals and it can be assumed that, in order to be continually employed, they have to create something, more than not, objectively attractive to their employer(s) and audience as a whole, regardless of the fact that the individuals involved have their own subjective responses.


Many on TC are to some extent uneducated or uninformed about music (myself included). Some of those might not view composing as a craft that generally requires great skill. I would agree that when composers create music using a high level of compositional skill the result is often superior. I won't argue with the term "objectively" because although I would say it's at least partially subjective, I believe I understand what you mean.

I have often stated that when I came to TC I wished to learn to like modern music. The reason was precisely that I believed modern composers were roughly as good as (competent, skillful) or better than earlier composers, and therefore, some of their music ought to be excellent as well. I felt I was missing the enjoyment I gained from earlier music, and I believed I ought to be able to learn to like wonderfully crafted music.

Do you believe modern composers are roughly as good as earlier ones? If so, do you believe some are crafting excellent (i.e. superior) music? If not, why do you believe a group selected from a much larger group than earlier, with access to enormously greater educational materials (e.g. other works and techniques from all time), and educated by composers who studied those who came before them end up being significantly inferior craftsmen?


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> What is an objectively superior piece of music? Is it because a poll has shown it to be a favorite of a certain polled group? I do believe that this is what objectivists assert. Most popular equals "objectively best". I will grant this, as has everyone: it is (or can be) objectively demonstrated that more people (connoisseurs) of anything prefer something/anything/whatever. But it is a mighty leap worthy of Superman to reach from this utterly simple premise to stating that a piece of music is itself or bears within itself some sort of integral "excellence" that transcends space, time, and any and all individual characteristics of individual perceivers. This should be clear now after several threads and probably thousands of posts. Yet seemingly it is not.


What should be clear after several threads and probably thousands of posts? Your opinion? Their opinion? If, as you infer, a polling showing that a majority has no objective significance, then neither does the impact of 'several threads and probably thousands of posts.' Unless, of course, it happens to suit you.

Btw, there is an inverse relationship between the more hyperbole you use and the impact of your posts: 'Superman', 'transcends space, time'. Give it a rest.


----------



## mmsbls

Strange Magic said:


> What is an objectively superior piece of music? Is it because a poll has shown it to be a favorite of a certain polled group? I do believe that this is what objectivists assert. Most popular equals "objectively best". I will grant this, as has everyone: it is (or can be) objectively demonstrated that more people (connoisseurs) of anything prefer something/anything/whatever. But it is a mighty leap worthy of Superman to reach from this utterly simple premise to stating that a piece of music is itself or bears within itself some sort of integral "excellence" that transcends space, time, and any and all individual characteristics of individual perceivers. This should be clear now after several threads and probably thousands of posts. Yet seemingly it is not.


I agree with you that music evaluation is to some extent subjective, and therefore, overall the evaluation is subjective. Having said that, I believe I understand what those like DaveM and Woodduck are arguing. They agree that one's overall enjoyment of the music is subjective. They do not agree that there are no criteria that have objective components. In my analogy, engineers can look at a design and agree the problem was solved in a superior manner, and I assume composers can do that with musical works.

So, after considering the works of several composers, a group of knowledgeable people could evaluate which composers solved their problems in superior ways. Once they have done so, they can state that composers A, B, and C have superior craftsmanship or skill and produced superior music based on those criteria. If they stated that composer A's works were better than composer B's works without stating their limited criteria, they would be stating a subjective opinion.

My view is that you, DaveM, and Woodduck are all correct in what you have argued (at least that I have read).


----------



## Torkelburger

> Do you believe modern composers are roughly as good as earlier ones?


I don't want to speak for DaveM, and will let him speak for himself. But as a modern music enthusiast myself, although a conservative one, I can tell you that some modern composers are as good, but the number of high quality modern composers is about the same as high quality earlier composers. Extremely low. I listen to A LOT of new music, and I'd say only about between 5% or even lower is really worth listening to. But look at all the forgettable composers from long ago as well.



> If so, do you believe some are crafting excellent (i.e. superior) music?


Yes, a VERY SMALL few.



> If not, why do you believe a group selected from a much larger group than earlier, with access to enormously greater educational materials (e.g. other works and techniques from all time), and educated by composers who studied those who came before them end up being significantly inferior craftsmen?


Simple. For the same reasons as Mozart's time. Because writing music of extremely high quality is one of the most difficult things to do. I don't think I've done it and I've been writing music for over 35 years.


----------



## Zhdanov

mmsbls said:


> music evaluation is to some extent subjective, and therefore, overall the evaluation is subjective.


how is that?.. being to some extent subjective, like every thing material, all of a sudden amounts to subjectiveness itself?


----------



## mmsbls

Torkelburger said:


> I don't want to speak for DaveM, and will let him speak for himself. But as a modern music enthusiast myself, although a conservative one, I can tell you that some modern composers are as good, but the number of high quality modern composers is about the same as high quality earlier composers. Extremely low. I listen to A LOT of new music, and I'd say only about between 5% or even lower is really worth listening to. But look at all the forgettable composers from long ago as well.
> 
> Yes, a VERY SMALL few.
> 
> Simple. For the same reasons as Mozart's time. Because writing music of extremely high quality is one of the most difficult things to do. I don't think I've done it and I've been writing music for over 35 years.


Thank you. I agree strongly with your comments. Perhaps one huge problem, though clearly not the only one, with modern/contemporary music for many people is that they, like you, hear what's available, and what's available contains some superior and much average to poor music. The only music I hear from earlier periods tends to be the select few works that are deemed up to a standard that is worthy of recording or performing. Those works may not all be superior, but they are likely at least reasonably good. When I hear contemporary music, I can't easily evaluate the works and discriminate the good from the average/poor. All I can go on is how much I enjoy them. I hear a lot that I don't especially like, but I don't now if that's because of the quality of the music or my particular taste.


----------



## mmsbls

Zhdanov said:


> how is that?.. being to some extent subjective, like every thing material, all of a sudden amounts to subjectiveness itself?


I'll answer with an example from the analogy I stated above. When evaluating an engineering design for vehicles, there are 3 particular criteria that are objective - fuel economy, peak power, and emissions. For simplicity, let's assume those are the only criteria. How would anyone select the best design. They would have to weigh the criteria in some manner. Is fuel economy more important than peak power? If so, by 5%, 20%, 50%? How important are emissions? If a design has 5% greater fuel economy and 5% higher peak power but 20% higher emissions than another design, which design is better? The weighting factors chosen are subjective. The overall choice is then subjective.

Even if one were to try to identify great music (or engineering designs) rather than choose one work (design) over another, there must be some line separating great from not great. That line is identified subjectively.

It's possible that you are using the term subjectiveness is a way I don't understand.


----------



## Zhdanov

mmsbls said:


> there are 3 particular criteria that are objective


the sum of these, and not each one separately, the sum is what matters.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> Many on TC are to some extent uneducated or uninformed about music (myself included). Some of those might not view composing as a craft that generally requires great skill. I would agree that when composers create music using a high level of compositional skill the result is often superior. I won't argue with the term "objectively" because although I would say it's at least partially subjective, I believe I understand what you mean.


While maybe not educated, I'm not sure that you qualify as being uninformed about music.  That said, it would not be surprising that those uneducated and uninformed about the creations of a craft would be less likely to recognize the activity as a craft.



> I have often stated that when I came to TC I wished to learn to like modern music. The reason was precisely that I believed modern composers were roughly as good as (competent, skillful) or better than earlier composers, and therefore, some of their music ought to be excellent as well. I felt I was missing the enjoyment I gained from earlier music, and I believed I ought to be able to learn to like wonderfully crafted music.
> 
> Do you believe modern composers are roughly as good as earlier ones? If so, do you believe some are crafting excellent (i.e. superior) music? If not, why do you believe a group selected from a much larger group than earlier, with access to enormously greater educational materials (e.g. other works and techniques from all time), and educated by composers who studied those who came before them end up being significantly inferior craftsmen?


My answer to that is different than it might have been in the past. The change came when I recognized that there is a futility in comparing a form of music that has changed so dramatically that it is no longer recognizable when compared to music that came before. That is why I now try to make sure that where necessary, when I post, I emphasize that I am talking about CPT music.

That eliminates the need (for me) to compare avant-garde composers to those of the CPT period. There may be reasons why you believe avant-garde composers are 'crafting excellent (i.e.superior) music. You are probably a better judge than me. But, turning your question back on you: I don't know how one could make a general statement that 'modern composers are roughly as good as earlier ones'. The closer the music gets to avant-garde, IMO, the less one can make a comparison. But, the closer the characteristics that modern music might get to that of the CPT period, the more likely I am to say that modern composers do not rise to the level of those of the past.


----------



## mmsbls

Zhdanov said:


> the sum of these, and not each one separately, the sum is what matters.


Exactly; otherwise, weighting does not matter.

Value = a*(fuel economy) + b* (peak power) + c*(emissions)

Fuel economy, peak power, and emissions are evaluated objectively and expressed as numbers. The weighting constants a, b, and c must be determined subjectively.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> ...That eliminates the need (for me) to compare avant-garde composers to those of the CPT period. There may be reasons why you believe avant-garde composers are 'crafting excellent (i.e.superior) music. You are probably a better judge than me. But, turning your question back on you: I don't know how one could make a general statement that 'modern composers are roughly as good as earlier ones'. The closer the music gets to avant-garde, IMO, the less one can make a comparison. But, the closer the characteristics that modern music might get to that of the CPT period, the more likely I am to say that modern composers do not rise to the level of those of the past.


I don't know that modern composers are as good, but I assume they are because there are many more people on earth, overall education has increased greatly, composers have access to enormously more music than earlier ones, and I see nothing that would decrease their ability as composers compared to earlier composers. But, yes, that is an assumption.

I assume that contemporary composers choose the style they prefer to use in compositions. I also assume the "best" composers do not compose in styles similar to CPT as the best Romantic composers did not create Classical or Baroque style music . If so, the best composers would not produce anything close to CPT music. You then have the issue that evaluating contemporary composers will be rather difficult.


----------



## Zhdanov

mmsbls said:


> The weighting constants a, b, and c must be determined subjectively.


only 'to some extent' so as to be appropriate for a *vehicle*, not some cart.


----------



## science

Zhdanov said:


> how is that?.. being to some extent subjective, like every thing material, all of a sudden amounts to subjectiveness itself?


If you think objectivity is "good" (kind of an ironic thing to think but here we are) then you can think of subjectivity as a fly in the ointment.


----------



## Zhdanov

science said:


> If you think objectivity is "good" (kind of an ironic thing to think but here we are) then you can think of subjectivity as a fly in the ointment.


well nothing is perfect in this world... but what is best and what is worst is still an objective matter..


----------



## mmsbls

Zhdanov said:


> only 'to some extent' so as to be appropriate for a *vehicle*, not some cart.


If they are determined subjectively "to some extent", then they are determined subjectively. But I have no idea how one would determine the weighting constants other than to do stated preference surveys as is done by those creating choice models. Those surveys explicitly aim to determine the subjective evaluation from large numbers of people.


----------



## Zhdanov

mmsbls said:


> If they are determined subjectively "to some extent", then they are determined subjectively.


because 'to some extent' leaves too narrow a space for subjectivity to prevail over the objective requirements that a car should be a car and not something else, like with music that should be music and not mass culture.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> I don't know that modern composers are as good, but I assume they are because there are many more people on earth, overall education has increased greatly, composers have access to enormously more music than earlier ones, and I see nothing that would decrease their ability as composers compared to earlier composers. But, yes, that is an assumption.


You mentioned that before. (Assume all of the following as IMO.) I believe that the farther the 19th century advanced, regardless of those things you list above, the less composers could be employed and the less composers seemed interested in pleasing any particular demographic. Not to mention that there seemed to be a headset in academic institutions with predictable results that composing in a style at all reminiscent of 'traditional' CM was a no-no. All of this resulted in music less accessible to the general public. Look at the difference between CM that was commissioned 200 years ago and now. The LA Philharmonic has commissioned countless works that are never heard again. Why is that?



> You then have the issue that evaluating contemporary composers will be rather difficult.


That seemed to be an issue in a recent thread where those who like avant-garde music were having difficulty indicating why one composer might be better than another or what are the characteristics of 'good' avant-garde.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> What should be clear after several threads and probably thousands of posts? Your opinion? Their opinion? If, as you infer, a polling showing that a majority has no objective significance, then neither does the impact of 'several threads and probably thousands of posts.' Unless, of course, it happens to suit you.
> 
> Btw, there is an inverse relationship between the more hyperbole you use and the impact of your posts: 'Superman', 'transcends space, time'. Give it a rest.


I'll reply to your reply to my reply by quoting again from _Cool Hand Luke_: "Some men you just can't reach." The failure to grasp my extraordinarily simple thesis is...remarkable. The vigor with which a contrary position is held is also remarkable. Everybody likes some art things better than other art things. But beyond polling and a show of hands, there is no way to demonstrate that within the art, there is some something inherent that causes it to have qualities and quantities and attributes that, as I repeat, transcend the peculiarities of time, space, and the individual reactions to and participation in their perception and so achieve an "objective", immeasurable "greatness". If I am wrong, there is a fine wine which, not some but all non-diseased oenophiles will immediately recognize as objectively the "best" wine. Even the non-oenophiles will think so too, and they hate wine.


----------



## mmsbls

Zhdanov said:


> because 'to some extent' leaves too narrow a space for subjectivity to prevail over the objective requirements that a car should be a car and not something else, like with music that should be music and not mass culture.


Discreet choice models for car purchases show a wide range of views on how important fuel economy, power, and emissions are. The range cannot be categorized as "to some extent" but rather to a large extent. People have widely varying values for those objective aspects of cars. I believe the same is true of music.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> You mentioned that before. (Assume all of the following as IMO.) I believe that the farther 19th century advanced, regardless of those things you list above, the less composers could be employed and the less composers seemed interested in pleasing any particular demographic. Not to mention that there seemed to be a headset in academic institutions with predictable results that composing in a style at all reminiscent of 'traditional' CM was a no-no. All of this resulted in music less accessible to the general public.


In general I agree.



DaveM said:


> Look at the difference between CM that was commissioned 200 years ago and now. The LA Philharmonic has commissioned countless works that are never heard again. Why is that?


I don't know. _One_ possibility is less funding for new works?



DaveM said:


> That seemed to be an issue in a recent thread where those who like avant-garde music were having difficulty indicating why one composer might be better than another or what are the characteristics of 'good' avant-garde.


I do not have enough knowledge to answer that question. In the past on TC, those who had decent knowledge of contemporary music often would not enter such threads because they had so much experience with those threads being anti-contemporary music, and they didn't want to participate.


----------



## Zhdanov

mmsbls said:


> Discreet choice models for car purchases show a wide range of views on how important fuel economy, power, and emissions are. The range cannot be categorized as "to some extent" but rather to a large extent.


so, no matter - if the car can run at all, for if it can't then all the better for 'fuel economy'?


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> I'll reply to your reply to my reply by quoting again from _Cool Hand Luke_: "Some men you just can't reach." The failure to grasp my extraordinarily simple thesis is...remarkable. The vigor with which a contrary position is held is also remarkable....


Given that as these threads go on, your 'pure, total subjectivity' position seems to be very much in the minority, the problem is more likely the messenger's message.


----------



## Strange Magic

One of the situations in the arts is the fact that, as time passes and the amount of art--"good'' and ''bad"--increases as an accessible, warehoused, accumulated, ever-increasing mass of art exploration already done, the residue of really, really "good" and different ideas that lots of people will like becomes an ore harder and harder to mine. Hence, art exploration expands sideways into avenues never before examined, and the products called "art" attract more and more slices of the pie but are enjoyed--except for the overall growth of populations--by smaller and smaller percentages of the total audience for "art". This in part explains the New Stasis in the arts, along with instantaneous communication and universal accessibility.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Given that as these threads go on, your 'pure, total subjectivity' position seems to be very much in the minority, the problem is more likely the messenger and the message.


Sez Who? You want to put it to a vote? Poll? Let's ask the Experts. It's the objectivists' final resort. To quote somebody (I don't remember who), I'd rather be right (not Right, mind you) than president. :lol:


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Sez Who? You want to put it to a vote? Poll? Let's ask the Experts. It's the objectivists' final resort. To quote somebody (I don't remember who), I'd rather be right (not Right, mind you) than president. :lol:


Fwiw, I edited my post, but not quickly enough, because I have no problem with the messenger.


----------



## RogerWaters

EdwardBast said:


> Aliens who can't really hear Bach because they have different sensory and processing apparatus are, for the purposes of this discussion, analogous to aliens who can't count and who live in two dimensional space, not to ones who do math like us and see in three dimensions. You've drawn an improper comparison that renders your argument meaningless.


No, I haven't, or if I have it's not for the reasons you say.

First, the the aliens can hear Bach. Go back and read my OP properly.

Second, even if the aliens couldn't hear Bach, this would not be analogous to Aliens who couldn't count. Aliens who couldn't count would have never left their planet and, indeed, would never have evolved because they would have mistaken 1 predator for 0 predators and taken their lack of maths skills with them to the grave. Aliens would couldn't hear Bach (or, more precisely, couldn't hear it how we hear it - which is what the thought experiment said) would have done just fine.

So the only improper comparisons here are your own.


----------



## mmsbls

Zhdanov said:


> so, no matter - if the car can run at all, for if it can't then all the better for 'fuel economy'?


I'm sorry. I don't understand your comment.


----------



## ArtMusic

RogerWaters said:


> No, I haven't, or if I have it's at not for the reasons you say.
> 
> First, the the aliens can hear Bach. Go back and read my OP properly.
> 
> Second, even if the aliens couldn't hear Bach, this would not be analogues to Aliens who couldn't count. Aliens who couldn't count would never get off their planet and, indeed, would never have evolved because they would have mistaken 1 predator for 0 predators and taken their lack of maths skills with them to the grave. Aliens would couldn't hear Bach (or, more precisely, couldn't hear it how we hear it - which is what the thought experiment said, your over confident ejaculations not withstanding) would have done just fine.


It has been suggested that evolution might no longer require ears but mental telepathy. Many science fiction writers have that idea whereby aliens no longer use speech to communicate and ears to hear. Today we already have biomedical engineering.

Notwithstanding that, Bach wrote his music for human ears. There is nothing more simpler to understand than that. Bach wrote his notes based on human experiences in life and learned experiences in musical training.


----------



## Woodduck

mmsbls said:


> I believe both Strange Magic (SM) and Woodduck are mostly talking about different things, but there is some overlap.
> 
> SM says the default position on beauty is "in the eye of the beholder." I agree that a large percentage of those thinking about or writing on beauty (not just composers, but philosophers and the general public) believe it is subjective and up to individual assessment. SM also talk about musical excellence which is distinctly different from beauty. So the comment "in the eye of the beholder" in the post may or may not refer to musical excellence.
> 
> Woodduck discusses how composers work on problems posed by their music. I view this in a similar way to how engineers work on problems posed by their projects. Sometimes composers and engineers find workable solutions, sometimes good ones, and sometimes brilliant ones. Composers (I think) and engineers generally agree on which solutions are workable, good, or brilliant. They would say that one composer or engineer found better solutions. A composer or engineer who consistently finds good to brilliant solutions writes excellent music or designs excellent products.
> 
> I don't know enough about music to comment directly, but let me try to make an analogy to music using engineering. An automobile engineer might find a brilliant solution to make a car have very high power with high fuel economy. Other engineers would agree that the solution is excellent. However, the resulting vehicle might have very high emissions as well. When viewed by others in the transportation field, they might believe that many different solutions with somewhat lower power and fuel economy but also lower emissions are better. It depends on what is valued most.
> 
> Perhaps, the composer finds brilliant solutions to the musical problems she faces, but others do not find the resulting composition beautiful, and therefore, subjectively judge it as a lesser work than another work that does not demonstrate excellence in musical problems but is considered more beautiful.


This contains more sense than the endless reiterations of subjectivist dogma that make these discussions as irksome as broken records (for the young, those are the things that came before CDs). I see that mikeh375, a professional composer, has "liked" it too. Salutations, Mike!

Artistic creation isn't exactly like engineering, but when it's seen as a kind of problem-solving we are at least lifted part of the way out of the gooey swamp of "feelings" onto ground a little more solid. Mmsbls, speaking of the different objectives which will compel different automobile engineers to design a car in different ways, shows an understanding of the contextual nature of values. Values don't exist in a vacuum; to be "good" is to be "good for" something, or good in a particular respect. The applicability of this principle to art may not be immediately apparent, but it should be obvious that an artist, creating a particular work, is trying for a specific, distinctive effect. And like the engineer, his choices throughout the process of creation will be guided by his overall intention - by the kind of work he is trying to make. He will judge his decisions about what notes, lines, colors, or words to employ by how well they contribute to the effect and meaning he wants to convey. His decisions will be good or bad, better or worse, according to how well they contribute to achieving his goal. What is "good" for him is defined in that context. This may seem unremarkable, but we must remember that the concept of "good" - of value in general - is really void without a context. The context is provided by the question, "good for what and in what way?" When aesthetic subjectivists ask how we can "prove" that a work of art is "objectively" good, it appears to me that they are usually "context-dropping" and demanding criteria or "standards" based on a notion of value ("greatness") which is literally meaningless. They are imagining, and accusing their opponents of advocating, some "good" floating in a Platonic heaven or written in the scriptures of some esoteric religion to which only "art experts" subscribe. No thoughtful artist accepts such a vacuous notion of what excellence in art is, or what it means to do good work.

In one of my posts I asked why Beethoven chose the particular notes he did. Someone responded, "Because he liked them." No doubt he did like them, but that answer immediately provokes the question, "Why did he like them?" The usual responses from aesthetic "subjectivists" will invoke ideas of acculturation, convention, consensus, audience expectation - anything except an appeal to the nature of the artwork itself. But art, like engineering, has its laws; for any category and style of art and any individual art work, there are things that "work" and things that don't. And the better the artist - the more refined his perceptual abilities - the more specific he can be about what works, and the more skilled he'll be in making the right choices. If the artist's goal - the whole concept governing his work - is interesting, significant, and challenging, and if he realizes that goal in a way that's coherent and convincing to an audience able to intuit the nature of the work and the suitability of means to ends, the more the work will be rightly identified as "good," or even "great." It will be good in the real, contextual sense of the word, as a judgment of coherence and the fitness of means to ends.

There's more to evaluating art than this, but it's a start.


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> I agree with you that music evaluation is to some extent subjective, and therefore, overall the evaluation is subjective. Having said that, I believe I understand what those like DaveM and Woodduck are arguing. They agree that one's overall enjoyment of the music is subjective. They do not agree that there are no criteria that have objective components. In my analogy, engineers can look at a design and agree the problem was solved in a superior manner, and I assume composers can do that with musical works.
> 
> So, after considering the works of several composers, a group of knowledgeable people could evaluate which composers solved their problems in superior ways. Once they have done so, they can state that composers A, B, and C have superior craftsmanship or skill and produced superior music based on those criteria. If they stated that composer A's works were better than composer B's works without stating their limited criteria, they would be stating a subjective opinion.
> 
> My view is that you, DaveM, and Woodduck are all correct in what you have argued (at least that I have read).


Yes, our aesthetic values are in part based on the way we naturally hear and perceive. For example, sound above or below audible frequencies won't be of any use (and yes, I know there is research that suggests that sound outside audible frequencies may have an impact on frequencies we actually can hear -- never mind all that). But the subjective component is quite significant, as can easily be seen by the enormous differences between traditional European music and that of China, India, Japan and the Middle East, societies which developed (for the most part) separately for thousands of years.

In the modern era, the New Stasis as Strange Magic calls it, there is a lot of cultural cross pollenization. For example, today's popular music in the Pacific Rim countries and India shows the obvious influence of western popular music. It's only a matter of time before classical music traditions reflect the same. But some here seem to take the ethnocentric position that the result will be that the greatness of Beethoven will be accepted globally. In reality, it means that western music absorbs non-western influences as well as the other way around. Of course, this has already happened.

Earlier I mentioned the Chinese Grammy and Oscar (and Shostakovich Award) winning composer Tan Dun, who composed the score for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and has become quite famous in the west as well as China. It wouldn't be a stretch to think of him as the John Williams of China. He composes in a western idiom directly descended from Beethoven and Wagner, but also strongly influenced by the traditional music of his native China.

And that increasingly is what one sees and hears in the current era of the New Stasis: combinations of a variety of cultural traditions. What that shows is that many people today have broader, more international backgrounds and tastes than they once did, but those tastes are still in major part a product of their background. Chinese audiences have learned about western music, but they haven't forgotten their Chinese cultural traditions, either.

That, in turn, illustrates the inevitably subjective nature of taste in music. Any two individuals have millions of differences in environment and background, large and small. That one may be Chinese and another American is only one of these potential differences. To any one individual, Beethoven's music may be great, or less great, or even incomprehensible noise. It's easy to forget that some of Beethoven's own contemporaries found his late string quartets incomprehensible and unlistenable (that subject already has been brought up here).

Those who insist on the greatness of Beethoven's music can find it in the longevity of devoted audiences. Knowledgeable analysts can point to specific skills Beethoven had that enabled him to deliver what these audiences wanted, and still want over 200 years later. Charles Rosen does that well. TC member hammeredklavier is pretty skilled at it, too. But that is as far as objective analysis will take you. For the rest, one must simply accept the aesthetic values of a particular individual, or audience, or society, as a given that cannot objectively be proved correct or verified.


----------



## Torkelburger

mmsbls said:


> Thank you. I agree strongly with your comments. Perhaps one huge problem, though clearly not the only one, with modern/contemporary music for many people is that they, like you, hear what's available, and what's available contains some superior and much average to poor music. The only music I hear from earlier periods tends to be the select few works that are deemed up to a standard that is worthy of recording or performing. Those works may not all be superior, but they are likely at least reasonably good. *When I hear contemporary music, I can't easily evaluate the works and discriminate the good from the average/poor.* All I can go on is how much I enjoy them. I hear a lot that I don't especially like, but I don't now if that's because of the quality of the music or my particular taste.


Thank you, too. I agree with your comments as well...and believe it or not, even the part I highlighted in bold. At times, it is very difficult to cull the bad from the good in modern music (especially with the Avant Garde) because as DaveM has said, some of it has gotten so far away from what music itself is as it has been defined in the past, we have to almost judge it on completely different terms and standards (again, especially the Avant Garde).

Please forgive me for opening a can of worms here (and I wish not to get in any long debate about it), but take Cage's _4'33''_ (I do not intend to derail this thread). It does not meet the definition of music as we know it in the past, and I do not consider it music. It can, however, be considered "art". Whether it's good or bad art, I'm not one to say, just that I do not consider it a piece of music and cannot therefore judge its quality as such.

However, it's confusing because Cage wrote the "piece" down as if it's a piece of music, by structuring it in three "movements", like it's some kind of traditional musical form or something. He also composed music in the past and many call him a composer. Am I to therefore analyze it with traditional criteria? If so, I find some very odd conceptions with what he did. If the "sounds" of the venue are the "music", then what is the point of having all three movements sound functionally the same? In music, when pieces are divided into movements, the movements aren't just exact repeats of what came before. The point is to create an arch with new material. Why not change the location (inside to outside) or audience make-up between movements if you are going to divide into separate movements? And if no change, why divide at all? What is gained by the division? I can't come up with any good enough answer that is beyond anything trivial. And what about the durations? What is the point of hearing another minute or a few seconds more of exactly what you just heard? The "breaks" between movements don't make sense, either. The "sound" of the piece doesn't stop during the breaks.

So, I'm not exactly sure what to do. Like you said, sometimes all you can do is just go on how much you enjoy them (or not). Sometimes the answer is "I don't know" and that's fine.

This piece only has a "cult" following anyway and is more known for its revolutionary ideas than anything else. It would not fall into the category of needing to be analyzed for high quality traits at least at this moment in history.


----------



## fluteman

Torkelburger said:


> Thank you, too. I agree with your comments as well...and believe it or not, even the part I highlighted in bold. At times, it is very difficult to cull the bad from the good in modern music (especially with the Avant Garde) because as DaveM has said, some of it has gotten so far away from what music itself is as it has been defined in the past, we have to almost judge it on completely different terms and standards (again, especially the Avant Garde).
> 
> Please forgive me for opening a can of worms here (and I wish not to get in any long debate about it), but take Cage's _4'33''_ (I do not intend to derail this thread). It does not meet the definition of music as we know it in the past, and I do not consider it music. It can, however, be considered "art". Whether it's good or bad art, I'm not one to say, just that I do not consider it a piece of music and cannot therefore judge its quality as such.
> 
> However, it's confusing because Cage wrote the "piece" down as if it's a piece of music, by structuring it in three "movements", like it's some kind of traditional musical form or something. He also composed music in the past and many call him a composer. Am I to therefore analyze it with traditional criteria? If so, I find some very odd conceptions with what he did. If the "sounds" of the venue are the "music", then what is the point of having all three movements sound functionally the same? In music, when pieces are divided into movements, the movements aren't just exact repeats of what came before. The point is to create an arch with new material. Why not change the location (inside to outside) or audience make-up between movements if you are going to divide into separate movements? And if no change, why divide at all? What is gained by the division? I can't come up with any good enough answer that is beyond anything trivial. And what about the durations? What is the point of hearing another minute or a few seconds more of exactly what you just heard? The "breaks" between movements don't make sense, either. The "sound" of the piece doesn't stop during the breaks.
> 
> So, I'm not exactly sure what to do. Like you said, sometimes all you can do is just go on how much you enjoy them (or not). Sometimes the answer is "I don't know" and that's fine.
> 
> This piece only has a "cult" following anyway and is more known for its revolutionary ideas than anything else. It would not fall into the category of needing to be analyzed for high quality traits at least at this moment in history.


If John Cage made you think that much about the meaning of music and art with 4'33", he has succeeded spectacularly, regardless of your conclusions.

My own opinion, take it or leave it, is that 4'33" has two attributes that we typically think of as fundamental to music: a specific duration, and sounds (though those sounds are limited to what one randomly happens to hear). How many more such attributes must something have before it is considered "music" in your opinion? A rhythmic pattern? Tones of an identifiable frequency? An allegro movement for symphony orchestra in sonata form? I don't know. But maybe that's one thing Cage wanted us to think about.

Again, this illustrates that what counts is our value system, and no music is inherently good or bad.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Haven't gone through the thread, but with the OP in mind, imagine the soundwaves are transposed to the frequencies/wavelengths their ears are attuned to, and the tempo their brains can follow. They WILL then enjoy Bach the way humans do.


----------



## fluteman

Phil loves classical said:


> Haven't gone through the thread, but with the OP in mind, imagine the soundwaves are transposed to the frequencies/wavelengths their ears are attuned to, and the tempo their brains can follow. They WILL then enjoy Bach the way humans do.


Except not all humans enjoy Bach, dagnabbit.


----------



## Phil loves classical

fluteman said:


> Except not all humans enjoy Bach, dagnabbit.


True. Same with any alien race then. Also I forgot to mention the aliens have to be as advanced as humans, and not like dogs.


----------



## Strange Magic

I gather that esthetics is for explaining how "problems are solved", and has only peripheral interest in whether people--individuals--like art objects or dislike them. A composer wishes to or chooses to write a symphony: "I have a problem that I must solve." he solves his problem by crafting a symphony or whatever that pleases him. So he becomes the very first individual to subjectively, personally, at this point idiosyncratically "like" his work. Little does he realize that it is the inherent excellence of what he has done that triggers his like/love of his effort. His fellow composer loathes it and tells him so. But the "problem" has been solved; how could anyone not like it? I find the alleged parallels with engineering unconvincing.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> If John Cage made you think that much about the meaning of music and art with 4'33", he has succeeded spectacularly, regardless of your conclusions.


"Succeeded?" "Spectacularly?" Whoa! By what "standard?" Where is your "proof?" Is that an "objective" judgment? Was Cage "inherently" successful or spectacular? Are successfulness and spectacularness "in" the work?

Astonishing. People can say things like this without blushing, but the statement "Bach was a great composer" has them falling all over themselves to correct anyone naive enough not to qualify it, if not apologize for it.



> My own opinion, take it or leave it, is that 4'33" has two attributes that we typically think of as fundamental to music: a specific duration, and sounds (though those sounds are limited to what one randomly happens to hear).


We can attribute sound and duration to almost anything in the physical world. But - oh yeah - music can now _be_ almost anything, can't it?



> How many more such attributes must something have before it is considered "music" in your opinion? A rhythmic pattern? Tones of an identifiable frequency? An allegro movement for symphony orchestra in sonata form? I don't know.


How about an actual composition of sounds created by a person? That seems rather basic and timeless, doesn't it? Was there a time and a place, before our new and improved era, when that wasn't a requirement?



> Again, this illustrates that what counts is our value system, and no music is inherently good or bad.


And can value systems be good or bad, or is there no way to know, or isn't it a relevant question?

Can music exhibit more or less skill? Thought? Imagination? Can music express anything? Can some of the things it expresses be good or bad? Better or worse? Noble or base? Complex or simple? Deep or shallow?

Our value system is important, I'll grant you that. I will have to have it explained to me in what value system 4'33" can be blithely dubbed "spectacularly successful music," while _Parsifal_ is just the ice cream flavor of the month.


----------



## ArtMusic

fluteman said:


> If John Cage made you think that much about the meaning of music and art with 4'33", he has succeeded spectacularly, regardless of your conclusions.
> 
> My own opinion, take it or leave it, is that 4'33" has two attributes that we typically think of as fundamental to music: a specific duration, and sounds (though those sounds are limited to what one randomly happens to hear). How many more such attributes must something have before it is considered "music" in your opinion? A rhythmic pattern? Tones of an identifiable frequency? An allegro movement for symphony orchestra in sonata form? I don't know. But maybe that's one thing Cage wanted us to think about.
> 
> Again, this illustrates that what counts is our value system, and no music is inherently good or bad.


I beg to differ that _4'33"_ qualifies as music simply because of the two attributes. These two attributes on its own and if only simply on its own, debase music. It is simplistic reductivism abused.


----------



## Strange Magic

It remains a fact that when an artist, a composer allegedly "solves a problem" successfully, it is strictly a matter of opinion both of the artist/composer and of any perceivers of the art/music. It is difficult in the extreme to refute this simple fact. Engineering bridges successfully results in traffic streaming safely over the space bridged whether the bridge is beautiful or ugly. Opinion has nothing to do with that criterion. We glimpse here yet another insight into the difference between subjectivist and objectivist viewpoints.


----------



## ArtMusic

Strange Magic said:


> It remains a fact that when an artist, a composer allegedly "solves a problem" successfully, it is strictly a matter of opinion both of the artist/composer and of any perceivers of the art/music. It is difficult in the extreme to refute this simple fact. Engineering bridges successfully results in traffic streaming safely over the space bridged whether the bridge is beautiful or ugly. Opinion has nothing to do with that criterion. We glimpse here yet another insight into the difference between subjectivist and objectivist viewpoints.


I doubt that. Bach had to solve the technical complexities of the unfinished quadruple fugue in _Art of Fugue_ before he died. That is no small matter of opinion, I can assure you of that.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> My own opinion, take it or leave it, is that 4'33" has two attributes that we typically think of as fundamental to music: a specific duration, and sounds (though those sounds are limited to what one randomly happens to hear). How many more such attributes must something have before it is considered "music" in your opinion?


Understanding that you weren't asking my opinion: How about something that meets the definition of music and it isn't random sounds from the environment not performed by anyone or anything in particular, notwithstanding John Cage's concept and Maria singing The Hills are Alive with the Sound of Music.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> It remains a fact that when an artist, a composer allegedly "solves a problem" successfully, it is strictly a matter of opinion both of the artist/composer and of any perceivers of the art/music. It is difficult in the extreme to refute this simple fact. Engineering bridges successfully results in traffic streaming safely over the space bridged whether the bridge is beautiful or ugly. Opinion has nothing to do with that criterion. We glimpse here yet another insight into the difference between subjectivist and objectivist viewpoints.


When a so-called fact leads to _reductio ad absurdum_ conclusions, it's time to check one's premises. In this case, one may posit the "Blue Danube" waltz as a solution to the problem Mahler faced concerning what sort of movement would make a suitable conclusion to his 6th symphony, on the assumption that someone, somewhere, might hold the "subjective opinion" that a jolly, romantic waltz would provide delightful relief after all the heavy stuff. They might also hold that Strauss's objection that Mahler shouldn't do that would also be just a matter of opinion. Who can "objectively prove" otherwise?

On your premises, the number of such absurd solutions to the problems artists face is infinite. But your position amounts to saying that there are no real aesthetic problems to solve in the creation of art, and that there is absolutely nothing in the conception of any work of art that makes any choice or procedure on the artist's part superior to any other. Let's jettison the final act of _King Lear_ and substitute an episode of _Seinfeld._ Why didn't Shakespeare think of that? Death is so depressing, and so unnecessary!

I'd as soon drive over a badly engineered bridge (and probably have) as listen to the idiocy that would result if composers were as enamored of "subjectivity" as you are. But, come to think of it, there's plenty of music (and "music") out there, in our day, that seems a product of exactly such thinking. That might be why you don't listen to it.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> When a so-called fact leads to _reductio ad absurdum_ conclusions, it's time to check one's premises. In this case, one may posit the "Blue Danube" waltz as a solution to the problem Mahler faced concerning what sort of movement would make a suitable conclusion to his 6th symphony, on the assumption that someone, somewhere, might hold the "subjective opinion" that a jolly, romantic waltz would provide delightful relief after all the heavy stuff. They might also hold that Strauss's objection that Mahler shouldn't do that would also be just a matter of opinion. Who can "objectively prove" otherwise?
> 
> On your premises, the number of such absurd solutions to the problems artists face is infinite. But your position amounts to saying that there are no real aesthetic problems to solve in the creation of art, and that there is absolutely nothing in the conception of any work of art that makes any choice or procedure on the artist's part superior to any other. Let's jettison the final act of _King Lear_ and substitute an episode of _Seinfeld._ Why didn't Shakespeare think of that? Death is so depressing, and so unnecessary!


Repeated failure to understand. Composers, artists can solve problems--or convince themselves they have solved problems--until the cows come home. I can think they solved them brilliantly (created a work I can and do love). Or not. Others, including the composer later, may decide the piece is _meh_, so-so, not interesting, bad. It remains an unassailable fact that opinion is everything in esthetics, whether individual or groupthink. All of the labored effort to somehow find something Special inside the music to account for a select group liking it, praising it, glorifying it irrespective of and transcending the receiving mind of the individuals apprehending it, is in vain. It is all about opinion. And--Surprise!--opinions vary.

The second thing not understood is the freedom that all have, all individuals experiencing art, to set up any criteria, any gradation of preferences they care to. All this talk about jettisoning, abandoning standards, and the alleged resulting chaos--hinted darkly at now by 3 or 4 posters enamored of Platonic Idealism being crushed in a darkening world (it's darkening for other reasons)--is nonsense. Nobody outside of a mental institution has utterly abandoned their predeliction to pick, choose, judge, grade art to suit themselves. If their choices do not align with those of The Others, then it's Just Too Bad.


----------



## BachIsBest

Strange Magic said:


> Repeated failure to understand. Composers, artists can solve problems--or convince themselves they have solved problems--until the cows come home. I can think they solved them brilliantly (created a work I can and do love). Or not. Others, including the composer later, may decide the piece is _meh_, so-so, not interesting, bad. It remains an unassailable fact that opinion is everything in esthetics, whether individual or groupthink. All of the labored effort to somehow find something Special inside the music to account for a select group liking it, praising it, glorifying it irrespective of and transcending the receiving mind of the individuals apprehending it, is in vain.  It is all about opinion. And--Surprise!--opinions vary.
> 
> The second thing not understood is the freedom that all have, all individuals experiencing art, to set up any criteria, any gradation of preferences they care to. All this talk about jettisoning, abandoning standards, and the alleged resulting chaos--hinted darkly at now by 3 or 4 posters enamored of Platonic Idealism being crushed in a darkening world (it's darkening for other reasons)--is nonsense. Nobody outside of a mental institution has utterly abandoned their predeliction to pick, choose, judge, grade art to suit themselves. If their choices do not align with those of The Others, then it's Just Too Bad.


I think this exchange demonstrates a sort of key difference of opinion. I, and I imagine Woodduck along with some others arguing the objectivist position, accept some values as virtually axiomatic. Murder is bad, truth is worth pursuing, it matters that you are good and kind, life is valuable, or even that reality is not just an illusion are things that I just accept as truths. I can provide some arguments for these being truths, but I can't prove any of them even in the loose, colloquial sense, of proof. Ultimately, if you refuse to accept that random gibberish written on a page is worse writing than _King Lear_ because there might be someone out there who just really digs random gibberish, then there is nothing I can really do except point to the absurdity of the position.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Repeated failure to understand. Composers, artists can solve problems--or convince themselves they have solved problems--until the cows come home. I can think they solved them brilliantly (created a work I can and do love). Or not. Others, including the composer later, may decide the piece is _meh_, so-so, not interesting, bad. It remains an unassailable fact that opinion is everything in esthetics, whether individual or groupthink. All of the labored effort to somehow find something Special inside the music to account for a select group liking it, praising it, glorifying it irrespective of and transcending the receiving mind of the individuals apprehending it, is in vain. It is all about opinion. And--Surprise!--opinions vary.
> 
> The second thing not understood is the freedom that all have, all individuals experiencing art, to set up any criteria, any gradation of preferences they care to. All this talk about jettisoning, abandoning standards, and the alleged resulting chaos--hinted darkly at now by 3 or 4 posters enamored of Platonic Idealism being crushed in a darkening world (it's darkening for other reasons)--is nonsense. Nobody outside of a mental institution has utterly abandoned their predeliction to pick, choose, judge, grade art to suit themselves. If their choices do not align with those of The Others, then it's Just Too Bad.


No one questions anyone's right to hold any criteria they wish for what floats their boat. What I said is that artists disagree with your belief that there is no right or wrong in creating their work, and that they do not, as you apparently do, exalt their "feelings" over the definite processes they know must be followed if they are to bring a conception to completion. They don't regard their ongoing discoveries of how best to achieve this as simple matters of "opinion." Yes, they may change their minds about what works best, and in fact the process of creation involves constant changes of mind; the eraser may get more use than the pencil. But they are constantly guided by definite concepts which require definite choices. They're guided both by keeping an ultimate end in mind and by seeing the implications suggested by what they've already done, and it's a process of deduction which both constrains and releases their imaginations.

An artist is trying to do something particular. He can do it more or less well. He may end up with something slightly different from what he had in mind at the start, but that only means that his goals have changed in process because - and this is important - _he has seen implications and possibilities in his material that he didn't see before._ What matters is that he see and follow the urgings of the work as it develops and produce something that exhibits a visible or audible coherence, a fitness of parts, an aptness of means to perceptible ends, and a distinct profile. These are the basic qualities that win for the work or artist the interest and esteem of audiences, regardless of the level of sophistication the work exhibits or the type of audience at which it's aimed. These qualities represent an achievement worthy of respect - they are often hard-won - whether or not the work in question is anything we personally value.

I don't think I misunderstand anything you're saying. Given the number of times you've said it, that would be hard to do. I've pointed out the _reductio ad absurdum_ of your beliefs. You haven't answered that, so I assume it doesn't give you pause. I conclude that, according to your theory of art, any stupidity, atrocity, or act of aesthetic vandalism offered as art is worthy of being called "good," merely because someone is of the "opinion" - has a "feeling" - that it's "good." Is this a correct understanding of where your thinking leads?


----------



## ArtMusic

I once wrote a poem when I was thirteen and submitted it to my class teacher. She graded the poem well. If I submit the same poem today to a university professor of English, I somehow doubt I would pass the course. You see, anything that is a creation of man has to be uneven in quality, there is nothing in there to suggest that it can't be and why the receiver of it cannot be critical and appreciative. This makes art much more interesting than science.


----------



## Portamento

Woodduck said:


> Artists devise, and then solve, real problems, one after another, endlessly, and their happiness consists in finding real solutions to them. They can and do fail - more often than they succeed, in fact - and the art life can be more frustrating than it is rewarding. But artists always hope, if only faintly, that when they discover those elusive next notes or lines or words, they will find among all the wide eyes and rapturous "oohs" and "ahs" of the art crowd some perceptive minds who have a just appreciation of what they've done well - and, indeed, what they haven't.


Sure - I don't disagree with anything you've said here.



> The audience that knows and appreciates as well as merely enjoys is small, but it's at least some reward for their labor and some consolation for the accidents of fashion and the predictable ignorance, among the wine-tasters, of the real nature of their work.


Following this logic, any non-musician audience member who dislikes, say, Schoenberg's Wind Quintet is a mere wine-taster and should shut up. _Perceptive_ minds would realize that the Quintet's first movement - despite surface-level similarities to sonata form - employs long-range connections based on the use of recurring pitch class collections, held invariant in various ways (both segmentally and non-segmentally), among rows and collections of rows. That's the "real nature" of Schoenberg's work, and if one has sufficient understanding it's easy to see how every note fits into this astounding, interconnected web. After all, Stravinsky described the Quintet as "the finest work ever written for this combination." But how can Stravinsky's view be reconciled with Copland's, that the work is an "outstanding failure.... Except for certain parts of the scherzo and the final rondo, there seemed nothing but principles and theories of composition leading to complete aridity." Is Copland simply an imperceptive wine-taster or does he have a point? (After all, this is the same man who deemed Schoenberg's late string quartets "indubitable masterpieces.") Perhaps we were wrong about the Quintet's real nature and old man Igor is the lowly wine-taster. Maybe both are!

I wonder if there is a world in which neither Stravinsky nor Copland is objectively wrong: most members would agree that both were great artists. But sadly, since their judgements on Schoenberg's work are diametrically opposed, one of them must be demoted to a wine-taster. Who's it gonna be? Given that WD is _l'artiste_, he should probably decide.

We've now established the possibility of an artist also being a wine-taster, but… but... WD has led me to believe that "artists" and "wine-tasters" are distinct species (no intermingling allowed, of course). If the idea of artists being wine-tasters makes you squeal in disgust, don't worry! - there is a way to save all artists from aesthetic damnation. Maybe - just maybe - there is no such thing as a work's "real nature." If this were the case, we can value both Stravinsky's and Copland's views without worrying about which one is the idiot.



> _The "default position" of the composer of any work of music you can name is that in composing it_ _some procedures and choices are right and others wrong - some better and some worse - and that, when he finds the notes which best carry out his conception and solve the problems implicit in it, he is writing better music._ He knows this as an "objective" fact; the "object" is the music itself, and the music itself contains the evidence of quality that you claim not to have found an iota of anywhere.


I don't dispute that the composer thinks the choices they ended up making are "better" than other ones they may have considered along the way. To them - assuming they are fully satisfied with the finished composition, which is not always the case - this is objective. But you claim that this objectivity is apparent to others, especially (and limited to?) artists. As we saw with Schoenberg's Wind Quintet, this is clearly not the case. It's simply due to the fact that no one except for the composer themself, not even a fellow artist, knows what the composer's conception of a given work is. People don't make artistic judgements based on the fulfillment of what is (subjectively) perceived to be the composer's conception; that would be futile. Rather, these judgements have to do with what people think the _intrinsic value of the listening experience_ is - "experiential goodness." When judging Schoenberg's Quintet, this is what Stravinsky and Copland both did. (Originality- and influence-value are other, non-experiential factors that people commonly place emphasis on.)



> It's unfortunate that you (and many other wine-tasters) don't really know a right note from a wrong one - that you can only say, when something strikes you as agreeable or disagreeable, that you "like" it or not, and that your "scientifically objective" philosophy compels you to believe that the composer himself is guided by no more meaningful a standard. At this an artist can only shake his head and say, "Gosh! Who knew it was so simple?" Listening to music _should_ be simplefor the audience. It's a wonderful respite from what's called "real life." But for the composer, to whom making music _is _real life, the struggle to find the right notes can make a chain gang look like rest. You may be philosophically and psychologically incapable of calling his music good or bad, but he knows better. His music is best when he finds the notes that fit together best. The composers we call "great" did this regularly; they set significant, original problems for themselves, and they solved them brilliantly, realizing visions that others could not imagine or carry to fruition.


Again, a composer may think that they chose the objectively "best" notes, but this is not apparent to others. We don't call composers great because they solved esoteric problems well - it's because the intrinsic value of the listening experience is agreed by most to be quite high for (at least) a few of their compositions. For sure, the note choices of Boulez's _Le Marteau_, Mahler's symphonies, and Beethoven's piano sonatas are quasi-objectively excellent, but are they the "best" note choices? Such a thing doesn't exist.

One more point. You cannot directly convince anyone that a piece of music is brilliant by providing them with a demonstration of that fact, no matter how relevant your reasoning may be. However, there are many things you might say that might lead to them hearing (or remembering) the piece differently from the way they first did, and in consequence being more impressed. Some of the things you might say will also tend to convince them that their new reaction to the piece is a truer/more authentic reaction than their old one. To engage in this type of discourse is the main task of critics, interpreters, and scholars of aesthetic objects (a group that you presumably identify yourself with); they must conform their assertions to the "right" standards and reflect (when necessary) to criticize/revise those standards. In this sense - as I've expressed before - there is a quasi-objectivity to the idea of _aesthetic truths_, which has its basis in the kinds of discourse we engage in about aesthetic objects.

But aesthetic truths are _not_ objective truths - they are not about the properties objects have irrespective of our subjective experience of them, and they cannot be proved/confirmed by empirical evidence.



> Speaking as someone who has been creating in one art or another for more than sixty years, and who has always done so with much thought given to the process of creation, I became aware early on of the many levels of understanding of that process exhibited by different people. Generally speaking, non-artists' awareness of what an artist actually does is rudimentary to nonexistent. But not until I came onto this forum about seven years ago did I see up close what that lack of understanding looks like when articulated in words framed in the form of arguments. It has been a dispiriting experience, and the more repetitions I hear of the claim that the powers of judgment an artist spends his life fine-tuning are the equivalent of taste buds, the more dispiriting - and frankly tiresome - it gets.


Sorry, but "most non-artists not knowing what you do" comes with the deal of being an artist. You can either confront it or whine about it.

Ya know, sometimes the assertion that there are "objective" values is merely a crude rhetorical device used on behalf of dogmatic individuals who see themselves as courageous defenders of "The Right" and view anyone who questions what they believe in as enemies of "What is Right." Makes you wonder.


----------



## ArtMusic

Portamento said:


> Sorry, but "most non-artists not knowing what you do" comes with the deal of being an artist. You can either confront it or whine about it.


How do you define or qualify who is an artist? I consider myself an artist. I paint and I can proclaim things about my painting.


----------



## science

ArtMusic said:


> How do you define or qualify who is an artist? I consider myself an artist. I paint and I can proclaim things about my painting.


To me -- because of what I value -- the next question is whether anyone thinks your paintings are good, and if so, why they think so.


----------



## DaveM

Portamento said:


> Sorry, but "most non-artists not knowing what you do" comes with the deal of being an artist. You can either confront it or whine about it.
> 
> Ya know, sometimes the assertion that there are "objective" values is merely a crude rhetorical device used on behalf of dogmatic individuals who see themselves as courageous defenders of "The Right" and view anyone who questions what they believe in as enemies of "What is Right." Makes you wonder.


Yeah, it makes me wonder why someone would suggest that 'objective values' as related to music are sometimes '_merely a crude rhetorical device used on behalf of dogmatic individuals who see themselves as courageous defenders of "The Right" and view anyone who questions what they believe in as enemies of "What is Right."_

Sounds like someone is confusing a discussion of music with politics.


----------



## science

DaveM said:


> Yeah, it makes me wonder why someone would suggest that 'objective values' as related to music are sometimes '_merely a crude rhetorical device used on behalf of dogmatic individuals who see themselves as courageous defenders of "The Right" and view anyone who questions what they believe in as enemies of "What is Right."_
> 
> Sounds like someone is confusing a discussion of music with politics.


They're not separate, but in that context I don't think Portamento intended "The Right" in a political sense.


----------



## ArtMusic

science said:


> To me -- because of what I value -- the next question is whether anyone thinks your paintings are good, and if so, why they think so.


So anyone can be an artist if the person creating the art declares himself/herself to be one and or if the consumer receiving the art thinks so as well. And what is more, anything can be art.


----------



## science

ArtMusic said:


> So anyone can be an artist if the person creating the art declares himself/herself to be one and or if the consumer receiving the art thinks so as well. And what is more, anything can be art.


I'd say anyone who tries to do a thing better than it needs to be done for purely pragmatic purposes is an artist, and anything so done is art.

But the question here isn't the definition of art. It's whether the judgement of what is "good" is objective or not.


----------



## ArtMusic

science said:


> I'd say anyone who tries to do a thing better than it needs to be done for purely pragmatic purposes is an artist, and anything so done is art.
> 
> But the question here isn't the definition of art. It's whether the judgement of what is "good" is objective or not.


I think you are evading the issue here. So how do you now define "tries to do a better thing"?

It is easier and more importantly, consistent, if a set of standards i.e. objective criteria exist to begin with, otherwise it all falls apart so very easily.


----------



## science

ArtMusic said:


> I think you are evading the issue here. So how do you now define "tries to do a better thing"?
> 
> It is easier and more importantly, consistent, if a set of standards i.e. objective criteria exist to begin with, otherwise it all falls apart so very easily.


It doesn't matter if that is easier or not. There are no objective criteria. The standards are set by human desires, and whatever falls apart when we're honest about that is something that never should've been built.


----------



## Portamento

science said:


> They're not separate, but in that context I don't think Portamento intended "The Right" in a political sense.


Exactly. I obviously wasn't talking about right-wing politics.


----------



## Portamento

Woodduck said:


> Artistic creation isn't exactly like engineering, but when it's seen as a kind of problem-solving we are at least lifted part of the way out of the gooey swamp of "feelings" onto ground a little more solid. Mmsbls, speaking of the different objectives which will compel different automobile engineers to design a car in different ways, shows an understanding of the contextual nature of values. Values don't exist in a vacuum; to be "good" is to be "good for" something, or good in a particular respect. The applicability of this principle to art may not be immediately apparent, but it should be obvious that an artist, creating a particular work, is trying for a specific, distinctive effect. And like the engineer, his choices throughout the process of creation will be guided by his overall intention - by the kind of work he is trying to make. He will judge his decisions about what notes, lines, colors, or words to employ by how well they contribute to the effect and meaning he wants to convey. His decisions will be good or bad, better or worse, according to how well they contribute to achieving his goal. What is "good" for him is defined in that context. This may seem unremarkable, but we must remember that the concept of "good" - of value in general - is really void without a context. The context is provided by the question, "good for what and in what way?" When aesthetic subjectivists ask how we can "prove" that a work of art is "objectively" good, it appears to me that they are usually "context-dropping" and demanding criteria or "standards" based on a notion of value ("greatness") which is literally meaningless. They are imagining, and accusing their opponents of advocating, some "good" floating in a Platonic heaven or written in the scriptures of some esoteric religion to which only "art experts" subscribe. No thoughtful artist accepts such a vacuous notion of what excellence in art is, or what it means to do good work.


You assume that the composer's goal is objectively apparent. This would be great, of course, because then we can quasi-objectively evaluate the degree to which the composer has successfully achieved their goal. However, in many cases _no one but the composer_ is intimately familiar enough with the nature of "the goal" to adequately make artistic judgements on this basis. But composers, we hope, seek to write music where the listening experience is intrinsically valuable; using this general goal to evaluate the music's success is much more fruitful.


----------



## Woodduck

Portamento said:


> Sure - I don't disagree with anything you've said here.
> 
> *Following this logic, any non-musician audience member who dislikes, say, Schoenberg's Wind Quintet is a mere wine-taster and should shut up.* _Perceptive_ minds would realize that the Quintet's first movement - despite surface-level similarities to sonata form - employs long-range connections based on the use of recurring pitch class collections, held invariant in various ways (both segmentally and non-segmentally), among rows and collections of rows. That's the "real nature" of Schoenberg's work, and if one has sufficient understanding it's easy to see how every note fits into this astounding, interconnected web. After all, Stravinsky described the Quintet as "the finest work ever written for this combination." But how can Stravinsky's view be reconciled with Copland's, that the work is an "outstanding failure.... Except for certain parts of the scherzo and the final rondo, there seemed nothing but principles and theories of composition leading to complete aridity." Is Copland simply an imperceptive wine-taster or does he have a point? (After all, this is the same man who deemed Schoenberg's late string quartets "indubitable masterpieces.") Perhaps we were wrong about the Quintet's real nature and old man Igor is the lowly wine-taster. Maybe both are!
> 
> I wonder if there is a world in which neither Stravinsky nor Copland is objectively wrong: most members would agree that both were great artists. But sadly, since their judgements on Schoenberg's work are diametrically opposed, one of them must be demoted to a wine-taster. Who's it gonna be? Given that WD is _l'artiste_, he should probably decide.
> 
> We've now established the possibility of an artist also being a wine-taster, but… but... WD has led me to believe that "artists" and "wine-tasters" are distinct species (no intermingling allowed, of course). If the idea of artists being wine-tasters makes you squeal in disgust, don't worry! - there is a way to save all artists from aesthetic damnation. Maybe - just maybe - there is no such thing as a work's "real nature." If this were the case, we can value both Stravinsky's and Copland's views without worrying about which one is the idiot.
> 
> I don't dispute that the composer thinks the choices they ended up making are "better" than other ones they may have considered along the way. To them - assuming they are fully satisfied with the finished composition, which is not always the case - this is objective. But you claim that this objectivity is apparent to others, especially (and limited to?) artists. As we saw with Schoenberg's Wind Quintet, this is clearly not the case. It's simply due to the fact that no one except for the composer themself, not even a fellow artist, knows what the composer's conception of a given work is. People don't make artistic judgements based on the fulfillment of what is (subjectively) perceived to be the composer's conception; that would be futile. Rather, these judgements have to do with what people think the _intrinsic value of the listening experience_ is - "experiential goodness." When judging Schoenberg's Quintet, this is what Stravinsky and Copland both did. (Originality- and influence-value are other, non-experiential factors that people commonly place emphasis on.)
> 
> Again, a composer may think that they chose the objectively "best" notes, but this is not apparent to others. We don't call composers great because they solved esoteric problems well - it's because the intrinsic value of the listening experience is agreed by most to be quite high for (at least) a few of their compositions. For sure, the note choices of Boulez's _Le Marteau_, Mahler's symphonies, and Beethoven's piano sonatas are quasi-objectively excellent, but are they the "best" note choices? Such a thing doesn't exist.
> 
> One more point. You cannot directly convince anyone that a piece of music is brilliant by providing them with a demonstration of that fact, no matter how relevant your reasoning may be. However, there are many things you might say that might lead to them hearing (or remembering) the piece differently from the way they first did, and in consequence being more impressed. Some of the things you might say will also tend to convince them that their new reaction to the piece is a truer/more authentic reaction than their old one. To engage in this type of discourse is the main task of critics, interpreters, and scholars of aesthetic objects (a group that you presumably identify yourself with); they must conform their assertions to the "right" standards and reflect (when necessary) to criticize/revise those standards. In this sense - as I've expressed before - there is a quasi-objectivity to the idea of _aesthetic truths_, which has its basis in the kinds of discourse we engage in about aesthetic objects.
> 
> But aesthetic truths are _not_ objective truths - they are not about the properties objects have irrespective of our subjective experience of them, and they cannot be proved/confirmed by empirical evidence.
> 
> Sorry, but "most non-artists not knowing what you do" comes with the deal of being an artist. You can either confront it or whine about it.
> 
> Ya know, sometimes the assertion that there are "objective" values is merely a crude rhetorical device used on behalf of dogmatic individuals who see themselves as courageous defenders of "The Right" and view anyone who questions what they believe in as enemies of "What is Right." Makes you wonder.


See the sentence in bold. Your logic is entirely wrong. No such conclusion is warranted by anything I said. Right now i'm not inclined even to read the rest of your post - it's too late at night to get into it - but that statement alone lays a bad foundation for further argument. I'll check out the rest tomorrow if i have time.


----------



## BachIsBest

Portamento said:


> You assume that the composer's goal is objectively apparent. This would be great, of course, because then we can quasi-objectively evaluate the degree to which the composer has successfully achieved their goal. However, in the vast majority of cases _no one but the composer_ is intimately familiar enough with the nature of "the goal" to adequately make artistic judgements on this basis. But composers, we hope, seek to write music where the listening experience is intrinsically valuable; using this general goal to evaluate the music's success is much more fruitful.


If it is impossible to realise anything the composer intended to do in listening to the piece, then I'm pretty sure the composer didn't do a bang-up job...


----------



## Portamento

BachIsBest said:


> If it is impossible to realise anything the composer intended to do in listening to the piece, then I'm pretty sure the composer didn't do a bang-up job...


Well, unless the composer wrote a detailed program note or something, it's hard to be objective about what their goal was. Using Satie's _Vexations_ as an excuse for concert marathons assumes composerly intentions that the autograph score doesn't support. The infamous performance note is a suggestion (not a prescription) - it leaves unclear what entity might be played 840 times in a row. Satie's intentions are ambiguous and ultimately unknowable. Though this is an extreme example, it's true that we don't have an exact idea of the composer's conception for most scores.


----------



## Portamento

Woodduck said:


> See the sentence in bold. Your logic is entirely wrong. No such conclusion is warranted by anything I said. Right now i'm not inclined even to read the rest of your post - it's too late at night to get into it - but that statement alone lays a bad foundation for further argument. I'll check out the rest tomorrow if i have time.


Do as you please. This is the quote that led me to that conclusion:



> ...they will find among all the wide eyes and rapturous "oohs" and "ahs" of the art crowd some perceptive minds who have a just appreciation of what they've done well - and, indeed, what they haven't. The audience that knows and appreciates as well as merely enjoys is small, but it's at least some reward for their labor and some consolation for the accidents of fashion and the *predictable ignorance, among the wine-tasters, of the real nature of their work*.


Of course, my sentence initially assumes that "the real nature" of Schoenberg's Wind Quintet is _not_ that it's a piece of crap. But I eventually come to the conclusion that "the real nature" of any music is unknowable/non-existent.


----------



## Zhdanov

over again i hear the words 'aesthetics' and 'beauty' mentioned here... however, art is not about these, and what you take for beauty is in fact the *grandeur* of art as such and its masterpieces, but the things art portrays are mainly far from being beatiful or aesthetically pleasing. Mozart 'Don Giovanni' overture Andante, for instance, portrays - someone gets born in a murky darkness of some hell place, which sounds both tragic and sinister:






later on further, now into the Molto Allegro, at 2:41 you hear a theme the cadence of which does a 'turnabout' gesture that symbolises untruthfulness, i.e. someone not being true to his promises and walking back on his words... this music gesture is often found in Haydn and Mozart symphonies 1st parts; cute and endearing it might appear in sound, but make no mistake, that is not for your entertainment or pleasure but for your information.


----------



## Nereffid

It was suggested above that according to the subjectivist opinion, the "Blue Danube" waltz as is a reasonable answer to the question "what sort of movement should Mahler have chosen as a finale of his 6th symphony"? The discussion has moved on a bit, and others have engaged with the general argument more thoroughly, but I can't help noting that in composing that symphony Mahler was indeed faced with such a problem - what sort of movement would make a _second_ or a _third_ movement. If he had left it as Scherzo/Andante rather then switiching them around, would anyone have noticed that there was anything "wrong"?

(If a Scherzo/Andante pairing is reversed in a forest when no one is there, does it make a sound?)


----------



## EdwardBast

Nereffid said:


> It was suggested above that according to the subjectivist opinion, the "Blue Danube" waltz as is a reasonable answer to the question "what sort of movement should Mahler have chosen as a finale of his 6th symphony"? The discussion has moved on a bit, and others have engaged with the general argument more thoroughly, but I can't help noting that in composing that symphony Mahler was indeed faced with such a problem - what sort of movement would make a _second_ or a _third_ movement. *If he had left it as Scherzo/Andante rather then switiching them around, would anyone have noticed that there was anything "wrong"?
> 
> (If a Scherzo/Andante pairing is reversed in a forest when no one is there, does it make a sound?)*


Yes. I did notice. I first heard the symphony with the scherzo first and immediately thought it didn't work - that it is expressively incoherent that way.

Your second question is an implied insult to trees and woodland creatures. Shame!


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> I think this exchange demonstrates a sort of key difference of opinion. I, and I imagine Woodduck along with some others arguing the objectivist position, accept some values as virtually axiomatic. Murder is bad, truth is worth pursuing, it matters that you are good and kind, life is valuable, or even that reality is not just an illusion are things that I just accept as truths. I can provide some arguments for these being truths, but I can't prove any of them even in the loose, colloquial sense, of proof. Ultimately, if you refuse to accept that random gibberish written on a page is worse writing than _King Lear_ because there might be someone out there who just really digs random gibberish, then there is nothing I can really do except point to the absurdity of the position.


Again, failure to understand. I, me, myself, and likely you also do not accept random gibberish written on a page as literature that suits us. Why is there this repeated rush to dispose of any standards for anybody when each person is given the power they have had since the beginning of time to decide for themselves what is good and bad, what they like and don't like in the arts? The baby is a little soiled, so the response is to throw baby, bath water, and bathing basin out the house window and then burn the house down. Objectivist fanaticism, reflecting an inability to grasp a simple fact: esthetics is opinion, sometimes held uniquely, sometimes shared with others.

I am referring of course to art. Matters of murder, the nature of reality, proper behavior, belong in another realm entirely, yet the objectivists continually drag them into a discussion of something whose consequences involve relatively innocent and unimportant pleasures outside of our own intense at the time involvement in them. I think I have a firmer grip on reality than my Platonist friends.


----------



## consuono

BachIsBest said:


> I think this exchange demonstrates a sort of key difference of opinion. I, and I imagine Woodduck along with some others arguing the objectivist position, accept some values as virtually axiomatic. Murder is bad, truth is worth pursuing, it matters that you are good and kind, life is valuable, or even that reality is not just an illusion are things that I just accept as truths. I can provide some arguments for these being truths, but I can't prove any of them even in the loose, colloquial sense, of proof. Ultimately, if you refuse to accept that random gibberish written on a page is worse writing than _King Lear_ because there might be someone out there who just really digs random gibberish, then there is nothing I can really do except point to the absurdity of the position.


Bingo.


Strange Magic said:


> objectivist fanaticism


 What is that? The fanaticism I've seen in these threads is from the subjectivist camp.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Woodduck:* "I don't think I misunderstand anything you're saying. Given the number of times you've said it, that would be hard to do. I've pointed out the reductio ad absurdum of your beliefs. {_actually not_} You haven't answered that, so I assume it doesn't give you pause. I conclude that, according to your theory of art, any stupidity, atrocity, or act of aesthetic vandalism offered as art is worthy of being called "good," merely because someone is of the "opinion" - has a "feeling" - that it's "good." Is this a correct understanding of where your thinking leads?"


This is correct; a correct reading and understanding of my position! Now we're getting somewhere. I can--and you can, and we all do--call anything art that we individually choose, as long as human agency has had some scope in either creating it or capturing its image, or bringing it inside and putting it on a plinth or pedestal, or captioning it. Photography is a good example. And we can call it "good", "bad", "crap", even "not art" if we individually choose or vote and then utter our group opinion. If we do this, and we do it every day, worlds do not vanish, minds are not destroyed, the young are not corrupted, but--disturbingly--others are found who disagree with us. But somehow we carry on. There are people--can you imagine?--who actually like, or say they like, the paintings of Ingres and Cot--think they're great--, and Jackson Pollack. i don't, but that's Just the Way it Is.


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> Bingo.
> What is that? The fanaticism I've seen in these threads is from the subjectivist camp.


I am fanatical about the heretofore lack of evidence or powerful and convincing argument for the position that esthetics transcends opinion and relies instead upon ill-defined "inherent" yet immeasurable properties injected into the art object. Where's the Beef?


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Strange Magic said:


> I am fanatical about the heretofore lack of evidence or powerful and convincing argument for the position that esthetics transcends opinion and relies instead upon ill-defined "inherent" yet immeasurable properties injected into the art object. Where's the Beef?


You know, even the subjective position cannot escape the world of objectivity. To say "I like something" is to say "there is something in the work which I like". All discussions of art depend, implicitly or explicitly, on the actual artwork, and concern its properties.

The subjectivist here says "different people like different pieces." The objectivist would reframe this by proceeding from the properties first: "different pieces have prompted different people to like them." What properties in the pieces are responsible for this? To what extent is it dependent on the language of the piece, on the circumstances of the listener when they first heard it, on the cultural values within, and so on.

The subjectivist would make the case that is a leap from talking about properties to valuing them as better or worse, but it is not so, since higher-order properties in art are already expressed in the language of experiential value: profundity, strength, honesty, etc. Valuing profundity is not a choice: instead, profundity that is not seen as valuable is just called "mysticism" or "self-importance". So we could disagree on whether certain properties are there, but to the extent to which they are there, their value is not up to the individual.


----------



## DaveM

science said:


> They're not separate, but in that context I don't think Portamento intended "The Right" in a political sense.


I was aware of that.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> ..I think I have a firmer grip on reality than my Platonist friends.


Do you have any objective evidence to support that?


----------



## consuono

DaveM said:


> Do you have any objective evidence to support that?


:lol: :lol: I couldn't have said it better myself. You "think"?? Is that objective, or is it your subjective ego-centric perception?


----------



## Mandryka

Strange Magic said:


> I think I have a firmer grip on reality than my Platonist friends.


_Anyone_ has a firmer grasp of reality than a platonist. What a lot of nonsense Platonism is!


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Isaac Blackburn said:


> The subjectivist would make the case that is a leap from talking about properties to valuing them as better or worse, but it is not so, since higher-order properties in art are already expressed in the language of experiential value: profundity, strength, honesty, etc. Valuing profundity is not a choice: instead, profundity that is not seen as valuable is just called "mysticism" or "self-importance". So we could disagree on whether certain properties are there, but to the extent to which they are there, their value is not up to the individual.


But profundity isn't contained within a work of music. Neither is joy, sadness, narcissism, "greatness", whatever. You or I may experience these things listening to (or analyzing) the work. But these are personal experiences and not attributes of the work.

I find Schumann's "Traumerei" to be a profound piece of music. Does that mean that someone else who doesn't find profundity in it is missing something intrinsic to the work? Or that I'm delusional for finding profundity in it?


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> But profundity isn't contained within a work of music. Neither is joy, sadness, narcissism, "greatness", whatever. You or I may experience these things listening to (or analyzing) the work...


Properties within a work are implied in the language of experience, since any experience is an experience _of something._


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Have you ever done LSD?


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Have you ever done LSD?


The experience of listening to music is quite complex, but it is inarguable that it depends on the notes and their arrangement, from which we can extract higher-order ideas and patterns.


----------



## Zhdanov

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> But profundity isn't contained within a work of music.


yes it is all right if the work depicts profudity.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Do you have any objective evidence to support that?


Yes; this thread and the other threads on this subject demonstrating the inability of objectivists to rebut the assertion that all esthetics is opinion. The Platonists assert that there are "things" or "something" permeating an art object that makes it "great". If this is true, then all but the hopelessly ill will sense it, even the Count of T'ang if presented with it. But we are told that only the elect are so blessed. Again the Bandar-Log: "We all say so, so it must be be true!"


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Yes; this thread and the other threads on this subject demonstrating the inability of objectivists to rebut the assertion that all esthetics is opinion. The Platonists assert that there are "things" or "something" permeating an art object that makes it "great". If this is true, then all but the hopelessly ill will sense it, even the Count of T'ang if presented with it. But we are told that only the elect are so blessed. Again the Bandar-Log: "We all say so, so it must be be true!"


When one is taking an extreme position, it's always a winning argument to say you '_have a firmer grip on reality' _than those who don't agree with you.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

How about if we talk about something where the objective-subjective dichotomy may be more clearly deconstructed. Math, for instance. I'm assuming most of the objectivists would say that if beauty (or "greatness") music is objective, then so is beauty (or "greatness") in math.

Could someone please provide and explain an example of objective beauty (or greatness) in mathematics?


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> When one is taking an extreme position, it's always a winning argument to say you '_have a firmer grip on reality' _than those who don't agree with you.


I've found here on TC both upstairs here and in the Groups downstairs that I always have a winning argument. It's my gift! :lol:


----------



## Strange Magic

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> How about if we talk about something where the objective-subjective dichotomy may be more clearly deconstructed. Math, for instance. I'm assuming most of the objectivists would say that if beauty (or "greatness") music is objective, then so is beauty (or "greatness") in math.
> 
> Could someone please provide and explain an example of objective beauty (or greatness) in mathematics?


I like the esthetics of Euclid's proof that there is no largest prime. This proof is valid in all universes imaginable and unimaginable.


----------



## Zhdanov

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Could someone please provide and explain an example of objective beauty (or greatness) in mathematics?


not in maths, but of maths, and maths is great, yeah.


----------



## Barbebleu

But history is greater!:lol:


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

@Strange Magic:

I'd agree. I like it as well. And the "proof" itself is surely objective, and carries with it objective implications and perhaps even meaning. But its "beauty" is a subjective attribute which we bestow upon it (or not).


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Barbebleu said:


> But history is greater!:lol:


Sure, if you can provide an example of objective greatness in history, I'm all ears.


----------



## Zhdanov

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> provide an example of objective greatness in history,


that must be Great Britain if the greatness of history itself not enough...


----------



## Mandryka

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> @Strange Magic:
> 
> I'd agree. I like it as well. And the "proof" itself is surely objective, and carries with it objective implications and perhaps even meaning. But its "beauty" is a subjective attribute which we bestow upon it (or not).


I would have chosen Euler's Identity, there's something about the way it brings together these very basic numbers which is so simple, yet so surprising, I would call it beautiful









A similar type of beauty, IMO, but less well known, is the Curry Howard Isomorphism, which brings together intuitionist propositional logic and lambda calculus.

The regularity of some basic school boy calculus surprised me when I first saw it at 16 and still does, there's a beauty in formulae like these for sin and cos


----------



## Strange Magic

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Sure, if you can provide an example of objective greatness in history, I'm all ears.


This wanders away from what normally is considered history (Gibbon, Trevelyan, Tacitus, etc.) but the "historical" sciences or the historical components of several sciences--evolutionary biology studies, Earth history, stellar and planetary "evolution", etc.--and the robust theories (in the correct sense of the word "theory") to elucidate the past, are conceptually very close to objective reality and can be considered beautiful. Plate Tectonics, Biological (neo-Darwinian) Evolution, Relativity, various other conjectures in physics and astronomy of a historical nature, can be considered "objectively great" history. But there are people right here on TC who assert that, say, evolution is false/not proven, and may dispute the validity of other of these historical sciences.

But this is a far cry from the realm of art esthetics where the only predictive quality that can be engaged is by polling/voting. Is _Carmina Burana_ a piece of music that is popular (with whom?) and will it endure to be widely heard in 2121?


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> will it endure to be widely heard in 2121?


will man endure that long ?


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Mandryka said:


> I would have chosen Euler's Identity, there's something about the way it brings together these very basic numbers which is so simple, yet so surprising, I would call it beautiful
> 
> View attachment 153446
> 
> 
> A similar type of beauty, IMO, but less well known, is the Curry Howard Isomorphism, which brings together intuitionist propositional logic and lambda calculus.
> 
> The regularity of some basic school boy calculus surprised me when I first saw it at 16 and still does, there's a beauty in formulae like these for sin and cos
> 
> View attachment 153447


All fine and well. All subjective. I've never heard of the Curry Howard Isomorphism (IPL is a realm of math I wish I knew more about); your other examples I agree are beautiful. Euler's identity is probably my go-to example as well. It's incredible the kind of results you can derive from some of those Taylor series expansions.


----------



## consuono

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Sure, if you can provide an example of objective greatness in history, I'm all ears.


You have to define what greatness in that context means. I think it would mean importance or influence. Examples galore.


----------



## Portamento

Isaac Blackburn said:


> You know, even the subjective position cannot escape the world of objectivity. To say "I like something" is to say "there is something in the work which I like". All discussions of art depend, implicitly or explicitly, on the actual artwork, and concern its properties.


It's just as easy to say that the objectivist position cannot escape the world of subjectivity. I, for one, haven't argued that "everything is subjective" - it's definitely a mix of both.



> The subjectivist here says "different people like different pieces." The objectivist would reframe this by proceeding from the properties first: "different pieces have prompted different people to like them." What properties in the pieces are responsible for this? To what extent is it dependent on the language of the piece, on the circumstances of the listener when they first heard it, on the cultural values within, and so on.
> 
> The subjectivist would make the case that is a leap from talking about properties to valuing them as better or worse, but it is not so, since higher-order properties in art are already expressed in the language of experiential value: profundity, strength, honesty, etc. Valuing profundity is not a choice: instead, profundity that is not seen as valuable is just called "mysticism" or "self-importance". So we could disagree on whether certain properties are there, but to the extent to which they are there, their value is not up to the individual.


Yes, music has expressive content. There are many questions we can ask. What emotion are we inclined to say the music most sounds like on the whole? What emotion does the music typically evoke in a receptive listener? What emotion seems likely to have been felt by the composer of such music? What emotion is conventionally or traditionally associated with music of this type? It's always going to be somewhat metaphorical since musical works do not literally strive for anything. All we can say is that the music _sounds_ like that, and perhaps point out specific features which particularly contribute to the impression. Of course, familiarity with the particular genre and style involved, familiarity with musical conventions of the period, knowledge of human nature, knowledge of typical expressive aims of the period, etc. are probably essential to assessing these impressions' objectivity. Fauré's _Élégie_ is quasi-objectively a sad piece. Is everyone going to find it sad? No, but there are solid reasons why we may assume that expressive content.

So I don't think I'm really disagreeing with you? As far as profundity goes, I'd suggest that "profound music" explores the emotional/psychic realm in a more insightful/eye-opening way than most music; it strikes us as touching, in some fashion or other, on fundamental aspects of human existence (death, fate, etc.). Obviously, as you say we can disagree vigorously on what the _actual_ - practically unknowable - content of the music is. At the end of the day we're dealing with _assumed_ content, and that's subjective.



DaveM said:


> I was aware of that.


I wasn't the first one to bring politics (which is unavoidable, really) into this.


----------



## Zhdanov

music is an *intellectual* experience, the emotions it elicits are part of the *information* conveyed by a music piece and, thus, not to be taken at face value as real emotions.


----------



## ArtMusic

Zhdanov said:


> music is an *intellectual* experience, the emotions it elicits are part of the *information* conveyed by a music piece and, thus, not to be taken at face value as real emotions.


It is on a level of cognition higher than any other. When Bach composed his church music, he was ordered to do so by his employers and or by his own compulsion. There is no dry, cut mathematical formula.


----------



## Portamento

Zhdanov said:


> music is an *intellectual* experience, the emotions it elicits are part of the *information* conveyed by a music piece and, thus, not to be taken at face value as real emotions.


Zhdanovism is a strange thing.


----------



## Zhdanov

Portamento said:


> Zhdanovism is a strange thing.


you put too much emphasis on emotions as if they are the last thing.

there's much more to music then that.

listen thoroughly.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Portamento said:


> It's just as easy to say that the objectivist position cannot escape the world of subjectivity...


Yes, I agree. The subjective will always be there anytime we are talking of experience, because it is individuals that have experiences. But much more of the experience of listening to music can be shown, with sufficiently deep analysis, to be "in" the score than many of the subjectivists here are willing to believe (or, sadly, the objectivists here are willing/able to explain).


----------



## Portamento

Isaac Blackburn said:


> Yes, I agree. The subjective will always be there anytime we are talking of experience, because it is individuals that have experiences. But much more of the experience of listening to music can be shown, with sufficiently deep analysis, to be "in" the score than many of the subjectivists here are willing to believe (or, sadly, the objectivists here are willing/able to explain).


SM "liked" my post, so (presumably) he also agrees with it. But yes, most members don't realize that it's possible to think Beethoven is quasi-objectively better as music than Bruch while also acknowledging that music evaluation is extremely subjective. After all, the way objectivists here want to evaluate music is based on an _assumption_ about the composer's "goal" (something many don't realize/admit); this is why I've suggested we evaluate music based on what we think the _intrinsic value of the listening experience_ is (because we shouldn't have to assume that all composers want the listening experience to be valuable). However, once we've established a basis for evaluating music, we can - provided the reasoning is relevant - arrive at quasi-objective judgements. Never 100% objective, though, because that's impossible.


----------



## Strange Magic

Isaac Blackburn said:


> Yes, I agree. The subjective will always be there anytime we are talking of experience, because it is individuals that have experiences. But much more of the experience of listening to music can be shown, with sufficiently deep analysis, to be "in" the score than many of the subjectivists here are willing to believe (or, sadly, the objectivists here are willing/able to explain).


The reactions of a wide spectrum of perceivers to what is "in" the score will range from ecstasy though mild pleasure and indifference through to annoyance. Certain polled groups will clump and cluster all along the spectrum. Of course those enjoying the ecstasy will attribute (correctly) their joy at _their particular reading of the music, calling it something in the music_ and not in their heads. Or that the music triggers the joy in their heads, (but why not in the heads of all?)

My key and lock analogy helps. The composer fashions a key. It fits some locks but not others. The secret lies in the locks.


----------



## Zhdanov

Portamento said:


> objectivists here want to evaluate music is based on an _assumption_ about the composer's "goal"


what assumption?.. composers are mostly quite clear about their music, even to such an extent as to assign titles. Berlioz for example in his 'March To The Scaffold' portrays no daisies in a glade, as you might hear -


----------



## Portamento

Strange Magic said:


> The reactions of a wide spectrum of perceivers to what is "in" the score will range from ecstasy though mild pleasure and indifference through to annoyance. Certain polled groups will clump and cluster all along the spectrum. Of course those enjoying the ecstasy will attribute (correctly) their joy at _their particular reading of the music, calling it something in the music_ and not in their heads. Or that the music triggers the joy in their heads, (but why not in the heads of all?)
> 
> My key and lock analogy helps. The composer fashions a key. It fits some locks but not others. The secret lies in the locks.


I agree. This is why evaluating music on the basis of the composer's "goal" or "the degree to which they succeeding in solving a particular problem" is so strange to me - these two methods assume that the composer's goal/problem is readily apparent. Maybe that's the case for some pieces, but if we're coming up with criteria for music evaluation they should apply to all music (at the very least all concert-hall music). I think the best way to evaluate music without making any assumptions is to evaluate the intrinsic value of the listening experience. In other words, how rewarding it is to experience how the music unfolds; how rewarding it is to register/respond to what it (supposedly) conveys; and how rewarding it is to experience what it conveys in relation to how it unfolds.


----------



## Portamento

Zhdanov said:


> what assumption?.. composers are mostly quite clear about their music, even to such an extent as to assign titles. Berlioz for example in his 'March To The Scaffold' portrays no daisies in a glade, as you might hear -


Obviously, there are cases where the composer is being fairly explicit. I think it's fine, for example, to evaluate Debussy's _La Mer_ on the basis of how well it depicts the sea. I actually brought this up much earlier in another thread, but WD responded:



Woodduck said:


> Neither La Mer nor VWs Sea Symphony "depicts" the sea.


I made an _assumption_ about Debussy's goal in writing _La Mer_ and WD disputed my assumption... by making another assumption!

So while I think it's fair to evaluate Berlioz's march based on how march-like it is, there are many scenarios where we can't make any "useful assumptions" like that. Take Satie's _Vexations_, for example. What the hell was his goal there?

I reiterate: if we're coming up with criteria to evaluate music, it should work as a means of evaluating _all_ music (or at the very least all concert-hall music).


----------



## ArtMusic

Portamento said:


> I agree. This is why evaluating music on the basis of the composer's "goal" or "the degree to which they succeeding in solving a particular problem" is so strange to me - these two methods assume that the composer's goal/problem is readily apparent. Maybe that's the case for some pieces, but if we're coming up with criteria for music evaluation they should apply to all music (at the very least all concert-hall music). I think the best way to evaluate music without making any assumptions is to evaluate the intrinsic value of the listening experience. In other words, how rewarding it is to experience how the music unfolds; how rewarding it is to register/respond to what it (supposedly) conveys; and how rewarding it is to experience what it conveys in relation to how it unfolds.


Do you not marvel at Bach's solution to fugues and complex fugal development?


----------



## consuono

Portamento said:


> quasi-objectively better


Wait a second...what is "quasi-objectively better"? Is objectivity itself now subjective?


----------



## Zhdanov

Portamento said:


> I made an _assumption_ about Debussy's goal in writing _La Mer_ and WD disputed my assumption


that is strange of him... he should have known better.



Portamento said:


> Take Satie's Vexations, for example.


i'd suggest something more obvious we take first, like 'Pictures At An Exhibition' for example, and then move on to the tougher ones.



Portamento said:


> if we're coming up with criteria to evaluate music, it should work as a means of evaluating _all_ music


and it will work, once we start listening to music as it is, with no mythology.


----------



## Portamento

ArtMusic said:


> Do you not marvel at Bach's solution to fugues and complex fugal development?


Of course I do, but can we objectively assume that "complex fugal development" is the problem Bach was trying to solve? Maybe we can, but to evaluate other pieces of music using this 'problem-solving method' you'll have to make much more far-fetched assumptions.


----------



## Portamento

consuono said:


> Wait a second...what is "quasi-objectively better"? Is objectivity itself now subjective?


"Objectively better to a fair degree," while acknowledging that (100%) objectivity doesn't exist.


----------



## ArtMusic

Portamento said:


> Of course I do, but can we objectively assume that "complex fugal development" is the problem Bach was trying to solve? Maybe we can, but to evaluate other pieces of music using this 'problem-solving method' you'll have to make much more far-fetched assumptions.


I don't know what the relevance of your question is in the context of say, Bach's unfinished quadruple fugue when he was on his death bed. He wanted to solve a musically complex problem. Of course all composers had to solve musical problems in terms of how to develop a theme whether that be instrumental or in opera. You should listen to Mozart's overtures to his great operas to understand how he handled these problems. He mostly composed the overtures last for good reason. I don't know why this is hard to understand.


----------



## Portamento

Zhdanov said:


> and it will work, once we start listening to music as it is, with no mythology.


I'm not convinced, but if can come up with an objective "goal" of Satie's when writing _Vexations_, then maybe I will be.



ArtMusic said:


> I don't know what the relevance of your question is in the context of say, Bach's unfinished quadruple fugue when he was on his death bed. He wanted to solve a musically complex problem. Of course all composers had to solve musical problems in terms of how to develop a theme whether that be instrumental or in opera. You should listen to Mozart's overtures to his great operas to understand how he handled these problems. He mostly composed the overtures last for good reason. I don't know why this is hard to understand.


Composers all had to solve "problems." But everyone else can only assume, to differing degrees of objectivity, what those problems actually were.


----------



## consuono

Portamento said:


> "Objectively better to a fair degree," while acknowledging that (100%) objectivity doesn't exist.


Really. So can you spell out what parts of Beethoven's "betterness" than Bruch are closer to 100% and what parts are closer to "quasi"?


----------



## Portamento

consuono said:


> Really. So can you spell out what parts of Beethoven's "betterness" than Bruch are closer to 100% and what parts are closer to "quasi"?


There could theoretically be someone who evaluates the intrinsic value of the listening experience associated with Bruch's music to be higher than that of Beethoven's. Due to this possibility, Beethoven cannot be 100% objectively better. But he can be close.


----------



## ArtMusic

Portamento said:


> Composers all had to solve "problems." But everyone else can only assume, to differing degrees of objectivity, what those problems actually were.


People don't assume. They simply listen to the music as casual listeners and or have a musical background/training to understand the problem the composer had to solve. I don't see what's hard to understand about this.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Jean Sibelius - Symphony no.7




Gustav Holst- The Planets


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> Yes. I did notice. I first heard the symphony with the scherzo first and immediately thought it didn't work - that it is expressively incoherent that way.


----------



## Woodduck

Portamento said:


> Sure - I don't disagree with anything you've said here.
> 
> Following this logic, any non-musician audience member who dislikes, say, Schoenberg's Wind Quintet is a mere wine-taster and should shut up. _Perceptive_ minds would realize that the Quintet's first movement - despite surface-level similarities to sonata form - employs long-range connections based on the use of recurring pitch class collections, held invariant in various ways (both segmentally and non-segmentally), among rows and collections of rows. That's the "real nature" of Schoenberg's work, and if one has sufficient understanding it's easy to see how every note fits into this astounding, interconnected web. After all, Stravinsky described the Quintet as "the finest work ever written for this combination." But how can Stravinsky's view be reconciled with Copland's, that the work is an "outstanding failure.... Except for certain parts of the scherzo and the final rondo, there seemed nothing but principles and theories of composition leading to complete aridity." Is Copland simply an imperceptive wine-taster or does he have a point? (After all, this is the same man who deemed Schoenberg's late string quartets "indubitable masterpieces.") Perhaps we were wrong about the Quintet's real nature and old man Igor is the lowly wine-taster. Maybe both are!
> 
> I wonder if there is a world in which neither Stravinsky nor Copland is objectively wrong: most members would agree that both were great artists. But sadly, since their judgements on Schoenberg's work are diametrically opposed, one of them must be demoted to a wine-taster. Who's it gonna be? Given that WD is _l'artiste_, he should probably decide.
> 
> We've now established the possibility of an artist also being a wine-taster, but… but... WD has led me to believe that "artists" and "wine-tasters" are distinct species (no intermingling allowed, of course). If the idea of artists being wine-tasters makes you squeal in disgust, don't worry! - there is a way to save all artists from aesthetic damnation. Maybe - just maybe - there is no such thing as a work's "real nature." If this were the case, we can value both Stravinsky's and Copland's views without worrying about which one is the idiot.
> 
> I don't dispute that the composer thinks the choices they ended up making are "better" than other ones they may have considered along the way. To them - assuming they are fully satisfied with the finished composition, which is not always the case - this is objective. But you claim that this objectivity is apparent to others, especially (and limited to?) artists. As we saw with Schoenberg's Wind Quintet, this is clearly not the case. It's simply due to the fact that no one except for the composer themself, not even a fellow artist, knows what the composer's conception of a given work is. People don't make artistic judgements based on the fulfillment of what is (subjectively) perceived to be the composer's conception; that would be futile. Rather, these judgements have to do with what people think the _intrinsic value of the listening experience_ is - "experiential goodness." When judging Schoenberg's Quintet, this is what Stravinsky and Copland both did. (Originality- and influence-value are other, non-experiential factors that people commonly place emphasis on.)
> 
> Again, a composer may think that they chose the objectively "best" notes, but this is not apparent to others. We don't call composers great because they solved esoteric problems well - it's because the intrinsic value of the listening experience is agreed by most to be quite high for (at least) a few of their compositions. For sure, the note choices of Boulez's _Le Marteau_, Mahler's symphonies, and Beethoven's piano sonatas are quasi-objectively excellent, but are they the "best" note choices? Such a thing doesn't exist.
> 
> One more point. You cannot directly convince anyone that a piece of music is brilliant by providing them with a demonstration of that fact, no matter how relevant your reasoning may be. However, there are many things you might say that might lead to them hearing (or remembering) the piece differently from the way they first did, and in consequence being more impressed. Some of the things you might say will also tend to convince them that their new reaction to the piece is a truer/more authentic reaction than their old one. To engage in this type of discourse is the main task of critics, interpreters, and scholars of aesthetic objects (a group that you presumably identify yourself with); they must conform their assertions to the "right" standards and reflect (when necessary) to criticize/revise those standards. In this sense - as I've expressed before - there is a quasi-objectivity to the idea of _aesthetic truths_, which has its basis in the kinds of discourse we engage in about aesthetic objects.
> 
> But aesthetic truths are _not_ objective truths - they are not about the properties objects have irrespective of our subjective experience of them, and they cannot be proved/confirmed by empirical evidence.
> 
> Sorry, but "most non-artists not knowing what you do" comes with the deal of being an artist. You can either confront it or whine about it.
> 
> Ya know, sometimes the assertion that there are "objective" values is merely a crude rhetorical device used on behalf of dogmatic individuals who see themselves as courageous defenders of "The Right" and view anyone who questions what they believe in as enemies of "What is Right." Makes you wonder.


Well, I said I'd check this out if I had the time, so here goes...something.



> *Following this logic,* any non-musician audience member who dislikes, say, Schoenberg's Wind Quintet is a mere wine-taster and should shut up.


This is simply not a reasonable deduction from anything I've said. And I don't tell people to shut up, although I might tell them they're talking too much, not saying enough, and getting on my nerves. Plenty of opportunities for that.



> *Perceptive minds would realize* that the Quintet's first movement - despite surface-level similarities to sonata form - employs long-range connections based on the use of recurring pitch class collections, held invariant in various ways (both segmentally and non-segmentally), among rows and collections of rows.


Would they? _All _perceptive minds? How clear is the structure of the movement in question to listeners of various levels of "perceptiveness"? How much of most listeners' perception of that structure - if they can perceive it at all - is raw perception, and how much is applied knowledge gained from reading about it or studying it? In other words, how successful is Schoenberg at making his design concept audible? Music can be scrupulously designed and yet be incomprehensible to a listener without a guidebook. You may have read that experiments have been done playing atonal music to listeners of varying musical attainment, and in most cases professional musicians were no better than others at telling whether the work was serial or freely atonal. Schoenberg's postmen never have learned to whistle tone rows.



> After all, Stravinsky described the Quintet as "the finest work ever written for this combination." But how can Stravinsky's view be reconciled with Copland's, that the work is an "outstanding failure.... Except for certain parts of the scherzo and the final rondo, there seemed nothing but principles and theories of composition leading to complete aridity." Is Copland simply an imperceptive wine-taster or does he have a point? *I wonder if there is a world in which neither Stravinsky nor Copland is objectively wrong:* most members would agree that both were great artists. But sadly, since their judgements on Schoenberg's work are diametrically opposed, one of them must be demoted to a wine-taster. Who's it gonna be? *Given that WD is l'artiste*, he should probably decide.


Don't be a smartie. I haven't made fun of _you_ (yet ).

Opinions can be based on varied criteria, and can't be compared meaningfully if people are talking about different things. Stravinsky doesn't elaborate, but then Stravinsky was fond of pompous pronouncements, one-liners and _bons mots._ Copland, typically honest and deliberate, is clearer about what he means, and it's obvious that he considers the work highly accomplished ("outstanding") as a composition but simply feels it has little to say. Both composers were perfectly capable of grasping the compositional virtues of Schoenberg's work. They merely had different personal responses, and of the two Copland's is the more thoughtful. All of this is perfectly normal.



> I don't dispute that the composer thinks the choices they ended up making are "better" than other ones they may have considered along the way. To them - assuming they are fully satisfied with the finished composition, which is not always the case - this is objective. But you claim that this objectivity is apparent to others, especially (and limited to?) artists.


Note that I spoke of the artist's "objectivity" - in quotes. I've written a previous post somewhere explaining my concept of what I call the "objective-subjective," an attempt to describe the unique nature of aesthetic perception. But I don't want to get too epistemological here.



> *People don't make artistic judgements based on the fulfillment of what is (subjectively) perceived to be the composer's conception.*


Actually, they do. Obviously, no one can know all of what an artist intended when he set out to compose a work, but if we take the work as presented as substantially expressing his intentions, we quite routinely, at whatever the level of our sensitivity and skills as listeners, evaluate the work on the terms the work itself presents. We make constant judgments, mostly on a subconscious level, of how the elements of a piece work together, and we notice things that seem incongruous or "illogical." We can sense when a composer's choices contradict, vitiate, or seem irrelevant or unnecessary to achieving, his overall objective.



> Rather, *these judgements have to do with what people think the intrinsic value of the listening experience is -* *"experiential goodness."* When judging Schoenberg's Quintet, *this is what Stravinsky and Copland both did.*


You can safely bet that both Stravinsky and Copland were judging Schoenberg's quintet by many more criteria than that. "Experiential goodness" is what we all seek in the end, but getting it from complex music involves much more of our brains than getting it from brie on rye thins.



> Again, a composer may think that they chose the objectively "best" notes, *but this is not apparent to others.*


Oh, yes it is! And if it isn't immediately apparent to you, play around with rewriting Beethoven and listen as masterpieces crumble before your ears.



> We don't call composers great because they solved esoteric problems well - it's because the intrinsic value of the listening experience is agreed by most to be quite high for (at least) a few of their compositions.


I'm tempted to say that "esoteric" is a wine-taster's description of the composer's problem of finding the right notes. Actually it's just the artist's daily routine, though somewhat harder than making a caesar salad. The question that goes begging is: what makes the "intrinsic value of the listening experience" high for most listeners? Why do some works gain wide acclaim and remain in the repertoire? My answer: listeners really _can_ tell when notes have been chosen well, and experienced listeners can tell this even when the "intrinsic value of the listening experience" is not high for them. Witness Copland's remarks above.



> One more point. You cannot directly convince anyone that a piece of music is brilliant by providing them with a demonstration of that fact, no matter how relevant your reasoning may be. However, there are many things you might say that might lead to them hearing (or remembering) the piece differently from the way they first did, and in consequence being more impressed. Some of the things you might say will also tend to convince them that their new reaction to the piece is a truer/more authentic reaction than their old one. To engage in this type of discourse is the main task of critics, interpreters, and scholars of aesthetic objects (a group that you presumably identify yourself with); they must conform their assertions to the "right" standards and reflect (when necessary) to criticize/revise those standards. In this sense - as I've expressed before - there is a quasi-objectivity to the idea of _aesthetic truths_, which has its basis in the kinds of discourse we engage in about aesthetic objects.


I probably have no problem with this.



> But aesthetic truths are _not_ objective truths - they are not about the properties objects have irrespective of our subjective experience of them, and they cannot be proved/confirmed by empirical evidence.


I don't claim that aesthetic truths are objective, in the strict philosophical sense, or that they can be "proved." But neither do I subscribe to an epistemology that claims that nothing can be known unless it can be proved. That is the assumption of those who think that all aesthetic judgments are "subjective." What they really mean by that is that if Mr. X can't prove something to Mr. Z - say, that Wagner's _Tristan_ is an astonishing eruption of musical genius - Mr. X can't know it to be true. But with art, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The "empirical evidence" that _Tristan_ is a superb musical accomplishment is in the hearing. But we have to know how to hear it. That comes more easily to some than to others, and of course it comes harder if we just don't care for Wagner. This, like the different reactions of Stravinsky and Copland to Schoenberg's quintet, is perfectly normal.


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> I think this exchange demonstrates a sort of key difference of opinion. I, and I imagine Woodduck along with some others arguing the objectivist position, accept some values as virtually axiomatic. Murder is bad, truth is worth pursuing, it matters that you are good and kind, life is valuable, or even that reality is not just an illusion are things that I just accept as truths. I can provide some arguments for these being truths, but I can't prove any of them even in the loose, colloquial sense, of proof. Ultimately, if you refuse to accept that random gibberish written on a page is worse writing than _King Lear_ because there might be someone out there who just really digs random gibberish, then there is nothing I can really do except point to the absurdity of the position.


But the 'absurdity' of the position (that random gibberish is great) doesn't necessarily exist, as common currency between the follower of random gibberish and the King Lear fanboy. So no, you can't point to it.

The only think you _can_ do is point to premises/values held in common between two people, and try to convince/show the other person that an artwork embodies these values, or makes rubbish of them.


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> I don't claim that aesthetic truths are objective, in the strict philosophical sense, or that they can be "proved." But neither do I subscribe to an epistemology that claims that nothing can be known unless it can be proved. That is the assumption of those who think that all aesthetic judgments are "subjective." What they really mean by that is that if Mr. X can't prove something to Mr. Z - say, that Wagner's _Tristan_ is an astonishing eruption of musical genius - Mr. X can't know it to be true. But with art, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The "empirical evidence" that _Tristan_ is a superb musical accomplishment is in the hearing. But we have to know how to hear it. That comes more easily to some than to others, and of course it comes harder if we just don't care for Wagner. This, like the different reactions of Stravinsky and Copland to Schoenberg's quintet, is perfectly normal.


The evidence that God exists is in the hearing of God's voice. But we have to know how to hear it. That comes more easily to some that to others, and of course it comes harder if we just don't care for God's existence.

In short, your epistemology is bizarre. It basically inserts what it sets out to 'prove', into the premises of its reasoning.

Wagner is only great music if you care for harmonic exploration, opera, a lack of steady beat, etc. many people and indeed cultures don't. Are you going to go out to the Khoisan bushman tribe of Southern Africa and tell them they are 'wrong' for not liking Wagner?! Can I be there when you do please?

That's the *truth* of the matter. Can we all move along now?


----------



## hammeredklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> Jean Sibelius - Symphony no.7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gustav Holst- The Planets


I think most people wouldn't be able to tell programme music apart from absolute music if they didn't know the titles.





0:00 The Revolution
4:55 English March
8:32 March of the Austrians and Prussians 
11:19 The Fate and Death of Louis XVI 
14:23 Funeral March 
18:21 English March 
19:20 March of the Allies 
20:42 The Tumult of a Battle 
23:29 The Prospects of Peace 
25:28 Rejoicing at the Achievement of Peace


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> The evidence that God exists is in the hearing of God's voice. But we have to know how to hear it. That comes more easily to some that to others, and of course it comes harder if we just don't care for God's existence.
> 
> In short, your epistemology is bizarre. It basically inserts what it sets out to 'prove', into the premises of its reasoning.
> 
> Wagner is only great music if you care for harmonic exploration, opera, a lack of steady beat, etc. many people and indeed cultures don't. Are you going to go out to the Khoisan bushman tribe of Southern Africa and tell them they are 'wrong' for not liking Wagner?! Can I be there when you do please?
> 
> That's the *truth* of the matter. Can we all move along now?


The only thing bizarre here is the comparison of aesthetic perception to religion.

No, I take that back. The idea that we can't know anything unless we can prove it to everyone else is also bizarre. Claiming that anyone would tell anyone else that they're "wrong" for not liking some music or other is bizarre too.

Move along if you wish. Others will do as they please.


----------



## consuono

RogerWaters said:


> ...
> That's the *truth* of the matter. Can we all move along now?


Wow. All these many pages of subjectivity this and that and nothing is real and nothing to get hung about and then BOOM...we get the *truth* of the matter. It's weird how the most dogmatic, cocksure participants in these "discussions" are those of the subjective stripe.


----------



## DaveM

Apparently there is a new paradigm about art. Whether it be painting, sculpture or classical music, no objective parameters can be applied to compare artists, composers or their works because the Khoisan bushman tribe of Southern Africa might not agree with said comparisons.


----------



## consuono

DaveM said:


> Apparently there is a new paradigm about art. Whether it be painting, sculpture or classical music, no objective parameters can be applied to compare artists, composers or their works because the Khoisan bushman tribe of Southern Africa might not agree with said comparisons.


Oh, I'd just like to see you try....!

Come to think of it I have a lot of non-Khoisan non-bushman tribe relatives who wouldn't think much of any kind of "fine art" either. So what? And now we're starting to peel back that political layer.


----------



## ArtMusic

RogerWaters said:


> Wagner is only great music if you care for harmonic exploration, opera, a lack of steady beat, etc. many people and indeed cultures don't. Are you going to go out to the Khoisan bushman tribe of Southern Africa and tell them they are 'wrong' for not liking Wagner?! Can I be there when you do please?


Wagner's music is that of western classical music heritage. Its merit or lack of should by assessed by the artistic criteria in which the composer and audiences recognize it.


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> Wow. All these many pages of subjectivity this and that and nothing is real and nothing to get hung about and then BOOM...we get the *truth* of the matter. It's weird how the most dogmatic, cocksure participants in these "discussions" are those of the subjective stripe.


Why not stick to the nuts and bolts of the discussion? Who says nothing is real? Have you been following? One of the reasons to be cocksure might be that the subjectivists are both correct and know they're correct. Possible? Still waiting for that convincing demonstration of the existence of that Secret Sauce in music that makes it "excellent" beyond peradventure and opinions to the contrary. It'll be a long wait.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Apparently there is a new paradigm about art. Whether it be painting, sculpture or classical music, no objective parameters can be applied to compare artists, composers or their works because the Khoisan bushman tribe of Southern Africa might not agree with said comparisons.


Au contraire, there are myriad objective measures/parameters with which to compare/contrast composers, artists, artworks. They just don't include measures of greatness, value, etc. other than matters of opinion, individual or group.


----------



## Strange Magic

ArtMusic said:


> Wagner's music is that of western classical music heritage. Its merit or lack of should by assessed by the artistic criteria in which the composer and audiences recognize it.


What of the Count of T'ang? Will he recognize the merit of Wagner's (or Taylor Swift's) music? He ought to, if it's "good".


----------



## consuono

Strange Magic said:


> Why not stick to the nuts and bolts of the discussion? Who says nothing is real? Have you been following? One of the reasons to be cocksure might be that the subjectivists are both correct and know they're correct. Possible? Still waiting for that convincing demonstration of the existence of that Secret Sauce in music that makes it "excellent" beyond peradventure and opinions to the contrary. It'll be a long wait.


What nuts and bolts? You mean things _are_ real?? It's hard to keep up. Do you have any Riemannian multidimensional manifold reality proof of that?


----------



## science

DaveM said:


> Apparently there is a new paradigm about art. Whether it be painting, sculpture or classical music, no objective parameters can be applied to compare artists, composers or their works because the Khoisan bushman tribe of Southern Africa might not agree with said comparisons.


But why mightn't they agree?


----------



## DaveM

Our arch subjectivist (speaking of SM in case others might think it is them) was apparently just waiting for a chance to attack and reference to the Khoisan bushman tribe appears to have been just the right time to fire three missiles.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Why not stick to the nuts and bolts of the discussion? Who says nothing is real? Have you been following? One of the reasons to be cocksure might be that the subjectivists are both correct and know they're correct. Possible? Still waiting for that convincing demonstration of the existence of *that Secret Sauce in music that makes it "excellent"* beyond peradventure and opinions to the contrary. *It'll be a long wait.*


There may be hope for someone who can't, at present, tell whether music is poorly, well, or brilliantly composed, but there's little hope for someone ideologically committed to the notion that the whole idea of compositional excellence is illusory. Looks like you'll wait forever.


----------



## consuono

Strange Magic said:


> What of the Count of T'ang? Will he recognize the merit of Wagner's (or Taylor Swift's) music? He ought to, if it's "good".


I dunno, apparently a good many of his countrymen and women have, wouldn't you say?


----------



## hammeredklavier

People who specialize in both traditional music of non-Western cultures and and western classical music (not some idiots like Adam Neely) call traditional music of non-Western cultures "primitive" because it lacks harmony. Hong Nan-pa was one of them.

"Hong Nan-pa (April 10, 1897 or 98 - August 30, 1941) was a Korean composer, violinist, conductor, music critic and educator. He is best known as the composer of Bongseonhwa (봉선화, literally Garden Balsam) written in 1919. It is generally considered as the first true Korean original song composed in Western style. It was widely sung during the period. Hong also contributed to developing Korean culture during the period with his diverse cultural activities."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Nan-pa

"Hong Nan Pa said that Korean traditional music is primitive music because it lacks harmony."
(""홍난파 그 사람이 '전통예술은 화음이 없으니까 원시음악'이라고 했어요.")
http://sangsig.blogspot.com/2011/10/blog-post_10.html


----------



## consuono

Woodduck said:


> There may be hope for someone who can't, at present, tell whether music is poorly, well, or brilliantly composed, but there's little hope for someone ideologically committed to the notion that the whole idea of compositional excellence is illusory. Looks like you'll wait forever.


The thing is I can simply say "I don't know for sure". The subjectivist contingent apparently knows all. And wants you to know they know all. And Euler too. So take that. Subjectively of course.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> What of the Count of T'ang? Will he recognize the merit of Wagner's (or Taylor Swift's) music? He ought to, if it's "good".


No matter how many times the silliness of this is pointed out - this notion that art can't be good if someone, somewhere, fails to understand it - you persist in thinking it means something significant.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> People who specialize in both traditional music of non-Western cultures and and western classical music (not some idiots like Adam Neely) call traditional music of non-Western cultures "primitive" because it lacks harmony. Hong Nan-pa was one of them.
> 
> "Hong Nan-pa (April 10, 1897 or 98 - August 30, 1941) was a Korean composer, violinist, conductor, music critic and educator. He is best known as the composer of Bongseonhwa (봉선화, literally Garden Balsam) written in 1919. It is generally considered as the first true Korean original song composed in Western style. It was widely sung during the period. Hong also contributed to developing Korean culture during the period with his diverse cultural activities."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Nan-pa
> 
> "Hong Nan Pa said that Korean traditional music is primitive music because it lacks harmony."
> (""홍난파 그 사람이 '전통예술은 화음이 없으니까 원시음악'이라고 했어요.")
> http://sangsig.blogspot.com/2011/10/blog-post_10.html


Well as you should know, hammeredklavier, that's objectively known as "cultural imperialism" by the subjectivists. The same thing that you'd be doing if you forced those poor Africans to suffer through Wagner. In college we all learn that even in our subjective existence there are certain non-negotiables, and as I remember that was one of them.


----------



## tdc

hammeredklavier said:


> People who specialize in both traditional music of non-Western cultures and and western classical music (not some idiots like Adam Neely) call traditional music of non-Western cultures "primitive" because it lacks harmony. Hong Nan-pa was one of them.
> 
> "Hong Nan-pa (April 10, 1897 or 98 - August 30, 1941) was a Korean composer, violinist, conductor, music critic and educator. He is best known as the composer of Bongseonhwa (봉선화, literally Garden Balsam) written in 1919. It is generally considered as the first true Korean original song composed in Western style. It was widely sung during the period. Hong also contributed to developing Korean culture during the period with his diverse cultural activities."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Nan-pa
> 
> "Hong Nan Pa said that Korean traditional music is primitive music because it lacks harmony."
> (""홍난파 그 사람이 '전통예술은 화음이 없으니까 원시음악'이라고 했어요.")
> http://sangsig.blogspot.com/2011/10/blog-post_10.html


An interesting thought and by this logic Schoenberg's system regressed Western music and brought it to a more primitive state.


----------



## BachIsBest

Woodduck said:


> No matter how many times the silliness of this is pointed out - this notion that art can't be good if someone, somewhere, fails to understand it - you persist in thinking it means something significant.


Considering the whole thread was predicated upon the notion that art can't be good because hypothetical aliens with poor hearing can't properly appreciate the music they hypothetically find when they hypothetically come to Earth I wouldn't hold my breath as to this argument disappearing.


----------



## ArtMusic

hammeredklavier said:


> People who specialize in both traditional music of non-Western cultures and and western classical music (not some idiots like Adam Neely) call traditional music of non-Western cultures "primitive" because it lacks harmony. Hong Nan-pa was one of them.
> 
> "Hong Nan-pa (April 10, 1897 or 98 - August 30, 1941) was a Korean composer, violinist, conductor, music critic and educator. He is best known as the composer of Bongseonhwa (봉선화, literally Garden Balsam) written in 1919. It is generally considered as the first true Korean original song composed in Western style. It was widely sung during the period. Hong also contributed to developing Korean culture during the period with his diverse cultural activities."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Nan-pa
> 
> "Hong Nan Pa said that Korean traditional music is primitive music because it lacks harmony."
> (""홍난파 그 사람이 '전통예술은 화음이 없으니까 원시음악'이라고 했어요.")
> http://sangsig.blogspot.com/2011/10/blog-post_10.html


Interesting, it made me want to listen to some traditional Korean music, which I have not knowingly heard much. It listened to some minutes of the link below. It certainly lacks harmony. But it does not prevent any ears anywhere from enjoying it (or not). This is an important difference in our discussions here.


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> But the 'absurdity' of the position (that random gibberish is great) doesn't necessarily exist, as common currency between the follower of random gibberish and the King Lear fanboy. So no, you can't point to it.
> 
> The only think you _can_ do is point to premises/values held in common between two people, and try to convince/show the other person that an artwork embodies these values, or makes rubbish of them.


But do you deny that some values are universally human?


----------



## Ethereality

consuono said:


> The thing is I can simply say "I don't know for sure". *The subjectivist contingent apparently knows all. *And wants you to know they know all. And Euler too. So take that. Subjectively of course.


I haven't read such. The claimed subjectivist openly admits some music is more favorable to more thinkers. The only question arises, what is greatness, there is only a debate on this question, and it has entailed x-ists vs y-ists, but not objectivists vs subjectivists.

What we have now is common traditionalists vs open liberalists. Some have stated "Greatness is akin to compositions of Beethoven, Bach, Wagner" and have described facets of their similarities. Thus this topic is not something to be discussed objectively, as in, laws discovered, axioms applied, but discussed according to one's opinion of greatness, whatever each believes that is, whether they agree with most people, or disagree with people.

Most of the 'common traditionalists' are _agreers_, and have made this unnervingly obvious throughout history, and the 'open liberalists' are each disagreers with most people. This topic has nothing to do with the learned vs the popular. Everyone here has been capable of deep thought from time to time, that is why this is not a Hip Music forum, but an Art Music forum.

The only worthwhile, fruitful point of a discussion forum is to listen a bit more to different disagreers and give them more time to share and discuss their opinions, even if you end up disagreeing. Otherwise you're just talking to yourself. The 'unlearned' are those who will criticize other thoughtful perspectives on what is great. Unless these perspectives are stated ad nauseum by people, then the minority has the right to be somewhat upset by it and should probably take measures to diversify our discussion topics more. Creating new threads, and subforums, giving new topics their right to exist.


----------



## Zhdanov

hammeredklavier said:


> most people wouldn't be able to tell programme music apart from absolute music


because all music is programme and should be listened to like reading a book or watching a movie and the whole listening process should be like taking a walk among historical architecture sites buildings and sculptures.


----------



## Zhdanov

the sword fight in Beethoven 'Coriolan Overture' - just put the record on and feel as if you take a walk around the Cologne Cathedral to see its knife sharp architecture:


----------



## Zhdanov

or as in Stravinsky 'Firebird' and one of its hallucination themes which can also be seen in the LSD trip inspired architecture of St.Basil-The-Blessed cathedral:


----------



## Portamento

Woodduck said:


> And I don't tell people to shut up, although I might tell them they're talking too much, not saying enough, and getting on my nerves. Plenty of opportunities for that.


I put some cheese in-between two slices of bread, but I didn't make a _sandwich_!



> Would they? _All _perceptive minds? How clear is the structure of the movement in question to listeners of various levels of "perceptiveness"? How much of most listeners' perception of that structure - if they can perceive it at all - is raw perception, and how much is applied knowledge gained from reading about it or studying it? In other words, how successful is Schoenberg at making his design concept audible? Music can be scrupulously designed and yet be incomprehensible to a listener without a guidebook. You may have read that experiments have been done playing atonal music to listeners of varying musical attainment, and in most cases professional musicians were no better than others at telling whether the work was serial or freely atonal. Schoenberg's postmen never have learned to whistle tone rows.


I didn't make this clear as I should've, but with all the "perceptive minds" talk I was poking fun at what I took to be your perspective. For example, it's your idea that composers should hope to "find among all the wide eyes and rapturous "oohs" and "ahs" of the art crowd some perceptive minds who have a just appreciation of what they've done well - and, indeed, what they haven't." Thus, those who don't justly appreciate Schoenberg's scrupulous design - which is indeed done well - are merely not "perceptive" enough. But clearly your stance on atonal music is different, because you "blame" Schoenberg - not listeners - for the lack of appreciation for what he's done well. Mind you, I am fully aware of the experiments you mention and acknowledge that atonal music is acutely inaccessible _even if_ you have an intimate knowledge of Schoenberg's historical context; a lot of Schoenberg's "design concept" isn't audible, and he knew it as well. However, if you were being consistent you would place the blame for not appreciating his well-executed design concept on imperceptive listeners.

Unless, of course, you believe that the inaudibility of a design concept should count as a failure. But atonal music was not the beginning of inaudible design concepts: Bach's Chaconne, for example, employs the Fibonacci sequence quite ingeniously - this aspect, however, is just as inaudible as the tone row is in serial music. At some point it becomes silly to blame composers OR listeners for the inaudibility of well-executed structures.



> Opinions can be based on varied criteria, and can't be compared meaningfully if people are talking about different things. Stravinsky doesn't elaborate, but then Stravinsky was fond of pompous pronouncements, one-liners and _bons mots._ Copland, typically honest and deliberate, is clearer about what he means, and it's obvious that he considers the work highly accomplished ("outstanding") as a composition but simply feels it has little to say. Both composers were perfectly capable of grasping the compositional virtues of Schoenberg's work. They merely had different personal responses, and of the two Copland's is the more thoughtful. All of this is perfectly normal.


So I take it that you think Copland came closer to identifying "the real nature" (your concept, not mine) of Schoenberg's work?



> Note that I spoke of the artist's "objectivity" - in quotes. I've written a previous post somewhere explaining my concept of what I call the "objective-subjective," an attempt to describe the unique nature of aesthetic perception. But I don't want to get too epistemological here.


I vaguely remember you using that term a while ago - I'll go look for the post.



> Actually, they do. Obviously, no one can know all of what an artist intended when he set out to compose a work, but if we take the work as presented as substantially expressing his intentions, we quite routinely, at whatever the level of our sensitivity and skills as listeners, evaluate the work on the terms the work itself presents. We make constant judgments, mostly on a subconscious level, of how the elements of a piece work together, and we notice things that seem incongruous or "illogical." We can sense when a composer's choices contradict, vitiate, or seem irrelevant or unnecessary to achieving, his overall objective.


We can agree to disagree on this point.



> You can safely bet that both Stravinsky and Copland were judging Schoenberg's quintet by many more criteria than that. "Experiential goodness" is what we all seek in the end, but getting it from complex music involves much more of our brains than getting it from brie on rye thins.


I think this just about sums up the _experiential_ criteria they (and every other human) used/uses to evaluate Schoenberg's (or anyone's) music: How rewarding it is to experience how the music unfolds; how rewarding it is to register/respond to what the music (supposedly) conveys; and how rewarding it is to experience what the music conveys in relation to how it unfolds. There are other non-experiential criteria such as influence- and originality-value, but these are typically secondary to the experiential ones. This is not exactly "brie on rye thin" stuff.



> Oh, yes it is! And if it isn't immediately apparent to you, play around with rewriting Beethoven and listen as masterpieces crumble before your ears.


Just because _I_ wouldn't change a thing about Beethoven's masterpieces doesn't mean he chose the objectively "best" notes.



> I'm tempted to say that "esoteric" is a wine-taster's description of the composer's problem of finding the right notes. Actually it's just the artist's daily routine, though somewhat harder than making a caesar salad.


No - I'm a student composer myself and am very aware of the problem of finding the right notes. But it's an esoteric problem that no one but the composer really cares about. And that's fine!



> The question that goes begging is: what makes the "intrinsic value of the listening experience" high for most listeners? Why do some works gain wide acclaim and remain in the repertoire? My answer: listeners really _can_ tell when notes have been chosen well, and experienced listeners can tell this even when the "intrinsic value of the listening experience" is not high for them. Witness Copland's remarks above.


If I were to generalize, it's because listeners enjoy the music's fusion of the expressive and the configurational - what the music "conveys" and how the music "goes." I don't buy that Copland thought Schoenberg's notes were particularly well-chosen - the word "outstanding" doesn't sound so outstanding when it's part of the phrase "outstanding failure."



> I don't claim that aesthetic truths are objective, in the strict philosophical sense, or that they can be "proved." But neither do I subscribe to an epistemology that claims that nothing can be known unless it can be proved.


Neither do I. If you think that I consider all aesthetic judgements to be 100% subjective, that's not my position. But they're not 100% objective, either (and I believe you agree).


----------



## Portamento

consuono said:


> It's weird how the most dogmatic, cocksure participants in these "discussions" are those of the subjective stripe.


There's dogmatism on both sides, and if you don't recognize that you're being dogmatic yourself.


----------



## Portamento

DaveM said:


> Apparently there is a new paradigm about art. Whether it be painting, sculpture or classical music, no objective parameters can be applied to compare artists, composers or their works because the Khoisan bushman tribe of Southern Africa might not agree with said comparisons.


RogerWaters may have said some silly things in that post, but this is one thing he _didn't_ say.



ArtMusic said:


> Wagner's music is that of western classical music heritage. Its merit or lack of should by assessed by the artistic criteria in which the composer and audiences recognize it.


Wagner's music also comes from a German heritage and was originally performed for German audiences. Should non-Germans - who aren't intimately familiar with "German artistic criteria" - be able to evaluate Wagner? You realize that this also means no westerner gets to evaluate non-Western music? It's bogus - anyone should be able to evaluate any music based on their enjoyment of how the music "goes" and what it "conveys."


----------



## Portamento

hammeredklavier said:


> People who specialize in both traditional music of non-Western cultures and and western classical music (not some idiots like Adam Neely) call traditional music of non-Western cultures "primitive" because it lacks harmony. Hong Nan-pa was one of them.
> 
> "Hong Nan-pa (April 10, 1897 or 98 - August 30, 1941) was a Korean composer, violinist, conductor, music critic and educator. He is best known as the composer of Bongseonhwa (봉선화, literally Garden Balsam) written in 1919. It is generally considered as the first true Korean original song composed in Western style. It was widely sung during the period. Hong also contributed to developing Korean culture during the period with his diverse cultural activities."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Nan-pa
> 
> "Hong Nan Pa said that Korean traditional music is primitive music because it lacks harmony."
> (""홍난파 그 사람이 '전통예술은 화음이 없으니까 원시음악'이라고 했어요.")
> http://sangsig.blogspot.com/2011/10/blog-post_10.html


I take it that the first generation of Korean composers (in the Western, concert-hall sense) viewed music without harmony as primitive. Because of this, they attempted to harmonize Korean traditional music into Western homophony.

However, society has changed for the better. Those who still believe that Korean traditional music is "primitive" are, in fact, deeply regressive individuals.



consuono said:


> Well as you should know, hammeredklavier, that's objectively known as "cultural imperialism" by the subjectivists. The same thing that you'd be doing if you forced those poor Africans to suffer through Wagner. In college we all learn that even in our subjective existence there are certain non-negotiables, and as I remember that was one of them.


Here's an example of a (subjectively) regressive individual.

I won't pursue this topic further. If you want to argue, let's head over to the politics forum.


----------



## Eclectic Al

I'm no philosopher, but what about Kierkegaard, and his leap?

According to Wiki, he said: “Thinking can turn toward itself in order to think about itself and scepticism can emerge. But this thinking about itself never accomplishes anything.” Kierkegaard calls on us to stop this endless self-reflection, and make a leap to belief. In his setting this is about religion, but the same logic applies elsewhere. 

At risk of appearing like one of those posters on a wall which contain some words of (supposed) wisdom, here's some more: the "most dreadful thing of all is a personal existence that cannot coalesce in a conclusion".

It seems to me that an extreme subjectivist view does not lead to any conclusions. If there is no objective quality at all then there is nothing around which a conclusion can coalesce. You could try and say that the conclusion is that everything is subjective, but that seems to me to vanish in a puff of smoke.

My Kierkegaardian leap is thus to believe that there is a quality in music which makes it reasonable to say that one piece is objectively better than another. I am unapologetic about not being able to prove it. However, (i) I think it is a better choice than its negation and (ii) it is consistent with how I feel about these matters, so it is not a pretence. (That is, it is not like pretending to believe in God just so that you will get into heaven if it all turns out to be true. Any decent God would spot that one a mile off.) If my leap is just a choice, it is nevertheless a choice which feels right and which I believe.

At the same time, I would fully accept that when I say that I generally prefer pieces by Brahms to pieces by Schumann, that may be subjective or partly subjective/partly objective. That doesn't bother me at all. I find no inconsistency for the following reason. If Brahms was writing a piece, and chose A instead of B at some point, I buy Woodduck's claims that this could be because he chose an objectively better or worse solution to a problem. Maybe he had finished a piece and was going to review it but died before he could. He might well have changed A to B, and it would have been better - as a solution to the problem he had set himself (and certainly I find the idea that a random solution might be as good to be preposterous). Meanwhile Schumann was also writing a piece. Is his work better or worse than the one by Brahms. I think that is predominantly a subjective matter (- I can't quite bring myself to say completely subjective even there), because Schumann is not Brahms. Is an apple better than an orange? I think the reason I can't say completely subjective is because of the points I make below about persistence.

When I reflect on the question of quality in music, I think it relates to quality in the context of a tradition. The tradition will have evolved in a Darwinian way by each step in that tradition making sense as movement within the history of the tradition, with more "successful" (in a Darwinian sense) pieces persisting by continuing to be played and by stimulating future pieces that have roots in the earlier material. Hence, in part, it is a popularity contest, and that is fine by me. How better to identify pieces of quality than by their ability to persist and influence?

I suppose my feeling is that a musical tradition exposes objective qualities in music. All that might mean is that some styles (and there may be many quite disparate styles) may suit the way brains are wired (after those brains have been exposed to various cultural influences) better than other styles. That seems objective enough for me.


----------



## ArtMusic

Portamento said:


> Wagner's music also comes from a German heritage and was originally performed for German audiences. Should non-Germans - who aren't intimately familiar with "German artistic criteria" - be able to evaluate Wagner? You realize that this also means no westerner gets to evaluate non-Western music? It's bogus - anyone should be able to evaluate any music based on their enjoyment of how the music "goes" and what it "conveys."


German classical music heritage, it is not difficult to understand.


----------



## Portamento

Eclectic Al said:


> It seems to me that an extreme subjectivist view does not lead to any conclusions. If there is no objective quality at all then there is nothing around which a conclusion can coalesce. You could try and say that the conclusion is that everything is subjective, but that seems to me to vanish in a puff of smoke.


Agreed, and the opposite (an extreme objectivist view) isn't so great either. Like Goldilocks, we have to find the subjective-objective balance that's _just right_.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> There may be hope for someone who can't, at present, tell whether music is poorly, well, or brilliantly composed, but there's little hope for someone ideologically committed to the notion that the whole idea of compositional excellence is illusory. Looks like you'll wait forever.


Again, failure to understand. Compositional excellence is identified easily as that which results in the music that you and/or your peer group likes/thinks excellent. Compositional mediocrity or clumsiness results in music that you don't like. Same with me. It's that simple.


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> I dunno, apparently a good many of his countrymen and women have, wouldn't you say?


Ahhh, a voting thing! Good show! Very democratic. Art criticism and esthetics is all about the polling: I'm catching on now.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> No matter how many times the silliness of this is pointed out - this notion that art can't be good if someone, somewhere, fails to understand it - you persist in thinking it means something significant.


It is not quite as silly as the curious thesis that goodness is somehow hiding inside the art--like the ether of later 19th century physics-- yet is only detectable by the Few compared with the Many when, as an "objective" entity, it should be detectable by all who are not suffering from a pathology.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Portamento said:


> I take it that the first generation of Korean composers (in the Western, concert-hall sense) viewed music without harmony as primitive. Because of this, they attempted to harmonize Korean traditional music into Western homophony.
> However, society has changed for the better. Those who still believe that Korean traditional music is "primitive" are, in fact, deeply regressive individuals.


The blog (http://sangsig.blogspot.com/2011/10/blog-post_10.html) also says that "no one composes in the traditional monophonic style anymore". It also asks "there are some conservatives who say traditional music should only utilize the traditional monophonic style, but if the traditional monophonic style is so good, why doesn't anyone compose in the style anymore?" In the end, it also compares the 'obvious flaws' of the traditional monophonic style to an 'emperor without clothes' and criticizes the conservatives for not being able to see them.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Eclectic Al:* "My Kierkegaardian leap is thus to believe that there is a quality in music which makes it reasonable to say that one piece is *objectively* better than another. I am unapologetic about not being able to prove it. However, (i) I think it is a better choice than its negation and (ii) it is consistent with how I feel about these matters, so it is not a pretence. (That is, it is not like pretending to believe in God just so that you will get into heaven if it all turns out to be true. Any decent God would spot that one a mile off.) If my leap is just a choice, it is nevertheless a choice which feels right and which I believe."


I can see why you sensibly do not attempt to or claim to prove your assertion. The subjectivist such as myself feels free to clearly enunciate the pleasure or lack of it that she/he experiences while perceiving the music but--wisely, in my view-- ascribes the reaction to the music as being the product or the result of the unique personal neurology, history, and environment at play when perceiving the music. The lock at the time either is receptive to the key or it isn't. In a way, you are yourself a subjectivist in that it pleases you to believe, without evidence or proof, in the objective existence of greatness in certain musics.


----------



## Strange Magic

Strange Magic said:


> What of the Count of T'ang? Will he recognize the merit of Wagner's (or Taylor Swift's) music? He ought to, if it's "good".


A little background on my friend the Count. He is a man of culture and refinement, and the father (_circa_ 600 CE) of the founder of the T'ang Dynasty. As something of an esthete, he knows his own mind, and I often think of him listening to various musics and imagining his reactions to this or that: "What would T'ang think?" I once offered him Brahms' _German Requiem_, but he disliked it. I told him that George Bernard Shaw, an esthete of the Western musical tradition hated it also, but T'ang said that it was likely pure coincidence--there was nothing actually in the music that was demonstrably and obviously, objectively "bad"; he just didn't like it.


----------



## consuono

Strange Magic said:


> It is not quite as silly as the curious thesis that goodness is somehow hiding inside the art--like the ether of later 19th century physics-- yet is only detectable by the Few compared with the Many when, as an "objective" entity, it should be detectable by all who are not suffering from a pathology.


It "somehow hides" as goodness (whatever that is) "somehow hides" in an individual.

What's bizarre is the sneering references to religion from some who are obviously regurgitating political dogma they've been fed for decades, and then thumping their chests about their "independent thought".


----------



## consuono

Eclectic Al said:


> It seems to me that an extreme subjectivist view does not lead to any conclusions.


Except of course the conclusion that they're right and "objectivists", "Platonists", the religious etc are poo poo heads.


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> It "somehow hides" as goodness (whatever that is) "somehow hides" in an individual.
> 
> What's bizarre is the sneering references to religion from some who are obviously regurgitating political dogma they've been fed for decades, and then thumping their chests about their "independent thought".


What on Earth is this post about??


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> Except of course the conclusion that they're right and "objectivists", "Platonists", the religious etc are poo poo heads.


I think we're nearing the end of this thread now.


----------



## consuono

Strange Magic said:


> I think we're nearing the end of this thread now.


Oh it was over before it began, or at least when Euler, bushmen tribes and Count T'ang made an appearance.

Anyway,


> Wagner is only great music if you care for harmonic exploration, opera, a lack of steady beat, etc. many people and indeed cultures don't. Are you going to go out to the Khoisan bushman tribe of Southern Africa and tell them they are 'wrong' for not liking Wagner?! Can I be there when you do please?


Isn't it racist to assume that Africans or Count T'ang won't/wouldn't like or understand Wagner?


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> Oh it was over before it began, or at least when Euler, bushmen tribes and Count T'ang made an appearance.
> 
> Anyway,
> Isn't it racist to assume that Africans or Count T'ang won't/wouldn't like or understand Wagner?


Is it racist that George Bernard Shaw did not like the Brahms _Requiem?_ We really are getting near the end now.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Strange Magic said:


> We really are getting near the end now.


Now someone like Zhdanov has to mention how Count T'ang didn't perceive Wagner in the way Adolf Hitler did, and it will be complete.


----------



## Strange Magic

Yet a little more about the cultural world within which the Count of T'ang moved. Longtime viewers of the American _Antiques Road Show_ will well remember Chinese art specialist Lark Mason's tears upon seeing the T'ang lion statue that a woman brought in for appraisal......

https://historybyday.com/human-stories/antiques-roadshow-puts-antique-lion-statue-in-the-limelight/


----------



## Strange Magic

hammeredklavier said:


> Now someone like Zhdanov has to mention how Count T'ang didn't perceive Wagner in the way Adolf Hitler did, and it will be complete.


But what about 4'33"? Surely it plays a part.


----------



## consuono

Strange Magic said:


> Is it racist that George Bernard Shaw did not like the Brahms _Requiem?_ We really are getting near the end now.


No, but it might be if I said "try to get an Irish critic to like Chinese court music...I dare ya!"


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> Now someone like Zhdanov has to mention how Count T'ang didn't perceive Wagner in the way Adolf Hitler did, and it will be complete.


No, hammered, no thread is complete without a vid of Michael Haydn and one or more of the following: Mozart's Masonic Funeral Music, Fugue for two pianos or K. 475.


----------



## Art Rock

... and a reference to the Schubert strinq quintet poll.......

Honestly, isn't it time to let this thread die quietly by not posting here anymore? The original topic has not been discussed in ages, and what has been discussed did not accomplish anything as far as I can see.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> No, hammered, no thread is complete without a vid of Michael Haydn and one or more of the following: Mozart's Masonic Funeral Music, Fugue for two pianos or K. 475.


No seriously, I'm not even kidding:

M. Haydn MH.155: 



Mozart K.477: 



Mozart K.626 




M. Haydn MH.155: 



Mozart K.546: 



Mozart K.339/iv: 






hammeredklavier said:


> "In Salzburg, if not throughout his life, Mozart was writing in a lingua franca and many of the features of that language are to be found in Michael Haydn too. That Mozart recognized Michael Haydn's mastery is suggested by a letter he sent to his father from Vienna, asking for the latest symphonies of Michael, so that he could perform them in that city." -David Wyn Jones


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Again, failure to understand. Compositional excellence is identified easily as that which results in the music that you and/or your peer group likes/thinks excellent. Compositional mediocrity or clumsiness results in music that you don't like. Same with me. It's that simple.


I'm more convinced than ever that I understand your view perfectly, but I have to doubt that you yourself understand it. You seem not to realize the implications of your own words. Either that, or you're playing Humpty Dumpty and claiming the right to make words mean whatever you want them to. I'm sorry, but I'm just poor little Alice, trying to figure out where the hell I've ended up at the bottom of this rabbit hole.

The idea that excellent composition is nothing more than composition that some individual or group likes is a negation of the whole idea of excellence and renders the concept unnecessary. In no other area of life is the word "excellent" a synonym for "likable," except perhaps in the minds of adolescents (who, however, might prefer "awesome," or whatever the slang du jour might be). Why should music be different?


----------



## Woodduck

consuono said:


> Isn't it racist to assume that Africans or Count T'ang won't/wouldn't like or understand Wagner?


It might be, but at the very least it's condescending, not to mention goofy. Dogmatic subjectivism loves that argument: "Aha! But what about the lost tribe of aboriginals from the impenetrable jungles of Hookum Chookum, who have flattened craniums, eat termite grubs, tattoo their penises, remain untouched by Newtonian physics, and have never even seen an episode of Seinfeld? What would _they_ think of _Don Giovanni_?"


----------



## DaveM

Before this thread closes, I am proud to announce that my posts have been given the National Parents and Good Housekeeping Seals of Approval.


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> Before this thread closes, I am proud to announce that my posts have been given the National Parents and Good Housekeeping Seals of Approval.


I don't know what this means, but then not knowing what things mean while vociferously liking them is what we do here.


----------



## Jacck

Woodduck said:


> It might be, but at the very least it's condescending, not to mention goofy. Dogmatic subjectivism loves that argument: "Aha! But what about the lost tribe of aboriginals from the impenetrable jungles of Hookum Chookum, who have flattened craniums, eat termite grubs, tattoo their penises, remain untouched by Newtonian physics, and have never even seen an episode of Seinfeld? What would _they_ think of _Don Giovanni_?"


truth is likely somewhere in the middle, isn't it? There are obviously cultural factors, which might cause Germans to appreciate Wagner more than other nationalities. On the other hand there are also shared biological factors (similar construction of brain) which would likely be responsible that the aborigines would respond to Wagners music similarly to us. So like pretty much everything in medicine/psychology, music appreciation is in part nature, in part nurture (or culture). Neither a fully subjectivist nor a fully objective perspective is actually sufficient or correct.


----------



## Woodduck

Jacck said:


> truth is likely somewhere in the middle, isn't it? There are obviously cultural factors, which might cause Germans to appreciate Wagner more than other nationalities. On the other hand there are also shared biological factors (similar construction of brain) which would likely be responsible that the aborigines would respond to Wagners music similarly to us. So like pretty much everything in medicine/psychology, *music appreciation is in part nature, in part nurture (or culture). Neither a fully subjectivist nor a fully objective perspective is actually sufficient or correct.*


Exactamente. ........


----------



## Mandryka

Jacck said:


> truth is likely somewhere in the middle, isn't it? There are obviously cultural factors, which might cause Germans to appreciate Wagner more than other nationalities. On the other hand there are also shared biological factors (similar construction of brain) which would likely be responsible that the aborigines would respond to Wagners music similarly to us. So like pretty much everything in medicine/psychology, music appreciation is in part nature, in part nurture (or culture). Neither a fully subjectivist nor a fully objective perspective is actually sufficient or correct.


Do you believe any judgement is purely subjective?


----------



## Ethereality

People use the terms objective and subjective like they have meaning fundamentally, when in reality it's about whatever ideas float your boat, whether they're very traditional and common to the community, or unique and detached ideas from classical tradition; we're here to listen to and support everyone's perspective, and at least support the niche groups that make up love for pronounced composers like Tallis, Wolf, Weinberg, John Williams, John Coltrane, or The Big 3. Within 37 pages, we have come full circle back to the fundamental reality. People are here because they like Classical. It won't entail that they like all of it.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> I'm more convinced than ever that I understand your view perfectly, but I have to doubt that you yourself understand it. You seem not to realize the implications of your own words. Either that, or you're playing Humpty Dumpty and claiming the right to make words mean whatever you want them to. I'm sorry, but I'm just poor little Alice, trying to figure out where the hell I've ended up at the bottom of this rabbit hole.
> 
> The idea that excellent composition is nothing more than composition that some individual or group likes is a negation of the whole idea of excellence and renders the concept unnecessary. In no other area of life is the word "excellent" a synonym for "likable," except perhaps in the minds of adolescents (who, however, might prefer "awesome," or whatever the slang du jour might be). Why should music be different?


Alas, any rejoicing that you fully understand the direct and simple implications of the subjectivist thesis is unwarranted. People can labor with great effort and yet produce...nothingburgers to some observers, and things of wonder to others. By contrast, all observers concur that the thermometer reads 100 degrees C at STP as pure water reaches boil. Facts is facts. If some piece of art is "excellent", is it not curious that even quite similar people--people of culture and refinement (like the Count himself, or GBS), do not perceive the alleged excellence. It is a strange, wobbly, shifting sort of objectivism that can successfully account for such. Subjectivism deals with the matter directly, without recourse to Platonism but rather to the phenomenon observed by all that all esthetics is opinion and opinion only. We even have obvious phrases, in constant use, to describe this notion that what people like in the arts is "good"; what they don't or find uninteresting is "bad" or "not so good".


----------



## Jacck

Mandryka said:


> Do you believe any judgement is purely subjective?


yes. The only objective thing is the reality itself, ie cosmos, things and processes that exist independently of the human mind. Everything that the human mind produces is already subjective, even the reflections of the objective reality within the human consciousness are aready subjective.


----------



## Zhdanov

Ethereality said:


> People are here because they like Classical.


they like it but do they know it? do they realise liking's not enough in itself?


----------



## Portamento

After 37 pages, we've come to the conclusion that:

- total subjectivism is bad
- total objectivism is bad

But if anyone wants to repeat those conclusions / make jokes about other cultures for another 37 pages, so be it. I've said everything I wanted to say and at this point I would just be repeating myself. 

¡Hasta luego! :tiphat:


----------



## Zhdanov

them subjectivists think its ok to gate crash like they do...


----------



## Ethereality

Zhdanov said:


> they like it but do they know it? do they realise liking's not enough in itself?


I do believe these thoughts naturally occur to people all the time. The big picture however ends up not being so simple, as it entails lots of subjective contexts that _can't_ be concluded from an objective point of view, because they're detached from others' experience and abilities. A good ability to make any kind of 'auditory-based' art will be extremely variant between incompatible niches. Not everyone will conclude the Big 3 perspective can achieve auditory art the best, even though we're all here because it's a rewarding subject to talk about. We can easily account for other theories or musings by being accepting of them. The Classical or Big 3 theory of art will always be predominant here, even among the minority so it's best to also make time to listen to everyone else.


----------



## Zhdanov

Portamento said:


> - total objectivism is bad


nope, it's good, very good, in fact it's great.


----------



## Art Rock

Art Rock said:


> Honestly, isn't it time to let this thread die quietly by not posting here anymore? The original topic has not been discussed in ages, and what has been discussed did not accomplish anything as far as I can see.


So I take it that the answer is NO! ?


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> It might be, but at the very least it's condescending, not to mention goofy. Dogmatic subjectivism loves that argument: "Aha! But what about the lost tribe of aboriginals from the impenetrable jungles of Hookum Chookum, who have flattened craniums, eat termite grubs, tattoo their penises, remain untouched by Newtonian physics, and have never even seen an episode of Seinfeld? What would _they_ think of _Don Giovanni_?"


This approach is not condescending, though the language above is clearly meant to be a caricature of something. The physical, anatomical, physiological makeup of _Homo sapiens_ is unitary, while past histories, education, other environmental factors vary or can vary significantly. Thus subjectivism accounts for the wildly varying individual responses to the allegedly inherent and invariant "excellence" lodged within the music. Objectivism suggests, if people are indeed a unitary species, that all will respond to the common stimulus of the alleged musical excellence, as they would if presented with, say, the pain of something hot or of the pleasure of a warm, soft caress. Objectivism only seems to work as an explanation if an influential peer group is cobbled together to legitimize the phenomenon of inherent excellence.


----------



## Strange Magic

Zhdanov said:


> them subjectivists think its ok to gate crash like they do...


Getting close to the end of this thread. Unless one believes totally in the inherent excellence of what Zhdanov likes, one is a gate-crasher. Consider the gate crashed. :lol:


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> Unless one believes totally in the inherent excellence of what Zhdanov likes, one is a gate-crasher.


what is it with this 'likes' notion? as if anyone should care about what one likes and what not? don't we talk music in the first place and not one's preferences?


----------



## consuono

DaveM said:


> Before this thread closes, I am proud to announce that my posts have been given the National Parents and Good Housekeeping Seals of Approval.


But of course that's just their subjective judgement which is meaningless unless I agree with it. And then it's two or three meaningless subjective judgements.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> People can labor with great effort and yet produce...nothingburgers to some observers, and things of wonder to others.


Of course. That indicates nothing about the merits of any work of art, or of anything else in the world.



> By contrast, all observers concur that the thermometer reads 100 degrees C at STP as pure water reaches boil. Facts is facts.


And not all facts are equally apparent to everyone. Shouldn't everyone realize that the actual winner of the 2020 presidential election was Biden? But look at the army of people who still claim otherwise. How on earth would you expect them to see the superb structure of Act 3 of _Tristan und Isolde?_



> If some piece of art is "excellent", is it not curious that even quite similar people--people of culture and refinement (like the Count himself, or GBS), do not perceive the alleged excellence.


No, it is not one bit curious. It is to be expected. (And GBS didn't deny the compositional abilities of Brahms. He just didn't like his music, although later on he retracted some of his earlier disparagements. He was a _writer,_ remember - one of those people who like to hear themselves say clever things and get paid for it.)



> It is a strange, wobbly, shifting sort of objectivism that can successfully account for such.


"Objectivism" doesn't need to account for differences in taste, or for the biases of individuals. I am so bloody tired of people trotting out this same fallacy:

"Aha! But what about the lost tribe of aboriginals from the impenetrable jungles of Hookum Chookum, who have flattened craniums, eat termite grubs, tattoo their penises, remain untouched by Newtonian physics, and have never even seen an episode of Seinfeld? What would they think of _Don Giovanni?_"



> Subjectivism deals with the matter directly, without recourse to Platonism


Nobody is resorting to Platonism. So much for understanding anyone else's views (_or_ Platonism).



> but rather to the phenomenon observed by all that all esthetics is opinion and opinion only.


That's a simple lie. Your theory of _total subjectivity_ in aesthetics is not a "phenomenon observed by all," and you know it. You are not arguing in good faith here. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.



> We even have obvious phrases, in constant use, to describe this notion that what people like in the arts is "good"; what they don't or find uninteresting is "bad" or "not so good".


So I was exactly correct: _The idea that excellent composition is nothing more than composition that some individual or group likes is a negation of the whole idea of excellence and renders the concept unnecessary. In no other area of life is the word "excellent" a synonym for "likable," except perhaps in the minds of adolescents (who, however, might prefer "awesome," or whatever the slang du jour might be)._

You align yourself with Humpty Dumpty and the adolescent purveyors of "awesome."

Pardon me if I wish to be more scrupulous with language than to fall back on "obvious phrases in constant use." It's unfortunate that the genius required to pen the tremendous fugue that opens the _Mass in b-minor_ is not "obvious" or "common" enough for you to pay it as much tribute.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> This approach is not condescending, though the language above is clearly meant to be a caricature of something. The physical, anatomical, physiological makeup of _Homo sapiens_ is unitary, while past histories, education, other environmental factors vary or can vary significantly. Thus subjectivism accounts for the wildly varying individual responses to the allegedly inherent and invariant "excellence" lodged within the music. Objectivism suggests, if people are indeed a unitary species, that all will respond to the common stimulus of the alleged musical excellence, as they would if presented with, say, the pain of something hot or of the pleasure of a warm, soft caress. Objectivism only seems to work as an explanation if an influential peer group is cobbled together to legitimize the phenomenon of inherent excellence.


Oh God, oh God, oh God! (No, I haven't been converted...)

No one here has at any time dismissed the presence or importance of personal factors in aesthetic reponses. What "objectivism" "suggests" is irrelevant, since "objectivism" is not participating in this discussion. I must say, though, that the continual trotting out of the equivalent of the position I've mocked in my little parody shows a serious lack of objective thought processes in those so fond of that position.


----------



## BachIsBest

Strange Magic said:


> Alas, any rejoicing that you fully understand the direct and simple implications of the subjectivist thesis is unwarranted. People can labor with great effort and yet produce...nothingburgers to some observers, and things of wonder to others. * By contrast, all observers concur that the thermometer reads 100 degrees C at STP as pure water reaches boil. * Facts is facts. If some piece of art is "excellent", is it not curious that even quite similar people--people of culture and refinement (like the Count himself, or GBS), do not perceive the alleged excellence. It is a strange, wobbly, shifting sort of objectivism that can successfully account for such. Subjectivism deals with the matter directly, without recourse to Platonism but rather to the phenomenon observed by all that all esthetics is opinion and opinion only. We even have obvious phrases, in constant use, to describe this notion that what people like in the arts is "good"; what they don't or find uninteresting is "bad" or "not so good".


But what about ancient Chinese who don't know how to read a thermometer? Or undiscovered Himalayan tribes that haven't invented fire or sources of heat so don't know about boiling? Or - a thought experiment for the subjectivists - aliens who have too fuzzy of vision to properly see the thermometer and don't experience temperature?

Huh? What then? How is your so-called "objectivity" holding up now?

Edit: In case it was not obvious, this is sarcasm.


----------



## consuono

> Subjectivism deals with the matter directly, without recourse to Platonism
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is resorting to Platonism. So much for understanding anyone else's views (or Platonism).
Click to expand...

I suspect that "Platonism, Platonist" is code for "religious", I guess in contrast to tough-minded Aristotleans, dialectical materialists, neo-Marxists and critical theorists. And subjectivism deals with anything directly??


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> But what about ancient Chinese who don't know how to read a thermometer? Or undiscovered Himalayan tribes that haven't invented fire or sources of heat so don't know about boiling? Or - a thought experiment for the subjectivists - aliens who have too fuzzy of vision to properly see the thermometer and don't experience temperature?
> 
> Huh? What then? How is your so-called "objectivity" holding up now?


Sorry, no cigar for this attempt at refutation. Think it through. . I suspect that Woodduck can see through this tissue.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Sorry, no cigar for this attempt at refutation. Think it through. . I suspect that Woodduck can see through this tissue.


I can. I have x-ray vision.


----------



## consuono

Jacck said:


> truth is likely somewhere in the middle, isn't it? There are obviously cultural factors, which might cause Germans to appreciate Wagner more than other nationalities. On the other hand there are also shared biological factors (similar construction of brain) which would likely be responsible that the aborigines would respond to Wagners music similarly to us. So like pretty much everything in medicine/psychology, music appreciation is in part nature, in part nurture (or culture). Neither a fully subjectivist nor a fully objective perspective is actually sufficient or correct.


I think so too, and since Euler came into the thread I can throw out some Gödel: not everything that is true can be proven true.


----------



## BachIsBest

Strange Magic said:


> Sorry, no cigar for this attempt at refutation. Think it through. . I suspect that Woodduck can see through this tissue.


It was not meant to be a serious refutation. Rather, I was poking fun at what I saw as the flawed refutations of those in the absolute subjectivism camp.

Just to clarify, I agree that thermometer readings are about as objective of a thing as one can find.


----------



## consuono

I might've missed something in all the verbiage, but did anyone ever claim that the greatness of Bach (for example) is an _empirical fact _ like the boiling point of water? There's been a lot of caricature and posturing but not a lot of precision.


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> I might've missed something in all the verbiage, but did anyone ever claim that the greatness of Bach is an _empirical fact _ like the boiling point of water?


You tell me. Many, many CM enthusiasts, including me, hold Bach in high esteem. That's a fact.


----------



## BachIsBest

consuono said:


> I might've missed something in all the verbiage, but did anyone ever claim that the greatness of Bach is an _empirical fact _ like the boiling point of water? That is,
> I don't think "empirical fact" and "objective" are always the same thing. There's been a lot of caricature and posturing from the subjectivists, but not a lot of precision. Understandable, I guess.


Oh no, I agree. Empirical facts are pretty objective but not everything that falls under "objectivity" is an empirical fact.


----------



## consuono

BachIsBest said:


> Oh no, I agree. Empirical facts are pretty objective but not everything that falls under "objectivity" is an empirical fact.


Well I edited part of that out because I don't want to get into a semantic thicket. That's this whole thread.


----------



## Woodduck

consuono said:


> I think so too, and since Euler came into the thread I can throw out some Gödel: not everything that is true can be proven true.


I must read some Gödel for moral support. I said the same thing here and was informed that my epsitemology was bizarre.


----------



## consuono

Woodduck said:


> I must read some Gödel for moral support. I said the same thing here and was informed that my epsitemology was bizarre.


But of course. The only allowable evidence or retort is that which confirms the subjective Zeitgeist. It's not worth the bother, really.

Bach is still great, regardless.


----------



## Strange Magic

Poor Kurt Gödel! He is buried in the Princeton NJ graveyard in the center of town, as he was for years a fixture at The Institute for Advanced Study. Einstein, also such a fixture, was the only person Gödel would speak with, as he thought he was being poisoned, but not by Einstein. He died of malnutrition/starvation, a victim of his own mind. Read him with caution! 

P.S. Gödel bore an uncanny resemblance to atom spy Klaus Fuchs: twins separated at birth?


----------



## consuono

Strange Magic said:


> Poor Kurt Gödel! He is buried in the Princeton NJ graveyard in the center of town, as he was for years a fixture at The Institute for Advanced Study. Einstein, also such a fixture, was the only person Gödel would speak with, as he thought he was being poisoned, but not by Einstein. He died of malnutrition/starvation, a victim of his own mind. Read him with caution!


What does that have to do with Gödel's work?

Anyway, ah, Einstein:
"This is what I have to say about Bach - listen, play, love, revere - and keep your trap shut."



> P.S. Gödel bore an uncanny resemblance to atom spy Klaus Fuchs: twins separated at birth?


Yeah, they both wore glasses. Uncanny. So did Harold Lloyd.


----------



## RogerWaters

consuono said:


> Wow. All these many pages of subjectivity this and that and nothing is real and nothing to get hung about and then BOOM...we get the *truth* of the matter. It's weird how the most dogmatic, cocksure participants in these "discussions" are those of the subjective stripe.


What a ridiculous strategy you are employing. Just because there is no aesthetic objectivity doesn't mean there is no objectivity period.

'Nothing is real'?! It's bizarre how out of it you are in relation to what you think your opponents are arguing.


----------



## consuono

RogerWaters said:


> What a ridiculous strategy you are employing. ...


When in Rome...etcetcetc...


----------



## RogerWaters

DaveM said:


> Apparently there is a new paradigm about art. Whether it be painting, sculpture or classical music, no objective parameters can be applied to compare artists, composers or their works because the Khoisan bushman tribe of Southern Africa might not agree with said comparisons.


If the parameters were objective, then the tribe would have to be wrong in not endorsing them, no?!

Unless you are using the concept 'objective' in a very strange way, such that objectivity can be relative to different cultures! Don't you see the logical consequences of your ideas? Or is that asking too much?


----------



## consuono

RogerWaters said:


> If the parameters were objective, then the tribe would have to be wrong in not endorsing them, no?!
> 
> ...


And what if the members of the tribe *do* like Wagner? Well then of course it's because of this and that and this one in the tribe had nothing at all to do with that music so subjective and so on and so forth...

You talk about "ridiculous strategies" and you're the guy who started the thread asking "objectivists" (what is that, anyway?) to imagine aliens hearing Bach as if underwater. Come on now.


----------



## RogerWaters

consuono said:


> And what if the members of the tribe *do* like Wagner? Well then of course it's because of this and that and this one in the tribe had nothing at all to do with that music so subjective and so on and so forth...
> 
> You talk about "ridiculous strategies" and you're the guy who started the thread asking "objectivists" (what is that, anyway?) to imagine aliens hearing Bach as if underwater. Come on now.


Do go on and tell me what is wrong with the thought experiment. Don't just appeal to the sentiments of the herd with vague rhetorical flourishes.

I'm waiting to respond with keen interest.


----------



## consuono

RogerWaters said:


> Do go on and tell me what is wrong with the thought experiment. Don't just appeal to the sentiments of the herd with vague rhetorical flourishes.
> 
> I'm waiting to respond with keen interest.


Why does it bother you so much that somebody somewhere might think there's an objective quality to great music? That's mystifying. Is it because some of us don't value Ferneyhough or Ligeti in the way we should and it's just not fair? You "subjectivists" seem to take it as a personal affront or a threat to your subjective worldview. If you want to think that esthetic perception is totally subjective, that's fine. It doesn't raise my blood pressure in the least. You talk about "vague rhetorical flourishes" and that's what the OP is, with dozens more to follow.


----------



## Zhdanov

strange the subjectivists had to go as far as to bring aliens and tribesmen into the discussion to porove their point while supposedly there's no alien or tribesman posting on this forum at this moment at least... wonder why dogs and children were never mentioned.


----------



## science

Zhdanov said:


> wonder why dogs and children were never mentioned.


I think I've mentioned both.


----------



## Zhdanov

science said:


> I think I've mentioned both.


next mention goes to deaf and blind folks, right?


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> Do go on and tell me what is wrong with the thought experiment. Don't just appeal to the sentiments of the herd with vague rhetorical flourishes.
> 
> I'm waiting to respond with keen interest.


It's been explained. When I say "murder is wrong" it is not a valid refutation to bring up hypothetical aliens that reproduce by releasing spores upon being murdered by other aliens and have therefore evolved to enjoy murdering and being murdered.

If objective statements had to pass the "alien test" (i.e. a statement isn't objectively true if it is not objectively true to some hypothetical alien species you can randomly invent with close to any tailor picked properties you so desire) then I'm pretty sure virtually nothing is objectively true. What if said aliens can't understand traditional logic and have instead evolved to use some other logic? Mathematics is out the window. What if said aliens don't live in the same number of dimensions as us? Many otherwise true physics statements are out the window. What if said aliens see in a different range of light spectra? The grass is no longer green and the sky no longer blue.

If people have not responded to the alien argument as you wished, it's because the alien argument is patently absurd. You literally asked about the music perception of a hypothetical alien species you specifically detailed was unable to properly perceive music. Why shouldn't the next question be about the opinions on physics of aliens who have no higher mental processes?


----------



## ArtMusic

RogerWaters said:


> Do go on and tell me what is wrong with the thought experiment. Don't just appeal to the sentiments of the herd with vague rhetorical flourishes.
> 
> I'm waiting to respond with keen interest.


Nothing is wrong with thought experiments. Sir Isaac Newton had numerous thought experiments that led him to discover and formulate laws of physics. But I don't think whether extraterrestrial beings like Bach or not, and whether tribesman in Africa like Wagner or not will lead to anything. We already know that Bach's music was written for humans and people in non-western cultures adore great classical music as seen in places like China and Japan.


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> What does that have to do with Gödel's work?
> 
> Anyway, ah, Einstein:
> "This is what I have to say about Bach - listen, play, love, revere - and keep your trap shut."
> 
> Yeah, they both wore glasses. Uncanny. So did Harold Lloyd.


You have little sense of play, of diversion, in my opinion. Lighten up! :tiphat:


----------



## DaveM

RogerWaters said:


> Don't you see the logical consequences of your ideas? Or is that asking too much?


I prefer seeing the consequences of your logic. Instead of people taking it seriously, this has become the reigning joke of the thread:


RogerWaters said:


> Are you going to go out to the Khoisan bushman tribe of Southern Africa and tell them they are 'wrong' for not liking Wagner?! Can I be there when you do please?


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> Why does it bother you so much that somebody somewhere might think there's an objective quality to great music? That's mystifying. Is it because some of us don't value Ferneyhough or Ligeti in the way we should and it's just not fair? You "subjectivists" seem to take it as a personal affront or a threat to your subjective worldview. If you want to think that esthetic perception is totally subjective, that's fine. It doesn't raise my blood pressure in the least. You talk about "vague rhetorical flourishes" and that's what the OP is, with dozens more to follow.


I certainly am not bothered thus. I merely hold that objectivists are in error, and seek to correct them. Clearly, some have drifted more toward a subjectivist view as these threads unfold, and this has caused the defenders of objectivism to become somewhat shrill at times as they sense would-be comrades slipping away. My contributions are measured, clear--very clear IMHO--and calm. And I understand the roots of the powerful resistance to them.


----------



## consuono

Strange Magic said:


> I certainly am not bothered thus. I merely hold that objectivists are in error...


Do you have objective empirical proof of that error? If so, I don't see how it would take 40 pages of philosophizing.


----------



## consuono

RogerWaters said:


> ...Are you going to go out to the Khoisan bushman tribe of Southern Africa and tell them they are 'wrong' for not liking Wagner?! Can I be there when you do please?
> 
> ...


Who does that? The closest I've come is telling someone that anyone with musical sense is going to at least appreciate what is in Bach's music. But "wrong" for not liking Wagner? I don't think so.


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> Do you have objective empirical proof of that error? If so, I don't see how it would take 40 pages of philosophizing.


What we have is the aching void that is the objectivists' inability to demonstrate or exhibit inherent "greatness" in art objects. All we have are assertions that it is there, kind of like astrology. The default position is that, in the absence of evidence that it is there, it is not there, and the self-evident flux of opinion on what is and isn't "great" art that everyone recognizes typifies art discussion, indicates that all esthetics is opinion, individual or grouped, and subjective.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> What we have is the aching void that is the objectivists' inability to demonstrate or exhibit inherent "greatness" in art objects. All we have are assertions that it is there, kind of like astrology. The default position is that, in the absence of evidence that it is there, it is not there, and the self-evident flux of opinion on what is and isn't "great" art that everyone recognizes typifies art discussion, indicates that all esthetics is opinion, individual or grouped, and subjective.


As with any other technical subject, we don't know what we don't know.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> As with any other technical subject, we don't know what we don't know.


How does this bear on our discussion?


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> What we have is the aching void that is the objectivists' inability to demonstrate or exhibit inherent "greatness" in art objects. All we have are assertions that it is there, kind of like astrology.


This coming from someone wherein the same paper thin argument -which could be stated in one sentence (but unfortunately isn't)- is posted countless times over 3 threads. Apparently, with little else of available substance, we are increasingly left with the likes of the above and the below:

..._'Objectivists, though, appear to take it as a personal affront--or as an attack on Holy Art--if others fail to worship with them at the same and no other shrine.'_


----------



## consuono

Strange Magic said:


> What we have is the aching void that is the objectivists' inability to demonstrate or exhibit inherent "greatness" in art objects. All we have are assertions that it is there, kind of like astrology. The default position is that, in the absence of evidence that it is there, it is not there, and the self-evident flux of opinion on what is and isn't "great" art that everyone recognizes typifies art discussion, indicates that all esthetics is opinion, individual or grouped, and subjective.


*You* see an aching void in your subjective perception. Others see great music in theirs. Why does that bother you?


----------



## Strange Magic

it does not! I rejoice! in anyone's experiencing great music. You continue to utterly fail to grasp my almost absurdly simple position, so it will be useless for me to redirect you to it. I can only hope that it will revealed to you as an epiphany. It seemingly will not in any other way. But, carry on!


----------



## ArtMusic

Strange Magic said:


> What we have is the aching void that is the objectivists' inability to demonstrate or exhibit inherent "greatness" in art objects. All we have are assertions that it is there, kind of like astrology. The default position is that, in the absence of evidence that it is there, it is not there, and the self-evident flux of opinion on what is and isn't "great" art that everyone recognizes typifies art discussion, indicates that all esthetics is opinion, individual or grouped, and subjective.


Sorry, we have presented many posts to show that objective criteria combined with musicology show that is the case. Pray listen to Mozart's opera overtures, please analyze the score, the characters, the development of the motif and you will see. The evidence is there for those who spend time to study. Much of the discussion here has been philosophical, not musical.


----------



## Strange Magic

ArtMusic said:


> Sorry, we have presented many posts to show that objective criteria combined with musicology show that is the case. Pray listen to Mozart's opera overtures, please analyze the score, the characters, the development of the motif and you will see. The evidence is there for those who spend time to study. Much of the discussion here has been philosophical, not musical.


Which Mozart overture is "the best"? Do all  agree? Are Mozart's overtures demonstrably better than Beethoven's.


----------



## ArtMusic

Strange Magic said:


> Which Mozart overture is "the best"? Do all  agree? Are Mozart's overtures demonstrably better than Beethoven's.


I don't know if all agree, but it is musically convincing that many do agree based on informed analysis. In your world, do "all" ever agree on anything even in major scientific theories today? Mozart's overtures are better than Beethoven's one example. But Beethoven does exhibit greatness in other works. Although Mozart and Beethoven are both at the very top of the list of canon masters. I would suggest that you take up an analysis of Mozart's overtures and avoid simplistic, reductivism "arguments".


----------



## Strange Magic

ArtMusic said:


> I don't know if all agree, but it is musically convincing that many do agree based on informed analysis. In your world, do "all" ever agree on anything even in major scientific theories today? Mozart's overtures are better than Beethoven's one example. But Beethoven does exhibit greatness in other works. Although Mozart and Beethoven are both at the very top of the list of canon masters. I would suggest that you take up an analysis of Mozart's overtures and avoid simplistic, reductivism "arguments".


There is remarkable agreement on many major scientific theories today, almost directly correlated with the density of verified data points accumulated to date. Plate tectonics and evolution through natural selection, plus the special and general theories of relativity are well-established. Even the politically volatile subject of climate change gains traction every day with every larger swing beyond "normal". We're well beyond "opinion" and show-of-hands in many areas of science.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Strange Magic said:


> The reactions of a wide spectrum of perceivers to what is "in" the score will range from ecstasy though mild pleasure and indifference through to annoyance. Certain polled groups will clump and cluster all along the spectrum. Of course those enjoying the ecstasy will attribute (correctly) their joy at _their particular reading of the music, calling it something in the music_ and not in their heads. Or that the music triggers the joy in their heads, (but why not in the heads of all?)
> 
> My key and lock analogy helps. The composer fashions a key. It fits some locks but not others. The secret lies in the locks.


If the locks are responsible for the variability in responses, then your analogy supports the objective position: the quality and nature of the keys can be compared.


----------



## ArtMusic

Strange Magic said:


> There is remarkable agreement on many major scientific theories today, almost directly correlated with the density of verified data points accumulated to date. Plate tectonics and evolution through natural selection, plus the special and general theories of relativity are well-established. Even the politically volatile subject of climate change gains traction every day with every larger swing beyond "normal". We're well beyond "opinion" and show-of-hands in many areas of science.


There are many scientific debates on "M-theory" (Google it if you need to), concepts of the Multiverse, that Grand Unified Theory etc. I think I have made my point clear.


----------



## Bulldog

ArtMusic said:


> I don't know if all agree, but it is musically convincing that many do agree based on informed analysis. In your world, do "all" ever agree on anything even in major scientific theories today? Mozart's overtures are better than Beethoven's one example. But Beethoven does exhibit greatness in other works. Although Mozart and Beethoven are both at the very top of the list of canon masters. I would suggest that you take up an analysis of Mozart's overtures and avoid simplistic, reductivism "arguments".


Bring it on - where's your detailed analysis of Mozart's overtures compared to Beethoven's?


----------



## philoctetes

This question is based on a strawman, sci-fi, construction around "Humans vs. Aliens" of all things. Burdened with layers of bias over intelligence, objectivity, and superiority. If aliens dislike our music while we dislike theirs, who is wrong? 

Get back to earth. Just listen to the birds, try to understand their language. If a dog understands its owner's speech, but owner can't reciprocate, who is smarter?


----------



## consuono

philoctetes said:


> This question is based on a strawman, sci-fi, construction around "Humans vs. Aliens" of all things. Burdened with layers of bias over intelligence, objectivity, and superiority. If aliens dislike our music while we dislike theirs, who is wrong?


:lol: With that I agree. And they hear Bach as if it's being played underwater, no less. Sort of upside down Handel I guess.

If an alien were to be able to pass through solid matter, would our buildings be objective or subjective?  What if, as Father Guido Sarducci said, they eat corn from top to bottom instead of from side to side? Food for thought.


----------



## Strange Magic

ArtMusic said:


> There are many scientific debates on "M-theory" (Google it if you need to), concepts of the Multiverse, that Grand Unified Theory etc. I think I have made my point clear.


All areas that are the cutting edge of ongoing research and theoretical development. No cigar, again.


----------



## Strange Magic

Isaac Blackburn said:


> If the locks are responsible for the variability in responses, then your analogy supports the objective position: the quality and nature of the keys can be compared.


Are you sure you have the correct grip on this analogy? Everyone brings a different lock to the key; everyone has an individual response. These can be summed into a consensus. But, at the individual level where the interaction with art takes place, consensus is moot and _ex post facto._


----------



## consuono

Strange Magic said:


> Are you sure you have the correct grip on this analogy? Everyone brings a different lock to the key; everyone has an individual response. These can be summed into a consensus. But, at the individual level where the interaction with art takes place, consensus is moot and _ex post facto._


I honestly don't think your analogy is saying what you think it does. The purpose of a key is to open a lock, not to wallow in subjective "sorta-keyness" in search of a subjective sorta-lock. The key is made to fit the lock. To the extent that it doesn't, there's something wrong with one or the other. Your analogy breaks down because you're comparing something with objective purposes - a key/lock combo - with what you would say is subjective, ultimately purposeless art. And if it does have a purpose, then it can be examined with at least some degree of objectivity. No cigar.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Strange Magic said:


> Are you sure you have the correct grip on this analogy? Everyone brings a different lock to the key; everyone has an individual response. These can be summed into a consensus. But, at the individual level where the interaction with art takes place, consensus is moot and _ex post facto._


The variability in _responses to_ the artwork, though, is not an indication of indeterminacy in the quality of the artwork itself. It is simply evidence that artwork can be engaged with at different levels of intellectual understanding and emotional connection, to say nothing of what other factors may be affecting the experiential state of the listener at that moment.

This is not to say that it is possible to have the one "ideal" experience of an artwork - which is the total objectivist position - but neither is it to say that experiences of artworks are separate from the artwork itself, which is the total subjectivist position you _must hold_ if you believe that artworks cannot be evaluated on their inherent power to give experiences of beauty and joy.


----------



## ArtMusic

Strange Magic said:


> All areas that are the cutting edge of ongoing research and theoretical development. No cigar, again.


As is the case of musicology, where musicologist are continuously researching on composer's music, performance practice, historical significance of the music, discovering of composers not performed for centuries and lost works. There has never been a better time for objective musicological research than today. I suggest you might like to read up on the history of musicology to better grasp the significance of what is happening today.


----------



## ArtMusic

Strange Magic said:


> Are you sure you have the correct grip on this analogy? Everyone brings a different lock to the key; everyone has an individual response. These can be summed into a consensus. But, at the individual level where the interaction with art takes place, consensus is moot and _ex post facto._


This constant reversion to the individual's enjoyment is irrelevant to the objective analysis of the music; the former is one's subjective preference, while the latter is not.


----------



## Strange Magic

Isaac Blackburn said:


> The variability in _responses to_ the artwork, though, is not an indication of indeterminacy in the quality of the artwork itself. It is simply evidence that artwork can be engaged with at different levels of intellectual understanding and emotional connection, to say nothing of what other factors may be affecting the experiential state of the listener at that moment.
> 
> This is not to say that it is possible to have the one "ideal" experience of an artwork - which is the total objectivist position - but neither is it to say that experiences of artworks are separate from the artwork itself, which is the total subjectivist position you _must hold_ if you believe that artworks cannot be evaluated on their inherent power to give experiences of beauty and joy.


Any and all artwork can and will be evaluated individually and personally and subjectively by each perceiver of the artwork. Nothing in subjectivism argues against this. I evaluate artwork while I'm awake and listening or examining. Maybe even when I'm asleep. Another analogy, for those not liking my key and lock effort, is a blank-featured store dummy to which we bring our kit of wigs, lipstick, eye shadow, mascara, clothing, and proceed to dress it up, to give it character and identity. The dummy itself can be tall or short, slender or full, whatever gender you like, but each individual gives it its own identity.

Getting back to keys and locks, no one suggests the keys are all the same or are indeterminate; they each have their objective, verifiable, measurable qualities, properties, quantities. Greatness is not one of those properties. But these are neutral, passive, inert until an individual idiosyncratic response brings them to life, or so alters the key that it will fit the lock.


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> Another analogy, for those not liking my key and lock effort, is a blank-featured store dummy to which we bring our kit of wigs, lipstick, eye shadow, mascara, clothing, and proceed to dress it up, to give it character and identity. The dummy itself can be tall or short, slender or full, whatever gender you like, but each individual gives it its own identity.


gosh almightey, what's that for? who needs that circus?


----------



## Eclectic Al

Let's talk about Christianity.

The are some matters which are common to believers, such that they agree that they are all Christians (Roman Catholics, a number of Orthodox strands, various protestant groups).

There are elements of Christian belief which are axiomatic within it. Let us take the example of there being one creator God as a common belief. From the perspective of a Christian believer that is an objective fact, not open to the subjective choice to accept or not accept. (From the perspective of a non-Christian it could be seen as a choice, but I'm talking about believers.)

Suppose you belong to a particular grouping of Christians for whom the 10 Commandments are treated as rules to follow. Then to that belief group to bear false witness makes you a poorer Christian objectively. This is not a subjective matter, the believers did not write down the 10 Commandments: they believe that they were communicated to Moses by God Himself. (Oh, and by the way, I would invite non-believers to prove that this is not true.)

This belief group also believes in forgiveness (let he who is without sin cast the first stone - all that stuff).

Suppose you have 2 people being considered by members of this belief group: person A did all manner of charitable acts (which the belief group applaud), but on occasion did lie, although on his death bed he repented of this; person B lived a life of contemplation in a monastery and had little impact outside that monastery, but never lapsed in his belief. Who is the greater Christian? Some members of the belief group might strongly believe A and others might strongly believe B. That seems to me like it might be a subjective matter, but it is objectively true that A blotted his copybook through breaking one of the 10 Commandments.

(By the way, if you are uncomfortable with the religious aspect then you could refer to Kant. Kant believed that lying was wrong for all agents, and also persuaded himself that to deny charity was wrong, founding this and other objective judgements on his categorical imperative. Maybe Kant was wrong, but he is not a thinker to deny without careful thought.)

Long post, reasonable parallel though (I think). Within a musical tradition there can be objective tests of quality. For example, if Bach ended his Prelude in C major Book 1 Number 1 WTC on the wrong note, that would be objectively wrong within the rules of constructing that piece. Any listener with some experience of that tradition would notice this. Whether this prelude is "greater" than the next one is more of a subjective judgement, but the piece ending on the wrong note is objectively not as "great" as the one which does - according to the rules of the tradition it is written within.

Standing outside that tradition you might say that any note would be as good, and it is just a subjective matter if you think the C major prelude would be better if it ended on F sharp. You could argue that, but I have a sense that the tradition Bach was operating in contributed positively to people's lives. It didn't provide a belief system (in the way which a religion or moral philosophy might), but it provided a framework within which a connection was possible between composer, performer and listener which gave each party pleasure, and that connection would be lost without such a framework.

If you argue that to accept a tradition or a belief system is somehow to lower yourself from subjective autonomy, then you are saying that something is only right or wrong because you say it is. Suggesting such absolute individualism for members of a social animal species seems sad and empty.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Eclectic Al:* "If you argue that to accept a tradition or a belief system is somehow to lower yourself from subjective autonomy, then you are saying that something is only right or wrong because you say it is. Suggesting such absolute individualism for members of a social animal species seems sad and empty."


Al, you had me until your last, short paragraph. Well done! I do not say what I say is right only because I say it; I say it because there is no evidence to demonstrate that what I say is false, and thousands of years of history indicate that opinion, pure opinion, governs matters of esthetics, despite protestations to the contrary. You characterize my subjectivism as "absolute" as if it was a bad thing, when it frees individuals to fully embrace the validity of their experiences of art. We're not talking about the severe consequences of other forms of human thought and action; this is about what people like and don't like in art, and that is essentially neither here nor there. Then you cap it off with an entirely subjective opinion, to which you are entitled, that the belief in "absolute subjectivism", which I find throughout esthetic space and time, seems sad and empty. Fear of being alone did not stop many great artists from creating what I consider great works. Maybe it seems like a breath of fresh air.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Strange Magic said:


> Al, you had me until your last, short paragraph. Well done! I do not say what I say is right only because I say it; I say it because there is no evidence to demonstrate that what I say is false, and thousands of years of history indicate that opinion, pure opinion, governs matters of esthetics, despite protestations to the contrary. You characterize my subjectivism as "absolute" as if it was a bad thing, when it frees individuals to fully embrace the validity of their experiences of art. We're not talking about the severe consequences of other forms of human thought and action; this is about what people like and don't like in art, and that is essentially neither here nor there. Then you cap it off with an entirely subjective opinion, to which you are entitled, that the belief in "absolute subjectivism", which I find throughout esthetic space and time, seems sad and empty. Fear of being alone did not stop many great artists from creating what I consider great works. Maybe it seems like a breath of fresh air.


Indeed, my last paragraph was indeed an opinion.

By the way, I myself happen not to be a believer in Christianity (or any other Abrahamic faith), but if they tell me that God appeared to Moses and gave him the commandments on two tablets of stone, then I have "no evidence to demonstrate" that what they say is false. I happen to doubt it, but I can't disprove their belief.

Also, without challenging that you may be correct in finding that much of the explanation of why people like different things is subjective taste, I doubt that individuals are as individual as they think, so that what feels subjective may nevertheless not be a free individual choice. We are all shaped by our experiences, and propagandists are expert at shaping our beliefs and feelings by clever messaging: we end up feeling what we feel - subjectively, and that is a real experience - but our subjective preferences have been manipulated by the conscious acts of another who intends to shift opinion to suit their own ends. They have changed us, with an objective purpose (ie in order to achieve an object). It is the constant interplay and dialogue between the inner subjective voice and the external objective experience which shapes the individual and constantly evolves the subjective so that there is no clear disconnect between the two.

Hence, I might feel something to be my subjective opinion, and it quite possibly is, but I am not my own creation.


----------



## DaveM

Eclectic Al said:


> ...If you argue that to accept a tradition or a belief system is somehow to lower yourself from subjective autonomy, then you are saying that something is only right or wrong because you say it is. Suggesting such absolute individualism for members of a social animal species seems sad and empty.


I don't find an analogy with religion as relevant. One definition of faith is 'belief without proof'. As far as the final paragraph goes, nobody here that I know of is saying as an individual that 'something is only right or wrong because they say it is'. The suggestion of any present 'absolute individualism' is a curious premise.


----------



## Eclectic Al

DaveM said:


> I don't find an analogy with religion as relevant. One definition of faith is 'belief without proof'. As far as the final paragraph goes, nobody here that I know of is saying, as an individual that 'something is only right or wrong because they say it is'. The suggestion of 'absolute individualism' is a curious premise.


Well, if you don't like the religion bit, consider the Kant bit. Kant claimed to have proved that lying was wrong and that charity was right, based on his categorical imperative (which was not really a matter of belief, but of logical consequences). You might not go the whole hog with Kant, but I do think there the parallel between musical traditions and value systems is not entirely fanciful (and that value systems such as Kant's can have fairly objective underpinnings).

On your second point about right and wrong, perhaps I better meant "of higher or lower quality". The point I was trying to make was that some people seem to think that a piece of music being better or worse than another is purely a matter of subjective opinion. I disagree with that (based, for example, on the suggestion that Bach's C Major prelude ending on F sharp is objectively worse than it ending as Bach wrote it). I don't think that is a subjective matter.

However, I do think that depends on a the fact that Bach's piece exists within a musical tradition. Does that make it a subjective matter, as the tradition could have been different? No, I don't think so, because I don't think we can just make up our own subjective traditions. I think music is a socially-negotiated thing which exists within a culture through communication between people, and I think the different worth of musical pieces is evidenced by them persisting and being influential over time (or not). Do I think that makes it less objective than mathematics. Not really, because I also think that mathematics is a socially-negotiated thing which exists within a culture through communication between people. Different areas of mathematics can also be more or less influential over time (and in that sense more fruitful or "better"?).


----------



## DaveM

Eclectic Al said:


> However, I do think that depends on a the fact that Bach's piece exists within a musical tradition. Does that make it a subjective matter, as the tradition could have been different? No, I don't think so, because I don't think we can just make up our own subjective traditions. *I think music is a socially-negotiated thing which exists within a culture through communication between people, and I think the different worth of musical pieces is evidenced by them persisting and being influential over time (or not*). Do I think that makes it less objective than mathematics. Not really, because I also think that mathematics is a socially-negotiated thing which exists within a culture through communication between people. Different areas of mathematics can also be more or less influential over time (and in that sense more fruitful or "better"?).


I like the highlighted part. I'm wary of the mathematics part. I don't think that some of the comparisons and judgments about 'greatness' or objectivity that we can make about composers and their works can have the level of objectivity of mathematics in general.


----------



## Eclectic Al

DaveM said:


> I like the highlighted part. I'm wary of the mathematics part. I don't think that some of the comparisons and judgments about 'greatness' or objectivity that we can make about composers and their works can have the level of objectivity of mathematics in general.


Yeah. I probably agree. I think maths is (or should be) seeking to eliminate ambiguity as much as it can, whereas music (and other arts) thrive on a bit of ambiguity. I guess the point I was trying to make is that maths and music are not completely different in kind, although I would accept that the emphases in the two are different, with maths more focused on seeking to reduce the scope for subjectivity.

(By the way, apologies to US readers of my rambles for use of the word maths.)


----------



## SanAntone

> I don't think that some of the comparisons and judgments about 'greatness' or objectivity that we can make about composers and their works can have the level of objectivity of mathematics in general.


Well, that's the point. You and others are misusing the term objectivity as applied to assessing music.


----------



## Caryatid

This thread is too long for me to want to read entire, but having read much of it, I may as well as give my two cents.

To me the statement "JS Bach was a better composer than I am" is similar to the statement "Lionel Messi is a better footballer than I am". In my view they are both statements of objective fact. They are objective facts in the straightforward sense that they are true. If an alien claimed that, on the contrary, I am a better footballer than Messi, the alien would simply be wrong. Whether or not the alien understood the rules of football, or indeed was otherwise able or not to _appreciate_ what makes a good footballer, would be irrelevant. Likewise, a blind man might be incapable of appreciating the qualitative difference between my art and Vermeer's, but that would be his bad luck and would have no bearing on the case.

I don't accept that "Messi is a better footballer than I am" needs to be made more precise or specific in order to become true. For example, "Messi would score more goals than I would if we played in the same match" is also a true statement and is admirably precise and testable, but I don't accept that only statements such as those can be true. I believe that the original statement is a complete statement of objective fact in itself and needs no refinement, and I think that tallies with common sense.

I also recognize that qualitative judgements are not, like mathematical conclusions, reached via a process that can be stated precisely and completely. The statements are not derived by deduction from premises, or from a set of criteria that can be written down. Instead they come to be known largely through experience. In the case of music, we develop the accuracy of our aesthetic judgement over time by experiencing many musical works and instinctively making a comparison between what we are hearing and all that we have heard before. It is loosely similar to the way in which a machine-learning algorithm for detecting forgeries is not given criteria at the outset but instead learns from examples what a forgery is like. If the OP feels that it is a problem that aesthetic conclusions are not reached in the same way as mathematical ones, I would point out that scientific conclusions, which the OP accepts, are likewise reached by a radically different methodology from mathematics. Difference on its own is not much of an argument against.

As someone who spent a few years among academic philosophers who loved thought experiments such as the OP's, I can report that the people who devote their lives to the study of this matter agree on very little and come to a rich variety of conclusions - but there are certainly many among them who believe that artistic value is an objective component of reality. Such people may be mistaken, but in any case their view is far from being the hopelessly anti-intellectual position that some in this thread seem to think.


----------



## DaveM

> Originally Posted by DaveM
> I like the highlighted part. I'm wary of the mathematics part. I don't think that some of the comparisons and judgments about 'greatness' or objectivity that we can make about composers and their works can have the level of objectivity of mathematics in general.





SanAntone said:


> Well, that's the point. You and others are misusing the term objectivity as applied to assessing music.


So I post something that almost everyone, if not all, can agree on, and you still have to quibble and find fault? There's a term for that: right-fighting.


----------



## fluteman

Caryatid said:


> I don't accept that "Messi is a better footballer than I am" needs to be made more precise or specific in order to become true. For example, "Messi would score more goals than I would if we played in the same match" is also a true statement and is admirably precise and testable, but I don't accept that only statements such as those can be true. I believe that the original statement is a complete statement of objective fact in itself and needs no refinement, and I think that tallies with common sense.


If we're going to be precise about all this, which is necessary in sprawling debates like this, I must disagree. Messi is not a better footballer than I am. He is a more skilled footballer than I am. Just as Bobby Fischer was a more skilled chess player than I am. Within the framework of these games, their superior skill is not debatable, and is objectively measurable at least to some degree of precision, if not perfectly. Though if you made one minor change to the rules of football -- before a player can enter the pitch, he or she must play a Mozart flute concerto from memory -- I may be more skilled than Messi.

Though there also is such a thing as objectively determinable and measurable technical skills in the arts, at least in many of the standard, established ones with well-developed traditions in our society, aesthetic standards can never entirely be reduced to a question of such technical skills. There always is a subjective element in our aesthetic values, which is why no two individuals have exactly the same aesthetic tastes. Earlier I gave the example of the art of some undeniable technical wizards that nevertheless is considered by many eccentric and weird. Some think it better than others. I mentioned Reger, Alkan and Satie. Another poster mentioned the French painter Ingres.

Words like better, worse, greatest, and least only cause confusion in discussions about art.


----------



## Eclectic Al

fluteman said:


> If we're going to be precise about all this, which is necessary in sprawling debates like this, I must disagree. Messi is not a better footballer than I am. He is a more skilled footballer than I am. Just as Bobby Fischer was a more skilled chess player than I am. Within the framework of these games, their superior skill is not debatable, and is objectively measurable at least to some degree of precision, if not perfectly. Though if you made one minor change to the rules of football -- before a player can enter the pitch, he or she must play a Mozart flute concerto from memory -- I may be better than Messi.
> 
> Though there also is such a thing as objectively determinable and measurable technical skills in the arts, at least in many of the standard, established ones with well-developed traditions in our society, aesthetic standards can never entirely be reduced to a question of such technical skills. There always is a subjective element in our aesthetic values, which is why no two individuals have exactly the same aesthetic tastes. Earlier I gave the example of the art of some undeniable technical wizards that nevertheless is considered by many eccentric and weird. Some think it better than others.
> 
> Words like better, worse, greatest, and least only cause confusion in discussions about art.


I'm not sure it's that different. Roger Federer is a greater tennis player than Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic, on aesthetic grounds. Maybe Bobby Fischer is greater or worse than Gary Kasparov on grounds of style. Hence, I don't necessarily disagree with you about the problems of greatness in art: I'm just not sure it's that much easier with sports and games.


----------



## fluteman

Eclectic Al said:


> I'm not sure it's that different. Roger Federer is a greater tennis player than Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic, on aesthetic grounds. Maybe Bobby Fischer is greater or worse than Gary Kasparov on grounds of style. Hence, I don't necessarily disagree with you about the problems of greatness in art: I'm just not sure it's that much easier with sports and games.


Yes, some like to think there is artistic beauty in the play of top athletes in sports, or even top chess players. But that is in the eye of the beholder. What is objectively true and measurable is that Roger Federer has won a lot of matches and a lot of tournaments.


----------



## Eclectic Al

fluteman said:


> Yes, some like to think there is artistic beauty in the play of top athletes in sports, or even top chess players. But that is in the eye of the beholder. What is objectively true and measurable is that Roger Federer has won a lot of matches and a lot of tournaments.


Yes, and let's hope Nadal and/or Djokovic don't overtake him - because they don't have one-handed backhands.


----------



## fluteman

Eclectic Al said:


> Yes, and let's hope Nadal and/or Djokovic don't overtake him - because they don't have one-handed backhands.


I have a one-handed backhand, too. When I was in my early twenties I took part in a tennis instruction program in Florida. As part of it they videotaped my forehand, backhand and serve, then still a fairly new technology. To my surprise, my strokes looked quite graceful. Unfortunately, after many hours of watching the likes of Connors, Borg and McEnroe, I also looked like I was wearing lead shoes.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> Yes, some like to think there is artistic beauty in the play of top athletes in sports, or even top chess players. But that is in the eye of the beholder. What is objectively true and measurable is that Roger Federer has won a lot of matches and a lot of tournaments.


Goodness, how gingerly, and how egalitarian, of you! Sure, there must be people who don't notice the aesthetics of sport, or care about it. But its presence is not merely what "some like to think" exists, and some beholders have more sensitive and comprehensive eyes than others. The way Federer seems to float softly above the court and appear as if by magic where he needs to be, compared to the pavement-pounding effortfulness of a player like Nadal, is an athletic wonder and by any reasonable definition of the word a beautiful thing to see. Who cares about the inability of some to appreciate it? We might as well call blindness another form of sight.


----------



## ArtMusic

fluteman said:


> Yes, some like to think there is artistic beauty in the play of top athletes in sports, or even top chess players. But that is in the eye of the beholder. What is objectively true and measurable is that Roger Federer has won a lot of matches and a lot of tournaments.


Roger is a great player able to defeat his opponents, thus winning the game. This qualifies him to be one of the best. Likewise, any one who trains hard and takes pride to present your country in the Olympics are the best of the selected few lucky enough to have that honor.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Goodness, how gingerly, and how egalitarian, of you! Sure, there must be people who don't notice the aesthetics of sport, or care about it. But its presence is not merely what "some like to think" exists, and some beholders have more sensitive and comprehensive eyes than others. The way Federer seems to float softly above the court and appear as if by magic where he needs to be, compared to the pavement-pounding effortfulness of a player like Nadal, is an athletic wonder and by any reasonable definition of the word a beautiful thing to see. Who cares about the inability of some to appreciate it? We might as well call blindness another form of sight.


Roger floats softly,
Gazelle-like, baseline to net
Slicing volleys deep.


----------



## Woodduck

Beautiful haiku (it is one, isn't it?). I would almost say objectively beautiful, but I prefer to avoid profanity.


----------



## science

As always, who is "greater" depends on what we care about.


----------



## Ethereality

Caryatid said:


> If an alien claimed that, on the contrary, I am a better composer than Bach, the alien would simply be wrong. Whether or not the alien understood the rules of composition, or indeed was otherwise able or not to _appreciate_ what makes a good composer, would be irrelevant.


Once you publish your music, you have no right to tell anyone their preference towards it is incorrect. Unfortunately it's no longer just your imaginative property to interpret. If someone claimed that Buxtehude is the greatest composer they've ever known, then Buxtehude no longer has any right to disagree with that fact. The fact simply exists, regardless of how tons of similar-minded might dissuade the nutjob who said Buxtehude is greater than Monteverdi, Handel, Palestrina, Tallis, Vivaldi, etc. They can hold their own valid interpretation. You don't need to babysit the preferences of Bach or anyone else.


----------



## DaveM

science said:


> As always, who is "greater" depends on what we care about.


Assuming you're talking about Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, I suppose. But there is something special about someone who wins 20 grand slams with the last at age 36 in the modern era. Still, Nadal may beat that if his body doesn't break down. His manner of play has done a lot of damage already.


----------



## RogerWaters

It’s been a few days since I visited this thread, as it was turning sour, but now I see we’re comparing sport and music.

Again, the facts of the matter don’t go the way of the objectivist.

Of course Federer is an objectively great tennis player. This is because the function of a tennis player is very well defined, and function gives rise to clear normative judgements. If the function of a knife is to cut, we have a clear basis upon which to judge this knife as better than that knife.

The function of a tennis player is to win matches*. Unfortunately for the objectivist, there is no analogously well-defined function of a composer.

Is it to ‘attain beauty’? This is hardly a clear definition of function. Attaining beauty is subjective, winning tennis matches isn’t.

Is it to ‘bring people together’? Hardly, as music great and terrible can do this.

Is it to ‘develop musical form’? I would ‘t think so, as then Schoenberg might be a better composer than Bach (surely a reductio ad absurdum if ever there was one). 

Is it to make a living by selling your craft? Then Madonna is better than Bach ever was. 

&c.

——

There may be a subsidiary function of a tennis player: to entertain the audience. However, this is vague, compared with winning matches, and, of course, gives rise to the same kind of disagreement as does musical greatness. When people judge the greatest tennis player according to tournaments won, there is agreement, when people judge greatness according to ‘entertainment’ value, there is disagreement.


----------



## ArtMusic

RogerWaters said:


> Is it to 'attain beauty'? This is hardly a clear definition of function. Attaining beauty is subjective, winning tennis matches isn't.


I suggest you read up on discourses written by artists, academics both present and of the past (by the past, that includes centuries old) to broaden one's awareness of this.

On "hardly a clear definition", what do you think is "clear"? And what do you mean by "hardly"? Obviously such terms are rejected here because it is clear and it has been so for centuries unfettered by postmodernism from the 1950's. It is dangerous to apply simplistic reductivism to our great western art heritage by debasing it.


----------



## RogerWaters

ArtMusic said:


> I suggest you read up on discourses written by artists, academics both present and of the past (by the past, that includes centuries old) to broaden one's awareness of this.


What are their arguments for this or that understanding of beauty? Are their arguments valid and sound, or they an expression of personal/cultural preferences?



ArtMusic said:


> On "hardly a clear definition", what do you think is "clear"? And what do you mean by "hardly"?


A clear notion of function would be 'to win tennis matches'.



ArtMusic said:


> It is dangerous to apply simplistic reductivism to our great western art heritage by debasing it.


Reductionism applied to music would be to talk about it in terms of physics (wavelength/frequency/etc) as opposed to music (pitch, timbre, fugue, scale).

I'm not doing that.

Anyway, your arguments appeals to what you would like to be true, not what is true. Whether western art is 'debased' by some statement is seperate from whether that statement is fact or not.


----------



## ArtMusic

RogerWaters said:


> A clear notion of function would be 'to win tennis matches'.


Art is much more complex than that. The beauty of art, the elegance of art is that it expresses the human condition and a myriad of many other things. Those seeking "scientific proof/data" are simply subjecting it to reductivism instead of considering its complex interplay of human creativity with its cultural and aesthetical values. There is nothing more in art that I would consider as debasing its long history of development than "show us a proof". Really, except maybe in internet forums.


----------



## Portamento

ArtMusic said:


> Art is much more complex than that.


I believe the purpose of RogerWaters' example was to show just that.

Anyways, I take a break from this thread for a few days and we're talking tennis?



DaveM said:


> Still, Nadal may beat that if his body doesn't break down. His manner of play has done a lot of damage already.


They've been saying that for over a decade! I'm starting to believe he's (quasi-objectively) indestructible.


----------



## fluteman

ArtMusic said:


> Art is much more complex than that. The beauty of art, the elegance of art is that it expresses the human condition and a myriad of many other things. Those seeking "scientific proof/data" are simply subjecting it to reductivism instead of considering its complex interplay of human creativity with its cultural and aesthetical values. There is nothing more in art that I would consider as debasing its long history of development than "show us a proof". Really, except maybe in internet forums.


I am mystified that anyone would think that anything said here somehow 'debases' the proud history and traditions of western music. That this history and these traditions inevitably are based on and reflect a system of (largely) commonly-held cultural and aesthetic values that cannot be proved absolutely, universally, certainly, inherently and objectively "correct" or better than other cultural value systems in no way diminishes the achievement.

Even Bach, who said "The aim and final reason of all music should be none else but the glory of God and refreshing the soul", an idea that may not be accepted by everyone nowadays, readily acknowledged differing Italian, French and English styles of music and incorporated elements of them into his own. He knew about the popular music of his day, too, incorporating it into the quodlibet at the end of the Goldberg Variations. So he knew there was more than one way, in fact an unlimited number of ways, to celebrate the glory of God due to the inevitable cultural and individual differences in different people.


----------



## Zhdanov

fluteman said:


> I am mystified that anyone would think that anything said here somehow 'debases' the proud history and traditions of western music.


it does, since those into subjectivism, or neo-satanism, attempt getting mass culture to ascend and sit beside music.


----------



## Ethereality

Zhdanov said:


> it does, since those into subjectivism, or neo-satanism, attempt getting mass culture to ascend and sit beside music.


Yet you're the one closer to mass culture? Durrr, that's been essential to the whole debate. Error alert today?


----------



## Zhdanov

Ethereality said:


> Yet you're the one closer to mass culture?


used to be in the past so i know better what's what.


----------



## Eclectic Al

RogerWaters said:


> A clear notion of function would be 'to win tennis matches'.


You've defined a measure which is reasonably objective in its own terms.
However, I don't have to agree that that measure is an appropriate one for assessing "greatness"
Does it matter what the quality of the opposition was in that period? Open era or not? Success over a range of different surfaces? Even, in these woke days, the suggestion that Margaret Court might not be a great tennis player because she holds the wrong views on sex.

My line throughout this whole thread has been that music is something that is not to be looked at entirely objectively (but neither is it to be looked at entirely subjectively). However, I think the same is true of sport, maths, science, etc, etc.

I do think there is an objective world out there, but equally I think matters such as science involve subjective assessments of what it is important to measure, how to go about that, what count as "objects" for investigation, etc. In Kantian terms we've got phenomena, but we also have noumena. I don't think science gives us an objective way of linking the two. So it is not so different from music, where the linkage between the physical sounds or the written score, and the human experience is neither entirely subjective nor entirely objective.


----------



## Ethereality

Zhdanov said:


> used to be in the past so i know better what's what.


Okay, live in mass culture of the past. Unfortunately for real artists, none of the above are an option.

Is there a reason popular composers have enjoyed even more popular composers? Sure, that was their mass culture function, that's the worldview their brains operated from. However, that's probably less than 1% of art and its approach. Objectivists don't know anything about art and its esoteric focuses.


----------



## Zhdanov

Ethereality said:


> Okay, live in mass culture of the past.


its all dead to me now.



Ethereality said:


> Unfortunately for real artists, none of the above are an option.


at least they should have some tact and spare classical forums the mass culture ingressions.


----------



## Ethereality

Zhdanov said:


> at least they should have some tact and spare classical forums the mass culture ingressions.


How about you name your top 20 and ask any of us to name our top 20, and we'll see right away who's passive-aggressively inciting socialism/mass culture.

The only thing objective about music is that it is definineable by characteristics an individual can hear. If others don't hear it, sorry, it's still music. When an artist hears something new they love, they try to produce it. Plenty more of that where it comes from.


----------



## Zhdanov

Ethereality said:


> How about you name your top 20


'top twenty' classical composers - i never thought of music that way.


----------



## Zhdanov

Ethereality said:


> The only thing objective about music is that it is definineable by characteristics an individual can hear.


what if the 'individual' is musically deaf ?


----------



## Zhdanov

an individual is also prone to mistakes if not experienced enough to pass judgement on things as important as to make history that involves academic knowledge and school besides a succession of great masterpieces produced by skilled masters.


----------



## janxharris

Zhdanov said:


> an individual is also prone to mistakes if not experienced enough to pass judgement on things as important as to make history that involves academic knowledge and school besides a succession of great masterpieces produced by skilled masters.


You rate Leonard Bernstein as someone with enough experience to pass judgement?


----------



## Zhdanov

janxharris said:


> You rate Leonard Bernstein as someone with enough experience to pass judgement?


if you mean that documentary where he made some brief references to some mass culture products, then you may rest assured - he did so because was addressing the masses at the moment, a practice as incincere as is flawed and pernicious to the cause of promoting classical, as it now turns out to be.


----------



## Caryatid

At the risk of being drawn into this endless debate, I'll respond to a few of you.



fluteman said:


> If we're going to be precise about all this, which is necessary in sprawling debates like this, I must disagree. Messi is not a better footballer than I am. He is a more skilled footballer than I am.


Needless to say, I (and many others) simply disagree. The very idea that only precise statements can be true is exactly what is at issue here. Messi _is _a better footballer than I am. The statement is perfectly intelligible in English without further clarification. It is also objectively true. There's no need to say, "Messi is more skilled than I am", as if that threw some new light on the subject. On the contrary, by rewriting the statement you subtly alter the meaning and remove important connotations of the word "better".

And even the supposedly precise statement "Messi is more skilled than I am" is far from unambiguous and is open to a great deal of interpretation. In fact the same problem will occur however you to choose to rewrite the original statement, which is why rewriting it is pointless in the first place, and also why you would not bother to rewrite it outside of a philosophical debate.



fluteman said:


> Though there also is such a thing as objectively determinable and measurable technical skills in the arts, at least in many of the standard, established ones with well-developed traditions in our society, aesthetic standards can never entirely be reduced to a question of such technical skills. There always is a subjective element in our aesthetic values, which is why no two individuals have exactly the same aesthetic tastes. Earlier I gave the example of the art of some undeniable technical wizards that nevertheless is considered by many eccentric and weird. Some think it better than others. I mentioned Reger, Alkan and Satie. Another poster mentioned the French painter Ingres.


I agree that there is "a subjective element" to aesthetic judgement. But that is very far from saying that aesthetics are entirely subjective or that artistic greatness is pure fiction, as some here seem to maintain.

By the way, I also accept that there may be no objective fact about whether, for example, Bach or Beethoven is the better composer. But again it is not compulsory for me to surmise therefore that all aesthetic judgements are subjective.



Ethereality said:


> Once you publish your music, you have no right to tell anyone their preference towards it is incorrect. Unfortunately it's no longer just your imaginative property to interpret. If someone claimed that Buxtehude is the greatest composer they've ever known, then Buxtehude no longer has any right to disagree with that fact. The fact simply exists, regardless of how tons of similar-minded might dissuade the nutjob who said Buxtehude is greater than Monteverdi, Handel, Palestrina, Tallis, Vivaldi, etc. They can hold their own valid interpretation. You don't need to babysit the preferences of Bach or anyone else.


I'm not talking about policing people's preferences. Neither was Woodduck earlier. Of course people can listen to and enjoy whatever they like. There's no obligation for anyone to listen to great music or to despise music that isn't great. All I am saying is that if someone says, "Buxtehude is the greatest composer of all time," I am fairly confident that they are wrong. I'll also rightly suspect that their judgement is poor.



RogerWaters said:


> It's been a few days since I visited this thread, as it was turning sour, but now I see we're comparing sport and music.
> 
> Again, the facts of the matter don't go the way of the objectivist.
> 
> Of course Federer is an objectively great tennis player. This is because the function of a tennis player is very well defined, and function gives rise to clear normative judgements. If the function of a knife is to cut, we have a clear basis upon which to judge this knife as better than that knife.
> 
> The function of a tennis player is to win matches*. Unfortunately for the objectivist, there is no analogously well-defined function of a composer.
> 
> Is it to 'attain beauty'? This is hardly a clear definition of function. Attaining beauty is subjective, winning tennis matches isn't.
> 
> Is it to 'bring people together'? Hardly, as music great and terrible can do this.
> 
> Is it to 'develop musical form'? I would 't think so, as then Schoenberg might be a better composer than Bach (surely a reductio ad absurdum if ever there was one).
> 
> Is it to make a living by selling your craft? Then Madonna is better than Bach ever was.


Like fluteman above, you take it as given that all truths are "well-defined" (or "precise" to use fluteman's word). If you ever study linguistics or philosophy, you will find that that turns out to be a very difficult view to defend, because outside of mathematics, making a statement completely well-defined is virtually impossible. Communication between people is rarely done in terms that could be called "well-defined" or "precise", and yet we can and do communicate truths to one another. For example, you seem to think that we can judge a knife because "to cut" is well-defined - but it is not at all well-defined. To cut what? In whose hands? Are we judging it by _what _it can cut, the _speed _with which it can cut a given substance, the _cleanness_ of the cut? Fortunately it is not necessary to answer every such question before we can communicate truthful information to one another about the quality of a knife (especially when a very good knife is being compared with a very bad one). The same goes for talking about music.


----------



## consuono

Caryatid said:


> Like fluteman above, you take it as given that all truths are "well-defined" (or "precise" to use fluteman's word). If you ever study linguistics or philosophy, you will find that that turns out to be a very difficult view to defend, because outside of mathematics, making a statement completely well-defined is virtually impossible. Communication between people is rarely done in terms that could be called "well-defined" or "precise", and yet we can and do communicate truths to one another. For example, you seem to think that we can judge a knife because "to cut" is well-defined - but it is not at all well-defined. To cut what? In whose hands? Are we judging it by what it can cut, the speed with which it can cut a given substance, the cleanness of the cut? Fortunately it is not necessary to answer every such question before we can communicate truthful information to one another about the quality of a knife (especially when a very good knife is being compared with a very bad one). The same goes for talking about music.


I think a lot of this thread has been a vivid demonstration of scientism run amok.


> It is one thing to celebrate science for its achievements and remarkable ability to explain a wide variety of phenomena in the natural world. But to claim there is nothing knowable outside the scope of science would be similar to a successful fisherman saying that whatever he can't catch in his nets does not exist. Once you accept that science is the only source of human knowledge, you have adopted a philosophical position (scientism) that cannot be verified, or falsified, by science itself. It is, in a word, unscientific.


https://www.aaas.org/programs/dialogue-science-ethics-and-religion/what-scientism


----------



## Eclectic Al

consuono said:


> I think a lot of this thread has been a vivid demonstration of scientism run amok.
> 
> https://www.aaas.org/programs/dialogue-science-ethics-and-religion/what-scientism


Yeah. My concerns have generally been that people assume that fields other than music can be considered as entirely objective, whereas music cannot. This creates a false dichotomy.

My feeling is that those other fields are also significantly subjective (even mathematics).

Nothing involving human appreciation is entirely objective, be it appreciation of art, or appreciation of the workings of the natural world, or appreciation of the workings of an idealised mathematical world - because that appreciation is appreciation by a subject.

Equally, nothing we can communicate to others can be entirely subjective - as we must at least have some common understanding of the content of that communication if it is to be communication worthy of the word at all.


----------



## janxharris

Zhdanov said:


> if you mean that documentary where he made some brief references to some mass culture products, then you may rest assured - he did so because was addressing the masses at the moment, a practice as incincere as is flawed and pernicious to the cause of promoting classical, as it now turns out to be.


And you know this because of what?


----------



## science

The questions of what can be objectively known through empirical observation or mathematical reason are valid, but it's best not to lose track of the fact that the basic conflict in this thread isn't between people who have super-faith in science and people who dispute that faith, but between people who continually revert to language that means or implies that people are wrong (ignorant, etc.) not to like and dislike more-or-less the same music that they like and dislike, and people who dispute that language.


----------



## Jacck

science said:


> The questions of what can be objectively known through empirical observation or mathematical reason are valid, but it's best not to lose track of the fact that the basic conflict in this thread isn't between people who have super-faith in science and people who dispute that faith, but between people who continually revert to language that means or implies that people are wrong (ignorant, etc.) not to like and dislike more-or-less the same music that they like and dislike, and people who dispute that language.


you could have the same argument about literature, ie reading Dostoyevsky and reading The Twilight Saga. Now try to prove objectively why Dostoyevsky is better than the TTS. Or try to find some objective criterion to measure the greatness of authors, ie how can you objectively find out if Joyce was a greater author than Pasternak. You will run into exactly the same problems.


----------



## consuono

science said:


> The questions of what can be objectively known through empirical observation or mathematical reason are valid, but it's best not to lose track of the fact that the basic conflict in this thread isn't between people who have super-faith in science and people who dispute that faith, but between people who continually revert to language that means or implies that people are wrong (ignorant, etc.) not to like and dislike more-or-less the same music that they like and dislike, and people who dispute that language.


No, it's the continual smug "well where's your evidence?" reply to a statement "Bach's/Mozart's/Beethoven's/X's music is great and wonderfully constructed overall". It's meant to sound impressively steel-trap-mind intellectual but it eventually sounds obnoxiously ignorant.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> No, it's the continual smug "well where's your evidence?" reply to a statement "Bach's/Mozart's/Beethoven's/X's music is great and wonderfully constructed overall". It's meant to sound impressively steel-trap-mind intellectual but it eventually sounds obnoxiously ignorant.


I disagree. This objective/subjective debate hinges on the use of these words to describe our opinions about works and composers. If it is your claim that "Bach's/Mozart's/Beethoven's/X's music is great and wonderfully constructed overall" it could be offered as a subjective opinion as well as one posited as a determination using objective criteria.

It is perfectly reasonable to ask for the objective criteria. Whereas the same statement given as a subjective response requires no proof since it is a personal opinion.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> I disagree. This objective/subjective debate hinges on the use of these words to describe our opinions about works and composers. If it is your claim that "Bach's/Mozart's/Beethoven's/X's music is great and wonderfully constructed overall" it could be offered as a subjective opinion as well as one posited as a determination using objective criteria.
> 
> It is perfectly reasonable to ask for the objective criteria. Whereas the same statement given as a subjective response requires no proof since it is a personal opinion.


Well then "I think avant garde stuff is ****" is just another subjective opinion that shouldn't get your knickers in a twist.


----------



## SanAntone

My question is why do some wish to claim an objective basis for expressing an opinion about certain works or composers? Why is it necessary or important to claim that some music is objectively great, or better, than other music? What is gained by that assertion?


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Well then "I think avant garde stuff is ****" is just another subjective opinion that shouldn't get your knickers in a twist.


It doesn't. But if you made the stipulation that is could be objectively proven to be so, then I"d ask you for the objective criteria.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> It doesn't.


Yeah right. "Leave John Cage alone!!!! 


> But if you made the stipulation that is could be objectively proven to be so, then I"d ask you for the objective criteria.


On the only objective criterion that counts. My taste.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

SanAntone said:


> It doesn't. But if you made the stipulation that is could be objectively proven to be so, then I"d ask you for the objective criteria.


I'm sure there are some pieces of music you like more than others, do you know what makes you like them more?


----------



## Eclectic Al

SanAntone said:


> My question is why do some wish to claim an objective basis for expressing an opinion about certain works or composers? Why is it necessary or important to claim that some music is objectively great, or better, than other music? What is gained by that assertion?


It's not necessary to claim that some music is objectively great, but I do think a drift towards there being objective characteristics in musical appreciation is hugely desirable, and maybe necessary.

This is because the idea that there is something objective against which you can assess and discuss music enables communication between people.

If you go to an absolutely subjective position where "great" is identical to "I like it a lot", then what do you do? Either you must remain silent, or you may start to express why you like it a lot. In discussion with others, they will then reflect on that (I would hope), and will agree or disagree or probe or challenge. You are now communicating - which is a good thing. (I hope. ).

As that communication continues I would hope you would discover some common ground and some differences. The universe is now less solipsistic, not so subjective. In conducting this discussion you have had to clarify and express "reasons" for your liking or disliking things. This is a drift towards objective characteristics, in order to achieve communication. You are now in my position of: it's all a bit subjective and a bit objective. That's a better world. :angel: Objectively, of course.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> I'm sure there are some pieces of music you like more than others, do you know what makes you like them more?


We've overlapped. That is the point I was trying to make: expressed much more pithily.


----------



## SanAntone

Eclectic Al said:


> It's not necessary to claim that some music is objectively great, but I do think a drift towards there being objective characteristics in musical appreciation is hugely desirable, and maybe necessary.
> 
> This is because the idea that there is something objective against which you can assess and discuss music enables communication between people.
> 
> If you go to an absolutely subjective position where "great" is identical to "I like it a lot", then what do you do? Either you must remain silent, or you may start to express why you like it a lot. In discussion with others, they will then reflect on that (I would hope), and will agree or disagree or probe or challenge. You are now communicating - which is a good thing. (I hope. ).
> 
> As that communication continues I would hope you would discover some common ground and some differences. The universe is now less solipsistic, not so subjective. In conducting this discussion you have had to clarify and express "reasons" for your liking or disliking things. This is a drift towards objective characteristics, in order to achieve communication. You are now in my position of: it's all a bit subjective and a bit objective. That's a better world. :angel: Objectively, of course.


Well, I disagree. You use the phrase "a bit objective." In my understanding of the term, "objective" is either true or false, somewhat like a woman is either pregnant or not. It can't be "a bit objective."

There is no reason why people can't have wonderful discussions about the music they think is great, and why, without ever using either of these terms. In fact throughout my 50+ years of talking about music with people it has only been here on TC that this kind of debate has surfaced.


----------



## Eclectic Al

SanAntone said:


> Well, I disagree. You use the phrase "a bit objective." In my understanding of the term, "objective" is either true or false, somewhat like a woman is either pregnant or not. It can't be "a bit objective."
> 
> There is no reason why people can't have wonderful discussions about the music they think is great, and why, without ever using either of these terms. In fact throughout my 50+ years of talking about music with people it has only been here on TC that this kind of debate has surfaced.


Do you disagree completely, or just a bit?

This just seems to be a bit of an absolutist position. I don't think that any perception of anything by a human being is objective. What are you discussing in talking about music, unless you are using terms which have a reasonably shared (ie a partially objective) interpretation between you and your interlocuters? I am not arguing for some sort of absolute objective greatness. I am arguing for objective characteristics that emerge into the understanding via a process of discussion and negotiation between thinking beings.

Women can be a bit pregnant. Is she pregnant if the egg has been fertilised but is not yet implanted? Implantation is not going to be an instantaneous state change, but a process over time, so at what stage does she become pregnant? What about if she has the appearance of being pregnant, but it is a molar pregnancy? What about if the baby has died in utero, but is still attached via the placenta? In each of these cases the word pregnant needs careful definition, and different people might disagree about the best definition. Thus someone is only objectively pregnant after thinking beings have agreed (based on their subjective opinions) about how to apply the word. This can be an enormously important distinction: for example, does the morning-after pill abort a pregnancy or prevent a pregnancy? That might matter a lot to some people.


----------



## consuono

Jacck said:


> you could have the same argument about literature, ie reading Dostoyevsky and reading The Twilight Saga. Now try to prove objectively why Dostoyevsky is better than the TTS. Or try to find some objective criterion to measure the greatness of authors, ie how can you objectively find out if Joyce was a greater author than Pasternak. You will run into exactly the same problems.


Joyce vs Pasternak is trickier, but at least they're equivalent. Joyce vs Rowling is not. Or is the Harry Potter series "as good as" the complete works of Shakespeare? That's the insanity of hypersubjectivism.


----------



## fluteman

Caryatid said:


> At the risk of being drawn into this endless debate, I'll respond to a few of you.
> 
> Needless to say, I (and many others) simply disagree. The very idea that only precise statements can be true is exactly what is at issue here. Messi _is _a better footballer than I am. The statement is perfectly intelligible in English without further clarification. It is also objectively true. There's no need to say, "Messi is more skilled than I am", as if that threw some new light on the subject. On the contrary, by rewriting the statement you subtly alter the meaning and remove important connotations of the word "better".
> 
> And even the supposedly precise statement "Messi is more skilled than I am" is far from unambiguous and is open to a great deal of interpretation. In fact the same problem will occur however you to choose to rewrite the original statement, which is why rewriting it is pointless in the first place, and also why you would not bother to rewrite it outside of a philosophical debate.
> 
> I agree that there is "a subjective element" to aesthetic judgement. But that is very far from saying that aesthetics are entirely subjective or that artistic greatness is pure fiction, as some here seem to maintain.
> 
> By the way, I also accept that there may be no objective fact about whether, for example, Bach or Beethoven is the better composer. But again it is not compulsory for me to surmise therefore that all aesthetic judgements are subjective.
> 
> I'm not talking about policing people's preferences. Neither was Woodduck earlier. Of course people can listen to and enjoy whatever they like. There's no obligation for anyone to listen to great music or to despise music that isn't great. All I am saying is that if someone says, "Buxtehude is the greatest composer of all time," I am fairly confident that they are wrong. I'll also rightly suspect that their judgement is poor.
> 
> Like fluteman above, you take it as given that all truths are "well-defined" (or "precise" to use fluteman's word). If you ever study linguistics or philosophy, you will find that that turns out to be a very difficult view to defend, because outside of mathematics, making a statement completely well-defined is virtually impossible. Communication between people is rarely done in terms that could be called "well-defined" or "precise", and yet we can and do communicate truths to one another. For example, you seem to think that we can judge a knife because "to cut" is well-defined - but it is not at all well-defined. To cut what? In whose hands? Are we judging it by _what _it can cut, the _speed _with which it can cut a given substance, the _cleanness_ of the cut? Fortunately it is not necessary to answer every such question before we can communicate truthful information to one another about the quality of a knife (especially when a very good knife is being compared with a very bad one). The same goes for talking about music.


How does my comment that you quote, "Though there also is such a thing as objectively determinable and measurable technical skills in the arts, at least in many of the standard, established ones with well-developed traditions in our society, aesthetic standards can never entirely be reduced to a question of such technical skills. There always is a subjective element in our aesthetic values, which is why no two individuals have exactly the same aesthetic tastes" mean that I am claiming aesthetics are "entirely subjective"? Didn't I just say the opposite?

I said there always is a subjective element in aesthetic values, which you acknowledge. That necessarily means no art can ever be objectively, inherently better than any other art. The burden always would be on those like Zhdanov who claim a certain work of art can be objectively, inherently better than another work of art to show that there is no subjective aspect to the evaluation, something he repeatedly states but never can prove.

I'm frankly amazed this is controversial, and that people care so much. I know numerous people who would rather go to a dentist than sit through a concert of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven performed by the most famous star performers. That shouldn't matter one bit when it comes to our own evaluation of their music. The fact that you and I and nearly everyone else at TC have a profound appreciation for the music of these composers is in no way lessened by the fact that their 'greatness' is not objectively provable.


----------



## Ethereality

Zhdanov said:


> what if the 'individual' is musically deaf ?


Define musically deaf. Beethoven? He still hears music objectively and factually how he does.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> The questions of what can be objectively known through empirical observation or mathematical reason are valid, but it's best not to lose track of the fact that the basic conflict in this thread isn't between people who have super-faith in science and people who dispute that faith, but between people who continually revert to language that means or implies that people are wrong (ignorant, etc.) not to like and dislike more-or-less the same music that they like and dislike, and people who dispute that language.


This statement perpetuates a fallacy which has been pointed out numerous times. The belief that it's reasonable to assess art as having truly superior qualities does not imply that "people are wrong (ignorant, etc.) not to like and dislike more-or-less the same music that they like and dislike."


----------



## SanAntone

Eclectic Al said:


> Do you disagree completely, or just a bit?
> 
> This just seems to be a bit of an absolutist position. I don't think that any perception of anything by a human being is objective. What are you discussing in talking about music, unless you are using terms which have a reasonably shared (ie a partially objective) interpretation between you and your interlocuters? I am not arguing for some sort of absolute objective greatness. I am arguing for objective characteristics that emerge into the understanding via a process of discussion and negotiation between thinking beings.
> 
> Women can be a bit pregnant. Is she pregnant if the egg has been fertilised but is not yet implanted? Implantation is not going to be an instantaneous state change, but a process over time, so at what stage does she become pregnant? What about if she has the appearance of being pregnant, but it is a molar pregnancy? What about if the baby has died in utero, but is still attached via the placenta? In each of these cases the word pregnant needs careful definition, and different people might disagree about the best definition. Thus someone is only objectively pregnant after thinking beings have agreed (based on their subjective opinions) about how to apply the word. This can be an enormously important distinction: for example, does the morning-after pill abort a pregnancy or prevent a pregnancy? That might matter a lot to some people.


It looks like you are interested in a kind of discussion, somewhat philosophical, that I don't have the patience for. I am more interested in talking about music, fairly directly: about our likes, dislikes, composers, and periods, and genres, and forms, etc.

I gave my basic view in my post: "There is no reason why people can't have wonderful discussions about the music they think is great, and why, without ever using either of these terms. In fact throughout my 50+ years of talking about music with people it has only been here on TC that this kind of debate has surfaced."


----------



## Eclectic Al

SanAntone said:


> It looks like you are interested in a kind of discussion, somewhat philosophical, that I don't have the patience for. I am more interested in talking about music, fairly directly: about our likes, dislikes, composers, and periods, and genres, and forms, etc.
> 
> I gave my basic view in my post: "There is no reason why people can't have wonderful discussions about the music they think is great, and why, without ever using either of these terms. In fact throughout my 50+ years of talking about music with people it has only been here on TC that this kind of debate has surfaced."


But what do you talk about?
I refer to Wilhelm Theophilus' question: do you know what makes you like one piece more than another?
As soon as you engage in a discussion with someone about that you are drifting towards having to define things using some sort of common language, and that requires a degree of agreement about meanings. We're now getting a "bit objective", and I hold to that being a meaningful concept in the context of this long thread. I think it is clear what I am trying to get across.


----------



## Woodduck

SanAntone said:


> It looks like you are interested in a kind of discussion, somewhat philosophical, that I don't have the patience for. I am more interested in talking about music, fairly directly: about our likes, dislikes, composers, and periods, and genres, and forms, etc.
> 
> I gave my basic view in my post: "There is no reason why people can't have wonderful discussions about the music they think is great, and why, without ever using either of these terms. In fact *throughout my 50+ years of talking about music with people it has only been here on TC that this kind of debate has surfaced.*"


In my own 50+ years of talking about music I've rarely heard such debates either. I assume that the reason for this is that no musician I've known has, as far as I could tell, thought that the greatness of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc. was debatable.


----------



## consuono

Woodduck said:


> In my own 50+ years of talking about music I've rarely heard such debates either. I assume that the reason for this is that no musician I've known has, as far as I could tell, thought that the greatness of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc. was debatable.


In other words, pre-Derrida and Foucault and their ilk.


----------



## SanAntone

Woodduck said:


> In my own 50+ years of talking about music I've rarely heard such debates either. I assume that the reason for this is that no musician I've known has, as far as I could tell, thought that the greatness of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc. was debatable.


Among my friends, mostly who were musicians, as I was, "great" was used as the highest compliment not as an objective qualifier (actually, the highest compliment was to call someone a "mother-f***er" or "monster").

At no time did anyone ever say that the use of the word "great" was an objective determination. We all just understood that the speaker was giving his opinion about how much he admired either a composer, a performer/performance or piece of music.


----------



## Caryatid

fluteman said:


> How does my comment that you quote, "Though there also is such a thing as objectively determinable and measurable technical skills in the arts, at least in many of the standard, established ones with well-developed traditions in our society, aesthetic standards can never entirely be reduced to a question of such technical skills. There always is a subjective element in our aesthetic values, which is why no two individuals have exactly the same aesthetic tastes" mean that I am claiming aesthetics are "entirely subjective"? Didn't I just say the opposite?


To be honest I am not entirely clear what your individual views are, but I have the strong impression that, as I said, "some here" believe that aesthetics are indeed entirely subjective.



fluteman said:


> I said there always is a subjective element in aesthetic values, which you acknowledge. That necessarily means no art can ever be objectively, inherently better than any other art.


I don't think I understand how this deduction works, but after all we are now talking in very abstract terms. It sounds like we agree that there is a subjective element in aesthetics but understand that to mean very different things.

Any way, I am going to check out of this thread for the time being, I think. This isn't going anywhere and I've stated my views in some detail already. For the record I understand why many people believe that aesthetic judgement is fully subjective but I would invite them to be metaphysically open-minded.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> ...
> At no time did anyone ever say that the use of the word "great" was an objective determination. We all just understood that the speaker was giving his opinion about how much he admired either a composer, a performer/performance or piece of music.


The qualifier wasn't necessary. You give the false impression the "the pros" don't really recognize any artistic hierarchies, but that's utter nonsense. Ask András Schiff about "greatest composer" and see if he has to give you a dissertation on subjectivity.


----------



## science

Jacck said:


> you could have the same argument about literature, ie reading Dostoyevsky and reading The Twilight Saga. Now try to prove objectively why Dostoyevsky is better than the TTS. Or try to find some objective criterion to measure the greatness of authors, ie how can you objectively find out if Joyce was a greater author than Pasternak. You will run into exactly the same problems.


I know!

Except they aren't really problems. It's just information that we might as well be aware of so that we can understand the confusion of our world a little more clearly.


----------



## science

consuono said:


> On the only objective criterion that counts. My taste.


This dazzling display of internal consistency refreshes me for another fifty pages of discussion.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> This statement perpetuates a fallacy which has been pointed out numerous times. The belief that it's reasonable to assess art as having truly superior qualities does not imply that "people are wrong (ignorant, etc.) not to like and dislike more-or-less the same music that they like and dislike."


I believe you're intentionally obfuscating the issue of objective/subjective behind that word "truly."

But whatever. I completely disagree with your post anyway.


----------



## Botschaft

Do people here really believe that the beauty ascribed to the music of Bach and Mozart isn’t a even tiny bit more than a reflection of arbitrary personal taste?


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> The qualifier wasn't necessary. You give the false impression the "the pros" don't really recognize any artistic hierarchies, but that's utter nonsense. Ask András Schiff about "greatest composer" and see if he has to give you a dissertation on subjectivity.


I agree that the use of the qualifier "objective" is unnecessary, and it would not surprise me if András Schiff also did not use the words objective or subjective when giving his opinion.

As I said, only on TC has this debate about objective/subjective emerged and gone on for so long.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> Among my friends, mostly who were musicians, as I was, "great" was used as the highest compliment not as an objective qualifier (actually, the highest compliment was to call someone a "mother-f***er" or "monster").
> 
> At no time did anyone ever say that the use of the word "great" was an objective determination. We all just understood that the speaker was giving his opinion about how much he admired either a composer, a performer/performance or piece of music.


Amen, brother. Sadly, the attitude we see most plainly exhibited here by Zhdanov but implicitly behind the more refined comments of others only turns people off classical music and hurts its standing in society as a whole. Professional performing classical musicians never, ever express this attitude, even indirectly, as it would only kill their own profession and end their careers.

Many of the most successful classical musicians, from performers like Yo-Yo Ma and James Galway, to conductors like Leonard Bernstein (and numerous more recent ones who have followed his example) and composers like Stravinsky and Ravel, who wrote jazz and ragtime influenced work (and numerous more recent ones who have followed their example and composed music influenced by popular and non-western idioms) have espoused a generous and broad view of what good music is and can be. Thank goodness for them, and thank goodness the peculiar, narrow, ethnocentric view of music some here have does not prevail.


----------



## science

Botschaft said:


> Do people here really believe that the beauty ascribed to the music of Bach and Mozart isn't a even tiny bit more than a reflection of arbitrary personal taste?


It's a constellation of "arbitrary personal tastes" that most of us here share almost entirely.


----------



## Nereffid

Botschaft said:


> Do people here really believe that the beauty ascribed to the music of Bach and Mozart isn't a even tiny bit more than a reflection of arbitrary personal taste?


I wouldn't call it arbitrary, but it is personal.


----------



## Strange Magic

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> I'm sure there are some pieces of music you like more than others, do you know what makes you like them more?


Here are some thoughts on the endocrinal roots of musical pleasure. Someday we'll tease out most of the machinery by which each of us individually responds to music, but it's a bit early to ask "What makes you like certain pieces more than others?" The closer answers will come from a synthesis of Leonard Meyers' work on expectations satisfied or thwarted, and work on the limbic system/autonomic nervous system and hormonal/endocrine interactions in the brain.

"Understanding how the brain translates a structured sequence of sounds, such as music, into a pleasant and rewarding experience is a fascinating question which may be crucial to better understand the processing of abstract rewards in humans. Previous neuroimaging findings point to a challenging role of the dopaminergic system in music-evoked pleasure. However, there is a lack of direct evidence showing that dopamine function is causally related to the pleasure we experience from music. We addressed this problem through a double blind within-subject pharmacological design in which we directly manipulated dopaminergic synaptic availability while healthy participants (n = 27) were engaged in music listening. We orally administrated to each participant a dopamine precursor (levodopa), a dopamine antagonist (risperidone), and a placebo (lactose) in three different sessions. We demonstrate that levodopa and risperidone led to opposite effects in measures of musical pleasure and motivation: while the dopamine precursor levodopa, compared with placebo, increased the hedonic experience and music-related motivational responses, risperidone led to a reduction of both. This study shows a causal role of dopamine in musical pleasure and indicates that dopaminergic transmission might play different or additive roles than the ones postulated in affective processing so far, particularly in abstract cognitive activities."

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/9/3793


----------



## BachIsBest

science said:


> I believe you're intentionally obfuscating the issue of objective/subjective behind that word "truly."
> 
> But whatever. I completely disagree with your post anyway.


Call me old fashion, but to obfuscate an issue behind the word "truly" doesn't one actually have to use the word "truly"? I mean, nowhere in your quoted post was the word "truly" ever even used.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Food tastes vary among people, some prefer Chinese others prefer French food. Just like people might prefer Mozart or Beethoven, or like both, or whatever they are in the mood for. 

There are different tastes but there still exists food standards. There is McDonald's food standard (low) and Michelin star restaurant standards (high quality). There is an objective standard of quality.

Those who eat mostly at the Michelin star restaurants may look down on those who eat McDonald's and those who eat McDonald's think the others are snobs! 

I came from a McDonald's-eating-world where we laughed at people who liked classical music.

Now I'm fine dining ever day! :lol:

Sorry if I made you hungry


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> I believe you're intentionally obfuscating the issue of objective/subjective behind that word "truly."


The "objective/subjective" debate is itself an obfuscation. It assumes that only objectively provable things are knowable. I don't share that assumption, and so I avoid that debate. There is no "intentional obfuscation" of anything, merely a refusal to accept your assumptions. I realize that accusing people of things and playing "gotcha" is a favorite sport of yours. But I'm always as clear and straightforward as I can be.



> But whatever. I completely disagree with your post anyway.


Why? Where is my statement incorrect? In what way does the belief that Beethoven is greater than Dittersdorf imply that anyone is "wrong" not to like Beethoven? Are you dismissing the existence or importance of subjective factors in taste? That would be amusing.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Strange Magic said:


> Here are some thoughts on the endocrinal roots of musical pleasure. Someday we'll tease out most of the machinery by which each of us individually responds to music, but it's a bit early to ask "What makes you like certain pieces more than others?" The closer answers will come from a synthesis of Leonard Meyers' work on expectations satisfied or thwarted, and work on the limbic system/autonomic nervous system and hormonal/endocrine interactions in the brain.
> 
> "Understanding how the brain translates a structured sequence of sounds, such as music, into a pleasant and rewarding experience is a fascinating question which may be crucial to better understand the processing of abstract rewards in humans. Previous neuroimaging findings point to a challenging role of the dopaminergic system in music-evoked pleasure. However, there is a lack of direct evidence showing that dopamine function is causally related to the pleasure we experience from music. We addressed this problem through a double blind within-subject pharmacological design in which we directly manipulated dopaminergic synaptic availability while healthy participants (n = 27) were engaged in music listening. We orally administrated to each participant a dopamine precursor (levodopa), a dopamine antagonist (risperidone), and a placebo (lactose) in three different sessions. We demonstrate that levodopa and risperidone led to opposite effects in measures of musical pleasure and motivation: while the dopamine precursor levodopa, compared with placebo, increased the hedonic experience and music-related motivational responses, risperidone led to a reduction of both. This study shows a causal role of dopamine in musical pleasure and indicates that dopaminergic transmission might play different or additive roles than the ones postulated in affective processing so far, particularly in abstract cognitive activities."
> 
> https://www.pnas.org/content/116/9/3793


Wow. We're way away from music now, as such. However, the whole question about how to reconcile "scientific" descriptions of brain states with the subjective experience of being a consciousness hosted by a brain is one of those big questions. If we understood that, we'd we (pretty much) Gods.

By the way, this doesn't mean I have a problem with your post - which I will now "like". :lol:


----------



## Barbebleu

BachIsBest said:


> Call me old fashion, but to obfuscate an issue behind the word "truly" doesn't one actually have to use the word "truly"? I mean, nowhere in your quoted post was the word "truly" ever even used.


I think you may need to reread the post. Woodduck used the phrase 'truly superior qualities' in his second sentence!


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> The "objective/subjective" debate is itself an obfuscation. It assumes that only objectively provable things are knowable. I don't share that assumption, and so I avoid that debate. There is no "intentional obfuscation" of anything, merely a refusal to accept your assumptions. I realize that accusing people of things and playing "gotcha" is a favorite sport of yours. But I'm always as clear and straightforward as I can be.
> 
> Why? Where is my statement incorrect? In what way does the belief that Beethoven is greater than Dittersdorf imply that anyone is "wrong" not to like Beethoven? Are you dismissing the existence or importance of subjective factors in taste? That would be amusing.


What I find to be the height of irony is, a former, now banned member, with whom you often bitterly clashed, endlessly insisted on the inherent greatness of certain 20th-century modern music that many here openly despise, starting endless threads and writing endless posts, many concerning harmony and tonality, in his effort to prove this. I tried to explain to him that while he was completely entitled to his views, the idea that they were capable of proof amounted to little more than a rejection of empiricism. He replied he had no idea what I meant.

Free from the constraints of empiricism, he argued that the natural harmonic series (never mind that the equal tempered 12 tone scale and all other western scales make do with an approximation of natural harmonics) is a rational Platonic ideal that remains inherent in all music based on that 12-tone scale, including the music of Schoenberg and Boulez, demonstrating the inherent value of that music. He even used his own terminology, such as vertical and horizontal harmony rather than atonal and tonal, to emphasize this concept.

Sigh. Why this endless urge of some to objectively "prove" the validity of their tastes? I'm glad you don't fall for that. I think we're in agreement.


----------



## Ethereality

Woodduck said:


> In my own 50+ years of talking about music I've rarely heard such debates either. I assume that the reason for this is that no musician I've known has, as far as I could tell, thought that the greatness of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc. was debatable.


Holy Hell, you must live in the smallest box imaginable. At least it's not related to what we're talking about; we're talking about if there's any objective greatness, not if people believe there is.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> It assumes that only objectively provable things are knowable.


Not if subjective experience counts as knowledge. But that's simply semantics. Perhaps you mean a kind of mystical communion with the divinely ordained laws of aesthetics?



Woodduck said:


> In what way does the belief that Beethoven is greater than Dittersdorf imply that anyone is "wrong" not to like Beethoven?


I guess you know full well.


----------



## Strange Magic

What is encouraging is the seeming explosion of ongoing scientific studies of the mechanisms that give rise to our enjoyment of music. Even a very brief survey of what is available on the Internet on the subject reveals many dozens of articles and abstracts. Here is only one of several on the effect of rhythm on bonding among humans. There are others.

"Social bonds are essential for our health and well-being. Music provides a unique and implicit context for social bonding by introducing temporal and affective frameworks, which facilitate movement synchronization and increase affiliation. How these frameworks are modulated by cultural familiarity and individual musical preferences remain open questions. In three experiments, we operationalized the affective aspects of social interactions as ratings of interpersonal closeness between two walking stick-figures in a video. These figures represented a virtual self and a virtual other person. The temporal aspects of social interactions were manipulated by movement synchrony: while the virtual self always moved in time with the beat of instrumental music, the virtual other moved either synchronously or asynchronously. When the context-providing music was more enjoyed, social closeness increased strongly with a synchronized virtual other, but only weakly with an asynchronized virtual other. When the music was more familiar, social closeness was higher independent of movement synchrony. We conclude that the social context provided by music can strengthen interpersonal closeness by increasing temporal and affective self-other overlaps. Individual musical preferences might be more relevant for the influence of movement synchrony on social bonding than musical familiarity."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-66529-1


----------



## consuono

science said:


> This dazzling display of internal consistency refreshes me for another fifty pages of discussion.


Just playing by the house rules.


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> I think a lot of this thread has been a vivid demonstration of scientism run amok.
> 
> https://www.aaas.org/programs/dialogue-science-ethics-and-religion/what-scientism


I read the linked article and see why the AAAS incorporated a disclaimer:

"Disclaimer: The author's views do not necessarily represent those of AAAS or DoSER"

Stephen Weinburg, Carl Sagan, E.O. Wilson among the quoted scientists--along with Richard Feynman and a host of other top-rank scientists are explicit in their view that science has not only not threatened their appreciation for the beauty and grandeur of the natural world but positively enhanced and magnified those feelings,dwarfing any alleged preoccupation with human affairs. The author of the AAAS article, in my view, seems not to have read deeply among the writings of articulate scientists.


----------



## Ethereality

We already all agree about certain composers and their popularity throughout time, their likelihood to resonate with more thinkers. We have arrived on an objective position everyone can agree on. There's never been a debate.

Unfortunately some here need to revise their theoretics. I don't know how long that will take, but it won't end with their current position.


----------



## science

consuono said:


> Just playing by the house rules.


But I give you full credit for your honesty.


----------



## consuono

Ethereality said:


> We already all agree about certain composers and their popularity throughout time, their likelihood to resonate with more thinkers. We have arrived on an objective position everyone can agree on. There's never been a debate. ....


Until now, apparently.


> Sigh. Why this endless urge of some to objectively "prove" the validity of their tastes?


Why the 40+ page insistence on applying scientific method to music valuation?


----------



## BachIsBest

Barbebleu said:


> I think you may need to reread the post. Woodduck used the phrase 'truly superior qualities' in his second sentence!




You never saw anything...


----------



## consuono

science said:


> Not if subjective experience counts as knowledge. But that's simply semantics. Perhaps you mean a kind of mystical communion with the divinely ordained laws of aesthetics?
> 
> I guess you know full well.


If someone prefers Dittersforf to Beethoven they're simply against the consensus, not "wrong"...and not very many say they're *wrong*. That truly is a straw man. If SanAntone loves John Cage he isn't wrong for doing so. If someone prefers Zelenka or Handel to Bach then that's just the way it is, just as I don't care much for Tchaikovsky or Berlioz. 
But ask if there are *any* objective qualities in Bach's music and more often than not in these threads the answer has been some smart*** reply like 'well there's the paper and the notes on the page", in which case there really isn't much to tell Bach from Beethoven from Berlioz from Berio. And we all know intuitively that ain't so.


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> Holy Hell, you must live in the smallest box imaginable. At least it's not related to what we're talking about; we're talking about if there's any objective greatness, not if people believe there is.


Maybe _you're _talking about "if there's any objective greatness." That's not what _I'm_ talking about. _I'm_ interested in whether artists can justly be called good, superior, great, what have you, based on a perception of their abilities and the qualities those abilities have produced in their work. No real artist thinks that "Bach is a great composer" means only "I and lots of other people like Bach oodles and oodles."


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> The "objective/subjective" debate is itself an obfuscation. It assumes that only objectively provable things are knowable. I don't share that assumption, and so I avoid that debate. There is no "intentional obfuscation" of anything, merely a refusal to accept your assumptions. I realize that accusing people of things and playing "gotcha" is a favorite sport of yours. But I'm always as clear and straightforward as I can be.
> 
> Why? Where is my statement incorrect? In what way does the belief that Beethoven is greater than Dittersdorf imply that anyone is "wrong" not to like Beethoven? Are you dismissing the existence or importance of subjective factors in taste? That would be amusing.


The trouble is, certain words and phrases, such as "superior qualities", when one does not put them into context, carry certain implications that one may not intend. Many essays about aesthetics in large part consist of lengthy discussions about exactly what terms like "superior qualities" mean and do not mean. And it's painfully obvious that things that are not objectively provable like the greatness of a particular piece of music are not only knowable, but can be pretty darn important factors in our lives. I've made that point over and over, as have science and others here.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> Not if subjective experience counts as knowledge. But that's simply semantics. Perhaps you mean a kind of mystical communion with the divinely ordained laws of aeasthetics?


There is no divine ordination. Only natural aesthetic perception, which allows a 20th-century American boy to see beauty and mastery in Sung Dynasty landscapes, Benin sculptured heads, Italian Renaissance madonnas, and Monet haystacks.


----------



## ArtMusic

fluteman said:


> The trouble is, certain words and phrases, such as "*superior qualities", when one does not put them into context, carry certain implications that one may not intend*. Many essays about aesthetics in large part consist of lengthy discussions about exactly what terms like "superior qualities" mean and do not mean. And it's painfully obvious that things that are not objectively provable like the greatness of a particular piece of music are not only knowable, but can be pretty darn important factors in our lives. I've made that point over and over, as have science and others here.


It seems many struggle with any words to that effect, which are used all the time not just here but in the press, in books, in articles, in journals, in letters by past composers. The modern ideology of egalitarianism in art appreciation certainly makes it difficult for those embroiled in this way of looking at it.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> The trouble is, certain words and phrases, such as "superior qualities", when one does not put them into context, carry certain implications that one may not intend. Many essays about aesthetics in large part consist of lengthy discussions about exactly what terms like "superior qualities" mean and do not mean. *And it's painfully obvious that things that are not objectively provable like the greatness of a particular piece of music are not only knowable, but can be pretty darn important factors in our lives. * I've made that point over and over, as have science and others here.


Did you word that as you intended to? Do you believe that things that are not objectively provable are knowable, or did you mean to say not knowable?


----------



## consuono

Woodduck said:


> I've _never_ underestimated your arrogance.
> 
> Maybe _you're _talking about "if there's any objective greatness." That's not what _I'm_ talking about. _I'm_ interested in whether artists can justly be called good, superior, great, what have you, based on a perception of their abilities and the qualities those abilities have produced in their work. No real artist thinks that "Bach is a great composer" means only "I and lots of other people like Bach oodles and oodles."


That's just begging the question anyway. WHY does the work of the Big Three and others resonate?


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Did you word that as you intended to? Do you believe that things that are not objectively provable are knowable, or did you mean to say not knowable?


Speaking for fluteman, I'll affirm that while I can't prove that the Hovhaness Violin Concerto No. 2 is objectively great, for me it is great, and important. And what more, really, does a body want and need than to revel in a beautiful and favored piece of music or art? Must I have the roar of the approval of the crowd? Nooooo.....


----------



## consuono

Strange Magic said:


> I read the linked article and see why the AAAS incorporated a disclaimer:
> 
> "Disclaimer: The author's views do not necessarily represent those of AAAS or DoSER"
> 
> Stephen Weinburg, Carl Sagan, E.O. Wilson among the quoted scientists--along with Richard Feynman and a host of other top-rank scientists are explicit in their view that science has not only not threatened their appreciation for the beauty and grandeur of the natural world but positively enhanced and magnified those feelings,dwarfing any alleged preoccupation with human affairs. The author of the AAAS article, in my view, seems not to have read deeply among the writings of articulate scientists.


At the same time I don't need their imprimatur, or that of any other in the priestly scientist class, to validate what I already sense.

But if their statements were misquoted you can point that out. Otherwise take the argument on its merits. Or that of Stephen Jay Gould:


> The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. *These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). *


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> That's just begging the question anyway. WHY does the work of the Big Three and others resonate?


It's a voting thing. A poll. Somebody's art always resonates with somebody. De gustibus....


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Speaking for fluteman, I'll affirm that while I can't prove that the Hovhaness Violin Concerto No. 2 is objectively great, for me it is great, and important. And what more, really, does a body want and need than to revel in a beautiful and favored piece of music or art? Must I have the roar of the approval of the crowd? Nooooo.....


Did fluteman agree to have you speak for him?

Nooooo.....


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> At the same time I don't need their imprimatur, or that of any other in the priestly as scientist class, to validate what I already sense.


Great! Now you're One of Us!


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> It's a voting thing. A poll. Somebody's art always resonates with somebody. De gustibus....


That isn't why. ......


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Did fluteman agree to have you speak for him?
> 
> Nooooo.....


Side bet that he'll agree with me.......


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> That isn't why. ......


Does it have to do with a non-universally-perceived inherent greatness in their music? Or is it just that a cluster of certain CM enthusiasts like it better? How can one tell the difference?


----------



## consuono

Strange Magic said:


> Does it have to do with a non-universally-perceived inherent greatness in their music? Or is it just that a cluster of certain CM enthusiasts like it better? How can one tell the difference?


So...the Harry Potter series really *is* no worse or lesser than the complete works of Shakespeare. There is no more "inherent greatness" in Shakespeare than there is in a Goosebumps book.


----------



## consuono

fluteman said:


> Amen, brother. Sadly, the attitude we see most plainly exhibited here by Zhdanov but implicitly behind the more refined comments of others only turns people off classical music and hurts its standing in society as a whole. Professional performing classical musicians never, ever express this attitude, even indirectly, as it would only kill their own profession and end their careers.
> 
> Many of the most successful classical musicians, from performers like Yo-Yo Ma and James Galway, to conductors like Leonard Bernstein (and numerous more recent ones who have followed his example) and composers like Stravinsky and Ravel, who wrote jazz and ragtime influenced work (and numerous more recent ones who have followed their example and composed music influenced by popular and non-western idioms) have espoused a generous and broad view of what good music is and can be. Thank goodness for them, and thank goodness the peculiar, narrow, ethnocentric view of music some here have does not prevail.


You don't have to dumb down classical music to be appealing, and you don't have to act like it's not anything particularly special just to avoid being called narrow-minded.

Anyway, what on earth do you mean by "what good music is and can be"? Good compared to bad music? What would that be?


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> So...the Harry Potter series really *is* no worse or lesser than the complete works of Shakespeare. There is no more "inherent greatness" in Shakespeare than there is in a Goosebumps book.


It all depends on one's opinion. It always has. It always will. The Romans had a phrase for it......

Edit. This is your 73rd fun comparison. Is it a cumulative thing you're hoping to achieve? My retort will never vary, as the response for thousands of years has remained unaltered.. it all depends on one's opinion.


----------



## consuono

Strange Magic said:


> It all depends on one's opinion. It always has. It always will. The Romans had a phrase for it......


So if my opinion is that the Harry Potter series is no lesser than the works of Shakespeare, that is a completely valid opinion. There is nothing objectively different about either to say otherwise. And "opinions" aren't things that just pop totally subjectively out of the subjective ether, subjectively speaking. They're formed and influenced by the subject of the opinion.


----------



## consuono

Strange Magic said:


> It all depends on one's opinion. It always has. It always will. The Romans had a phrase for it......
> 
> Edit. This is your 73rd fun comparison. Is it a cumulative thing you're hoping to achieve? My retort will never vary, as the response for thousands of years has remained unaltered.. it all depends on one's opinion.


And it's the 73rd time you've tried to be witty in giving a non-answer. Cumulative effect? But...I gotta admit that lock and key analogy was a stroke of subjective genius. :lol: Now *that's* fun.

Anyway we have the answer. Why does X resonate? Because everything resonates with a resonator and the opinion of the resonatee is what is resonant and de gustibus. Still begging the question.


----------



## Portamento

Woodduck said:


> There is no divine ordination. Only natural aesthetic perception, which allows a 20th-century American boy to see beauty and mastery in Sung Dynasty landscapes, Benin sculptured heads, Italian Renaissance madonnas, and Monet haystacks.


"Even though we lack principles describing what features of a work produce aesthetic value, anyone who fully grasps the concept of aesthetic value is implicitly committed to certain principles concerning what makes a critic competent; the value of a work is its capacity to prompt appropriate responses in all critics with these qualifications."

Do you agree with this statement? If so, how do you explain the admission of critical blind spots? For example, many critics would admit that Stockhausen has merit that they cannot see for themselves; in other words, they confess that their general competence doesn't give them access to values that others detect. This type of admission doesn't seem to match up with the aesthetics of universality - or "natural aesthetic perception" - at all. (And I don't accept that some critics lack blind spots.)


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Did you word that as you intended to? Do you believe that things that are not objectively provable are knowable, or did you mean to say not knowable?


I know that the music of Bach has been moving and meaningful for a lot of people right up to the current day, even though it is over 270 years old. I think that is a very significant fact. If that is what you mean by its 'superior qualities', I wholeheartedly agree. It isn't significant enough for ArtMusic, who derides the "modern ideology of egalitarianism", which appears to be his term for what in his opinion is the overall decline in standards of artistic taste, or values generally, since 1950.


----------



## consuono

fluteman said:


> I know that the music of Bach has been moving and meaningful for a lot of people right up to the current day, even though it is over 270 years old. ...


Why do you think that is?


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Did fluteman agree to have you speak for him?
> 
> Nooooo.....


Strange Magic did come up with "Mutual Contempt Society". In my subjective opinion, that was a pretty good comment at the time. Plus, he reads Nature, a scientific journal with peer-reviewed articles that require some serious effort to understand. As for Hovhaness, well, in my opinion, he has a personal and distinctive artistic voice, and it is a fact that many in addition to Strange Magic appreciate his music. I prefer the weirdo Max Reger, and also George Crumb, who like Hovhaness drew inspiration from whales.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> You don't have to dumb down classical music to be appealing, and you don't have to act like it's not anything particularly special just to avoid being called narrow-minded.


And you don't have to arbitrarily elevate classical music by claiming it is objectively great in order to validate your own taste.



consuono said:


> So if my opinion is that the Harry Potter series is no lesser than the works of Shakespeare, that is a completely valid opinion. There is nothing objectively different about either to say otherwise. And "opinions" aren't things that just pop totally subjectively out of the subjective ether, subjectively speaking. They're formed and influenced by the subject of the opinion.


There is nothing wrong with someone thinking that Harry Potter is better than Shakespeare.


----------



## science

consuono said:


> So...the Harry Potter series really *is* no worse or lesser than the complete works of Shakespeare. There is no more "inherent greatness" in Shakespeare than there is in a Goosebumps book.


To whom?

.....


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> And you don't have to arbitrarily elevate classical music by claiming it is objectively great in order to validate your own taste.


I'm not elevating anything. It doesn't have to be torn down because it makes some other music fans feel inferior, either.



> There is nothing wrong with someone thinking that Harry Potter is better than Shakespeare.


That's hunky dory, but I wouldn't want them teaching my kids literature.


----------



## ArtMusic

SanAntone said:


> And you don't have to arbitrarily elevate classical music by claiming it is objectively great in order to validate your own taste.


It is not about that. One can enjoy compositions that have little artistic merit, as I often do with much lesser known Baroque composers who have only been recently rediscovered with only one or two compositions. Their music is most enjoyable but the composition has little significance. This doesn't prevent me from considering who are the masters of the Baroque and so forth.


----------



## consuono

science said:


> To whom?
> 
> .....


To anyone. Anyone who thinks such would be deluded.


----------



## consuono

. ..deleted, ...


----------



## science

consuono said:


> To anyone. Anyone who thinks such would be deluded.


Why?

........


----------



## consuono

science said:


> Why?
> 
> ........


 Because there's no such thing. Forty nine pages and you're asking *me* about the hypersubjectivist credo.


----------



## Ethereality

Woodduck said:


> That isn't why. ......


You're the one who said Bach, Mozart, Beethoven. That is a voting thing. The three most popular composers of all time. You forgot the other 6,937,032+ of course which I don't have the time to explore. But I did start myself with the popular names. It's (slightly) more likely I'll enjoy them. Also a bias to start with them too. I've noticed that significantly in my listening history.


----------



## ArtMusic

consuono said:


> Because there's no such thing. Forty nine pages and you're asking *me* about the hypersubjectivist credo.


I find it interesting that the questions come almost entirely from posts who ask "why" "where is the proof" "how do you define" "show me the inherent..." when these are really just philosophical or perturbing questions, when there should instead be musical questions specific to a great composition with score in hand.


----------



## consuono

Ethereality said:


> You're the one who said Bach, Mozart, Beethoven. That is a voting thing. The three most popular composers of all time. You forgot the other 6,937,032, etc.


Most popular why?


----------



## science

consuono said:


> Because there's no such thing. Forty nine pages and you're asking *me* about the hypersubjectivist credo.


So if there's no such thing as "inherent greatness," you can't imagine any other kind of greatness?


----------



## science

ArtMusic said:


> I find it interesting that the questions come almost entirely from posts who ask "why" "where is the proof" "how do you define" "show me the inherent..." when these are really just philosophical or perturbing questions, when there should instead be musical questions specific to a great composition with score in hand.


Pick a composition you'd like to discuss and tell me why it's good.


----------



## consuono

science said:


> So if there's no such thing as "inherent greatness," you can't imagine any other kind of greatness?


No, there wouldn't be. If I look at or hear something and I think it's "great", and another standing next to me thinks it stinks, it doesn't mean it's either great or stinky. It just is.


----------



## ArtMusic

science said:


> Pick a composition you'd like to discuss and tell me why it's good.


I'm not playing this game. Pick a composition that you think is good, go to a library, read up some analysis, listen to lectures, listen to why performers and conductors think and so forth.


----------



## consuono

science said:


> Pick a composition you'd like to discuss and tell me why it's good.


Why don't you do that? Why is Bach still revered by so many?


----------



## Ethereality

consuono said:


> Most popular why?


That topic has already been covered. People are more likely to enjoy popular composers due to (a) inherent similarities in human perception and (b) bias towards music concepts of the same influence, ie. Western sounds.

I notice (b) with myself. I'm more likely to enjoy something if I hadn't been biased toward listening to something else in my popular recommendations first. The bias starts in everyone as a child.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> And you don't have to arbitrarily elevate classical music by claiming it is objectively great in order to validate your own taste.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with someone thinking that Harry Potter is better than Shakespeare.


Well said. I'd only add, the fact that Shakespeare's work has retained its profound influence on our culture, popular, classical, artistic, linguistic and otherwise, for over 400 years, and that his plays are still frequently performed to enthusiastic audiences worldwide, in languages other than English, even, says all that need be said about Shakespeare. No need to try to prove his work is objectively superior to that of J.K. Rowling. Although, in my subjective opinion, the artistic goals of the two authors are so vastly different, and though both are British their work is the product of such different cultural climates, it would be an apples and oranges comparison anyway. This need to rank art by inherent greatness gets one nowhere.


----------



## Woodduck

Portamento said:


> "Even though we lack principles describing what features of a work produce aesthetic value, anyone who fully grasps the concept of aesthetic value is implicitly committed to certain principles concerning what makes a critic competent; the value of a work is its capacity to prompt appropriate responses in all critics with these qualifications."
> 
> Do you agree with this statement? If so, how do you explain the admission of critical blind spots? For example, many critics would admit that Stockhausen has merit that they cannot see for themselves; in other words, they confess that their general competence doesn't give them access to values that others detect. This type of admission doesn't seem to match up with the aesthetics of universality - or "natural aesthetic perception" - at all. (And I don't accept that some critics lack blind spots.)


I disagree with a couple of things here. I don't think that human beings have failed to identify aesthetic qualities that arouse pleasure and admiration on an effectively universal basis. We find certain attributes of both art and nature which arouse these feelings across time, cultures and styles, and it's partly the seeming universality of many aesthetic judgments that makes aesthetic questions compelling. "Universality" doesn't mean that every work of art must exhibit all such characteristics to be either effective or praiseworthy, or that all works must embody these qualities in the same way, or that all individuals must be equally sensitive to or concerned with any particular qualities.

The capacity to appreciate and enjoy works of art is influenced by many aspects of an individual's experience, psychological makeup, and values, including moral values. No one is free of "biases" of these sorts, but the ability to perceive basic aesthetic qualities is a part of human nature, and so, to one degree or another, is the ability to detect the masterful employment of aesthetic principles and engagement of our perception by artists. Critics are no different than the rest of us, except (we hope) in the amount of knowledge and thought they bring to their job, and a sense of obligation to learn to appreciate even art that doesn't naturally appeal to them. Works of art have their own distinct concepts to convey, but the artist's ability to carry out his conception in a clear and potent way depends very much on his sense of aesthetic fitness, and the choices he has to make are not arbitrary. Beauty, in its looser sense, is in the eye of the beholder, but for the artist beauty, in the narrower and stronger sense of aesthetic integrity, is achieved in definite ways. The knowing appreciator of art - the good critic, professional or otherwise - sees how the artist has achieved it and, sometimes, of course, how he has failed to.

The worldwide acceptance of the most diverse forms of art as true manifestations of beauty - the ability of individuals worldwide to appreciate and enjoy the art of cultures far from their own - is much more significant, and much more in need of explanation, than the existence of personal dislikes and critical "blind spots." Artistic perception is grounded in more fundamental aspects of human nature - cognitive, affective and physical - than are cultural differences. "Why have musicians and listeners around the world for almost 300 years considered Bach a master of music?" is a difficult but important question. "Why doesn't my cousin Leslie like Bach?" is neither.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> No, there wouldn't be. If I look at or hear something and I think it's "great", and another standing next to me thinks it stinks, it doesn't mean it's either great or stinky. It just is.


Yes, it just is. There is absolutely no need to bring in greatness. People will either like Bach, Beethoven and Brahms or not. Telling them it is great music is irrelevant. It isn't hard for people to decide if they like something or not.

And, btw, since it is a tiny fraction of people who care about classical music, Bach, Beethoven and Brahms are ignored by the vast majority of people.


----------



## consuono

Ethereality said:


> That topic has already been covered. People are more likely to enjoy them due to (a) inherent human perception and (b) bias towards music concepts of the same influence, ie. Western sounds.
> 
> I notice b in myself especially. I'm more likely to enjoy something else if I hadn't been biased toward something being in popular recommendations.


"Inherent human perception"?? Mozart's Jupiter symphony and C minor piano concerto are not really loved, but just the beneficiaries of bias?


----------



## Ethereality

Yeah greatness is a poor choice of wording. If something has quality to an artist or listener, it is great. It doesn't need others' approval.


----------



## SanAntone

The audience for classical music shares a kind of taste in the kind of music they enjoy. So for classical music fans it isn't saying much to acknowledge that Bach, Beethoven and Brahms are widely loved.

For the vast majority of people who do not share the same taste as classical music fans, they are not widely loved. In fact they are non-entities.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> Yes, it just is. There is absolutely no need to bring in greatness. People will either like Bach, Beethoven and Brahms or not. Telling them it is great music is irrelevant. It isn't hard for people to decide if they like something or not.


Why even bring "like" into it? "Like" it why? What if someone hates it? Is that allowed or not allowed since everything in inherently of no real value?


> And, btw, since it is a tiny fraction of people who care about classical music, Bach, Beethoven and Brahms are ignored by the vast majority of people.


Have you checked the audience size for the music that floats *your* boat? As in, tiny fraction of tiny fraction? So what?


----------



## Ethereality

consuono said:


> "Inherent human perception"?? Mozart's Jupiter symphony and C minor piano concerto are not really loved, but just the beneficiaries of bias?


If you gather enough thinkers ie. experienced in music listening, especially throughout time, it is fairly acclaimed.

And, I just gave your wording for you. Is there "acclaim" in music. Historically yes, that debate is long over.


----------



## consuono

Ethereality said:


> Yeah greatness is a poor choice of wording. If something has *quality* to an artist or listener, it is great. It doesn't need others' approval.


Define "quality".


Ethereality said:


> If you gather enough thinkers ie. experienced in music listening, especially throughout time, it is fairly acclaimed.
> 
> And, I just gave your wording for you. Is there "acclaim" in music.


Esteemed and acclaimed WHY, though?


----------



## science

ArtMusic said:


> I'm not playing this game. Pick a composition that you think is good, go to a library, read up some analysis, listen to lectures, listen to why performers and conductors think and so forth.


Here's one: "The melody consists of upbeats leading into downbeats, continually reversing direction. The pitches actually form a chain of thirds, descending in the first four bars and ascending in the second four. The violas and cellos accompany with harmonized arpeggios, while flutes, clarinets, and bassoons provide punctuating weak beat chords, the horns sustaining chords and octaves."

That looks pretty objective to me.

Let's look at another one:

"... it's the construction that counts here, because that chain of thirds allows Brahms to outline the principal tonal areas of the symphony: there is an unusual emphasis in the melody on the flat-submediant of the E minor scale (C major), which is the home key of the third movement, it's one of the tonal pivots of the slow movement, and it's important in the finale too. But this melody also functions as a kind of generative DNA for the first movement's - and the whole symphony's - motivic drama. What I mean by that is the continuous meshing, churning and changing of musical ideas that Brahms creates, so that each line of music in the orchestral score functions as a cog in a symphonic machine."

Again, pretty objective.

Now the question is: is any of that _good_? How do you, these authors, or anyone else know?


----------



## science

consuono said:


> Why don't you do that? Why is Bach still revered by so many?


Because his music has features that they value, respect, admire, love, enjoy, find fascinating, et cetera.


----------



## ArtMusic

science said:


> Now the question is: is any of that _good_? How do you, these authors, or anyone else know?


I think you have already determined that nothing you might come across is good enough to convince you.


----------



## consuono

science said:


> Here's one: "The melody consists of upbeats leading into downbeats, continually reversing direction. The pitches actually form a chain of thirds, descending in the first four bars and ascending in the second four. The violas and cellos accompany with harmonized arpeggios, while flutes, clarinets, and bassoons provide punctuating weak beat chords, the horns sustaining chords and octaves."
> 
> That looks pretty objective to me.
> 
> Let's look at another one:
> 
> "... it's the construction that counts here, because that chain of thirds allows Brahms to outline the principal tonal areas of the symphony: there is an unusual emphasis in the melody on the flat-submediant of the E minor scale (C major), which is the home key of the third movement, it's one of the tonal pivots of the slow movement, and it's important in the finale too. But this melody also functions as a kind of generative DNA for the first movement's - and the whole symphony's - motivic drama. What I mean by that is the continuous meshing, churning and changing of musical ideas that Brahms creates, so that each line of music in the orchestral score functions as a cog in a symphonic machine."
> 
> Again, pretty objective.
> 
> Now the question is: is any of that _good_? How do you, these authors, or anyone else know?


I imagine that such analysis would indicate the author thinks it's pretty well-made.


----------



## Ethereality

consuono said:


> Define "quality".


I just did. If I find something has quality, it objectively, factually has that quality in my worldview or perception. Since you don't have my perceptions, you might not grasp its reality until you try hard enough. This is like human empathy 101, or lessons on sociopathicality.



consuono said:


> Esteemed and acclaimed WHY, though?


I just answered that. Humans come from the same origins.


----------



## consuono

science said:


> Because his music has features that they value, respect, admire, love, enjoy, find fascinating, et cetera.


Which STILL is begging the question.


Ethereality said:


> I just answered that. Humans come from the same origins.


Wait. We have the "same origins", yet our perceptions are so different that any and every kind of music can be said to be of equal "value" or "quality" since some significant number somewhere may "like" it.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Why even bring "like" into it? "Like" it why? What if someone hates it? Is that allowed or not allowed since everything in inherently of no real value?


Of course. I bring like into because that is how most people think about music.



> Have you checked the audience size for the music that floats *your* boat? As in, tiny fraction of tiny fraction? So what?


I don't care, but you are the one who keeps harping on how widely loved Bach or Beethoven are. You and others keep claiming there is an objective basis why Bach and Beethoven are great. My point is that they are great to classical music fans because classical music fans are a self-selected sample and it is expected that they will like and revere many of the same composers. That doesn't mean it is objective just that there is a shared taste among the classical music audience.

Hip-hop fans have their own criteria for judging the music they like, and Bach and Beethoven are not great to them.

The audience for hip-hop music is much bigger than that for classical music. So Drake is widely loved by many, many, more people than Bach and Beethoven.


----------



## Ethereality

consuono said:


> Which STILL is begging the question.
> Wait. We have the "same origins", yet our perceptions are so different that any and every kind of music can be said to be of equal "value" or "quality" since some significant number somewhere may "like" it.


Yes, you got it perfectly that time. Bravo!


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> Of course. I bring like into because that is how most people think about music.


Some people also hate certain types of music. To some people, some music isn't music at all. Are they allowed to say so?



> I don't care, but you are the one who keeps harping on how widely loved Bach or Beethoven are. You and others keep claiming there is an objective basis why Bach and Beethoven are great. My point is that they are great to classical music fans because classical music fans are a self-selected sample and it is expected that they will share many of the same composers. THat doen't mean it is objective just that there is a shared taste among the classical music audience.
> 
> Hip-hop fans have their own criteria for judging the music they like, and Bach and Beethoven are not great to them.
> 
> The audience for hip-hop music is much bigger than that for classical music. So Drake is widely loved by many, many, more people than Bach and Beethoven.


Let's see how Drake's doing in 300 years. Rudy Vallee...ever heard of him?


----------



## consuono

Ethereality said:


> Yes, you got it perfectly that time. Bravo!


No, I don't get it. You're saying...two different...things...


----------



## Ethereality

consuono said:


> Let's see how Drake:s doing in 300 years.


I don't know much about rap, but I don't see these musicians effecting the psyches of children 300 years from now. But the surface approachability would still be large for many, its popular at this current time for a reason of course. And I don't care for it much.


----------



## science

ArtMusic said:


> I think you have already determined that nothing you might come across is good enough to convince you.


That's actually one of my favorite passages in music.


----------



## science

consuono said:


> Which STILL is begging the question.


It's literally the only possibly true answer.


----------



## Ethereality

consuono said:


> No, I don't get it. You're saying...two different...things...


Inb4 someone starts misusing the word objective again, how am I saying two different things? Have you taken your biology requisites?


----------



## ArtMusic

Ethereality said:


> I don't know much about rap, but I don't see these musicians effecting the psyches of children 300 years from now. But the surface approachability would still be fairly large for many, its popular at this current time for a reason.


It is popular today for a myriad of reasons, not least of which began with our western mass commercialization of the television channels, consumerism of the arts and merchandizing with profit motifs from the 1950's after WWII. Music videos, music clips, the internet etc. in more recent years have lead to the mass popularization of such music and even so called "K-pop" (Korean pop music, usually a band of boys with eccentric problems of their own).


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Some people also hate certain types of music. To some people, some music isn't music at all. Are they allowed to say so?


Yes, of course they are.



> Let's see how Drake's doing in 300 years. Rudy Vallee...ever heard of him?


Yes, I've heard of Rudy Valee. Speculating on who's popular in 300 years is irrelevant.

You offer these irrelevancies instead of dealing with my larger point. I guess that's easier.


----------



## Ethereality

ArtMusic, I completely agree. Though that isn't the primary reason its popular.


----------



## SanAntone

ArtMusic said:


> It is popular today for a myriad of reasons, not least of which began with our western mass commercialization of the television channels, consumerism of the arts and merchandizing with profit motifs from the 1950's after WWII. Music videos, music clips, the internet etc. in more recent years have lead to the mass popularization of such music and even so called "K-pop" (Korean pop music, usually a band of boys with eccentric problems of their own).


You are missing my point.

The audience for classical music (like all genres) is self-selected. Because of shared tastes, it is not surprising that the same composers are revered among this audience. However, outside of classical music those same composers are largely ignored and other music creators are revered.

The alleged objective evidence of Bach being widely loved is nothing more than a by-product of an audience with shared tastes.


----------



## Ethereality

And of course the Bach, Beethoven, Mozart fanbase is the most popular one throughout recorded history. Still a small group and it doesn't describe greatness as it pertains to anyone else. Even most Classical fans, avid listeners, won't have all 3 of them in their top 10. Top 30 once they're less biased by popular opinions.

Popularity is not a terrifically interesting concept of art, since humans are forced to have to deal with it all the time when they want to find something more enjoyable. It helps to ground you in what may be enjoyable.


----------



## ArtMusic

SanAntone said:


> You are missing my point.
> 
> The audience for classical music (like all genres) is self-selected. Because of shared tastes, it is not surprising that the same composers are revered among this audience. However, outside of classical music those same composers are largely ignored and other music creators are revered.
> 
> The alleged objective evidence of Bach being widely loved is nothing more than a by-product of an audience with shared tastes.


Why is that Bach's music have been studied, performed and it continues to listeners without prejudice for centuries? The fact that this has continued for centuries - both subjective preference for liking his music and objective evidence that his music is within the best of human artistic endeavors, maybe event for all the arts, is something that is not taken lightly. It is no wonder that postmodernism of the 1950's find this so very difficult because of their perturbed ideological belief, it has nothing to do with the timeless arts themselves.


----------



## science

consuono said:


> I imagine that such analysis would indicate the author thinks it's pretty well-made.


I'm sure they do.

But why? Wherein is the "well-made-ness?"

Could we construct a machine that would be able to identify it? If not, why?


----------



## Ethereality

People will be convinced whether they have no one to agree with, have millions of hipsters to agree with, or agree with their very few classical pals. I'm highly convinced of the extremely well-madeness in lots of music that nobody cares about. It's not something an artist disagrees with inside themselves, because great art isn't decided by a majority. It exists, factually and objectively, in that perception when no one else may be capable of the same perception.

Instead when people talk about 'popular greatness' in time, they're talking about a non-objective perception. Such a perception of quality has never existed, in any reality. It's clear who is being artistically useful in these discussions, and who's just fluffing up our pillows.


----------



## science

ArtMusic said:


> objective evidence that his music is within the best


You're not connecting those dots here. Just continually reassert that they're connected.

"The best" must be according to some kind of standard. It could only be judged best (compared to other music) based on some kind of criteria.

Whatever criteria matter to you, the question is, why those criteria? Why not, say, how well it puts infants to sleep? How well it pumps up MMA fighters? How well it expresses the rage of a confused teenager? How effectively it can sell beer? The novelty of its cross-rhythms? Or any other number of features?


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> You are missing my point.
> 
> The audience for classical music (like all genres) is self-selected. Because of shared tastes, it is not surprising that the same composers are revered among this audience. However, outside of classical music those same composers are largely ignored and other music creators are revered.
> 
> The alleged objective evidence of Bach being widely loved is nothing more than a by-product of an audience with shared tastes.


Yes!!! But why **** people off by adding "nothing more than"? The fact that 270 years on, Bach's music is still loved by a considerable audience with shared tastes is important. In fact, it is all that matters. And though one can point to numerous inherent attributes in the music that most likely contribute to its success with its audience, in the end that success depends on the inevitably subjective values of that audience. Others who think the music of Bach stinks, or is boring, despite its inherent attributes, are not one iota more right or more wrong.

Why is that so hard for people to admit? Why not celebrate what you love without insisting others acknowledge what you don't love is "a pile of crap, not music"? That kind of unproductive comment contaminates too much in this forum, as you mentioned earlier. I guess that's way I persisted with this discussion.


----------



## Ethereality

Very good. Now just repeat it throughout 50 more pages and you'll have a good starting argument.


----------



## SanAntone

ArtMusic said:


> Why is that Bach's music have been studied, performed and it continues to listeners without prejudice for centuries? The fact that this has continued for centuries - both subjective preference for liking his music and objective evidence that his music is within the best of human artistic endeavors, maybe event for all the arts, is something that is not taken lightly. It is no wonder that postmodernism of the 1950's find this so very difficult because of their perturbed ideological belief, it has nothing to do with the timeless arts themselves.


Bach's music has been studied, performed and continues to please listeners from among a self-selected, relatively small, group of classical music aficionados. Just because Bach's music is popular with classical music fans doesn't prove it is objectively great. It demonstrates that members of the self-selected audience of classical music share similar taste and Bach is revered among that limited audience.

Other genres have other heroes who are considered great, while Bach is irrelevant to them.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> Yes!!! But why **** people off by adding "nothing more than"? The fact that 270 years on, Bach's music is still loved by a considerable audience with shared tastes is important. In fact, it is all that matters. And though one can point to numerous inherent attributes in the music that most likely contribute to its success with its audience, in the end that success depends on the inevitably subjective values of that audience. Others who think the music of Bach stinks, or is boring, despite its inherent attributes, are not one iota more right or more wrong.
> 
> Why is that so hard for people to admit? Why not celebrate what you love without insisting others acknowledge what you don't love is "a pile of crap, not music"? That kind of unproductive comment contaminates too much in this forum, as you mentioned earlier. I guess that's way I persisted with this discussion.


Why is the preoccupation of a relatively small audience, that has similar taste and aesthetic priorities, so important? I (and many others) do celebrate the music I love, some of which is classical, but more of which is jazz, blues, bluegrass, r&b, soul, country, flamenco, fado, tango, Indian ragas, etc.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> Yes, of course they are.


From the whining that's produced when someone does that in this forum, you wouldn't think so.



> Yes, I've heard of Rudy Valee. Speculating on who's popular in 300 years is irrelevant.
> 
> You offer these irrelevancies instead of dealing with my larger point. I guess that's easier.


And Drake is an irrelevancy. Strippers and pole dancers are probably more popular than ballerinas.


----------



## science

consuono said:


> From the whining that's produced when someone does that in this forum, you wouldn't think so.


The whining is allowed too.


----------



## consuono

science said:


> The whining is allowed too.


No doubt, but you wonder why it's there when the negative reaction is merely yet another subjective and equally valid opinion.


----------



## science

consuono said:


> No doubt, but you wonder why it's there when the negative reaction is merely yet another subjective and equally valid opinion.


Fundamentally it's all about respect.


----------



## consuono

science said:


> Fundamentally it's all about respect.


Right, so let's make a thread about "objectivists" and play dime-store intellectual to catch these narrow minded types in a few gotchas. Gimme a break.

I've seen threads about how "Mozart is overrated", "I just don't get Bach" and "I just don't like Beethoven very much" or some such. Any genre or composer is therefore fair game with no disrespect intended to the fans thereof. Grow a thicker skin.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> Bach's music has been studied, performed and continues to please listeners from among a self-selected, relatively small, group of classical music aficionados. Just because Bach's music is popular with classical music fans doesn't prove it is objectively great. It demonstrates that members of the self-selected audience of classical music share similar taste and Bach is revered among that limited audience.
> 
> Other genres have other heroes who are considered great, while Bach is irrelevant to them.


Yes. My only proviso is, the fact that Bach's music still has that audience, limited though it may be, 270 years after his death, while it establishes nothing about inherent greatness, meets my definition of artistic success.

Many moons ago, I said the key difference between popular and classical music is in their goals. Popular musicians try to reach the largest possible audience, often within a subgroup or demographic, as quickly as possible by capitalizing on the zeitgeist of the moment. In other words, they try for popularity. Some have musical skills on the highest level, others less so.

Classical musicians try to find more lasting, or profoundly believed, or commonly held values to appeal to, so they will continue to have an audience in future generations. They also want an audience right away, but know they have to make do with a smaller one than the successful popular musicians. Again, some have musical skills on the highest level, others less so. As with popular musicians, greater skill is an advantage, but not the whole story.

A rare few popular musicians manage both to be a popular hit with a big audience right away (which is their primary goal) and also appeal to later generations. But that isn't easy. 50 years after the band broke up, I can find young people in their teens and early 20s who have never heard of the Beatles. This despite the availability of everything on the internet, a recent hit movie about them, etc. John Coltrane? Miles Davis? Nat Cole? Benny Goodman? Fats Waller? They might as well be Mozart or Beethoven as far as most young people today are concerned.

All of which is to say, let's not minimize the significance of the fact that people are still listening to Bach's music centuries after it hit the charts.


----------



## science

consuono said:


> Right, so let's make a thread about "objectivists" and play dime-store intellectual to catch these narrow minded types in a few gotchas. Gimme a break.
> 
> I've seen threads about how "Mozart is overrated", "I just don't get Bach" and "I just don't like Beethoven very much" or some such. Any genre or composer is therefore fair game with no disrespect intended to the fans thereof. Grow a thicker skin.


I'm not complaining about any of it, just pointing out that I understand the game that you play.


----------



## consuono

science said:


> I'm not complaining about any of it, just pointing out that I understand the game that you play.


My "game"? Who started the thread?


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Consuono quoting Stephen Jay Gould:* "The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty."


Gould over his many years said and wrote lots of things. Sometimes he was wrong. That essay of his was one of those times. The nature of art and how humans react to it, and think about beauty, and everything else about the human condition is fair ground for scientific examination. To exclude it from his own thinking as a scientist was.....unscientific. That whole essay of his was his attempt to find some intermediate path between science and religion, as he was unsettled by thinking he had to choose. So he chose not to choose.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Ethereality said:


> You're the one who said Bach, Mozart, Beethoven. That is a voting thing. The three most popular composers of all time. You forgot the other 6,937,032+ of course which I don't have the time to explore.


This is the thing that bothers me most about the "objectivist argument" (not that I necessarily disagree with the argument). Does this "objectivist argument" only apply to Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, or does it also apply to other composers? If so, to what extent does it apply? 
I say this again; the Haydn brothers are an excellent example for comparison in this case. The person who said (something to the effect that) ["Bach is objectively better than Handel since Bach has more expressive use of inner harmonies; Beethoven would have admired Bach more than Handel if only he had better knowledge of Bach's music"], had also said in another thread ["Haydn rules! Joseph, not his medicore brother Michael!"] Even though (to be frank) Joseph is objectively more about using pomposity, while Michael is objectively more about using inner harmonies for expression. 












Some dozens of pages ago, I asked him about this; I never got a proper answer from him.
Joseph has always been promoted to the max throughout history with the slogan "Haydn (Joseph) and Mozart". Whereas Michael was "stuck in the church" and didn't want his music printed, so his popularity inevitably waned over the course of the 19th century. (But evidently Mozart cared more for Michael, and Schubert admired Michael more) 
So which Haydn is objectively greater according to the "objectivist logic"?


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> And it's the 73rd time you've tried to be witty in giving a non-answer. Cumulative effect? But...I gotta admit that lock and key analogy was a stroke of subjective genius. :lol: Now *that's* fun.
> 
> Anyway we have the answer. Why does X resonate? Because everything resonates with a resonator and the opinion of the resonatee is what is resonant and de gustibus. Still begging the question.


Still beating your tired drum. I prefer Shakespeare to Rowling. Many people do. Some don't. So what? I definitely prefer Tolkien to Rowling. When you do finally grasp my many-thousand-year-old position on the role opinion plays in esthetics, send us a postcard. But, meanwhile, give us your next robotic A/B comparison. It's easier than attempting to justify your position or to refute mine. And that's very likely an objective fact.


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> No, there wouldn't be. If I look at or hear something and I think it's "great", and another standing next to me thinks it stinks, it doesn't mean it's either great or stinky. It just is.


Is the light shining through, at last? For the one, it will be great. For the other, stinky. Again, a sign of progress.


----------



## BachIsBest

science said:


> I'm sure they do.
> 
> But why? Wherein is the "well-made-ness?"
> 
> Could we construct a machine that would be able to identify it? If not, why?


We probably could build a machine that recognises which music we consider excellent in the CPP with reasonably high accuracy.


----------



## Ethereality

hammeredklavier said:


> So which Haydn is objectively greater according to the "objectivist logic"?


Since this is quoting me, I'll respond. 'Objectivist logic' as one might call it, is typically based on a _dual_ psychological complex. Two stages of the dual complex are (a) I like these composers, and (b) other people like these composers, so (c) I must be in an objective reality about this.

The likelihood of (a) and (b) are the same: a symbiotic relationship these people have with consensus, is returned, where they are x person in y time, making up part of the census. Thus there is no difference between the likelihood of a and b. Since J. HAYDN is a much more popular composer throughout time than M. HAYDN, by at least 10x, then the product of the likelihood (a) and the sample (b), will favor J. HAYDN.


----------



## science

consuono said:


> My "game"? Who started the thread?


You want to pretend the world began with this OP?


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> "Inherent human perception"?? Mozart's Jupiter symphony and C minor piano concerto are not really loved, but just the beneficiaries of bias?


I continue to be astonished at the fixity of these responses. Mozart's Jupiter symphony and C minor piano concerto are really, really and truly loved by those who love them. Count me in! Love--it still can be experienced, even by subjectivists. Maybe even moreso. (You still don't get it.)


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> Why even bring "like" into it? "Like" it why? What if someone hates it? Is that allowed or not allowed since everything in inherently of no real value?
> 
> Have you checked the audience size for the music that floats *your* boat? As in, tiny fraction of tiny fraction? So what?


Still misunderstanding: it's clearly a serial thing. Art objects have the value that each individual charges them with, but they have no inherent value--it is bestowed upon them. Audience size--are we back to consensus, voting, polls, a show of hands?


----------



## BachIsBest

Strange Magic said:


> Still beating your tired drum. I prefer Shakespeare to Rowling. Many people do. Some don't. So what? I definitely prefer Tolkien to Rowling. When you do finally grasp my many-thousand-year-old position on the role opinion plays in esthetics, send us a postcard. But, meanwhile, give us your next robotic A/B comparison. It's easier than attempting to justify your position or to refute mine. And that's very likely an objective fact.


Actually, the idea that some art is bad and some art is good has been the prevailing opinion throughout most of western civilization since at least the greeks. It wasn't until the enlightenment that you could argue things slid in the other direction.

Of course, this was due to the enormous influence of Aristotle especially on the Catholic church and, to a lesser extent, Plato combined with other church doctrines. Regardless, this idea that "everyone before thought art was entirely subjective and now you all think otherwise" is silly. When Michelangelo carved David everyone recognised that this was a great artistic achievement whereas some dude who hacked once or twice at a rock did not achieve anything artistically. Now, who knows? Maybe the hacked at rock was better all along!


----------



## science

BachIsBest said:


> We probably could build a machine that recognises which music we consider excellent in the CPP with reasonably high accuracy.


Actually, maybe so, but only if we told it what to value. (And I bet even then we'd be surprised by some of its output.)


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> Which STILL is begging the question.
> Wait. We have the "same origins", yet our perceptions are so different that any and every kind of music can be said to be of equal "value" or "quality" since some significant number somewhere may "like" it.


Still no understanding: every kind of music will have some value to someone, but no one holds either that no music has value or that all music to them is equally valuable.


----------



## ArtMusic

SanAntone said:


> Bach's music has been studied, performed and continues to please listeners from among a self-selected, relatively small, group of classical music aficionados. Just because Bach's music is popular with classical music fans doesn't prove it is objectively great. It demonstrates that members of the self-selected audience of classical music share similar taste and Bach is revered among that limited audience.
> 
> Other genres have other heroes who are considered great, while Bach is irrelevant to them.


I'm not sure what this post demonstrates other than the reversion to postmodernism's rejection of any objectivity in art and artistic endeavors. It is evident that this ideological belief also negates the existence of art itself ("anything can be art/anything can be music....") while the only thing that does exist is the timelessness of good art itself. Thank goodness Bach's music represents humanity on the Voyager Golden Record, as I am sure it was objectively selected based on merit!


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> Actually, the idea that some art is bad and some art is good has been the prevailing opinion throughout most of western civilization since at least the greeks. It wasn't until the enlightenment that you could argue things slid in the other direction.
> 
> Of course, this was due to the enormous influence of Aristotle especially on the Catholic church and, to a lesser extent, Plato combined with other church doctrines. Regardless, this idea that "everyone before thought art was entirely subjective and now you all think otherwise" is silly. When Michelangelo carved David everyone recognised that this was a great artistic achievement whereas some dude who hacked once or twice at a rock did not achieve anything artistically. Now, who knows? Maybe the hacked at rock was better all along!


The default position is that opinion is the factor governing our appreciation of art among the vast bulk of "practical" humanity. The labored efforts of Plato and other Idealists to concoct theories of inherent excellence transcending mere human tastes and frailties are carried on in this very group of threads, yet convince only their devotees.


----------



## BachIsBest

Strange Magic said:


> The default position is that opinion is the factor governing our appreciation of art among the vast bulk of "practical" humanity. The labored efforts of Plato and other Idealists to concoct theories of inherent excellence transcending mere human tastes and frailties are carried on in this very group of threads, yet convince only their devotees.


Really? Have you tried asking people whether there is no difference between a good song and a bad song beyond personal opinion?

But historically this is false. It was not the position of the church that an autographed urinal was as great of art as Madonna and Child, and most people followed the lead of the church (I am speaking eurocentrically, as I don't know enough about other cultures to comment accurately).


----------



## BachIsBest

science said:


> Actually, maybe so, but only if we told it what to value. (And I bet even then we'd be surprised by some of its output.)


I mean, machines only ever do what you tell them so that's no surprise. A machine can't do arithmetic unless you tell it to.


----------



## science

BachIsBest said:


> Actually, the idea that some art is bad and some art is good has been the prevailing opinion throughout most of western civilization since at least the greeks. It wasn't until the enlightenment that you could argue things slid in the other direction.
> 
> Of course, this was due to the enormous influence of Aristotle especially on the Catholic church and, to a lesser extent, Plato combined with other church doctrines. Regardless, this idea that "everyone before thought art was entirely subjective and now you all think otherwise" is silly. When Michelangelo carved David everyone recognised that this was a great artistic achievement whereas some dude who hacked once or twice at a rock did not achieve anything artistically. Now, who knows? Maybe the hacked at rock was better all along!


It did take a certain degree of cosmopolitanism and self-reflection for people to realize that the values of their own societies were neither universally held nor intrinsically superior to all alternatives. The truth is, it's not really until the post-WWII reaction against colonialism and nationalism (not to mention the complete collapse of old regime aristocracy) that many people were willing to recognize that. Colonialism has by and large recreated itself as a globalist appreciation of diversity, the monarchists' last gasp is basically what we have here.


----------



## science

BachIsBest said:


> I mean, machines only ever do what you tell them so that's no surprise. A machine can't do arithmetic unless you tell it to.


Would the inputs for a machine that would evaluate the truth or falsehood of mathematical statements be ontologically equivalent to those for a machine that would evaluate the quality of a work of music?


----------



## Woodduck

SanAntone said:


> Bach's music has been studied, performed and continues to please listeners from among a self-selected, relatively small, group of classical music aficionados. Just because Bach's music is popular with classical music fans doesn't prove it is objectively great. It demonstrates that members of the self-selected audience of classical music share similar taste and Bach is revered among that limited audience.
> 
> Other genres have other heroes who are considered great, while Bach is irrelevant to them.


So the reason why the music of Bach, an 18th-century German church musician, is regarded, by those who know it, as one of the pinnacles of Western music and has endured and been loved and venerated by performers, composers, scholars, students and audiences, not only in the West but around the world, and not only by classical musicians but also by jazz musicians and musicians from other cultures, and has been so regarded, and even increasingly well-regarded, for almost three centuries, is that there is a "self-selected, relatively small, group of classical music aficionados" who, inexplicably, enjoy it.

To understand a phenomenon like Bach we needn't look at what distinguishes his music, but only at a relatively small, self-selected group of fans, and not in order to understand why they might be admirers of Bach, but simply to note the fact that there are other people who don't know what the fuss is about.

Why didn't I know this at 17 when I heard the _B-minor Mass_ and thought it was an effing miracle? Nobody told me that "Yellow Submarine" was an effing miracle too. What did I miss by not listening to it a second time?


----------



## Ethereality

Nah. Listen to Crumb's Black Angels or Feldman's Rothko Chapel if you want a miracle


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> inexplicably


This is a straw man.


----------



## BachIsBest

science said:


> Would the inputs for a machine that would evaluate the truth or falsehood of mathematical statements be ontologically equivalent to those for a machine that would evaluate the quality of a work of music?


I'm not sure where ontology is coming in here, but I'll try and answer.

It has been proven rigorously that no machine can evaluate the truth or falsehood of all mathematical statements. In fact, I have no idea how one would even attempt to build a machine that even approximately except for the most trivial mathematical statements or given a very, very, specific subset of mathematical truths. To be frank, this math truth machine is, at current levels of knowledge, (in my opinion) a bit of a pipe-dream.

For music, roughly speaking, (I'm not an expert on programming), you should find a way to encode musical scores into arrays of numbers. Then, input a large amount of common practice period works into the computer with a rating as to the general consensus as to how highly rated this composition is (say on a three-point scale and you could input works on which there is wide consensus). I would guess one should be able to fine-tune a machine-learning algorithm to get reasonable results for non-originally inputted CPP music.


----------



## BachIsBest

Woodduck said:


> Why didn't I know this at 17 when I heard the _B-minor Mass_ and thought it was an effing miracle? Nobody told me that "Yellow Submarine" was an effing miracle too. What did I miss by not listening to it a second time?


That the submarine is yellow? They do say it a lot so you might get that on first listening depending on your level of focus and listening experience. I dunno though.


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> Nah. Listen to Crumb's Black Angels or Feldman's Rothko Chapel if you want a miracle


I'm sure there's a relatively small, self-selected group of aficionados that can't get enough of Feldman (which is a good thing for a composer who writes six-hour string quartets and other things that _feel_ like they're six hours long). But I know now, thanks to TC, that "Yellow Submarine" is every bit as great. It's liberating.


----------



## ArtMusic

BachIsBest said:


> I'm not sure where ontology is coming in here, but I'll try and answer.
> 
> It's been proven rigorously that no machine can evaluate the truth or falsehood of all mathematical statements. In fact, I have no idea how one would even attempt to build a machine that even approximately except for the most trivial mathematical statements or given a very, very, specific subset of mathematical truths. To be frank, this math truth machine is, at current levels of knowledge, (in my opinion) a bit of a pipe-dream.
> 
> For music, roughly speaking, (I'm not an expert on programming), you should find a way to encode musical scores into arrays of numbers. Then, input a large amount of common practice period works into the computer with a rating as to the general consensus as to how highly rated this composition is (say on a three-point scale and you could input works on which there is wide consensus). I would guess one should be able to fine-tune a machine-learning algorithm to get reasonable results for non-originally inputted CPP music.


You didn't mention one fundamental flaw with machines: they all eventually break down.


----------



## science

BachIsBest said:


> with a rating as to the general consensus


The issue is whether that consensus is objectively correct or not, so that's basically circular reasoning.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> This is a straw man.


It's called satire. Over your head, I guess.

But seriously, why respond with riddles? Why respond with vacuity? Why respond?


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> It's called satire. Over your head, I guess.
> 
> But seriously, why respond with riddles? Why respond with vacuity? Why respond?


Because stuff is at stake.

Or it's fun.

Whatever. Why ask?

I don't believe it was satire, actually. I think you, like your ideological allies here, really believe that the consequence of acknowledging that aesthetic values are subjective is that then there is no truth, no basis for judging anything, everything just willy-nilly. The point several of us on the other side are making is that it ain't necessarily so. We all live and breathe in communities of people who share most of our values to varying extents, so within those communities the shared values -- to the extent that they are in fact shared -- have a kind of independent, even in some sense objective existence.

So you can have what you want, but you can't have it outside of your chosen community. If you'd settle for that we'd have no problem. The continual allusions to how stupid everyone else is -- we all know lots of people who'd value Yellow Submarine more than anything by Feldman or Bach -- is where the problem arises. When people don't share values, there's hardly a conversation to be had unless one group has enough political power to force other people to pretend to submit.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> The default position is that opinion is the factor governing our appreciation of art among the vast bulk of "practical" humanity. The labored efforts of Plato and other Idealists to concoct theories of inherent excellence transcending mere human tastes and frailties are carried on in this very group of threads, yet convince only their devotees.


There is no "default position," and the recognition of excellence in art has nothing to do with Platonism. The "vast bulk of practical humanity" knows more about aesthetics than it realizes, but with you teaching the course "Art as Ice Cream 101" it's sure never to realize anything more.


----------



## BachIsBest

science said:


> The issue is whether that consensus is objectively correct or not, so that's basically circular reasoning.


This is not a response to my post. You made the claim that a machine couldn't be programmed to figure out which compositions would be considered great. I responded:

"We probably could build a machine that recognises which music we consider excellent in the CPP with reasonably high accuracy."

I assumed apriori that it is the music we consider excellent whether that be subjective or objective. You then asked for details, and I roughly explained how someone might attempt this. My post was a refutation, not an argument. Now that the claim has been refuted, I may be wrong, but I believe you are accusing me of doing something I clearly did not do to hide the invalidity of your previous point.

I don't consider what machines can and can not determine at all a reasonable criteria for what can be known objectively. It seems a virtually certainty that no machine can determine every law of the universe with 100% accuracy.


----------



## BachIsBest

science said:


> Because stuff is at stake.
> 
> Or it's fun.
> 
> Whatever. Why ask?
> 
> I don't believe it was satire, actually. I think you, like your ideological allies here, really believe that the consequence of acknowledging that aesthetic values are subjective is that then there is no truth, no basis for judging anything, everything just willy-nilly. The point several of us on the other side are making is that it ain't necessarily so. We all live and breathe in communities of people who share most of our values to varying extents, so within those communities the shared values -- to the extent that they are in fact shared -- have a kind of independent, even in some sense objective existence.


Truth is objective. If music evaluation is entirely subjective, then there is no truth in music evaluation. This is just definitional. No one has claimed that music evaluation being entirely subjective means there is no basis for judging anything, rather, that there is then no objective basis for evaluating anything, which is again just definitional.

As I have pointed out previously, I, and I suspect many of the other objectivists, believe that although some values (probably the vast majority) are subjective, others are not. There is no community in the world that believes cold-blooded murder without cause is right. Some values aren't just within our community, they are within the entirety of humanty.



science said:


> So you can have what you want, but you can't have it outside of your chosen community. If you'd settle for that we'd have no problem. The continual allusions to how stupid everyone else is -- we all know lots of people who'd value Yellow Submarine more than anything by Feldman or Bach -- is where the problem arises. When people don't share values, there's hardly a conversation to be had unless one group has enough political power to force other people to pretend to submit.


No one has claimed those who listen to Yellow Submarine are stupid.


----------



## Portamento

Woodduck said:


> I disagree with a couple of things here. I don't think that human beings have failed to identify aesthetic qualities that arouse pleasure and admiration on an effectively universal basis. We find certain attributes of both art and nature which arouse these feelings across time, cultures and styles, and it's partly the seeming universality of many aesthetic judgments that makes aesthetic questions compelling. "Universality" doesn't mean that every work of art must exhibit all such characteristics to be either effective or praiseworthy, or that all works must embody these qualities in the same way, or that all individuals must be equally sensitive to or concerned with any particular qualities.


I don't believe in universal aesthetic qualities, but the idea that each community is locked up in its own image of the world is equally wrong. Of course you can be moved by Sung Dynasty landscapes or Benin sculptured heads without having grown up in those cultures. That artistic communication is always possible, however, doesn't mean that there _is_ a universal or general conception of beauty/art.

But I should make a distinction here between aesthetic qualities and perceptual cues. There have been experiments on this very topic: Balkwill and Thompson (1999) found pitch range, tempo, and rhythmic/melodic complexity to be basic perceptual cues and considered the emotional associations with Indian ragas to be enculturated cues. However, the distinction between these two types of cues may be blurred under the influence that learned schemata has on perception. For example, what sounds deviant to an uninitiated listener may not sound deviant from the perspective of a musical insider, _and yet the impression of deviance may seem perceptually evident_. "Such an impression could well have an impact on the listener's ability to recognize emotional content, distracting attention from such content or prompting affective response" (Higgins 2012). Contemporary psychologists do not take the establishment of regularities in spontaneous judgments of emotions expressed to be proof of universal aesthetic qualities. Some have postulated that the "apparently species-invariant acoustic cues for expressing emotions were selected by evolution for clear communication of broad emotion categories, _not for nuances_." While the use of loud, fast, accelerating patterns in high registers seems to "universally" cue emotional excitement, there are always nuances which are conceptualized in the language of a certain group (and no ideal language or set of aesthetic qualities is available for those nuances).

But this is not a bad thing! It's not necessary to share a language to communicate (this holds both for people that speak the "same" language and for people that don't). Hence, incommensurability between languages and concepts could be interpreted in a positive way - that is, the communication process is kept in motion by what the participants don't share.



> No one is free of "biases" of these sorts, but the ability to perceive basic aesthetic qualities is a part of human nature, and so, to one degree or another, is the ability to detect the masterful employment of aesthetic principles and engagement of our perception by artists.


Once upon a time ago, Longfellow said that "music is the universal language of mankind." The idea retains currency among those who partake in so-called world music, but it's certainly less commonplace than it used to be. Not that Germans don't understand Italian music anymore. But as Europeans began to encounter Asian music, they realized that not all music resembled that of their own societies. Some of it, in fact, seemed unintelligible. European theorists in the 19th century simply decided that other people's music was less advanced than that of Europe. Take Darwin's description of "discordant noises, the beating of tom-toms and the shrill notes of reeds'' pleasing "the ears of savages." The tonal system, a European discovery, was seen as the apex of musical progress. A view only slightly less extreme still has adherents today: Roger Scruton was without doubt extremely musically knowledgeable, yet he argued that Western tonality is the optimal employment of musical resources. "Our tradition," he says, "could fairly claim to be the richest and most fertile that has yet existed." Utter nonsense.

When the great sitarist Nikhil Banerjee was taken to a concert where Rostropovich performed the Bach cello suites, he remarked, "He played out of tune the entire time; he didn't develop any of the themes; and it sounded almost like the music was written out in advance." An Albanian folk musician taken to a performance of Beethoven's Ninth described it as "Fine - but very, very plain." I don't think these examples can be chalked up to individual "biases," nor am I advocating for a total subjectivist position. Bach and Beethoven should obviously be judged according to their tradition's broad musical aims. I'm sure that both Banerjee and the Albanian musician were aware of basic perceptual cues present in the music, but nuanced aesthetic qualities were clearly lost on them.



> Critics are no different than the rest of us, except (we hope) in the amount of knowledge and thought they bring to their job, and a sense of obligation to learn to appreciate even art that doesn't naturally appeal to them. Works of art have their own distinct concepts to convey, but the artist's ability to carry out his conception in a clear and potent way depends very much on his sense of aesthetic fitness, and the choices he has to make are not arbitrary. Beauty, in its looser sense, is in the eye of the beholder, but for the artist beauty, in the narrower and stronger sense of aesthetic integrity, is achieved in definite ways. The knowing appreciator of art - the good critic, professional or otherwise - sees how the artist has achieved it and, sometimes, of course, how he has failed to.
> 
> The worldwide acceptance of the most diverse forms of art as true manifestations of beauty - the ability of individuals worldwide to appreciate and enjoy the art of cultures far from their own - is much more significant, and much more in need of explanation, than the existence of personal dislikes and critical "blind spots." Artistic perception is grounded in more fundamental aspects of human nature - cognitive, affective and physical - than are cultural differences. "Why have musicians and listeners around the world for almost 300 years considered Bach a master of music?" is a difficult but important question. "Why doesn't my cousin Leslie like Bach?" is neither.


I was pointing out the implications of a critic _admitting_ to their blind spots, not simply the existence of personal dislikes. When critics admit to blind spots, it can be taken as a confession that their general competence prevents them from "learn[ing] to appreciate even art that doesn't naturally appeal to them." Does a critic who can't see any merit in Stockhausen betray their occupational obligation? I don't necessarily think so, but you might?

As for someone appreciating cultures far from their own, I maintain that the possibility of artistic communication doesn't mean that there is a universal language. That human traditions are similar is no ground to suppose that there is one prototypical "Way of Life" that they necessarily share.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> Because stuff is at stake.
> 
> Or it's fun.
> 
> Whatever. Why ask?
> 
> I don't believe it was satire, actually. I think you, like your ideological allies here, really believe that the consequence of acknowledging that aesthetic values are subjective is that then there is no truth, no basis for judging anything, everything just willy-nilly. The point several of us on the other side are making is that it ain't necessarily so. We all live and breathe in communities of people who share most of our values to varying extents, so within those communities the shared values -- to the extent that they are in fact shared -- have a kind of independent, even in some sense objective existence.
> 
> So you can have what you want, but you can't have it outside of your chosen community. If you'd settle for that we'd have no problem. The continual allusions to how stupid everyone else is -- we all know lots of people who'd value Yellow Submarine more than anything by Feldman or Bach -- is where the problem arises. When people don't share values, there's hardly a conversation to be had unless one group has enough political power to force other people to pretend to submit.


The question of what personal value anyone places on Bach or the Beatles is irrelevant to the qualities present in their work. Anyone may prefer any music they please, and for any reason. That doesn't make all music equally good.

I don't listen to music as part of a "community" but as an independent artistic mind.

Your sermons, heavy with moralism, are beside the point.


----------



## science

BachIsBest said:


> There is no community in the world that believes cold-blooded murder without cause is right. Some values aren't just within our community, they are within the entirety of humanty.


That does not make it objective. "Agreed upon" is not the definition of objective.



BachIsBest said:


> No one has claimed those who listen to Yellow Submarine are stupid.


What word would you like to use rather than "stupid?"


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> The question of what personal value anyone places on Bach or the Beatles is irrelevant to an evaluation of the qualities present in their work. I don't listen to music as part of a "community" but as an independent artistic mind.


Ah, the island of whose existence Donne was unaware.

Romantic individualism might have a place, but your values (even that individualism) come from somewhere. You've been shaped by your world. We all know this, so it's hardly worth denying.



Woodduck said:


> Your sermons, heavy with moralism, are also irrelevant.


Are they? I understand you want to say so, and why, but I they appear relevant to me, not least as a way to understand why we have to keep going back over the same ground repeatedly, pretending that it hasn't been conceded repeatedly.


----------



## BachIsBest

science said:


> That does not make it objective. "Agreed upon" is not the definition of objective.


No, it doesn't necessarily make it objective. But you were talking as though one could always find a community with different values from ones own; hence my response.



science said:


> What word would you like to use rather than "stupid?"


I'm not sure what I'm supposed to gather from the fact that a person likes Yellow Submarine other than that said person liked Yellow Submarine. There is no word for "person who likes Yellow Submarine", but if there was, I'd choose it!


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> Ah, the island of whose existence Donne was unaware.
> 
> Romantic individualism might have a place, but your values (even that individualism) come from somewhere. You've been shaped by your world. We all know this, so it's hardly worth denying.
> 
> Are they? I understand you want to say so, and why, but I they appear relevant to me, not least as a way to understand why we have to keep going back over the same ground repeatedly, pretending that it hasn't been conceded repeatedly.


Let me say this straight out. What "we all know," what you think others are "denying," what you "understand" about other's thinking and motivations, what you "understand" that I understand, what you think we all think, what people are "pretending," how you think we should all express ourselves, and all the rest of your presumptuous psychologizing and moralizing, are toxic. If you're unaware that you engage in this stuff constantly, I suggest a little reflection on personal boundaries. I had to put up with too much impertinence from millionrainbows, and I'm in no mood for more of it. Just express your opinions on art and leave it at that.


----------



## Woodduck

Portamento said:


> I don't believe in universal aesthetic qualities, but the idea that each community is locked up in its own image of the world is equally wrong. Of course you can be moved by Sung Dynasty landscapes or Benin sculptured heads without having grown up in those cultures. That artistic communication is always possible, however, doesn't mean that there _is_ a universal or general conception of beauty/art.
> 
> But I should make a distinction here between aesthetic qualities and perceptual cues. There have been experiments on this very topic: Balkwill and Thompson (1999) found pitch range, tempo, and rhythmic, and melodic complexity to be basic perceptual cues and considered the emotional associations with Indian ragas to be enculturated cues. However, the distinction between these two types of cues may be blurred under the influence that learned schemata has on perception. For example, what sounds deviant to an uninitiated listener may not sound deviant from the perspective of a musical insider, _and yet the impression of deviance may seem perceptually evident_. "Such an impression could well have an impact on the listener's ability to recognize emotional content, distracting attention from such content or prompting affective response" (Hansen 2012). Contemporary psychologists do not take the establishment of regularities in spontaneous judgments of emotions expressed to be proof of universal aesthetic qualities. Some have postulated that the "apparently species-invariant acoustic cues for expressing emotions were selected by evolution for clear communication of broad emotion categories, _not for nuances_." While the use of loud, fast, accelerating patterns in high registers seems to "universally" cue emotional excitement, there are always nuances which are conceptualized in the language of a certain group (and no ideal language or set of aesthetic qualities is available for those nuances).
> 
> But this is not a bad thing! It's not necessary to share a language to communicate (this holds both for people that speak the "same" language and for people that don't). Hence, incommensurability between languages and concepts could be interpreted in a positive way - that is, the communication process is kept in motion by what the participants don't share.
> 
> Once upon a time ago, Longfellow said that "music is the universal language of mankind." The idea retains currency among those who partake in so-called world music, but it's certainly less commonplace than it used to be. Not that Germans don't understand Italian music anymore. But as Europeans began to encounter Asian music, they realized that not all music resembled that of their own societies. Some of it, in fact, seemed unintelligible. European theorists in the 19th century simply decided that other people's music was less advanced than that of Europe. Take Darwin's description of "discordant noises, the beating of tom-toms and the shrill notes of reeds'' pleasing "the ears of savages." The tonal system, a European discovery, was seen as the apex of musical progress. A view only slightly less extreme still has adherents today: Roger Scruton was without doubt extremely musically knowledgeable, yet he argued that Western tonality is the optimal employment of musical resources. "Our tradition," he says, "could fairly claim to be the richest and most fertile that has yet existed." Utter nonsense.
> 
> When the great sitarist Nikhil Banerjee was taken to a concert where Rostropovich performed the Bach cello suites, he remarked, "He played out of tune the entire time; he didn't develop any of the themes; and it sounded almost like the music was written out in advance." An Albanian folk musician taken to a performance of Beethoven's Ninth described it as "Fine - but very, very plain." I don't think these examples can be chalked up to individual "biases," nor am I advocating for a total subjectivist position. Bach and Beethoven should obviously be judged according to their tradition's broad musical aims. I'm sure that both Banerjee and the Albanian musician were aware of basic perceptual cues present in the music, but nuanced aesthetic qualities were clearly lost on them.
> 
> I was pointing out the implications of a critic _admitting_ to their blind spots, not simply the existence of personal dislikes. When critics admit to blind spots, it can be taken as a confession that their general competence prevents them from "learn[ing] to appreciate even art that doesn't naturally appeal to them." Does a critic who can't see any merit in Stockhausen betray their occupational obligation? I don't necessarily think so, but you might?
> 
> As for someone appreciating cultures far from their own, I maintain that the possibility of artistic communication doesn't mean that there is a universal language. That human traditions are similar is no ground to suppose that there is one prototypical "Way of Life" that they necessarily share.


I appreciate this post and would like to address it, but it's too late at night here. Maybe tomorrow.


----------



## Portamento

Woodduck said:


> So the reason why the music of Bach, an 18th-century German church musician, is regarded, by those who know it, as one of the pinnacles of Western music and has endured and been loved and venerated by performers, composers, scholars, students and audiences, not only in the West but around the world, and not only by classical musicians but also by jazz musicians and musicians from other cultures, and has been so regarded, and even increasingly well-regarded, for almost three centuries, is that there is a "self-selected, relatively small, group of classical music aficionados" who, inexplicably, enjoy it.


I'm not responding to the substance of your post just yet, but this is Run-On Sentence of the Year.


----------



## Ethereality

At least the sentence was accurate that time. I like when they paraphrase us.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> Let me say this straight out. What "we all know," what you think others are "denying," what you "understand" about other's thinking and motivations, what you "understand" that I understand, what you think we all think, what people are "pretending," how you think we should all express ourselves, and all the rest of your presumptuous psychologizing and moralizing, are toxic. If you're unaware that you engage in this stuff constantly, I suggest a little reflection on personal boundaries. I had to put up with too much impertinence from millionrainbows, and I'm in no mood for more of it. Just express your opinions on art and leave it at that.


I'm really not putting you down; I'm just saying you're not as far above us as your posts suggest, and not for the reasons you think.

Why can't you be content with simply being more knowledgeable and aware of so many more subtleties than most people are?

I'm granting you that and I personally respect it.

Just stop implying that people who have different values are ignorant. There are plenty of intelligent, thoughtful, knowledgeable, talented musicians who love rock music or whatever and don't really care about anything from 250 years ago. If there were a little respect, there could possibly even be an interesting conversation.

But to take up the personal note: Maybe y'all can get me banned, but I'm not going away voluntarily.


----------



## consuono

science said:


> That does not make it objective. "Agreed upon" is not the definition of objective.
> 
> ...


Ultimately what difference does it make whether it's "objective" or "subjective"? It seems the ones who are hung up on that are the (ironically) dogmatic super-subjectivists. Most of us would agree that murder is wrong, whether it's subjectively or objectively wrong or immoral.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

consuono said:


> Ultimately what difference does it make whether it's "objective" or "subjective"? It seems the ones who are hung up on that are the (ironically) dogmatic super-subjectivists. *Most of us would agree that murder is wrong, whether it's subjectively or objectively wrong or immoral.*


I would not agree with that. Its not accurate.

There is no such thing as "subjectively wrong", its an oxymoron.

It is either wrong (objectively- true regardless of human opinion) or it is subjective (just ones opinion, therefore not wrong).


----------



## science

consuono said:


> Ultimately what difference does it make whether it's "objective" or "subjective"? It seems the ones who are hung up on that are the (ironically) dogmatic super-subjectivists. Most of us would agree that murder is wrong, whether it's subjectively or objectively wrong or immoral.


In a practical, day-to-day sense, it makes no difference at all (in the case of murder).

If we're intellectuals trying to understand how the world works, it's fundamental.


----------



## science

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> subjective (just ones opinion, therefore not wrong).


Just as a thought experiment, let's imagine that it's simply an opinion that almost all of us happen to share, and one that we're willing to enforce.

Is anything missing then?


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

science said:


> In a practical, day-to-day sense, it makes no difference at all (in the case of murder).
> 
> If we're intellectuals trying to understand how the world works, it's fundamental.


It makes a huge difference to a society whether the people in that society view morals as objectively fixed or down to each individuals opinion, the consequences will be and are seen.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

science said:


> Just as a thought experiment, let's imagine that it's simply an opinion that almost all of us happen to share, and one that we're willing to enforce.
> 
> Is anything missing then?


yes. its dangerous. Because it is just based on your opinion and your (or everybody's) opinion can change.


----------



## science

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> yes. its dangerous. Because it is just based on your opinion and your (or everybody's) opinion can change.


Even if murder is objectively wrong according to some transcendent standard, if our subjective opinion that it is wrong changes, then we'll change our laws and behaviors.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

science said:


> Even if murder is objectively wrong according to some transcendent standard, if our subjective opinion that it is wrong changes, then we'll change our laws and behaviors.


Yes. This is what we see happening in the west. Things that were once illegal, say 50 years ago, are now legal.

There will be consequences to following "mans laws", consequences which we are also witnessing.

Also, if we humans make up morality, then we can make it literally whatever we like. So hypothetically rape could be deemed right at some point in the future.


----------



## science

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Yes. This is what we see happening in the west. Things that were once illegal, say 50 years ago, are now legal.
> 
> There will be consequences to following "mans laws", consequences which we are also witnessing.
> 
> Also, if we humans make up morality, then we can make it literally whatever we like. So hypothetically rape could be deemed right at some point in the future.


For millennia, rape was legalized as slavery. Slowly, however, most of us changed our mind about that, and made it at least technically illegal.

Now you might argue that it was always wrong even when it was legal, or you might possibly argue that it's okay in the form of slavery, but no matter what, the point is that our societies' laws and behaviors actually do change as our opinions change, regardless of whether there is some transcendent objective moral law.

That's what "In a practical, day-to-day sense, it makes no difference at all" meant.

Taking it further, you might say that you personally won't follow any moral standards that you regard as merely human conventions built on our collective subjectivities, but I doubt it's so. I bet you'd go on doing whatever you think is right except when you really don't want to, as you in fact do now.

Taking it even further, if there is an objective moral standard, and what we see in the history of human society is indicative of its content, then the objective moral standard regards rape in the case of slavery as a perfectly legitimate expression of one person's power over another. Were I to find myself standing in judgement before a supreme personality intending to punish me for violating that morality by opposing slavery, I hope I would have the courage and integrity to tell the supreme personality to go jump in a lake. I doubt I would have it, but I might as well because I'd be headed for the lake myself in that scenario!


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

science said:


> Taking it further, you might say that you personally won't follow any moral standards that you regard as merely human conventions built on our collective subjectivities, but I doubt it's so. I bet you'd go on doing whatever you think is right except when you really don't want to, as you in fact do now.


...For example?


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

science said:


> Taking it even further, if there is an objective moral standard, and what we see in the history of human society is indicative of its content, then the objective moral standard regards rape in the case of slavery as a perfectly legitimate expression of one person's power over another. Were I to find myself standing in judgement before a supreme personality intending to punish me for violating that morality by opposing slavery, I hope I would have the courage and integrity to tell the supreme personality to go jump in a lake. I doubt I would have it, but I might as well because I'd be headed for the lake myself in that scenario!


why would you feel so strongly about something made up? You would be fighting for a morality that doesn't really exist, that there is no basis for.


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> Really? Have you tried asking people whether there is no difference between a good song and a bad song beyond personal opinion?
> 
> But historically this is false. It was not the position of the church that an autographed urinal was as great of art as Madonna and Child, and most people followed the lead of the church (I am speaking eurocentrically, as I don't know enough about other cultures to comment accurately).


In what sense is this a penetrating reply to my post? If I ask people about what is "better" or "worse" in the arts, I'll get answers. People have opinions. That's what it's all about.


----------



## Art Rock

*A reminder to all: religious discussions are not allowed in most of the Talk Classical forums - only in the Political and/or Religious discussions forum, and then only if they are clearly related to Classical Music. If members wish to discuss religious topics not related to Classical Music, such will be strictly limited to Social Groups only. As always, the same rules apply to Social Groups as they do on the open boards.

Some posts have been removed. *


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> Truth is objective. If music evaluation is entirely subjective, then there is no truth in music evaluation. This is just definitional. No one has claimed that music evaluation being entirely subjective means there is no basis for judging anything, rather, that there is then no objective basis for evaluating anything, which is again just definitional.
> 
> As I have pointed out previously, I, and I suspect many of the other objectivists, believe that although some values (probably the vast majority) are subjective, others are not. There is no community in the world that believes cold-blooded murder without cause is right. Some values aren't just within our community, they are within the entirety of humanty.


There is a perfectly respectable music evaluation that deals with, or will deal with, how well the psychology, neurology, personal history, and general history of groups is reflected in consensus ideas of what music and art is preferred and what is ignored or rejected. Then the question of "Why Bach is Preferred among Certain Communities" will be probed and the answers set down.

I see we are still dealing with esthetics, by extension, expanding to include attitudes toward cold-blooded murder. These sorts of burdens are quite heavy for the slender shoulders of subjectivist esthetics--any stick with which to beat a dog-- though much powerful art depicts hot-blooded murder.


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> Ultimately what difference does it make whether it's "objective" or "subjective"? It seems the ones who are hung up on that are the (ironically) dogmatic super-subjectivists. Most of us would agree that murder is wrong, whether it's subjectively or objectively wrong or immoral.


That's the fundamental difference between esthetics of art objects and people's social behavior dealing with ostracism, punishment, expulsion, the routine functioning of society. Both are governed by opinion, usually shared by the controlling faction or in-group, or widely-held by consensus. But life goes on quite unchanged if people differ over art choices and people generally say Live and Let Live. But objectivists are such absolutists that esthetics has to be expanded to include all of their other expansive ideas of Good and Evil, etc. Everything becomes a Moral Crisis if all do not kneel and accept their Platonist doctrines. True Believers in the fixity of Art. It's a strength.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> Why is the preoccupation of a relatively small audience, that has similar taste and aesthetic priorities, so important? I (and many others) do celebrate the music I love, some of which is classical, but more of which is jazz, blues, bluegrass, r&b, soul, country, flamenco, fado, tango, Indian ragas, etc.


It is important to that audience. That is all I'm saying. For me, that fact that that audience still exists 270 years after Bach's death indicates artistic success, by my definition. You are free to define artistic success some other way. I'm not entitled to, and don't need, universal agreement with my opinions. By the way, I enjoy many other genres of music as well.


----------



## consuono

Strange Magic said:


> That's the fundamental difference between esthetics of art objects and people's social behavior dealing with ostracism, punishment, expulsion, the routine functioning of society. Both are governed by opinion, usually shared by the controlling faction or in-group, or widely-held by consensus. But life goes on quite unchanged if people differ over art choices and people generally say Live and Let Live. But objectivists are such absolutists that esthetics has to be expanded to include all of their other expansive ideas of Good and Evil, etc. Everything becomes a Moral Crisis if all do not kneel and accept their Platonist doctrines. True Believers in the fixity of Art. It's a strength.


Postmodern dogma, which actually shows signs of being on the way out. The most absolutist commenters I've seen in the thread are the subjectives. Go figure.


----------



## Zhdanov

Portamento said:


> When the great sitarist Nikhil Banerjee was taken to a concert where Rostropovich performed the Bach cello suites, he remarked, "He played out of tune the entire time; he didn't develop any of the themes; and it sounded almost like the music was written out in advance." An Albanian folk musician taken to a performance of Beethoven's Ninth described it as "Fine - but very, very plain."


because it takes some *learning* before you listen to classical, for this trancendent technology was utilised by *academic* masters to make high quality music intended for *educated* audience, so that process had produced an *intellectual* elite, unlike those shamen you mentioned and their savage fans who know nothing to be nothing.


----------



## fluteman

Portamento said:


> I don't believe in universal aesthetic qualities, but the idea that each community is locked up in its own image of the world is equally wrong. ....


This post is way too intelligent and nuanced for this thread. Not that I could have written it, but it raises issues I've tried to avoid here, as much more basic ideas are not being understood or acknowledged.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> So the reason why the music of Bach, an 18th-century German church musician, is regarded, by those who know it, as one of the pinnacles of Western music and has endured and been loved and venerated by performers, composers, scholars, students and audiences, not only in the West but around the world, and not only by classical musicians but also by jazz musicians and musicians from other cultures, and has been so regarded, and even increasingly well-regarded, for almost three centuries, is that there is a "self-selected, relatively small, group of classical music aficionados" who, inexplicably, enjoy it.
> 
> To understand a phenomenon like Bach we needn't look at what distinguishes his music, but only at a relatively small, self-selected group of fans, and not in order to understand why they might be admirers of Bach, but simply to note the fact that there are other people who don't know what the fuss is about.
> 
> Why didn't I know this at 17 when I heard the _B-minor Mass_ and thought it was an effing miracle? Nobody told me that "Yellow Submarine" was an effing miracle too. What did I miss by not listening to it a second time?


Yes. The power of personal reaction to music we love is quite remarkable. Our appreciation of it grows to include All Outdoors, the Sun, Moon, and Sky, and we wonder at how anyone could not universally agree with us. A wonderful testimonial.


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> Postmodern dogma, which actually shows signs of being on the way out. The most absolutist commenters I've seen in the thread are the subjectives. Go figure.


If you didn't notice, I drew an important and objective difference between the esthetics of art and its appreciation, and governance: how people live (and die) together. The absolutists here continue to confound issues of who likes what bit of music with who is morally Good or Bad. I ain't one of them.


----------



## Zhdanov

fluteman said:


> This post is way too intelligent and nuanced for this thread.


he basically says that every group of men is equal to another, which is a lie, because men are not equal, for there are those who aspire and those happy with what they got, those with objectives and those with none, those who learn and those who don't.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> There is no "default position," and the recognition of excellence in art has nothing to do with Platonism. The "vast bulk of practical humanity" knows more about aesthetics than it realizes, but with you teaching the course "Art as Ice Cream 101" it's sure never to realize anything more.


Three assertions, quickly, in succession. (Or is it two?) The position of subjectivism/relativism in esthetics is as old as Methuselah and is the default position. And I agree that the "vast bulk of practical humanity" does know more about esthetics than it realizes--every day demonstrates this, and why absolutists are so obsessed with consensus--any consensus--among peers or assumed peers. It is all about opinions, whether music, art, fine wines (or not-fine wines) and ice cream.


----------



## Strange Magic

Zhdanov said:


> he basically says that every group of men is equal to another, which is a lie, because men are not equal, for there are those who aspire and those happy with what they got, those with objectives and those with none, those who learn and those who don't.


This reminds me of the pioneer environmentalist John Muir, who used to bring wealthy industrialists and financiers with him into his beloved California forests to experience their cathedral-like majesty and calm. He was fond of saying that the difference between him and them was that he had all the money he needed and they didn't.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> It is important to that audience. That is all I'm saying. For me, that fact that that audience still exists 270 years after Bach's death indicates artistic success, by my definition. You are free to define artistic success some other way. I'm not entitled to, and don't need, universal agreement with my opinions. By the way, I enjoy many other genres of music as well.


There is an audience for Scottish and Irish ballads which crossed the Atlantic with the Scots-Irish immigrants and formed the basis for Appalachian mountain music, bluegrass and country music. This audience goes back to the 8th century, much older than 270 years.

If objective greatness is gauged by the length of time a music has been loved, then Appalachian old time music is far greater than the music of Bach.

But that is not my point, and I do not buy into this "long time love" argument.

My earlier point was to counter the idea that long term love of a composer's music is simply not objective evidence. It is evidence that a specific (self-selected) community with shared values can and has appreciated a kind of music for long periods.

But these are subjective responses amplified by the cumulative weight of an audience over time.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> If you didn't notice, I drew an important and objective difference between the esthetics of art and its appreciation, and governance: how people live (and die) together. The absolutists here continue to confound issues of who likes what bit of music with who is morally Good or Bad. I ain't one of them.


Right. I guess the only common thread between the two is that one would hope there is a general consensus within a group of people as to what is morally good and bad and as to what music they like before you put them all together in a concert hall.



SanAntone said:


> There is an audience for Scottish and Irish ballads which crossed the Atlantic with the Scots-Irish immigrants and formed the basis for Appalachian mountain music, bluegrass and country music. This audience goes back to the 8th century, much older than 270 years.
> 
> If objective greatness is gauged by the length of time a music has been loved, then Appalachian old time music is far greater than the music of Bach. ....


Yes, I agree completely. Good post. Any old musical tradition that still has an enthusiastic audience anywhere has succeeded in my book. And it has nothing to do with objective greatness, I agree.



Zhdanov said:


> because it takes some *learning* before you listen to classical, for this trancendent technology was utilised by *academic* masters to make high quality music intended for *educated* audience, so that process had produced an *intellectual* elite, unlike those shamen you mentioned and their savage fans who know nothing to be nothing.


I like my definition of classical music more than yours.


----------



## science

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> ...For example?


Let me know if you'd like to have this discussion in a group, as suggested by Art Rock. I'd be eager to do so, but some people don't care so much for the groups, so it's up to you. We could also do it by PM if you'd prefer that.


----------



## science

Zhdanov said:


> he basically says that every group of men is equal to another, which is a lie, because men are not equal, for there are those who aspire and those happy with what they got, those with objectives and those with none, those who learn and those who don't.


I really respect and appreciate your unflinching honesty and transparency about your beliefs. I think you're spelling out the logical correlations of your position much more fully than most of the other people on your side here.

(Complimenting someone you disagree with on the internet is rare enough that this might sound sarcastic, so I'm just adding this note to assure you or anyone else who cares that I mean this completely genuinely.)


----------



## Jacck

The arts objectify subjective reality, and subjectify outward experience of nature


----------



## Portamento

consuono said:


> The most absolutist commenters I've seen in the thread are the subjectives. Go figure.


I mean, you guys do have Zhdanov.



Zhdanov said:


> he basically says that every group of men is equal to another, which is a lie, because men are not equal, for there are those who aspire and those happy with what they got, those with objectives and those with none, those who learn and those who don't.


That wasn't my point at all, but yeah - I think "every group of men is equal to another." Caught me red-handed!


----------



## Jacck

Portamento said:


> I think "every group of men is equal to another." I'm surprised I have to defend this position in 2021, but I probably shouldn't be.


because that position is an ideological statement, not truth or actuality, so you have to defend it


----------



## Strange Magic

Zhdanov, you will find Ortega y Gasset's _The Revolt of the Masses_, the book where he chronicles the overthrow of the high-culture aristocracy and its replacement by the growing realization of The Masses of their own ability to evaluate not only art but most other sorts of social convention long inherited from centuries of top-down influence, to be fascinating but intolerable reading. _Downton Abbey_ is a popular realization of Ortega y Gasset's thesis. Ortega y Gasset does not specifically endorse what he observes, but is the messenger.


----------



## consuono

> The Masses


I always hated that objectifying, dehumanizing term. It belongs in a museum.


----------



## science

consuono said:


> I always hated that objectifying, dehumanizing term. It belongs in a museum.


Along with the ideology that it belongs to!


----------



## Portamento

Jacck said:


> because that position is an ideological statement, not truth or actuality, so you have to defend it


Is arguing against my position any less ideological? Start a thread in the politics forum and maybe we can talk.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> Zhdanov, you will find Ortega y Gasset's _The Revolt of the Masses_, the book where he chronicles the overthrow of the high-culture aristocracy and its replacement by the growing realization of The Masses of their own ability to evaluate not only art but most other sorts of social convention long inherited from centuries of top-down influence, to be fascinating but intolerable reading. _Downton Abbey_ is a popular realization of Ortega y Gasset's thesis. Ortega y Gasset does not specifically endorse what he observes, but is the messenger.


If we're turning to literature, Zhdanov might prefer the Clifford Odets play Golden Boy, about a promising young violinist who also is a talented boxer and, faced with a choice between the two professions, chooses the latter. Odets was such a devoted classical music enthusiast that even his friend Jascha Heifetz was amazed at the extent of his knowledge on the subject.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

science said:


> Let me know if you'd like to have this discussion in a group, as suggested by Art Rock. I'd be eager to do so, but some people don't care so much for the groups, so it's up to you. We could also do it by PM if you'd prefer that.


you can PM me with an example if you like.


----------



## hammeredklavier

The objectivists keep accusing the subjectivists as being "dogmatic", but there's something about the things the objectivists say that seems like constant idolatry around Bach, Mozart, Beethoven. (I have rejected the term "the Big Three", btw)


----------



## BachIsBest

Strange Magic said:


> In what sense is this a penetrating reply to my post? If I ask people about what is "better" or "worse" in the arts, I'll get answers. People have opinions. That's what it's all about.


My question was this:

"Have you tried asking people whether there is no difference between a good song and a bad song beyond personal opinion?"

This is clearly not asking people what is better and worse, but whether there is better and worse a different question entirely.


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> My question was this:
> 
> "Have you tried asking people whether there is no difference between a good song and a bad song beyond personal opinion?"
> 
> This is clearly not asking people what is better and worse, but whether there is better and worse a different question entirely.


There has got to be a profundity in your question, and in your repeating it that I fail utterly to grasp. My fault entirely. 

Edit: How many people should I ask? And what should I do with their answers?


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> The position of subjectivism/relativism in esthetics is as old as Methuselah and is the default position.


Yet another post that raises topics too nuanced for this thread. Our opponents here, at least the best of them, are good Cartesian rationalists. The French Academy of Fine Arts, which you unsurprisingly viewed with less than enthusiasm in your evaluation of Ingres, has roots dating back to the 17th century when the influence of Cartesian rationalism was at its peak, especially in France. In the most delicious of ironies, the venerable Academy did a complete about-face in the 20th century, but though Cartesian rationalism may be gone, traditional institutional inertia remains. Today, the Academy is criticized as being out of date in its excessive focus on experimental postmodernism. It turns out large, bureaucratic institutions are inflexible. Who knew?


----------



## Jacck

Portamento said:


> Is arguing against my position any less ideological? Start a thread in the politics forum and maybe we can talk.


I am too lazy to argue about it. I have thought these things through in the past and the topic is exhaused for me. Basically, the whole basis of our society such as the declaration of human rights, the whole concept of justice, laws etc. are just a consensual reality created by humans to maintain some semblence of order and security in society. None of it exists outside of human society in nature, it is wholly product of our culture, of our thought processes. The oposite idea of social darwinism is of course likewise just a similar product of human thought. There are people who are aware of the limitations of language and thought and how they shape our perceptions, and there are those who arent. Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent'


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> My question was this:
> 
> "Have you tried asking people whether there is no difference between a good song and a bad song beyond personal opinion?"
> 
> This is clearly not asking people what is better and worse, but whether there is better and worse a different question entirely.


I know something about songwriting, and I can tell you there is a difference between a good song and a bad song. Songwriting is a craft and skill is involved. However there is also a quality that is not related to craft and skill, a spark of creativity that is unexplained. It is easy to tell if a song has not been written with good craft but may have the kernel of a really good idea. Executed with more skill that idea could turn out a very good song.

The real question is how can you tell the difference between a really good song and a better song. And for this I think it is much harder. A group of experienced songwriters will focus on the priorities and attributes they value and assign more or less weight to these contrasting aspects of songwriting when listening to a song, a subjective process. Each experienced songwriter will have valid reasons for the attributes they weigh more than others, and there can be some disagreement about two well written songs as to which is better.

Hence, my view is that even given criteria that could be viewed as objective, there is always a subjective element in how this criteria is weighed, analyzed, and what conclusions result.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> I know something about songwriting, and I can tell you there is a difference between a good song and a bad song. Songwriting is a craft and skill is involved. However there is also a quality that is not related to craft and skill, a spark of creativity that is unexplained. It is easy to tell if a song has not been written with good craft but may have the kernel of a really good idea. Executed with more skill that idea could turn out a very good song.
> 
> The real question is how can you tell the difference between a really good song and a better song. And for this I think it is much harder. A group of experienced songwriters will focus on the priorities and attributes they value and assign more or less weight to these contrasting aspects of songwriting when listening to a song, a subjective process. Each experienced songwriter will have valid reasons for the attributes they weigh more than others, and there can be some disagreement about two well written songs as to which is better.
> 
> Hence, my view is that even given criteria that could be viewed as objective, there is always a subjective element in how this criteria is weighed, analyzed, and what conclusions result.


Anyone who disagrees with any part of this should spend some time attending music competitions, of any kind, and any genre, but especially the genres you like the most and know the most about. (And I don't mean silly TV shows. Serious competitions, with highly respected judges and reasonable rules and procedures. Find the competitions you think are conducted most expertly and fairly.) Singing. Songwriting. Instrumental composing. Instrumental performing. Conducting. Anything else.

After a few years of attending many of these competitions, ask yourself: Do you ever disagree with the results? Does the contestant you think should have been the clear winner ever not finish in the top three, not make the finals, or otherwise not get nearly the recognition they deserved? Why do you think that is? Did the judges all have head colds and clogged ears? Did they drink too much wine at lunch?

I suggest after attending enough serious, well-run competitions you will begin to see why contestants win, why they don't, and why contestants you think should win sometimes don't. And it has nothing to do with head colds or wine.


----------



## Jacck

fluteman said:


> I suggest after attending enough serious, well-run competitions you will begin to see why contestants win, why they don't, and why contestants you think should win sometimes don't. And it has nothing to do with head colds or wine.


or maybe they need to fill some diversity quota or some other political reason? I am sceptical of these professional critics. I am not familiar with music, but for example with movies. The famous Academy awards etc. sometimes pick duds and overlook other things.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> Anyone who disagrees with any part of this should spend some time attending music competitions, of any kind, and any genre, but especially the genres you like the most and know the most about. (And I don't mean silly TV shows. Serious competitions, with highly respected judges and reasonable rules and procedures. Find the competitions you think are conducted most expertly and fairly.) Singing. Songwriting. Instrumental composing. Instrumental performing. Conducting. Anything else.
> 
> After a few years of attending many of these competitions, ask yourself: Do you ever disagree with the results? Does the contestant you think should have been the clear winner ever not finish in the top three, not make the finals, or otherwise not get nearly the recognition they deserved? Why do you think that is? Did the judges all have head colds and clogged ears? Did they drink too much wine at lunch?
> 
> I suggest after attending enough serious, well-run competitions you will begin to see why contestants win, why they don't, and why contestants you think should win sometimes don't. And it has nothing to do with head colds or wine.


A similar thing happens in Olympic judging of figure skating or gymnastics. Different judges rate the same performance differently.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> A similar thing happens in Olympic judging of figure skating or gymnastics. Different judges rate the same performance differently.


Yes, those darn Russian judges! I remember the days when we said, those darn East German judges! At least in Olympic sports, there are highly structured numerical scoring systems with things like specific compulsory deductions that at least in theory reduce the subjective wiggle room. That kind of thing is frowned upon in classical music competitions, especially the most serious high-prestige ones. The golden-eared judges, usually big shots in the CM world, basically point a finger at a contestant and say, "winner".


----------



## BachIsBest

Strange Magic said:


> There has got to be a profundity in your question, and in your repeating it that I fail utterly to grasp. My fault entirely.
> 
> Edit: How many people should I ask? And what should I do with their answers?


There is no profundity. You claimed that most everyone agrees with your viewpoint on subjectivity. To test this, I proposed you ask my question. I repeated it merely because you seemed to misinterpret it.


----------



## ArtMusic

SanAntone said:


> A similar thing happens in Olympic judging of figure skating or gymnastics. Different judges rate the same performance differently.


An 8/10 or 9/10 mean much the same thing if there is consistency among the judges all giving them a good score.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> I know something about songwriting, and I can tell you there is a difference between a good song and a bad song. Songwriting is a craft and skill is involved. However there is also a quality that is not related to craft and skill, a spark of creativity that is unexplained. It is easy to tell if a song has not been written with good craft but may have the kernel of a really good idea. Executed with more skill that idea could turn out a very good song.
> 
> The real question is how can you tell the difference between a really good song and a better song. And for this I think it is much harder. A group of experienced songwriters will focus on the priorities and attributes they value and assign more or less weight to these contrasting aspects of songwriting when listening to a song, a subjective process. Each experienced songwriter will have valid reasons for the attributes they weigh more than others, and there can be some disagreement about two well written songs as to which is better.
> 
> Hence, my view is that even given criteria that could be viewed as objective, there is always a subjective element in how this criteria is weighed, analyzed, and what conclusions result.


I think this is pretty well what the objectivist have been arguing. Of course there is always a subjective element, no one is denying this. But there is also an objective element and "a difference between a good song and a bad song".


----------



## BachIsBest

I found a great opinion from a modern composer on this topic!

_"The idea is simple. Find an object, any object, declare it a work of art, and it is a work of art. Art becomes truly objective, just an object, artistic techniques become unnecessary, and the seeds of "non-intentional" art are planted at the same time. This Marcel Duchamp principle, the "readymade" or the "objet trouvé," is now recognized everywhere as a perfectly valid way of making art. A generation of Fluxus artists developed this point of view, John Cage adapted it to compose music through chance operations, and it is now quite natural that a composer or artist might choose to work with a found mathematical object, like Pascal's triangle or the Narayana series or some automaton, just as well as with a urinal, a bicycle wheel, a comb, or a bottle rack. But before I explain my own way of using mathematical objects to construct musical compositions, let me to lay the esthetic foundations a little more solidly."_

It's just that easy! Art is objective because it has objects! Maybe if art had a subject we could conclude it subjective by the same logic! Would artistic techniques then become re-necessary? Such profound questions - much investigation needed!

Note: This is no reflective of my opinion on the subject in any way; I just hope this makes everyone else laugh as much as it made me laugh.


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> There is no profundity. You claimed that most everyone agrees with your viewpoint on subjectivity. To test this, I proposed you ask my question. I repeated it merely because you seemed to misinterpret it.


Thank you! I am relieved. I hate to miss profundities.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> The objectivists keep accusing the subjectivists as being "dogmatic", but there's something about the things the objectivists say that seems like constant idolatry around Bach, Mozart, Beethoven. (I have rejected the term "the Big Three", btw)
> ...


From someone whose primary activity on this forum is the idolization of Mozart. You've rejected "the Big Three" for "the Big One".


----------



## DaveM

For those who are using analogies of music, gymnastics and figure-skating competitions, of course there is subjectivity involved in judging. That’s why there are several judges. But, and it is a big but, there is an objective component when it comes to the fact that while these judges may disagree at who are in the top 3, 4 or 5, it would be rare that they disagree that those in the competitions deserve to be there. 

Our next door neighbor is a former Olympic figure skater trainer. She has talked about the varying characteristics of a performance that influence judging and how it is that some skaters win medals over others, but she is consistent about who deserve to be considered for those top positions as most judges and experts are (if you’ve ever listened to their commentary during the Olympics).


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> There is an audience for Scottish and Irish ballads which crossed the Atlantic with the Scots-Irish immigrants and formed the basis for Appalachian mountain music, bluegrass and country music. This audience goes back to the 8th century, much older than 270 years.
> 
> If objective greatness is gauged by the length of time a music has been loved, then Appalachian old time music is far greater than the music of Bach.
> 
> But that is not my point, and I do not buy into this "long time love" argument.
> 
> My earlier point was to counter the idea that long term love of a composer's music is simply not objective evidence. It is evidence that a specific (self-selected) community with shared values can and has appreciated a kind of music for long periods.
> 
> But these are subjective responses amplified by the cumulative weight of an audience over time.


But there was never an answer as to WHY that music has been held in esteem for that long. Well there was, but it was along the lines of "it's lasted because resonates with people." "Why do you think that is?" "Since it resonated with people, a lot of people love it and it lasted." And no one's really saying that Bach or Mozart are considered great simply because their music is old. They're, or at least I'm, asking why so many are still listening to that old music. And comparison with folk music is lame. Folk music isn't the identifiable artistic expression of an individual.


----------



## consuono

DaveM said:


> For those who are using analogies of music, gymnastics and figure-skating competitions, of course there is subjectivity involved in judging. That's why there are several judges. But, and it is a big but, there is an objective component when it comes to the fact that while these judges may disagree at who are in the top 3, 4 or 5, it would be rare that they disagree that those in the competitions deserve to be there.
> 
> Our next door neighbor is a former Olympic figure skater trainer. She has talked about the varying characteristics of a performance that influence judging and how it is that some skaters win medals over others, but she is consistent about who deserve to be considered for those top positions as most judges and experts are (if you've ever listened to their commentary during the Olympics).


Exactly. "It's ALL subjective and therefore there's no such thing as good-better-best-worse" is an absolutist, dogmatic position. The absolute is that there are no absolutes. "It's good to somebody, so it's all good, dewd." And the kicker is to read from some of the same people terms like "values", or lengthy defenses of Max Reger of all people. What??


> it would be rare that they disagree that those in the competitions deserve to be there.


I dunno, given the mindset I've been reading in these threads it might be narrow-minded to exclude pole vaulters and line dancers from the ice skating competition.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> But there was never an answer as to WHY that music has been held in esteem for that long. Well there was, but it was along the lines of "it's lasted because resonates with people." "Why do you think that is?" "Since it resonated with people, a lot of people love it and it lasted." And no one's really saying that Bach or Mozart are considered great simply because their music is old. They're, or at least I'm, asking why so many are still listening to that old music. And comparison with folk music is lame. Folk music isn't the identifiable artistic expression of an individual.


I addressed this yesterday. It has resonated with the classical music audience, which is a self-selected group, who share similar taste in music.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> I addressed this yesterday. It has resonated with the classical music audience, which is a self-selected group, who share similar taste in music.


Not just with the "classical music audience". Ever heard of Oscar Peterson or Dave Brubeck? And what *isn't* a "self-selected group"? The only ones I can think of are prison inmates and draftees. And hospital patients. Or maybe a racial/ethnic group. You talk about this broad-minded musical approach but you're the one that looks for the little compartments.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Not just with the "classical music audience". Ever heard of Oscar Peterson or Dave Brubeck?


While there are some members of another audience who listen to classical music, overall the audience for jazz, blues, rap, country, r&b, soul, and the rest do not care much about Bach, Beethoven and Mozart.

Most jazz musicians, if they care about classical music, prefer 20th century composers like Bartok, Stravinsky, and Ravel. BUt this is a minor interest, at least in my own experience working as a jazz musician and what I saw in my fellow musicians. I have also worked in Nashville and classical music has even less of a presence among country musicians and songwriters.

Just as you won't find most classical music fans listening to hip-hop (while there are some) most fans of hip-hop are not interested in classical music.


----------



## SanAntone

Classical music occupies between 1%-5% of the global music market. That accounts mainly for real classical music fans, not outliers from other genres.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> While there are some members of another audience who listen to classical music, overall the audience for jazz, blues, rap, country, r&b, soul, and the rest do not care much about Bach, Beethoven and Mozart.
> 
> Most jazz musicians, if they care about classical music, prefer 20th century composers like Bartok, Stravinsky, and Ravel. BUt this is a minor interest, at least in my own experience working as a jazz musician and what I saw in my fellow musicians. I have also worked in Nashville and classical music has even less of a presence among country musicians and songwriters.
> 
> Just as you won't find most classical music fans listening to hip-hop (while there are some) most fans of hip-hop are not interested in classical music.


I'll just repeat what I said in my last comment: You talk about this broad-minded musical approach but you're the one that looks for the little compartments. You're the one with the stereotypical set-in-stone audiences. This group only listens to this, this one listens to that, and then you pat yourself on the back because you're so super cool to be part of all of it in some way.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> For those who are using analogies of music, gymnastics and figure-skating competitions, of course there is subjectivity involved in judging. That's why there are several judges. But, and it is a big but, there is an objective component when it comes to the fact that while these judges may disagree at who are in the top 3, 4 or 5, it would be rare that they disagree that those in the competitions deserve to be there.
> 
> Our next door neighbor is a former Olympic figure skater trainer. She has talked about the varying characteristics of a performance that influence judging and how it is that some skaters win medals over others, but she is consistent about who deserve to be considered for those top positions as most judges and experts are (if you've ever listened to their commentary during the Olympics).


Right. But long before she came along, the key constituents in the sport had to powwow and decide what the characteristics of a great skating performance would be and how it would be evaluated. Perhaps they wanted to see some combination of speed, grace, agility, and accuracy. Something that would a test of the athletic skills they felt figure skaters should have.

As Olympic figure skating became a big time televised sport, changes were made. One big example is that compulsory figures were eliminated. Yup, they took the figures, originally the whole point of the sport, out of figure skating. Presumably they decided it was too boring to watch on TV as skater after skater performed the same filigreed figures, and then judges who would step onto the ice to examine their accuracy, how perfectly round the circles were, etc. They needed the sport to be more fun and exciting to watch on TV.

So especially if you take a long-term view, you can see the idea of what constitutes a great figure skater evolve over time. Ask your neighbor, if she is a veteran of, say, over 30 years in the sport, if the sport and its standards for what is considered great skating have changed, at least a little, over that time. Yes, she knows a good skater when she sees one, but that is within the context of today's consensus on aesthetic values, not that of 100 years ago.

Music is the same way. Not only are individual tastes different, even commonly-held tastes of large audiences evolve over time. We've discussed here how Meyerbeer's operas were highly popular and successful in their own time, but today few opera music fans would consider him a major composer, much less put him in a class with Richard Wagner. (Though no doubt there are still a few today who prefer his operas to Wagner's.) Just as in figure skating, the skills needed to give the audience what it wants can change over time, too.


----------



## consuono

> So especially if you take a long-term view, you can see the idea of what constitutes a great figure skater evolve over time. Ask your neighbor, if she is a veteran of, say, over 30 years in the sport, if the sport and its standards for what is considered great skating have changed, at least a little, over that time. Yes, she knows a good skater when she sees one, but that is within the context of today's consensus on aesthetic values, not that of 100 years ago.


In typical fashion you throw that out there as if it's a slam-dunk without any evidence that standards have changed.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> I'll just repeat what I said in my last comment: You talk about this broad-minded musical approach but you're the one that looks for the little compartments. You're the one with the stereotypical set-in-stone audiences. This group only listens to this, this one listens to that, and then you pat yourself on the back because you're so super cool to be part of all of it in some way.


When presented with actual objective data, the size of the classical music market, you can't deal with it.

The reality is that Bach has been revered almost exclusively by the classical music community. His importance outside of that community is negligible.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> Right. But long before she came along, the key constituents in the sport had to powwow and decide what the characteristics of a great skating performance would be and how it would be evaluated. Perhaps they wanted to see some combination of speed, grace, agility, and accuracy. Something that would a test of the athletic skills they felt figure skaters should have.
> 
> As Olympic figure skating became a big time televised sport, changes were made. One big example is that compulsory figures were eliminated. Yup, they took the figures, originally the whole point of the sport, out of figure skating. Presumably they decided it was too boring to watch on TV as skater after skater performed the same filigreed figures, and then judges who would step onto the ice to examine their accuracy, how perfectly round the circles were, etc. They needed the sport to be more fun and exciting to watch on TV.
> 
> So especially if you take a long-term view, you can see the idea of what constitutes a great figure skater evolve over time. Ask your neighbor, if she is a veteran of, say, over 30 years in the sport, if the sport and its standards for what is considered great skating have changed, at least a little, over that time. Yes, she knows a good skater when she sees one, but that is within the context of today's consensus on aesthetic values, not that of 100 years ago.
> 
> Music is the same way. Not only are individual tastes different, even commonly-held tastes of large audiences evolve over time. We've discussed here how Meyerbeer's operas were highly popular and successful in their own time, but today few opera music fans would consider him a major composer, much less put him in a class with Richard Wagner. (Though no doubt there are still a few today who prefer his operas to Wagner's.) Just as in figure skating, the skills needed to give the audience what it wants can change over time, too.


That's all very well, but do you believe that a figure skating or gymnastics coach would say there are no objective parameters by which the competitors can be judged? Is there nothing objectively significant about the fact that Simone Biles is the only gymnast that can do a triple-twisting double somersault? I'm not sure what the point is of mentioning how these sports came to include certain challenges and how some of those have changed. Cutting to the chase, are you arguing that there are no objective elements at all in judging in these sports?


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> "It's ALL subjective and therefore there's no such thing as good-better-best-worse" is an absolutist, dogmatic position. The absolute is that there are no absolutes.


One can only wonder how someone can repeat this over and over even when confronted with testimony that each person not only is free to establish any sort of hierarchy of value in the arts, but actually does so, as Consuono knows full well.. If someone can be located who actually says there is no such thing as good-better-best-worse, they can be profitably exhibited as a roadside attraction. I've complained before about Consuono's growing army of Straw Men--they must be breeding like rabbits.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> ..I've complained before about Consuono's growing army of Straw Men--they must be breeding like rabbits.


Does that have objective significance? Is there a TC complaint department? Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Does that have objective significance? Is there a TC complaint department? Inquiring minds want to know.


Try to stick with the subject. We both know that Consuono repeats his little assertion, demonstrating that he has failed to understand or deal with the obvious falsity of his claim, but it pleases him to continue to do so. And so I keep correcting him. Not complaining; it may be that he cannot help himself.


----------



## Ethereality

Appealing to an authority, whether many or esoteric, is admitting your inability to think. How would one know anyone's a good authority unless they're using their own judgment to begin with. So use your own judgment on music, we'll even let you use questionable terminology like objective greatness, just stop embarrassing yourself by appealing to composers/critics you subjectively like as though you have no brain of your own.. You're truly making yourself look bad, and most aren't going to tell you. I am because I'm trying to help you all become intelligible.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> From someone whose primary activity on this forum is the idolization of Mozart. You've rejected "the Big Three" for "the Big One".


All I have done with Mozart (or any other composers for that matter) on this forum was simply "music appreciation". When and where have I idolized his music by using hyperboles like "divinity", "genius", "transcendental" in a cringeworthy way?
Remember I'm not like DavidA, who has a penchant to argue with anyone who thinks Wagner wrote better operas than Mozart, for example.
Rather, I think it's you, who has to take a break from the "Bach Defense Association"***, dear Mr. consuono.  Just accept that Beethoven regarded Handel as the greatest, if you can't answer convincingly:



hammeredklavier said:


> This basically summarizes Beethoven's admiration for Handel: "Go to him to learn how to achieve great effects, by such simple means."
> Which works of Bach, unknown at the time, would have changed Beethoven's mind if they were known?


***:



FastkeinBrahms said:


> I am a huge Bach fan, too, however: Not all his work is pure genius, a lot is also "Gebrauchsmusik", with a lot of self-recycled material . No wonder if you have to churn out a new cantata for almost every week for years for your stingy and yet extremely demanding Leipzig employers. Besides, a lot of the texts/lyrics he uses are third rate, mostly amateurish and sometimes involuntarily funny best enjoyed in German by non-German speakers. I feel that a little less exposure to the duopoly of Bach/Händel and a bit more openness to Zelenka and many others would be healthy. Think about the huge number of great Italians beside Vivaldi, for example Porpora, the Scarlattis, or the extremely versatile Rameau, or Lully and Charpentier.









consuono said:


> Nope, not to me. Bach's cantatas alone are collectively to me the greatest achievement in composition. It's just that they haven't been played to death in the way that Beethoven's symphonies have. And...they are at least as distinct in character AND there are over 200 that survive, with nary a clunker in the bunch. AND the bulk of some of the finest among them came within a three year period.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Try to stick with the subject. We both know that Consuono repeats his little assertion, demonstrating that he has failed to understand or deal with the obvious falsity of his claim, but it pleases him to continue to do so. And so I keep correcting him. Not complaining; it may be that he cannot help himself.


Hmm, do you not recognize some of the same general characteristics in your posts?


----------



## DaveM

Ethereality said:


> Appealing to an authority, whether many or esoteric, is admitting your inability to think..


No it isn't. Look up the word authority. It can have great significance in all sorts of differences of opinions. There might be a correlation between one not wanting to hear from an authority and the need to stick to an opinion that practically no one agrees with.


----------



## Ethereality

DaveM said:


> No it isn't. Look up the word authority. It can have great significance in all sorts of differences of opinions. There might be a correlation between one not wanting to hear from an authority and the need to stick to an opinion that practically no one agrees with.


You're right on cue proving my point. I hope you will be able to ie. think for yourself, reading around weighing different criticisms for yourself. As the winner of this current debate, I feel some obligation to help you. Some of those similar to you remind me of a society living underground who were lied to about there being a world outside (in this case, brain cells of your own inside.) If you want to show brain cells to people, prove their existence.


----------



## DaveM

Ethereality said:


> You're right on cue proving my point. I hope you will be able to ie. think for yourself, reading around weighing different criticisms for yourself. As the winner of this current debate, I feel some obligation to help you. Some of those similar to you reminds me of a society living underground who were lied to about there being a world outside.


So you've declared that your point has been proved, that you're the winner of the current debate and that you are the truth-teller of the real world. With those self-declared accomplishments, who needs authorities that might challenge the belief-system? I'm happy for you.


----------



## Ethereality

Please elaborate on this. I'm not sure I understand.



DaveM said:


> So you've declared that your point has been proved, that you're the winner of the current debate


Not really a proud detail, because the debate question was dumb to begin with. It's not much of an accomplishment outside the context we're now dealing with.


----------



## ArtMusic

Ethereality said:


> Appealing to an authority, whether many or esoteric, is admitting your inability to think. How would one know anyone's a good authority unless they're using their own judgment to begin with. So use your own judgment on music, we'll even let you use questionable terminology like objective greatness, just stop embarrassing yourself by appealing to composers/critics you subjectively like as though you have no brain of your own.. You're truly making yourself look bad, and most aren't going to tell you. I am because I'm trying to help you all become intelligible.


Thank you for your generosity in trying to help us all become intelligible. I am forever grateful for that. Truly.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Page 61 and counting - and we're still arguing about a false dichotomy. There is no absolute subjectivity, and there is no absolute objectivity.

Subjectivists seem to have a strange taste for some sort of concept of autonomy. For example, the idea that appealing to an authority represents an inability to think seems to put on a pedestal some concept of intellectual autonomy.

But, you are not autonomous (or not in any sense worth glorying in). Your brain is wired up in a certain way. This is partly because of genetics, partly because of environmental effects (some of those physical like the effects of nutrition, and some the result of mental impacts like communication with others). If you like the idea of being purely autonomous then you are glorying in the idea that communication with others has no effect on brain development. Well that just ain't so. There is a feedback loop going on all the time where "you" engage with the environment (including in communication with others), and that changes "you". "You" are partially the creation of your interactions with others. It is not that you preserve a distinct autonomy in engaging with others: you become a different you because you engaged with them. You might say that you are choosing whether or not to agree with someone (using your autonomous intellect), but you are not that much in control of your brain's wiring. I love "The Wind in the Willows" in a certain way because it was read to me as a child, because of the choice of another. If it hadn't been then I would like it in a different way (or maybe not like it). The reason for that is that I would have been a different I. There is no consistent "I" separate from my experiences. In relation to the point that I am made different by my communication with others, I find that to be inspiring - and the denial of that both (i) clearly impossible and (ii) sterile.

Hence, the absolute subjectivist position represents a denial of the critical importance of our interactions with others in making us who we are, and continuing to do so throughout our lives.

On the other hand, the absolute objectivist position is not tenable either. This is because of the inherent gap between whatever is out there (the noumenal world as it is in itself) and our appreciation of it (the phenomenal world of what we experience). We experience the world according to our available senses and intellect, which are biologically constrained in their capabilities and (as above) influenced heavily by environmental interactions (- we change because of those and become different thinking beings). In relation to our knowledge of a thing in the world (like a piece of music) we cannot obtain an objective understanding of it at all.

Hence, the absolutist objective position represents a denial of our limitations as biological beings in the world, and seeks to give us a divine status. As though, like God, we could stand outside time and observe all things at all times as one whole with absolute clarity; perceive the things in themselves as they are. Well we can't - all we can do is speculate and test our speculations against their predictions, which is science.

With music, what we can do is come up with ways of looking at things in discussion with people with shared interests, and according to those ways of looking at things we might agree (within our community of shared interests) that one artefact is better than another, or that one of them is great. Talk Classical is a forum for those sharing an interest in Classical music, so it is not unreasonable (within its members) to use the word great for a composer or piece where there is a reasonable consensus about their extraordinarily high quality. It's fuzzy, neither wholly subjective, nor wholly objective: well of course it is. We're people.

Oh, and by the way, suppose that only 1% of people are interested in classical music. Well even in the little old UK that would be about 600,000 people. That's plenty.


----------



## consuono

Eclectic Al said:


> Page 61 and counting - and we're still arguing about a false dichotomy. There is no absolute subjectivity, and there is no absolute objectivity.


Actually, Al, that's what most of us who've been tagged as "objectivists" have been saying all along. The all-or-nothings are the subjectivists.


----------



## consuono

Strange Magic said:


> I've complained before about Consuono's growing army of Straw Men--they must be breeding like rabbits.


What straw man? I'm just following your doctrine to its logical conclusion. If you don't like it, then maybe you can show me "the good" outside the illusory one in my own brain.

Here's an example of a straw man: "You say anyone who doesn't like what you like is wrong. If you believe that there is "good art" then you're going to apply that to politics and be a totalitarian." And on and on.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> All I have done with Mozart (or any other composers for that matter) on this forum was simply "music appreciation". When and where have I idolized his music by using hyperboles like "divinity", "genius", "transcendental" in a cringeworthy way?


You have to pop up in your Mozart Defense squad car with your stock of YT videos and Tchaikovsky quotes every time there's a somewhat negative mention of Mozart. Come on.


----------



## Portamento

Woodduck said:


> So the reason why the music of Bach, an 18th-century German church musician, is regarded, by those who know it, as one of the pinnacles of Western music and has endured and been loved and venerated by performers, composers, scholars, students and audiences, not only in the West but around the world, and not only by classical musicians but also by jazz musicians and musicians from other cultures, and has been so regarded, and even increasingly well-regarded, for almost three centuries, is that there is a "self-selected, relatively small, group of classical music aficionados" who, inexplicably, enjoy it.


Short answer: "yes and no." Long answer:

Simply put, Bach's music survives to this day because it is part of the canonic repertoire. When people discuss the canon, there seem to be two primary perspectives. On one hand, there's the deconstructionist perspective that the canon is much less unified and coherent than most people assume; the reason that some works have persisted cannot _always_ be attributed to reasoned musical judgements; canonic authority has often been manipulated to encourage snobbery and social elitism. Then there's the historical perspective that the canon's evolution suggests a continuation of tradition based on craft and the artful construction of music. I think that both of these perspectives are correct, but neither is the full picture. William Weber puts it best: "To maintain a balance between these two perspectives demands that we integrate theory and empiricism, in order to avoid the blinding extremities found among some practitioners of each approach" (1999).

Weber identifies the four main intellectual bases of the canon as _craft, repertory, criticism, and ideology_. I will focus on craft and ideology because they are the most pertinent to this discussion.

_Craft_. The concept of musical classics emerged from respect for the master composer's craft and ability to compose successfully in learned idioms. Historically, these roots are bound to the polyphonic tradition and a desire to maintain respect for contrapuntal technique. This does not mean that the canon is defined by learned polyphony, but there does seem to be a necessity in both composition and taste for certain elements of rigor in voice-leading/textures. (The learned tradition, however, has proven to be quite adaptable - take Liszt's melding of Beethovenian rigour and early 19th-century popular virtuosic music. In Liszt, creative tension between "more learned" and "less learned" tastes is mediated by canonic models.)

During the 16th and 17th centuries, the notions of the master composer and the "masterpiece" had canonical implications of a pedagogical - but not historical - nature. In Germany, "an intellectual framework for canon, focused upon its pedagogical aspect, emerged much earlier than major repertories of old music. The depth of the learned tradition in German sacred music and the vigor of the region's periodical press generated a strong movement of canonic thinking from the middle of the eighteenth century on. The literature of pedagogical and theoretical treatises written in the period displayed important historical dimensions, and the cult for J. S. Bach's learned music at the Prussian court was welcomed in musical commentary; the _Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung_ put Bach's portrait on the title page of its first bound volume" (Weber 1994). Bach's most important contemporaries - Handel, Telemann, Vivaldi, and Rameau - all wrote music that had broader appeal and was more widely disseminated, but Bach lived and worked for 27 years in an academically challenging environment where his main activity consisted of teaching. Hence, Bach's students (and his student's students) organized and eventually consolidated his lasting influence.

Throughout the 18th century, the tradition of craft shifted to become more closely allied with performing (rather than pedagogic) canons - the growing professionalism of musicians played a large role in this. Yet, however central musical craft was to the canon's evolution, it possessed a limited ability to engage the larger society. Musical craft was an inward-looking, ultimately professional discipline.

_Ideology_. Since the critique of canonic value presumes intellectual engagement, it usually concerns only a small portion of a community. However, canons "none the less obtain ideological justification that legitimizes their choices and the grounds of these choices, on bases that command wider, stronger allegiance within society" (Weber 1999). The ideology of the canon grew from a reaction against commercialism, against the development of publishing and other enterprises that seemed to threaten the standards of taste. Masterworks were thought to stand above the money-making aspect of musical life; thus, they could help society transcend commercial culture. The canon was also given _spiritual_ and _civic_ roles as the public became a political force independent of the monarch. Music was central to a new definition of community, and it was important to govern musical life because more elites gathered together in musical activities than in any other area of life. As a result, old canonical works such as _Messiah_ became a means of celebrating social/political order during uncertain times.

The shift of patronage/leadership from monarchs to aristocrats to a broad upper-class public raised the question of who within the musical world had authority (and on what basis). Connoisseurs and their views were initially disparaged in periodicals, but this is because they had no indispensable function. By the mid-19th century, however, it was thought that listeners needed to be educated on the great works and composers of the past. Knowledge from simply being involved in the musical community became insufficient, and connoisseurs now played much more central roles in musical life than they did a hundred years earlier. As Weber puts it, "The authority of the connoisseur was essentially based upon ideology, and in such terms that the nature of intellectual authority within musical life was reshaped. Repertory was defined by learning and criticism, and the product was legitimated by ideology. Only through the last of these stages did the canon achieve its central role in musical taste and in the culture as a whole" (1999).

So there we have it. The ideology of the musical canon was manipulated to social/political ends from the very start. But how skeptical should we be of the classical music tradition? As I said at the very beginning of this post, there needs to be a balance. The Prussian court and even connoisseurs didn't revere Bach for some "inexplicable" reason - it was because his music seemed to exemplify the aesthetic qualities of a tradition based on (idiosyncratic) notions of craft and artful construction. The bottom line is that we can love Bach's music without ignoring the elitism that has dogged the canon he's part of.

As for non-Western people venerating Bach, that's largely a product of cultural "cross-pollination" - if those from outside Bach's tradition gain a greater understanding of the tradition's aesthetic qualities, there's no reason why they wouldn't appreciate Bach more. Same with westerners who venerate, say, music of the Carnatic tradition.


----------



## ArtMusic

Is William Weber essentially suggesting the selection of canonical works is largely a 20th century making? You need to realize that most of the works by Bach and Handel were forgotten and only a handful of their oeuvre were representing their vast oeuvre during the first half of the 20th century. This is of course natural when the first half of the 20th century in music making were preoccupied with its own new music. It isn't until the latter half of the 20th century to today that musical research and performance have dedicated resources to the rediscovery of their works, so that today there are several complete cycles of say, Bach's church cantatas and all of Handel's operas and oratorios recorded. "Canon" doesn't really make much sense anymore, it's an outdated word other than to suggest composition X remains an old favorite. I can Youtube a Bach church cantata, almost any harpsichord work or a Handel oratorio with ease.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Hmm, do you not recognize some of the same general characteristics in your posts?


No, I do not. Consuono's repeated assertions that subjectivists recognize no hierarchies of value, or believe art does not exist, or that everything is both equal and valueless, are examples of a positive will to misunderstand. It appears to be, like COVID, quite communicable, in that others repeat it like parrots or refuse to repudiate it. But the argument is straw of the poorest quality and does no credit to those continually and literally "falling back" on it as an Oh Yeah retort. Just sayin'...


----------



## consuono

Portamento said:


> Simply put, Bach's music survives to this day because it is part of the canonic repertoire.


Which is really just yet again begging the question. What social/political ends we're served by the elevation of Bach and not, say, Stölzel? There's no evidence, just flat assertions with "and that's that".


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Eclectic Al:* "Subjectivists seem to have a strange taste for some sort of concept of autonomy. For example, the idea that appealing to an authority represents an inability to think seems to put on a pedestal some concept of intellectual autonomy.
> 
> But, you are not autonomous (or not in any sense worth glorying in). Your brain is wired up in a certain way. This is partly because of genetics, partly because of environmental effects (some of those physical like the effects of nutrition, and some the result of mental impacts like communication with others). If you like the idea of being purely autonomous then you are glorying in the idea that communication with others has no effect on brain development. Well that just ain't so. There is a feedback loop going on all the time where "you" engage with the environment (including in communication with others), and that changes "you". "You" are partially the creation of your interactions with others. It is not that you preserve a distinct autonomy in engaging with others: you become a different you because you engaged with them. You might say that you are choosing whether or not to agree with someone (using your autonomous intellect), but you are not that much in control of your brain's wiring. I love "The Wind in the Willows" in a certain way because it was read to me as a child, because of the choice of another. If it hadn't been then I would like it in a different way (or maybe not like it). The reason for that is that I would have been a different I. There is no consistent "I" separate from my experiences. In relation to the point that I am made different by my communication with others, I find that to be inspiring - and the denial of that both (i) clearly impossible and (ii) sterile.
> 
> Hence, the absolute subjectivist position represents a denial of the critical importance of our interactions with others in making us who we are, and continuing to do so throughout our lives.


My reading of this portion of Al's post is that it is a quite full and well-reasoned endorsement of the total subjectivist position. The very multiplicity and complexity of what each individual brings--through neurology, childhood experience, history, culture, influences, whatever--confirms the unique and idiosyncratic response each individual brings to an art experience. The role of consensus and of clustered opinions of art objects remains as it always has, a bell curve or polling phenomenon that is itself objective data, but tells us nothing specific about an individual reaction. And art is experienced inside one's own head, with that head's own unique history.


----------



## Eclectic Al

I'm quite chuffed.
I have consuono telling me I'm echoing the objectivist position, and Strange Magic telling me I'm endorsing the subjectivist position.
Hence, I'm quite happy to reverse my previous position: I now support both subjectivist and objectivist positions, having previously said I rejected both.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> Cutting to the chase, are you arguing that there are no objective elements at all in judging in these sports?


Nobody is saying that. The objective elements are considerable in figure skating today, as the skater must do x number of triple jumps to get maximum points, for example. Hey, in speed skating, the skater must cross the finish line first to win. That's pretty objective. But like all entertainment (which is what professional sport is), or art, in the end it's all about appreciation and enjoyment of the audience. If the audience isn't getting enough enjoyment out of it, maybe the audience used to love it but tastes have changed, the sport has to change, sometimes in very fundamental ways.

So the champion skaters aren't great, the whole sport isn't great, unless the audience, with its subjective and ever-changing tastes, loves it. A thousand years from now, historians can look back and figure out what inherent attributes helped make figure skating great for its audience back in the 21st century. We can do the same and look back to ancient Greece and Rome. But notice when we try to revive the ancient Greek tradition of the Olympics, the sports aren't quite the same, are they? And they become even more different over time.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> You have to pop up in your Mozart Defense squad car with your stock of YT videos and Tchaikovsky quotes every time there's a somewhat negative mention of Mozart. Come on.


Did you know that, at the same time, I also happen to agree with:

https://theresia.blog/2019/03/rediscovering-michael-haydn-an-interview-with-david-wyn-jones/
"This might seem a rather uninspiring thing to say but Michael Haydn's music has a thorough competence of technique as well a real sense of theatre (in the broadest sense) that is reflected in Mozart's music. One of the many unfortunate legacies of nineteenth-century biographical writing is the excessive focus on the Wunderkind Mozart and the Incomparable Genius Mozart. In Salzburg, if not throughout his life, Mozart was writing in a lingua franca and many of the features of that language are to be found in Michael Haydn too."

(So it really depends on context)


----------



## Phil loves classical

Total objectivity in Art is clearly impossible. Total subjectivity seems theoretically possible, but isn't otherwise there is no Art. I think by stating you like something, you already acknowledge something, which isn't totally arbitrary, that makes you like it. I would believe someone who advocates total subjectivity, if they didn't like anything in particular, or make any judgement of what they like better.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Phil loves classical said:


> Total objectivity in Art is clearly impossible. Total subjectivity seems theoretically possible, but isn't otherwise there is no Art. I think by stating you like something, you already acknowledge something, which isn't totally arbitrary, that makes you like it. I would believe someone who advocates total subjectivity, if they didn't like anything in particular, or make any judgement of what they like better.


Yeah. What puzzles me, though, is why some people seem to behave as though they wish to believe in total objectivity or total subjectivity. I don't think they are desirable positions even if you could find arguments to support them.


----------



## consuono

Eclectic Al said:


> I'm quite chuffed.
> I have consuono telling me I'm echoing the objectivist position...


I didn't say that. Apart from maybe one or two I haven't seen an "objectivist" in the thread, unless believing that there are objective elements at *all* in art is "objectivist". The loudest and lengthiest screeds have come from the subjectivists.


----------



## Eclectic Al

consuono said:


> I didn't say that. Apart from maybe one or two I haven't seen an "objectivist" in the thread, unless believing that there are objective elements at *all* in art is "objectivist". The loudest and lengthiest screeds have come from the subjectivists.


Apologies if I misinterpreted you. I think where I've got to in all this is that by "objectivist" I mean that there are objective elements , and by "subjectivist" I mean that there are subjective elements. Hence, I am happy to agree with both. It's that sense of objectivist that I took as your position - ie just that there are some objective elements to the appreciation of art.


----------



## consuono

Eclectic Al said:


> Apologies if I misinterpreted you. I think where I've got to in all this is that by "objectivist" I mean that there are objective elements , and by "subjectivist" I mean that there are subjective elements. Hence, I am happy to agree with both. It's that sense of objectivist that I took as your position - ie just that there are some objective elements to the appreciation of art.


No, subjectivists here would have us believe that the only objective elements are the paper and notes and maybe seventh chords etc...which strikes me as similar to saying that the only objective elements to a building are the bricks.


----------



## Strange Magic

Eclectic Al said:


> Yeah. What puzzles me, though, is why some people seem to behave as though they wish to believe in total objectivity or total subjectivity. I don't think they are desirable positions even if you could find arguments to support them.


What if one of these positions were true? Is the desirability of believing or not believing one or the other a factor? Should it be? I can attest that my understanding of the total subjectivity of the art experience has not hampered my ability to enjoy art intensely one iota. Try it; you'll like it!


----------



## fluteman

hammeredklavier said:


> Did you know that, at the same time, I also happen to agree with:
> 
> https://theresia.blog/2019/03/rediscovering-michael-haydn-an-interview-with-david-wyn-jones/
> "This might seem a rather uninspiring thing to say but Michael Haydn's music has a thorough competence of technique as well a real sense of theatre (in the broadest sense) that is reflected in Mozart's music. One of the many unfortunate legacies of nineteenth-century biographical writing is the excessive focus on the Wunderkind Mozart and the Incomparable Genius Mozart. In Salzburg, if not throughout his life, Mozart was writing in a lingua franca and many of the features of that language are to be found in Michael Haydn too."
> 
> (So it really depends on context)


Yes, Michael Haydn wrote some excellent music, in my opinion. And yes, Charles Rosen limited the discussion in his book The Classical Style to Beethoven, Mozart and Joseph Haydn at least partly because he felt the book was long enough as it was without discussing more composers from that period, but also partly because he felt he could make the points he wanted to make even if he limited the discussion to those three composers.

So you are right, and Mr. Rosen is right. Life is good.


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> I didn't say that. Apart from maybe one or two I haven't seen an "objectivist" in the thread, unless believing that there are objective elements at *all* in art is "objectivist". The loudest and lengthiest screeds have come from the subjectivists.


You must be in a parallel universe. The usual complaint is that my "screeds" are just the endless repetition of a few almost Euclidian tenets. If you want lengthy screeds, look about among your cohorts. That's an objective fact. :lol:


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> No, subjectivists here would have us believe that the only objective elements are the paper and notes and maybe seventh chords etc...which strikes me as similar to saying that the only objective elements to a building are the bricks.


Some strange similes pop up. Virtually everything connected with art objects is objective and quantifiable/measurable. Except ''inherent" greatness, excellence...... Buildings fall into the same category, but are capable of collapsing, leaking, burning....


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> Some strange similes pop up. Virtually everything connected with art objects is objective and quantifiable/measurable. Except ''inherent" greatness, excellence...... Buildings fall into the same category, but are capable of collapsing, leaking, burning....


Thanks to you, Strange Magic, and to Portamento, for discussing the work of Leonard B. Meyer and William Weber, respectively. These two authors, both of whom did their graduate work in history at the University of Chicago, have written intelligently and thoroughly about the issues discussed in this thread, Weber perhaps more form the view of a musical historian, Meyer more as a composer and philosopher. Meyer's book may be a little heavy going for a simpleton like me, but I look forward to reading some of Weber's work. Thanks again to you both.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> Nobody is saying that. The objective elements are considerable in figure skating today, as the skater must do x number of triple jumps to get maximum points, for example. Hey, in speed skating, the skater must cross the finish line first to win. That's pretty objective. But like all entertainment (which is what professional sport is), or art, in the end it's all about appreciation and enjoyment of the audience. If the audience isn't getting enough enjoyment out of it, maybe the audience used to love it but tastes have changed, the sport has to change, sometimes in very fundamental ways.
> 
> So the champion skaters aren't great, the whole sport isn't great, unless the audience, with its subjective and ever-changing tastes, loves it. A thousand years from now, historians can look back and figure out what inherent attributes helped make figure skating great for its audience back in the 21st century. We can do the same and look back to ancient Greece and Rome. But notice when we try to revive the ancient Greek tradition of the Olympics, the sports aren't quite the same, are they? And they become even more different over time.


So, if I understand you, there are objective elements by which one competitor is measured against another, but there are subjective reasons why audiences may or may not enjoy the competitive aspects and those have to be considered and changed if necessary. Perhaps an example of that is why the making particular figures on the ice which gave the name 'figure-skating' to the sport is no longer part of the Olympics. I don't disagree with that.

I would extrapolate from that it could be said that subjectivity played a role in the development of the parameters people came to look for in Western classical music of the CPT era, but once those parameters became established, they allowed there to be comparisons with some, not total, objectivity between composers and their music. That I would agree with.


----------



## Jacck

which of these two objects is beautiful and which is ugly and why? Is the beauty and ugliness something that is intrinsically contained within those objects themselves, or beauty in the eye of the beholder? I am sure that if you showed these two objects to a dog, he would ignore the first one and taste the second one


----------



## Jacck

Evolutionary aesthetics sounds like the most reasonable theory explaining the perception of beauty to me. We are motivated by our sensations which are either pleasurable or painful and those create either attraction or repulsion. Our sense of beauty evolved to attract us to objects or sensations which help us with survival, and we are repulsed by objects that are dangerous to us. There is also a theory of evolutionary musicology, if anyone wants to read about it
http://neuroarts.org/pdf/origins_intro.pdf
(I have not read it)


----------



## DaveM

^^^ Geez Jacck, I’m just about to have breakfast.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> Thanks to you, Strange Magic, and to Portamento, for discussing the work of Leonard B. Meyer and William Weber, respectively. These two authors, both of whom did their graduate work in history at the University of Chicago, have written intelligently and thoroughly about the issues discussed in this thread, Weber perhaps more form the view of a musical historian, Meyer more as a composer and philosopher. Meyer's book may be a little heavy going for a simpleton like me, but I look forward to reading some of Weber's work. Thanks again to you both.


You are certainly correct in calling Meyer's books "a little heavy going". I have to labor over almost every paragraph, and his endless references and footnotes perhaps even drove him nuts after a while. He desparately needed a Playfair or a Huxley to publish a Meyer Made Easy, or Meyerism for Dummies book. John Rader Platt, though, did write a fine, brief summary of Meyer's central idea of musical expectations thwarted and fulfilled in an issue of Horizon magazine eons ago, and that is where and how I first learned of Meyer and his work. But I then found, especially, _Music, the Arts, and Ideas_ to be so brimming with interesting ideas that I managed to get through it and do re-read parts of it now and again. A tough slog, but well worth it.


----------



## Portamento

ArtMusic said:


> Is William Weber essentially suggesting the selection of canonical works is largely a 20th century making?


No.



consuono said:


> Which is really just yet again begging the question. What social/political ends we're served by the elevation of Bach and not, say, Stölzel? There's no evidence, just flat assertions with "and that's that".


Did you even read my post? I _never_ said that Bach was elevated for no reason, but the ideology of the canon he's part of has historically been manipulated to uphold social divisions.


----------



## Strange Magic

Phil loves classical said:


> Total objectivity in Art is clearly impossible. *Total subjectivity seems theoretically possible, but isn't otherwise there is no Art.* I think by stating you like something, you already acknowledge something, which isn't totally arbitrary, that makes you like it. *I would believe someone who advocates total subjectivity, if they didn't like anything in particular, or make any judgement of what they like better*.


How does this follow? So many "whys" spring to mind, triggered by this amazing post. Why is it that by understanding that one's individual preferences, neurology, history, etc. that one brings to an art experience are the product of unique, idiosyncratic conditions being brought to play on the experience, necessarily preclude anyone from making judgments? And the No Art unless You Believe argument again! It seems this nutty idea will never die. It's a fact that some people like certain artworks and others don't, irrespective of whether they are objectivists or subjectivists. It's just that the objectivists just get more upset when somebody doesn't like their stuff; it's just wrong.


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> some people like certain artworks and others don't,


study the entire body of works first and only then decide what to like, so to avoid being precluded from liking the omitted works and those which take multiple replays before one starts appreciating them.


----------



## Strange Magic

*Ars longa, vita brevis*

Greek:

Ὁ βίος βραχύς,
ἡ δὲ τέχνη μακρή,
ὁ δὲ καιρὸς ὀξύς,
ἡ δὲ πεῖρα σφαλερή,
ἡ δὲ κρίσις χαλεπή.

Latin:

Vīta brevis,
ars longa,
occāsiō praeceps,
experīmentum perīculōsum,
iūdicium difficile.

English:

Life is short,
and art long,
opportunity fleeting,
experimentations perilous,
and judgment difficult.


----------



## ArtMusic

Portamento said:


> ... but the ideology of the canon he's part of has historically been manipulated to uphold social divisions.


W. Weber's position is a little absurd. Can you provide historical examples on this "upholding of social divisions"?


----------



## consuono

Portamento said:


> No.
> 
> Did you even read my post? I _never_ said that Bach was elevated for no reason, but the ideology of the canon he's part of has historically been manipulated to uphold social divisions.


You've never demonstrated *that*, either. The classical music "canon" is "manipulated to uphold social divisions" how, specifically? And what does that have to do with the reasons that Bach is in it? (edit) Sorry, it's the "ideology.of the canon" that's being manipulated. What's that?


----------



## consuono

ArtMusic said:


> W. Weber's position is a little absurd. Can you provide historical examples on this "upholding of social divisions"?


It sounds nice and Critical Theory-ish.


----------



## Ethereality

Eclectic Al said:


> Page 61 and counting - and we're still arguing about a false dichotomy. There is no absolute subjectivity, and there is no absolute objectivity.





consuono said:


> Actually, Al, *that's what most of us who've been tagged as "objectivists" have been saying all along. *The all-or-nothings are the subjectivists.


The only thing you've been doing is misusing the word objectivity. Hence why I can easily say certain composers are greater due to their output and quality, but you can't. Still haven't thought it through.

There's no such thing as part objective, part subjective topics. These are holistic theses. You just haven't learned the terms you're presenting.


----------



## Ethereality

The beacon produces light.

Fool 320:

The truth has been established.


----------



## consuono

Ethereality said:


> The only thing you've been doing is misusing the word objectivity. Hence why I can easily say certain composers are greater due to their output and quality, but you can't. Still haven't thought it through.
> 
> There's no such thing as part objective, part subjective topics. These are holistic theses. You just haven't learned the terms you're presenting.


Where's.your evidence? Prove it.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Strange Magic said:


> How does this follow? So many "whys" spring to mind, triggered by this amazing post. Why is it that by understanding that one's individual preferences, neurology, history, etc. that one brings to an art experience are the product of unique, idiosyncratic conditions being brought to play on the experience, necessarily preclude anyone from making judgments? And the No Art unless You Believe argument again! It seems this nutty idea will never die. It's a fact that some people like certain artworks and others don't, irrespective of whether they are objectivists or subjectivists. It's just that the objectivists just get more upset when somebody doesn't like their stuff; it's just wrong.


Now I look back, I don't think I expressed myself clearly at all. To like something has to have something that triggers the like (whether or not we know what it is). Either some chemical reaction in our brains or something. That is where it is impossible to have total subjectivity. Art has to communicate and cause that reaction. Once there is an understanding or some identification between the creator or creation, and the recipient/audience, for that reaction to take place, there is something objective.

When the reaction is not always different to each recipient, that the objective end of the spectrum increases even more. An example is how a clear segment of us here on TC believe Classical is superior to Pop; something has taken place in those minds, I would say a realization (I'd count myself as one of them). While nobody even among Pop fans think Pop is superior to Classical. They just couldn't make that judgement, only that they like it better, which is not the same as saying it is better. Those of us who have the conviction Classical is better have a shared perspective, and can't really relay it to those that don't have the same perspective of how it is superior, in spite of their explanations. The latter could always ask the question "how does that make it superior?"


----------



## Strange Magic

Phil loves classical said:


> Now I look back, I don't think I expressed myself clearly at all. To like something has to have something that triggers the like (whether or not we know what it is). Either some chemical reaction in our brains or something. That is where it is impossible to have total subjectivity. Art has to communicate and cause that reaction. Once there is an understanding or some identification between the creator or creation, and the recipient/audience, for that reaction to take place, there is something objective.
> 
> When the reaction is not always different to each recipient, that the objective end of the spectrum increases even more. An example is how a clear segment of us here on TC believe Classical is superior to Pop; something has taken place in those minds, I would say a realization (I'd count myself as one of them). While nobody even among Pop fans think Pop is superior to Classical. They just couldn't make that judgement, only that they like it better, which is not the same as saying it is better. Those of us who have the conviction Classical is better have a shared perspective, and can't really relay it to those that don't have the same perspective of how it is superior, in spite of their explanations. The latter could always ask the question "how does that make it superior?"


I appreciate your desire and effort to clarify. But the situation remains unchanged, in my view. First, as you point out, there is a host of objective factors, qualities, quantities, attributes that can be carefully measured as hard data about art objects, yet people bring this amazingly rich stew of individual "prejudices", histories, neurology to the objects so as to provide a Very Large spectrum of responses to the object, especially when we examine a very large population. Are you certain, can you be certain, that even among Pop fans, none think Pop is better than CM? How about some Pop being superior to some CM? Certainly there is a clustering of views ranking CM higher than Pop in the CM community--it would be bizarre to expect the opposite--but this is merely a demonstration of the birds of a feather flocking together truism. My position is that anybody and everybody can and does rank all sorts of art experiences, but when it comes to demonstrating that betterness of A over B, the wheels fall off the wagon

I will close by giving what I believe is a non-trivial example. Last night I lay in bed, earphones on, and listened again to PJ Harvey's _Let England Shake_ album. Tears streamed down my cheeks as the power and earnestness of those songs documenting the waste and horror of The Great War again resonated with me, having again just re-read a history of that war. And I could not help contrasting that album with so much of the truly forgettable CM that so often fills the hours of FM CM radio. Now some will say, Well, you're talking PJ Harvey now, who is several cuts above what I was referring to when I (Phil) referred to Pop. But it all boils down to opinion, always.


----------



## SanAntone

I am continually surprised reading this thread, and the several others devoted to this question of objective data in music to use for assessment, those arguing for objectivity do not see the inherent contradiction: if there were actual objective data then everyone would agree on the superior work between two candidates.

General agreement that Mozart and Mahler are great composers will not suffice. If there were actual objective data it would be possible to prove that Mozart's 40th symphony is superior to Mahler's 9th, e.g. Since there will not be agreement on this point, this is evidence that the available data is not truly objective.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Strange Magic said:


> I appreciate your desire and effort to clarify. But the situation remains unchanged, in my view. First, as you point out, there is a host of objective factors, qualities, quantities, attributes that can be carefully measured as hard data about art objects, yet people bring this amazingly rich stew of individual "prejudices", histories, neurology to the objects so as to provide a Very Large spectrum of responses to the object, especially when we examine a very large population. Are you certain, can you be certain, that even among Pop fans, none think Pop is better than CM? How about some Pop being superior to some CM? Certainly there is a clustering of views ranking CM higher than Pop in the CM community--it would be bizarre to expect the opposite--but this is merely a demonstration of the birds of a feather flocking together truism. My position is that anybody and everybody can and does rank all sorts of art experiences, but when it comes to demonstrating that betterness of A over B, the wheels fall off the wagon
> 
> I will close by giving what I believe is a non-trivial example. Last night I lay in bed, earphones on, and listened again to PJ Harvey's _Let England Shake_ album. Tears streamed down my cheeks as the power and earnestness of those songs documenting the waste and horror of The Great War again resonated with me, having again just re-read a history of that war. And I could not help contrasting that album with so much of the truly forgettable CM that so often fills the hours of FM CM radio. Now some will say, Well, you're talking PJ Harvey now, who is several cuts above what I was referring to when I (Phil) referred to Pop. But it all boils down to opinion, always.


How is being able to identify with PJ Harvey showing it is superior or not inferior to the Classical music on the radio? It need not be felt to be true.



SanAntone said:


> I am continually surprised reading this thread, and the several others devoted to this question of objective data in music to use for assessment, those arguing for objectivity do not see the inherent contradiction: if there were actual objective data then everyone would agree on the superior work between two candidates.
> 
> General agreement that Mozart and Mahler are great composers will not suffice. If there were actual objective data it would be possible to prove that Mozart's 40th symphony is superior to Mahler's 9th, e.g. Since there will not be agreement on this point, this is evidence that the available data is not truly objective.


Honestly I can see the view of Classical being superior and all genres as equal in merit, being both equally valid and defensible, so I don't normally get into the argument between the two. Here is the thing. How can someone prove Classical is not superior, and more difficult than that, how can they be proven to be equal? There is no definitive way to prove one is superior, but also no definitive way to prove they are equal. It can't be a matter of taste either way. I can prove how Classical is larger in scope and "does more" technically than Pop, say. That could be seen as superior, and it could not. On flip side I can say Classical or Pop is not superior to Rap, even though rap has no melody. How does melody make one music superior to one without?


----------



## consuono

Is PJ Harvey actually still around? :lol:


> I am continually surprised reading this thread,


I am too. I never imagined there were so many who get their panties in a wad over the notion of "great music" or "great" anything else. On the other hand I think the number of those that hold views like that is probably about as big as the audience for John Cage, so who cares.


----------



## Zhdanov

SanAntone said:


> If there were actual objective data it would be possible to prove that Mozart's 40th symphony is superior to Mahler's 9th


it sure is way better 'cause Mahler intended his 9th as a deliberate mockery of the audience, musicians and conductor, besides impertinent desecration of the place where the symphony is performed, so he did not even compete with Mozart but want to be bad, in this case.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Is PJ Harvey actually still around? :lol:
> I am too. I never imagined there were so many who get their panties in a wad over the notion of "great music" or "great" anything else. On the other hand I think the number of those that hold views like that is probably about as big as the audience for John Cage, so who cares.


I don't know what you mean by "get their panties in a wad". It sounds like a put down for those who don't share your view. You have not been a shrinking violet in this and the other threads devoted to "greatness" "objective/subjective".

Instead of these drive-by put-downs, it would be refreshing if you argued the merits of the argument of someone who opposes your view.


----------



## SanAntone

Zhdanov said:


> it sure is way better 'cause Mahler intended his 9th as a deliberate mockery of the audience, musicians and conductor, besides impertinent desecration of the place where the symphony is performed, so he did not even compete with Mozart but want to be bad, in this case.


Any symphony by Mahler. Can you demonstrate using objective data that a symphony by Mozart is superior to a symphony by Mahler?


----------



## Zhdanov

SanAntone said:


> Any symphony by Mahler.


not any, only that one.



SanAntone said:


> Can you demonstrate using objective data that a symphony by Mozart is superior to a symphony by Mahler?


Mozart 40th is better than Mahler 9th because it has no trills the orchectra has to play all the way through the 2nd mvt and no series of false codas & finales in the 4th mvt, among other factors.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> I don't know what you mean by "get their panties in a wad".


It's sorta what happens when 4'33" is in the spotlight.


> It sounds like a put down for those who don't share your view.


No, it's a picturesquely descriptive term, probably far more so than "Platonist" or "objectivist".


> You have not been a shrinking violet in this and the other threads devoted to "greatness" "objective/subjective".
> 
> Instead of these drive-by put-downs, it would be refreshing if you argued the merits of the argument of someone who opposes your view.


1. Only in Subjectiveland can you be a non-shrinking-violet and a drive-by at the same time. 2. I've asked questions and gotten only chameleon-like inconsistent (and circular!) answers, which I guess is understandable from a subjective perspective.


> Any symphony by Mahler. Can you demonstrate using objective data that a symphony by Mozart is superior to a symphony by Mahler?


It can be demonstrated objectively that more craft and skill went into a symphony by either Mozart or Mahler than went into, say, "Ice Ice Baby".


----------



## fluteman

Phil loves classical said:


> An example is how a clear segment of us here on TC believe Classical is superior to Pop; something has taken place in those minds, I would say a realization (I'd count myself as one of them). While nobody even among Pop fans think Pop is superior to Classical. They just couldn't make that judgement, only that they like it better, which is not the same as saying it is better.


If you accept my view of the difference between popular and classical music, i.e., the goal of popular music is to attract the largest possible audience as quickly as possible, while the goal of classical music is to have a broader, longer term impact, even if the audience is, and remains, numerically smaller, then I have no clue how you could ever judge either to be inherently superior to the other. It is an apples to oranges comparison.

If you define popular music as music that is superficial and lacking depth and variety, and classical music as music that is deeper, more profound, and more sophisticated, and we agree those are the values that are most important, then you may have a point. But you will never get many to agree, nor will you ever prove, that popular music the way I have defined it is always, or even most of the time, superficial and lacking in depth or variety. And what "a clear segment of us here on TC believe" means nothing. People get together in forums like TC because they have similar opinions on exactly this subject. You'll find very different opinions in a popular music forum.


----------



## Strange Magic

Phil loves classical said:


> How is being able to identify with PJ Harvey showing it is superior or not inferior to the Classical music on the radio? It need not be felt to be true.
> 
> Honestly I can see the view of Classical being superior and all genres as equal in merit, being both equally valid and defensible, so I don't normally get into the argument between the two. Here is the thing. How can someone prove Classical is not superior, and more difficult than that, how can they be proven to be equal? There is no definitive way to prove one is superior, but also no definitive way to prove they are equal. It can't be a matter of taste either way. I can prove how Classical is larger in scope and "does more" technically than Pop, say. That could be seen as superior, and it could not. On flip side I can say Classical or Pop is not superior to Rap, even though rap has no melody. How does melody make one music superior to one without?


Reply to first paragraph: All I am saying is that I or maybe you or maybe anybody can find PJ Harvey superior to any one of hundreds of CM pieces. And vice versa. It's called opinion and is offered as nothing more.

Reply to the second paragraph: You essentially demonstrate the evidence for subjectivity while asserting that "it can't be a matter of taste either way". Are you not trying to have your cake and eat it too? You are a subjectivist at heart; get comfortable with it.


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> 1. Only in Subjectiveland can you be a non-shrinking-violet and a drive-by at the same time. 2. I've asked questions and gotten only chameleon-like inconsistent (and circular!) answers, which I guess is understandable from a subjective perspective.
> It can be demonstrated objectively that more craft and skill went into a symphony by either Mozart or Mahler than went into, say, "Ice Ice Baby".


Pyrrhic victories--a dime a dozen. Talk about evasion--the Mozart/Mahler answer please? 

Hint: Zhdanov is not afraid to answer the question.


----------



## Zhdanov

it might well be that Mahler was killed for his Ninth symphony...


----------



## consuono

Strange Magic said:


> Pyrrhic victories--a dime a dozen. Talk about evasion--the Mozart/Mahler answer please?


No, it's not a Pyrrhic victory or an evasion. If you concede that, then you concede that there are qualitative objective differences, no matter how finer-than-frog-hair they become between Mozart and Mahler.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> It can be demonstrated objectively that more craft and skill went into a symphony by either Mozart or Mahler than went into, say, "Ice Ice Baby".


Please do, and then ...

Demonstrate that a symphony by Mozart or Beethoven or Bruckner or Rachmaninoff is superior to one by Mahler, or vice versa?


----------



## Phil loves classical

Strange Magic said:


> Reply to first paragraph: All I am saying is that I or maybe you or maybe anybody can find PJ Harvey superior to any one of hundreds of CM pieces. And vice versa. It's called opinion and is offered as nothing more.
> 
> Reply to the second paragraph: You essentially demonstrate the evidence for subjectivity while asserting that "it can't be a matter of taste either way". Are you not trying to have your cake and eat it too? You are a subjectivist at heart; get comfortable with it.


I think I'm an objective subjectivist at heart. I'm trying not to eat the cake I have, and eat the cake I don't have.


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> Is PJ Harvey actually still around? :lol:
> I am too. I never imagined there were so many who get their panties in a wad over the notion of "great music" or "great" anything else. On the other hand I think the number of those that hold views like that is probably about as big as the audience for John Cage, so who cares.


My idea of the sort of productive, thought-inducing posts that do so contribute to the discussion. I hope we see more of the same, and am sure we will.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Zhdanov said:


> it sure is way better 'cause Mahler intended his 9th as a deliberate mockery of the audience


are you talking about

0:20


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> No, it's not a Pyrrhic victory or an evasion. If you concede that, then you concede that there are qualitative objective differences, no matter how finer-than-frog-hair they become between Mozart and Mahler.


Again, the failure to understand. It must be a gift. Of course there are many, perhaps innumerable differences between Mozart and Mahler: age, height, weight, numbers of compositions, degree of complexity, length, odor. Tell us clearly why the one piece is better than the other. Again, Zhdanov provides you the lead. Seize the opportunity with both hands!


----------



## consuono

Strange Magic said:


> Again, the failure to understand. It must be a gift. Of course there are many, perhaps innumerable differences between Mozart and Mahler: age, height, weight, numbers of compositions, degree of complexity, length, odor. Tell us clearly why the one piece is better than the other. Again, Zhdanov provides you the lead. Seize the opportunity with both hands!


So you do concede then that there is more craft and skill in both Mozart and Mahler than in Vanilla Ice. Is that correct? Do *you* understand?

Now, Mozart vs Mahler. In the first place, maybe there is no difference between the two. Maybe the differences are so fine that it takes an absolutely thorough, microscopic knowledge of both to make a determination. Nobody in this thread has that kind of knowledge. There's a lot of argument from utter ignorance going on, from myself included.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> So you do concede then that there is more craft and skill in both Mozart and Mahler than in Vanilla Ice. Is that correct? Do *you* understand?


No, I don't agree. What I believe is that there is different skill in the case of Mozart and Mahler vs Vanilla Ice. It also takes skill to write hip-hop or rap.



> Now, Mozart vs Mahler. In the first place, maybe there is no difference between the two. Maybe the differences are so fine that it takes an absolutely thorough, microscopic knowledge of both to make a determination. Nobody in this thread has that kind of knowledge. There's a lot of argument from utter ignorance going on, from myself included.


If it requires such "microscopic knowledge of both to make a determination" then what most people use is either accepting on faith that Mahler and Mozart are great in a vague undefined way or their own subjective response.

What is the point of insisting on objective criteria if you cannot demonstrate it without having a Ph.D?


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> No, I don't agree. What I believe is that there is different skill in the case of Mozart and Mahler vs Vanilla Ice. It also takes skill to write hip-hop or rap.
> 
> If it requires such "microscopic knowledge of both to make a determination" then what most people use is either accepting on faith that Mahler and Mozart are great in a vague undefined way or their own subjective response.
> 
> What is the point of insisting on objective criteria if you cannot demonstrate it without having a Ph.D?


Uh uh uh, no. Now you're setting arbitrary delineations between this skill set and that one to benefit your own view. No. So you are actually saying it required as much skill to write and record "Ice Ice Baby" as it took to compose Mozart's 40th? This is being led around by the nose by ideology to whatever goofy conclusions it leads just so you won't contradict yourself. You know better. If you don't, then you really need to get a refund for that music degree you said you have.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Uh uh uh, no. Now you're setting arbitrary delineations between this skill set and that one to benefit your own view. No. So you are actually saying it required as much skill to write and record "Ice Ice Baby" as it took to compose Mozart's 40th? This is being led around by the nose by ideology to whatever goofy conclusions it leads just so you won't contradict yourself. You know better.


I am saying that the skill set required to write Mozart's 40th is very different from the skill set to write Ice Ice Baby. These two examples of music have very different priorities for their composition, and artistic goals. And both succeeded in their purpose.

Ice Ice Baby is a terrible symphony and Mozart's 40th is terrible rap.


----------



## Strange Magic

consuono said:


> So you do concede then that there is more craft and skill in both Mozart and Mahler than in Vanilla Ice. Is that correct? Do *you* understand?
> 
> Now, Mozart vs Mahler. In the first place, maybe there is no difference between the two. Maybe the differences are so fine that it takes an absolutely thorough, microscopic knowledge of both to make a determination. Nobody in this thread has that kind of knowledge. There's a lot of argument from utter ignorance going on, from myself included.


Reply to paragraph One: Happy to affirm! But whether anyone prefers Mozart, Mahler, or Vanilla Ice is what actually lies at the heart of the individual experience of art, and is how I experience art. You seem to believe that it is a group or consensus effort, with each watching the other for confirmation that you are all on the Correct Path. In Unity there is Strength would be your mantra. Orwell?

Reply to paragraph Two: I am shattered--shattered--by your declaring yourself unable to discriminate beween the music of Mozart and Mahler. Welcome to the growing club.

P. S.: Not to frighten you, but I prefer Mozart to both Mahler and Vanilla Ice. But that's just me.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> Ice Ice Baby is a terrible symphony and Mozart's 40th is terrible rap.


How did you come to that conclusion? Is that just your subjective opinion? Personally, I find Ice Ice Baby to be a much better symphony than Mozart's 40th.


----------



## Zhdanov

SanAntone said:


> and Mozart's 40th is terrible rap.


he was also terrible as a bank robber.


----------



## BachIsBest

Strange Magic said:


> Reply to paragraph One: Happy to affirm! But whether anyone prefers Mozart, Mahler, or Vanilla Ice is what actually lies at the heart of the individual experience of art, and is how I experience art. You seem to believe that it is a group or consensus effort, with each watching the other for confirmation that you are all on the Correct Path. In Unity there is Strength would be your mantra. Orwell?
> 
> Reply to paragraph Two: I am shattered--shattered--by your declaring yourself unable to discriminate beween the music of Mozart and Mahler. Welcome to the growing club.
> 
> P. S.: Not to frighten you, but I prefer Mozart to both Mahler and Vanilla Ice. But that's just me.


You accuse conunono of using strawmen and then jump from arguing against "there can be some determination of objective quality in art" to "the experience of art is a group or consensus effort like totalitarianism". I mean, really?


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> How did you come to that conclusion? Is that just your subjective opinion? Personally, I find Ice Ice Baby to be a much better symphony than Mozart's 40th.


Using the traditional metrics for analyzing Classical period symphonic works, Mozart's 40th will fare much better than Ice Ice Baby. The reverse is true when looking for the desired stylistic components of rap in Mozart's 40th symphony.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> Using the traditional metrics for analyzing Classical period symphonic works, Mozart's 40th will fare much better than Ice Ice Baby. The reverse is true when looking for the desired stylistic components of rap in Mozart's 40th symphony.


But if it is all subjective, as you claim, I can just decide to ignore these metrics and be just as right as someone who does not.


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> You accuse conunono of using strawmen and then jump from arguing against "there can be some determination of objective quality in art" to "the experience of art is a group or consensus effort like totalitarianism". I mean, really?


Are you following? You don't detect my insinuation (which is what it is) that objectivists seem to only find musical comfort in their choices when they look around and see that their peers share their preferences? OK, I'll try to be more obvious. Remember "Groupthink"? There is evidence of it hereabouts, but no totalitarians imposing it--it's a mutual thing, called, benignly, consensus. Nothing at all wrong with it. I like people to agree with my tastes myself.


----------



## consuono

Strange Magic said:


> Are you following? You don't detect my insinuation (which is what it is) that *objectivists seem to only find musical comfort in their choices when they look around and see that their peers share their preferences?* OK, I'll try to be more obvious. Remember "Groupthink"? There is evidence of it hereabouts, but no totalitarians imposing it--it's a mutual thing, called, benignly, consensus. Nothing at all wrong with it. I like people to agree with my tastes myself.


What makes you such an authority on what I or anyone else looks for in music, or why I admire the music that I do? I couldn't care less what people think of Bach or Mozart. The consensus is a reflection of shared reactions and perceptions. Although in some cases some may be swayed by it, you're putting the cart before the horse and smugly congratulating yourself on your insight.

Anyway we have to admit that there's no qualitative difference between this





And this. Gotta be consistent!


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Are you following? You don't detect my insinuation (which is what it is) that objectivists seem to only find musical comfort in their choices when they look around and see that their peers share their preferences?


You can't be serious. Do you have any idea what a hit that is to your credibility?


----------



## ArtMusic

We are denigrating Mozart's masterpiece now, such a sad moment here. And if you visited a rap forum, nobody there would care about comparing their Ice-Ice-whatever with Mozart. They are more interested in the hood.


----------



## consuono

DaveM said:


> You can't be serious. Do you have any idea what a hit that is to your credibility?


It's stunning. :lol: I'm now done with this discussion.


ArtMusic said:


> We are denigrating Mozart's masterpiece now, such a sad moment here. And if you visited a rap forum, nobody there would care about comparing their Ice-Ice-whatever with Mozart. They are more interested in the hood.


No, I'm not denigrating Mozart. Just following the Strange Magic-SanAntone-fluteman-various others doctrine.

Out.


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> But if it is all subjective, as you claim, I can just decide to ignore these metrics and be just as right as someone who does not.


You could, but I never said it is all subjective. What I have said is that some form of subjectivity always comes into play when we evaluate music. There are certain elements of skill which can be identified and judgments can be made by individual analysts as to how well a composer executed them, or how successful he was in the composition.

While he is evaluating objective elements he is doing so in a subjective manner. His taste, biases, and priorities will influence how he assesses the skill evident in the work.


----------



## SanAntone

ArtMusic said:


> We are denigrating Mozart's masterpiece now, such a sad moment here. And if you visited a rap forum, nobody there would care about comparing their Ice-Ice-whatever with Mozart. They are more interested in the hood.


No one is denigrating Mozart's 40th. You, however, are denigrating the skill and artistry in rap or hip-hop music.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> You can't be serious. Do you have any idea what a hit that is to your credibility?


Are you serious? Your assessment of my credibility is yours alone. You can here begin a campaign to impugn my credibility if you choose, but it is clear that my arguments disturb you. I'm not sorry about that; that comes with discussions of this sort. I am not knocking anybody's music--not my style. Best to stick with the facts of the case, rather than wander too far afield in your criticisms. I feel I have a strong case and intend to stick with it.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> You could, but I never said it is all subjective. What I have said is that some form of subjectivity always comes into play when we evaluate music. There are certain elements of skill which can be identified and judgments can be made by individual analysts as to how well a composer executed them, or how successful he was in the composition.
> 
> While he is evaluating objective elements he is doing so in a subjective manner. His taste, biases, and priorities will influence how he assesses the skill evident in the work.


But this is exactly the position of many of the so-called "objectivist". Of course subjectivity comes into play and it's impossible to avoid your own biases in any subject, but that doesn't mean we need do away with the very concept of artistic skill and excellence; that's all I'm, and I believe many others, are saying.


----------



## ArtMusic

consuono said:


> So you do concede then that there is more craft and skill in both Mozart and Mahler than in Vanilla Ice. Is that correct? Do *you* understand?
> 
> Now, Mozart vs Mahler. In the first place, maybe there is no difference between the two. Maybe the differences are so fine that it takes an absolutely thorough, microscopic knowledge of both to make a determination. Nobody in this thread has that kind of knowledge. There's a lot of argument from utter ignorance going on, from myself included.


Why not Mozart versus Cage? No, that would be too unfair because Cage never wrote any symphonies. But we can compare Mozart with Ice-Ice-whatever as done here.


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> But this is exactly the position of many of the so-called "objectivist". Of course subjectivity comes into play and it's impossible to avoid your own biases in any subject, but that doesn't mean we need do away with the very concept of artistic skill and excellence; that's all I'm, and I believe many others, are saying.


I thought the position of the "objectivists" was that there are works that are objectively superior to other works. And those of us on the subjectivist side have been saying that there is a lot of subjectivity at work when these judgments are made.

I have posted something to the effect that objective data offers no room for debate. Something is either heavier than something else or it is not. This question is answered by weighing the two items. No room for subjectivity. For this reason I have also posted several times that I think the term objective has been misused. People have spent a lot of time pointing to objective elements in classical works, while ignoring the obvious subjective aspect of evaluating them. If the process were truly objective there would be one ranked list of the greatest works in history, and no one would disagree. But we know that is not true.

A lot of pages have been created about this topic on several threads, and now you say we are essentially saying the same thing?


----------



## SanAntone

ArtMusic said:


> Why not Mozart versus Cage? No, that would be too unfair because Cage never wrote any symphonies. But we can compare Mozart with Ice-Ice-whatever as done here.


Cage had a skill set at work for his compositions, which he successfully executed. A skill set very different from Mozart or Mahler. When you claim that Mozart and Mahler wrote better music than John Cage what you are really saying is that you prefer the skill set of Mozart and Mahler to Cage's.

A very subjective judgment.


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> But this is exactly the position of many of the so-called "objectivist". Of course subjectivity comes into play and it's impossible to avoid your own biases in any subject, but that doesn't mean we need do away with the very concept of artistic skill and excellence; that's all I'm, and I believe many others, are saying.


Nobody is doing away with the very concept of artistic skill and excellence. We've discussed the issue of skill as neither a necessary nor a sufficient requirement for people to be deeply affected by their experiences with art. We've discussed the skill of Ingres with paint and brush and his use of it to create kitsch (IMO) with his gifts. And everyone can ascribe excellence to any art object at their will. I do it all the time. But some of us really like to be agreed with; others affirm the validity of their esthetic decisions whether agreed with or not.


----------



## ArtMusic

SanAntone said:


> No one is denigrating Mozart's 40th. You, however, are denigrating the skill and artistry in rap or hip-hop music.


The latter does not entail the degree of creativity and originality as did Mozart's. This is an objective comment. Denigration comes from reducing Mozart's 40th to rap and hip-hop.


----------



## BachIsBest

Strange Magic said:


> Are you following? You don't detect my insinuation (which is what it is) that objectivists seem to only find musical comfort in their choices when they look around and see that their peers share their preferences? OK, I'll try to be more obvious. Remember "Groupthink"? There is evidence of it hereabouts, but no totalitarians imposing it--it's a mutual thing, called, benignly, consensus. Nothing at all wrong with it. I like people to agree with my tastes myself.


I think you misunderstand the book if you really think groupthink applies to a bunch of people who came to the conclusion that Bach is a great composer through intentive listening and thinking about his music. If this is groupthink, then thinking the sky is blue or the grass green is groupthink. Heck, if this is groupthink, any belief held by a group of people is groupthink; I don't think Orwell meant you to take the compound word so literally.

From Wikipedia: "Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome."

Do you seriously think this applies here?


----------



## Strange Magic

ArtMusic said:


> Why not Mozart versus Cage? No, that would be too unfair because Cage never wrote any symphonies. But we can compare Mozart with Ice-Ice-whatever as done here.


Another of those fun A/B comparisons! Love 'em. Are there more? (I'll bet there are).


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> I think you misunderstand the book if you really think groupthink applies to a bunch of people who came to the conclusion that Bach is a great composer through intentive listening and thinking about his music. If this is groupthink, then thinking the sky is blue or the grass green is groupthink. Heck, if this is groupthink, any belief held by a group of people is groupthink; I don't think Orwell meant you to take the compound word so literally.
> 
> From Wikipedia: "Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome."
> 
> Do you seriously think this applies here?


What I think is that consensus plays a key, essential role in determining, among peers within the consensus, what the "correct" view of an art object is to be. And I prefer to stick like a limpet to the issues rather than having to respond--in kind, but with more pith and moment--to the quibbling over my posting style and language. I always hit the ball back over the net.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Are you serious? Your assessment of my credibility is yours alone. You can here begin a campaign to impugn my credibility if you choose, but it is clear that my arguments disturb you. I'm not sorry about that; that comes with discussions of this sort. I am not knocking anybody's music--not my style. Best to stick with the facts of the case, rather than wander too far afield in your criticisms. I feel I have a strong case and intend to stick with it.


The part of your post I quoted was not an argument and you know it. You are now starting to confuse some of your comments and hyperbole with arguments. Take your own advice and stick with the facts of the case.


----------



## ArtMusic

Strange Magic said:


> Nobody is doing away with the very concept of artistic skill and excellence. We've discussed the issue of skill as neither a necessary nor a sufficient requirement for people to be deeply affected by their experiences with art. We've discussed the skill of Ingres with paint and brush and his use of it to create kitsch (IMO) with his gifts. And everyone can ascribe excellence to any art object at their will. I do it all the time. But some of us really like to be agreed with; others affirm the validity of their esthetic decisions whether agreed with or not.


I encourage your read the excellent discourses by Sir Joshua Reynolds.


----------



## SanAntone

ArtMusic said:


> The latter does not entail the degree of creativity and originality as did Mozart's. This is an objective comment. Denigration comes from reducing Mozart's 40th to rap and hip-hop.


You statement is not objective and is 100% subjective assessment of the skill and creativity at work in a rap song. Am I denigrating an orange by saying it is not an apple?

What you appear incapable of understanding is that Mozart accomplished great things in the 18th century Western European musical tradition. A hip-hop performer such as Lauren Hill has accomplished great things in her own right, but coming from an entirely different culture.

To the extent you are incapable of appreciating what hip-hop/rap artists do, it is evidence of your bias and incomplete knowledge of the skill set at work in that genre.


----------



## Phil loves classical

SanAntone said:


> You statement is not objective and is 100% subjective assessment of the skill and creativity at work in a rap song. Am I denigrating an orange by saying it is not an apple?
> 
> What you appear incapable of understanding is that Mozart accomplished great things in the 18th century Western European musical tradition. A hip-hop performer such as Lauren Hill has accomplished great things in her own right, but coming from an entirely different culture.
> 
> To the extent you are incapable of appreciating what hip-hop/rap artists do, it is evidence of your bias and incomplete knowledge of the skill set at work in that genre.


I like rap, but I think it says something that rap artists don't need any training in music to write their songs, while even with training Mozart's 40th symphony is not something people could write.


----------



## SanAntone

Phil loves classical said:


> I like rap, but I think it says something that rap artists don't need any training in music to write their songs, while even with training Mozart's 40th symphony is not something people could write.


What makes you think they don't have any training? They just don't get it in a conservatory. They get it from cutting contests where they have to demonstrate their prowess against another rapper, on the spot, spontaneously. If you think this is easy, I suggest you try it sometime.

After a period of apprenticeship a rapper will emerge with enough skill and a unique voice that he gets an audience and reputation.


----------



## ArtMusic

Phil loves classical said:


> I like rap, but I think it says something that rap artists don't need any training in music to write their songs, while even with training Mozart's 40th symphony is not something people could write.


Mozart wrote about 60 symphonies (the Köchel 41 is not accurate), so that's a lifetime of creativity, study and development of his taste by the time he wrote the 40th K. 550. If you listen to his childhood early symphonies and straight to the last three, you know what this means. I can't see any equivalent in rap music, none. There probably never will be.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> I thought the position of the "objectivists" was that there are works that are objectively superior to other works. And those of us on the subjectivist side have been saying that there is a lot of subjectivity at work when these judgments are made.
> 
> I have posted something to the effect that objective data offers no room for debate. Something is either heavier than something else or it is not. This question is answered by weighing the two items. No room for subjectivity. For this reason I have also posted several times that I think the term objective has been misused. People have spent a lot of time pointing to objective elements in classical works, while ignoring the obvious subjective aspect of evaluating them. If the process were truly objective there would be one ranked list of the greatest works in history, and no one would disagree. But we know that is not true.
> 
> A lot of pages have been created about this topic on several threads, and now you say we are essentially saying the same thing?


I don't think many are disputing that there are subjective influences at work when people make these judgements, just that they are not entirely based on subjective influences; much of the judgement of artistic excellence also rests on more objective influences.

A lot of objective things offer little room for debate, but these tend to be things that are completely understood. No one here (I hope) denies that they're objective laws behind the universes functioning, but what these laws are is under a lot of debate. There are obvious subjective elements in trying to evaluate the objective laws of the universe (although I will concede, there are more in music), but this does not preclude the fundamentally objective nature of these laws.


----------



## BachIsBest

Strange Magic said:


> Nobody is doing away with the very concept of artistic skill and excellence. We've discussed the issue of skill as neither a necessary nor a sufficient requirement for people to be deeply affected by their experiences with art. We've discussed the skill of Ingres with paint and brush and his use of it to create kitsch (IMO) with his gifts. And everyone can ascribe excellence to any art object at their will. I do it all the time. But some of us really like to be agreed with; others affirm the validity of their esthetic decisions whether agreed with or not.


Maybe no one is trying to do away with artistic skill, but certainly, you are trying to do away with the concept of artistic excellence. Your entire argument is that art evaluation is entirely subjective; if this is the case an artist may be popular, enduring, or enlightening to some people, but not excellent, at least not in the universal sense with which excellence is normally used.

Of course anyone could ascribe excellence to anything one so desires; some do it with a toilet and an unmade bed, others with invisible cloths. Whether or not this is correct, well that's another matter.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> The part of your post I quoted was not an argument and you know it. You are now starting to confuse some of your comments and hyperbole with arguments. Take your own advice and stick with the facts of the case.


You are gripped by my "style" of posting, my choice of words, phrases, metaphors, etc. Why not defocus on that and deal with either a serious refutation of my position or a rigorous demonstration of your position. More productive.


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> Maybe no one is trying to do away with artistic skill, but certainly, you are trying to do away with the concept of artistic excellence. Your entire argument is that art evaluation is entirely subjective; if this is the case an artist may be popular, enduring, or enlightening to some people, but not excellent, at least not in the universal sense with which excellence is normally used.
> 
> Of course anyone could ascribe excellence to anything one so desires; some do it with a toilet and an unmade bed, others with invisible cloths. Whether or not this is correct, well that's another matter.


Exactly my position regarding art. Beauty is in the eye/ear of the beholder. All of the shopworn, tired clichés of de gustibus, etc. are at the core of my thesis regarding the esthetics of the art experience. Old stuff, been around since...whenever. I have my own notions of artistic excellence--who doesn't? Ask yourself: do you know anyone who has no notion of artistic excellence? I don't. I have this nagging suspicion that, after now thousands of posts, the same strange attributes are assigned to my assertion of what flows from the position that all esthetics are subjective, personal, idiosyncratic, and valid.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> You are gripped by my "style" of posting, my choice of words, phrases, metaphors, etc. Why not defocus on that and deal with either a serious refutation of my position or a rigorous demonstration of your position. More productive.


Take your own advice for once. That great -irrelevant to the discussion- comment of yours already drove off a poster:_ 'objectivists seem to only find musical comfort in their choices when they look around and see that their peers share their preferences'._ Or maybe you think that's 'productive'.


----------



## ArtMusic

BachIsBest said:


> Maybe no one is trying to do away with artistic skill, but certainly, you are trying to do away with the concept of artistic excellence. Your entire argument is that art evaluation is entirely subjective; if this is the case an artist may be popular, enduring, or enlightening to some people, but not excellent, at least not in the universal sense with which excellence is normally used.
> 
> Of course anyone could ascribe excellence to anything one so desires; some do it with a toilet and an unmade bed, others with invisible cloths. Whether or not this is correct, well that's another matter.


Centuries ago, artists were recognized as learned masters. Sir Joshua Reynolds founded the Royal Academy of Arts and the best painters, sculptors, architects of the day to name a few, came together to "promote the creation, enjoyment and appreciation of the visual arts". Today, anyone can be an artist just because one proclaims it and anything can be art because the artist declares it or someone else does. It is mostly arbitrary. And this arbitrary approach came out of postmodernism and the changing western world after WWII that promoted individualism of arbitrary freedom (among other things). It also explains why art hasn't really had a new golden age, exactly because of this arbitrary freedom.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Take your own advice for once.


Yes..............(of course).


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> I don't think many are disputing that there are subjective influences at work when people make these judgements, just that they are not entirely based on subjective influences; much of the judgement of artistic excellence also rests on more objective influences.
> 
> A lot of objective things offer little room for debate, but these tend to be things that are completely understood. No one here (I hope) denies that they're objective laws behind the universes functioning, but what these laws are is under a lot of debate. There are obvious subjective elements in trying to evaluate the objective laws of the universe (although I will concede, there are more in music), but this does not preclude the fundamentally objective nature of these laws.


I thought we were talking about music. Universal laws of the universe are not relevant, IMO. By arguing the subjective quality of assessing music I am not claiming that everything in life is judged subjectively.

Here is my view in a nutshell:

1. there are some objective data in every piece of music
2. depending upon the genre this data can be stylistically very different
3. it is the assessment of this objective data that is subjective
4. it is not productive to compare a work from one genre with one from a different genre since the relevant data from each work will not line up for comparison, i.e. comparing apples and oranges.
5. having objective data available does not mitigate the fact that the overall process of evaluating music is subjective


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Take your own advice for once. That great -irrelevant to the discussion- comment of yours already drove off a poster:_ 'objectivists seem to only find musical comfort in their choices when they look around and see that their peers share their preferences'._ Or maybe you think that's 'productive'.


You are referring to Consuono, I trust. He had no agency in your view, rather, it seems he was "driven" from the discussion. I am supposed to repent? Where indeed has this discussion wandered to, if this is to be the next area of contention? Perhaps he saw either the futility of his avenue of rebuttal or became convinced he was in error. Maybe he just got tired.


----------



## Phil loves classical

SanAntone said:


> What makes you think they don't have any training? They just don't get it in a conservatory. They get it from cutting contests where they have to demonstrate their prowess against another rapper, on the spot, spontaneously. If you think this is easy, I suggest you try it sometime.
> 
> After a period of apprenticeship a rapper will emerge with enough skill and a unique voice that he gets an audience and reputation.


That's not musical training, as in the rudiments. I know you might say it's only Western Classical Music rudiments. But what is that complex in rap, beside some tuplets here and there? The beat is normally divided in 2's and 4's. You don't need special training to pick it up. It's all in improvising the rhythm.


----------



## SanAntone

Phil loves classical said:


> That's not musical training, as in the rudiments. I know you might say it's only Western Classical Music rudiments. But what is that complex in rap, beside some tuplets here and there? The beat is normally divided in 2's and 4's.


The musical rudiments can be very different depending on the genre. Rap and hip-hop have complexity in the rhythmic phrasing as well as very sophisticated use of language, both textually as well as using language as a percussion instrument. There is also a sophisticated use of sampling to create a complex layering of texture and referencing of other source material, all of which has meaning and significance. Much of the art is also in the production and creation of an aural object, the recording.

I'm not here to explain to you the stylistic complexities of rap or hip-hop, but mainly to point out that the training someone receives to rap or compose and perform in the hip-hop/rap genre is not taught at a classical music conservatory. Even rudimentary music reading skills are not necessary, important or relevant.


----------



## science

ArtMusic said:


> Mozart wrote about 60 symphonies (the Köchel 41 is not accurate), so that's a lifetime of creativity, study and development of his taste by the time he wrote the 40th K. 550. If you listen to his childhood early symphonies and straight to the last three, you know what this means. I can't see any equivalent in rap music, none. There probably never will be.


a) Are rap artists really trying to do something comparable to Mozart?

b) How many rap artists' careers have you studied? How much do you actually know about the production of their music?


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

I'm honestly so tired of this "greatness" talk. Besides pretense, it reeks of treating music as something akin to a museum artifact. This is the biggest problem with attitudes towards CM today. Relax and have some fun, people. Sheesh.


----------



## Portamento

I hate it when people make proclamations about music they don't know jacksh** about.


----------



## ArtMusic

science said:


> a) Are rap artists really trying to do something comparable to Mozart?
> 
> b) How many rap artists' careers have you studied? How much do you actually know about the production of their music?


(A) Please ask member SanAtone. He first made the comparison, I was replying.
(B) I have no interest in studying rap music. Most raps artists learn the art of performing rap themselves, it is the "rap way" of doing that music, from the hoods.


----------



## science

ArtMusic said:


> (A) Please ask member SanAtone. He first made the comparison, I was replying.
> (B) I have no interest in studying rap music. Most raps artists learn the art of performing rap themselves, it is the "rap way" of doing that music, from the hoods.


You don't sound like someone with the expertise in rap music to say definitively that they don't develop their styles and techniques in any way that could fairly be compared to a classical composer.


----------



## SanAntone

ArtMusic said:


> (A) Please ask member SanAtone. He first made the comparison, I was replying.
> (B) I have no interest in studying rap music. Most raps artists learn the art of performing rap themselves, it is the "rap way" of doing that music, from the hoods.


Actually it was *consuono* who brought "Ice Ice Baby" into the discussion in comparison to Mozart's 40th symphony, I think.

Rap is just one of many vernacular musics, which I would bet outnumber by a large number those that have a written tradition. It seems obvious from several member's posts that they downgrade genres that do not have a written tradition, comparable to classical music. However, I consider vernacular genres to have some of the richest examples of music in existence: flamenco, Indian classical music, blues, bluegrass, jazz (which began as non-written music). In fact, most music from across the world was transmitted orally, like the folk ballads of Scotland and Ireland, and pre-dates the classical music canon by several centuries.

This discussion has uncovered the sorry side of the classical music community, which turns off so many people because of its superiority complex and elitism.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> Reply to paragraph One: Happy to affirm! But whether anyone prefers Mozart, Mahler, or Vanilla Ice is what actually lies at the heart of the individual experience of art, and is how I experience art. You seem to believe that it is a group or consensus effort, with each watching the other for confirmation that you are all on the Correct Path. In Unity there is Strength would be your mantra. Orwell?
> 
> Reply to paragraph Two: I am shattered--shattered--by your declaring yourself unable to discriminate beween the music of Mozart and Mahler. Welcome to the growing club.
> 
> P. S.: Not to frighten you, but I prefer Mozart to both Mahler and Vanilla Ice. But that's just me.


You will remain on firm ground if this thread lasts another 1,000 posts, as no two humans are physically identical, no two humans live in exactly the same environment, and no two humans perceive things exactly the same way. And finally, art must be perceived to have any meaning. It is not a tree that falls in the forest.

But the fact that all or most humans perceive many things in a similar way, and that there are even more similarities within societies, communities and subgroups, though it doesn't make perception any less subjective, as perception still varies from one individual to the next and therefore always is subjective, and doesn't refute your position in any way, is the basis for all art.

The artist must focus on these similarities in perception, and ultimately in aesthetic values, of their audience. The success of a work of art entirely depends on finding and exploiting these "approximately" shared or similar values, however imperfectly, and despite the inevitable differences between each individual.

All art, and all entertainment, including the sports discussed earlier in this thread, ultimately involving convincing the audience of myths, fantasies and illusions, even if the audience is not really being fooled. We know the magician is not really sawing the woman in half and putting her back together without a scratch, but we enjoy the illusion.

The fundamental illusion of all art is that we, the audience, have the same values. Or more precisely, that we have the same aesthetic values, or at least the particular aesthetic values the particular work of art is designed to appeal to. But most serious art is far more ambitious than that, and ultimately, on its deepest level, is made to convince us that at least when it comes to the values that really matter, all humans are just the same.

Of course, though sometimes they may come close, our values are not the same. The reality is, we muddle along trying to find enough common ground to live together, and we are lucky when our values are similar enough to do so, but it's an inspiring idea. Just as it's inspiring to think that a lady sawed in half can be put back together unharmed. Just as it's inspiring to think that All Men Are Brothers, as Geothe and Beethoven said.

Some people here seem uncomfortable facing the concept that art is the presentation of an illusory idea, or ideal. They would yell 'halt' at my first premise, that art must be perceived to exist, as the rest follows from that. Surely the marble statue, the painted canvas, the written manuscript, all exist without being perceived? But the art is not in the object, rather in the perception. Some will ask, as philosophers in earlier times did, is a beautiful rose therefore a work of art? You can define art that way if you wish, but the traditional underlying concept of art is that nature doesn't deal in illusions. Nature creates, or consists of, the reality that the artist adapts to create his illusion. Hence the bizarre distortions of Ingres, that you and others find kitschy. For you, Ingres went too far. Picasso saw an effective illusion, and adapted it in his Portrait of Gertrude Stein.

Sorry for this lengthy post that many will dismiss as hogwash. But so long as there are people unwilling to accept that art is illusion, this debate will continue.


----------



## ArtMusic

SanAntone said:


> This discussion has uncovered the sorry side of the classical music community, which turns off so many people because of its superiority complex and elitism.


That's an unfortunate perception only to those who choose not to discover it. There is nothing with classical music that is a "member's only club". The homeless guy on the street can tune into it if he/she wishes to.


----------



## Phil loves classical

science said:


> You don't sound like someone with the expertise in rap music to say definitively that they don't develop their styles and techniques in any way that could fairly be compared to a classical composer.


I actually did a bit of scratching in College. It's improvised rhythm. It really isn't complex. Compare to Classical, they study counterpoint, partimento, orchestration, harmony. It's not something KRS One, Chuck D, LL Cool J, Eminem and others can just pick up. In rap music, the production can be spare or more lush, and lush production doesn't necessarily make the music better. But they are add-ons, not essential to the music. The level of complexity can be heard in both Classical and Rap. There is something to written Classical. It's more complex, and can't be transmitted orally like Blues, and others. I'm not saying it's better just because it's more complex.

The 'complexity' in Rap is built upon from simple building blocks, and added on as necessary. Not in counterpoint, it's more complex from the very start. You can't just pick it up and run with it. It's not learnt intuitively.


----------



## BachIsBest

fluteman said:


> You will remain on firm ground if this thread lasts another 1,000 posts, as no two humans are physically identical, no two humans live in exactly the same environment, and no two humans perceive things exactly the same way. And finally, art must be perceived to have any meaning. It is not a tree that falls in the forest.
> 
> But the fact that all or most humans perceive many things in a similar way, and that there are even more similarities within societies, communities and subgroups, though it doesn't make perception any less subjective, as perception still varies from one individual to the next and therefore always is subjective, and doesn't refute your position in any way, is the basis for all art.
> 
> The artist must focus on these similarities in perception, and ultimately in aesthetic values, of their audience. The success of a work of art entirely depends on finding and exploiting these "approximately" shared or similar values, however imperfectly, and despite the inevitable differences between each individual.
> 
> All art, and all entertainment, including the sports discussed earlier in this thread, ultimately involving convincing the audience of myths, fantasies and illusions, even if the audience is not really being fooled. We know the magician is not really sawing the woman in half and putting her back together without a scratch, but we enjoy the illusion.
> 
> The fundamental illusion of all art is that we, the audience, have the same values. Or more precisely, that we have the same aesthetic values, or at least the particular aesthetic values the particular work of art is designed to appeal to. But most serious art is far more ambitious than that, and ultimately, on its deepest level, is made to convince us that at least when it comes to the values that really matter, all humans are just the same.
> 
> Of course, though sometimes they may come close, our values are not the same. The reality is, we muddle along trying to find enough common ground to live together, and we are lucky when our values are similar enough to do so, but it's an inspiring idea. Just as it's inspiring to think that a lady sawed in half can be put back together unharmed. Just as it's inspiring to think that All Men Are Brothers, as Geothe and Beethoven said.
> 
> Some people here seem uncomfortable facing the concept that art is the presentation of an illusory idea, or ideal. They would yell 'halt' at my first premise, that art must be perceived to exist, as the rest follows from that. Surely the marble statue, the painted canvas, the written manuscript, all exist without being perceived? But the art is not in the object, rather in the perception. Some will ask, as philosophers in earlier times did, is a beautiful rose therefore a work of art? You can define art that way if you wish, but the traditional underlying concept of art is that nature doesn't deal in illusions. Nature creates, or consists of, the reality that the artist adapts to create his illusion. Hence the bizarre distortions of Ingres, that you and others find kitschy. For you, Ingres went too far. Picasso saw an effective illusion, and adapted it in his Portrait of Gertrude Stein.
> 
> Sorry for this lengthy post that many will dismiss as hogwash. But so long as there are people unwilling to accept that art is illusion, this debate will continue.


I'm rather sorry to say, that nothing really exists without perception, at least not in the way we perceive it, and at least according to our current scientific understanding of the world. Do you then conclude everything is subjective?

I mean, it's kinda funny to use this argument, since the evidence for there being an objective reality is that everyone's perceptions agree. If everyone else was walking into walls you couldn't see, and the sky changed colour based on what colour they thought it was, then one would probably conclude there is no objective reality.


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> I'm rather sorry to say, that nothing really exists without perception, at least not in the way we perceive it, and at least according to our current scientific understanding of the world. Do you then conclude everything is subjective?
> 
> I mean, it's kinda funny to use this argument, since the evidence for there being an objective reality is that everyone's perceptions agree. If everyone else was walking into walls you couldn't see, and the sky changed colour based on what colour they thought it was, then one would probably conclude there is no objective reality.


We're talking about art objects here, and I think it is agreed that they exist. But the esthetic question is whether, beyond their physical existence whose several features, qualities, dimensions can be measured and agreed upon, there exists within the object some other interstitial quality that can be described as excellence, greatness, etc. Or are these not attributes that we bring as perceiving individuals to the art object and thus imbue it with this property or properties. Everyone's eyes, unless deformed, see a Henry Moore statue there as a solid mass. What they choose to make of it; how they clothe it with meaning and significance is another matter. If everyone had the same head and the same clonelike contents of that head, then we'd be closer to the Platonic goal set by our objectivist friends of perceiving an aura within and radiating from the object that all experience equally and together. The best we can do with what we have is form a consensus view and attempt to persuade others that that is what they see/hear or should see/hear. Does not work for me, and, privately, I think doesn't actually work for anybody.


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> I'm rather sorry to say, *that nothing really exists without perception, at least not in the way we perceive it*, and at least according to our current scientific understanding of the world.


Why do you bother to tell people 'how it is', if nothing really exists in the way it appears to exist to you?!

A seperate but related question is why your readers should _care _about the views of someone with such a paradoxical position?!

It's like someone telling us 'this sentence is false'.

Or are you referring only to empirical knowledge? Even then your position is questionable. Sure a bus might consist of more empty space than solid surfaces, at the atomic level, but so what? We don't exist purely at the atomic level and so we get out of the way of a bus about to smash us up.


----------



## RogerWaters

Phil loves classical said:


> I actually did a bit of scratching in College. It's improvised rhythm. It really isn't complex. Compare to Classical, they study counterpoint, partimento, orchestration, harmony. It's not something KRS One, Chuck D, LL Cool J, Eminem and others can just pick up. In rap music, the production can be spare or more lush, and lush production doesn't necessarily make the music better. But they are add-ons, not essential to the music. The level of complexity can be heard in both Classical and Rap. There is something to written Classical. It's more complex, and can't be transmitted orally like Blues, and others. I'm not saying it's better just because it's more complex.
> 
> The 'complexity' in Rap is built upon from simple building blocks, and added on as necessary. Not in counterpoint, it's more complex from the very start. You can't just pick it up and run with it. It's not learnt intuitively.


The complexity of classical music over rap is an (objective) truth.

That this complexity means the music is better is not an objective truth. Why not? Because it is an inferential leap from the premise "this music is more complex" to the conclusion "this music is better". A further premise is needed to entail that conclusion: "more complex music is better music". As it happens, this premise is not objectively true but rather a matter of preference.

It's as simple as this, and renders the objectivist position that "there are objective elements to judging music" all tip and no iceberg: i.e. true but trivial.


----------



## Phil loves classical

RogerWaters said:


> The complexity of classical music over rap is an (objective) truth.
> 
> That this complexity means the music is better is not an objective truth. Why not? Because it is an inferential leap from the premise "this music is more complex" to the conclusion "this music is better". A further premise is needed to entail that conclusion: "more complex music is better music". As it happens, this premise is not objectively true but rather a matter of preference.
> 
> It's as simple as this, and renders the objectivist position that "there are objective elements to judging music" all tip and no iceberg: i.e. true but trivial.


Very true. Just in the field of rap, I actually like the more simple rather than the more sophisticated stuff.


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> Why do you bother to tell people 'how it is', if nothing really exists in the way it appears to exist to you?!
> 
> A seperate but related question is why your readers should _care _about the views of someone with such a paradoxical position?!
> 
> It's like someone telling us 'this sentence is false'.
> 
> Or are you referring only to empirical knowledge? Even then your position is questionable. Sure a bus might consist of more empty space than solid surfaces, at the atomic level, but so what? We don't exist purely at the atomic level and so we get out of the way of a bus about to smash us up.


I'm referring to the fact that everything exists in a probabilistic state until observed (according to the best scientific understanding). Things do exist in the way they appear to you (at least according to the best scientific understanding), only for the instant in which you perceive them.

The position is a tad paradoxical. Unfortunately, it appears to be how reality works.


----------



## Zhdanov

science said:


> someone with the expertise in rap music to say definitively that they don't develop their styles and techniques in any way that could fairly be compared to a classical composer.


ape climbs trees much better than man does but is she equal to him?


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> I'm referring to the fact that *everything *exists in a probabilistic state until observed (according to the best scientific understanding). Things do exist in the way they appear to you (at least according to the best scientific understanding), only for the instant in which you perceive them.
> 
> The position is a tad paradoxical. Unfortunately, it appears to be how reality works.


No, not everthing. Sub-atomic particles may exist in a probabilistic state until observed (ignoring for a minute that, from what I understand, this observer-dependent interpretation of the phenomena is only one among many interpretations).

Things in the universe above that level do not.


----------



## Eclectic Al

BachIsBest said:


> I don't think many are disputing that there are subjective influences at work when people make these judgements, just that they are not entirely based on subjective influences; much of the judgement of artistic excellence also rests on more objective influences.
> 
> A lot of objective things offer little room for debate, but these tend to be things that are completely understood. No one here (I hope) denies that they're objective laws behind the universes functioning, but what these laws are is under a lot of debate. There are obvious subjective elements in trying to evaluate the objective laws of the universe (although I will concede, there are more in music), but this does not preclude the fundamentally objective nature of these laws.


I believe that there are objective laws behind the universe, but I do not think that can be proved. How could it? In this the comparison is perhaps even closer than you imply.

Some people believe that there are objective "laws" relating to music, but it is (I think) apparent they cannot prove it (if proof is taken to refer to some sort of logical deduction from indisputable "facts"). The people identifying on this thread as the outright subjectivists seem to think that the inability of the objectivists to prove their case somehow proves the subjectivists' point. I don't really see why. 
Neither side is able to prove their case, because the nature of the hypothesis in question is not amenable to proof.

On occasions people have veered close to agreeing the real position here: which is that there are objective and subjective elements at play in appreciating music, about the interplay between which we could (perhaps) have a fruitful discussion. However, then an extremist will re-inject conflict based on dogma, rather than a willingness to engage. I find that the most disappointing aspect of this discussion.

I detect more extremism here from the subjectivist camp. I guess this is because they note that perception (of anything) by a thinking subject is "subjective", and so get frustrated if others appear to reject that point. I agree with them about this point, but find it to be a somewhat pointless position to defend. To get somewhere with this topic we need to explore why people like what they like. That is inevitably going to drift into clarifying aspects of their experience to probe whether we are understanding each other and to seek to agree terms. It will thereby inevitably start to have a somewhat objective flavour, as we seek to define terms. I detect in the extreme subjectivist viewpoint an unwillingness to explore this "why" question, and I think this is because they judge it to be meaningless: they believe that you like what you like because you like it, and that there is no "why" to be uncovered. There may be a degree of truth in that position but it is just an assertion, and needs justification if it is to be taken to be more than just that.

My own position is that the nature of "I" as a subject has been formed by genetics and experience. I like what I like subjectively because I am the subject doing the liking. However, I am what I am because of influences acting on me as an object of those influences, and it is those objective matters which have some hope of explaining why I like what I like. Once "I" have been formed by those experiences my feelings are objective (for me, as the subject having the impressions). I cannot do otherwise than like what I like. You might like other things, but you also do that because of how you have been shaped as an object to become the subject that you are.

I also think the extreme subjectivist position is self-defeating. The case seems to be that the only thing which matters about the quality of a piece of music is how I feel about it. I feel that it is great, and therefore it is great. That seems to express the case.

Now suppose that I feel that it is objectively great. That is, my subjective experience is that the music has qualities which I feel are objectively superior to those of other music. I feel that it is objectively great, and therefore it is objectively great.

Someone who doesn't accept the extreme subjectivist position can argue against the above, but I am not clear how an extreme subjectivist can. A subjectivist cannot require me to justify my position, because they think there is no "why" anyway. If I could explain it would be by way of an explanation with objective content, and that is not something they would be willing to give any weight to anyway.


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> No, not everthing. Sub-atomic particles may exist in a probabilistic state until observed (ignoring for a minute that, from what I understand, this observer-dependent interpretation of the phenomena is only one among many interpretations).
> 
> Things in the universe above that level do not.


But everything does. Macroscopic objects have a very concentrated peak in their probability distribution (practically this means they will be observed repeatedly to be in virtually the same state with probability close to one) due to a phenomenon known as decoherence. However, they still are defined only as probability distributions at a fundamental level; treating them as definite physical objects is only an approximation.

Yes, the interpretation I listed is only one so I cheated (a little) there. What I stated is roughly the literalist interpretation, so-called the "literalist interpretation" as it is what you get if you literally interpret the theory.

For the sake of honesty, I should say the predominant viewpoint amongst physicists is the agnostic or Copenhagen interpretation (some people distinguish between these terms for technical and historical reasons, but the difference is minor at best) that anything that can't be observed is unknowable and thus to talk of unobserved reality is epistemologically absurd.

Roughly speaking, all other scientifically reasonable viewpoints fall under one of these two. Either, the act of observation literally collapses the probabilistic state into a definite object, or to speak of the probabilistic state as truly existing is epistemologically fallacious. Of course, the second is more disastrous for the post I quoted, and in a sense is a cop-out, so I didn't feel I did harm by stating the first as I stated it was our best current understanding of what should happen with unobserved things.


----------



## BachIsBest

Eclectic Al said:


> I believe that there are objective laws behind the universe, but I do not think that can be proved. How could it? In this the comparison is perhaps even closer than you imply.
> 
> Some people believe that there are objective "laws" relating to music, but it is (I think) apparent they cannot prove it (if proof is taken to refer to some sort of logical deduction from indisputable "facts"). The people identifying on this thread as the outright subjectivists seem to think that the inability of the objectivists to prove their case somehow proves the subjectivists' point. I don't really see why.
> Neither side is able to prove their case, because the nature of the hypothesis in question is not amenable to proof.


I think this is a common misconception; science is not concerned with proof, rather, science is concerned with evidence. I agree completely, there is no proof that the universe is governed by objective laws, but there is a heck of a lot of evidence. I believe the same thing with music, there is no proof that some music demonstrates excellence to a greater degree than other music, but there is a heck of a lot of evidence.

Although I didn't quote all of it: good post by the way.


----------



## ArtMusic

Eclectic Al said:


> A subjectivist cannot require me to justify my position, because they think there is no "why" anyway. If I could explain it would be by way of an explanation with objective content, and that is not something they would be willing to give any weight to anyway.


I agree. Classical music is complex art, the result of centuries of development. It is not meant to be subject to simplistic reductivism as often argued here "show me the proof, as clear as 4 x 7 =28". You are dealing with human creativity that require skill, cultured taste, understanding of nature, mastery of tension, often infused with drama, religion, patronage, technical bravura and spontaneity. This isn't 4 x 7 = 28.


----------



## science

Eclectic Al said:


> I also think the extreme subjectivist position is self-defeating. The case seems to be that the only thing which matters about the quality of a piece of music is how I feel about it. I feel that it is great, and therefore it is great.


I think this is happening most of the time whether we like it or not, but one key difference is that you could also value other people's experience and opinions.



Eclectic Al said:


> my subjective experience is that the music has qualities which *I feel are objectively superior* to those of other music.


This combination of words doesn't make sense to me. How can we feel something objectively?

It's not simply semantics, because if you'd written "I think are objectively superior," in reality we'd still be discussing a feeling (perhaps not necessarily a superficial emotion, but a deeply felt feeling is still a feeling).



Eclectic Al said:


> Someone who doesn't accept the extreme subjectivist position can argue against the above, but I am not clear how an extreme subjectivist can. A subjectivist cannot require me to justify my position, because they think there is no "why" anyway. If I could explain it would be by way of an explanation with objective content, and that is not something they would be willing to give any weight to anyway.


Does this mean that you think "an extreme subjectivist" can't believe that any statements are objective?


----------



## science

ArtMusic said:


> cultured taste


Surely this is not subjective.



ArtMusic said:


> religion


Nor this.



ArtMusic said:


> patronage


There it is.

I doubt you guys have much to worry about. Power is increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. The democratic moment may be ending. Pretty soon rich people will be able to enforce their tastes again, just like in the good old days. Maybe I'll be broken at the wheel for daring to oppose them, and you can cheer it on as you make your way to enjoy some of the approved music.


----------



## SanAntone

ArtMusic said:


> I agree. Classical music is complex art, the result of centuries of development. It is not meant to be subject to simplistic reductivism as often argued here "show me the proof, as clear as 4 x 7 =28". You are dealing with human creativity that require skill, cultured taste, understanding of nature, mastery of tension, often infused with drama, religion, patronage, technical bravura and spontaneity. This isn't 4 x 7 = 28.


You're right, it isn't objective. And this has been proven since when I ask for the objective evidence, something as simple as listing the composers in the top tier, all you come back with are fuzzy, vague, posts without any specificity.

List this alleged top tier of objectively great composers. Explain if they are all simply equally "great" or can they be ranked, objectively. If they are all equally great, what separates them from the second tier, of objectively not quite great composers. And what's to stop someone making a list with different composers on it?

Honestly, your task is huge and according to you impossible. All this in order to avoid simply admitting that it is a subjective list of composers you think are great because you really like their music. And since you can't demonstrate it you are taking this top tier on faith, like religious belief.

Your argument boils down to: "it just is so."


----------



## Eclectic Al

science said:


> I think this is happening most of the time whether we like it or not, but one key difference is that you could also value other people's experience and opinions.
> 
> This combination of words doesn't make sense to me. How can we feel something objectively?
> 
> It's not simply semantics, because if you'd written "I think are objectively superior," in reality we'd still be discussing a feeling (perhaps not necessarily a superficial emotion, but a deeply felt feeling is still a feeling).
> 
> Does this mean that you think "an extreme subjectivist" can't believe that any statements are objective?


Just picking up on your last point, I think that my reading of what people are saying here is that for some of them the answer is yes. Some would appear to believe that no statements are objective. (As I understand it, this is a position with a number of adherents in academia.) As it happens, I have a lot of sympathy with that position, but only because I do not believe you can so readily divide the subjective and objective into neatly separated categories. What I disagree with is the idea that it is all or nothing: I think there are objective elements and subjective elements to judgements in these (and most other) matters, to the extent that the concepts of objective and subjective cannot be cleanly separated.

That then links to your previous point. Anyone who can speak English can certainly utter the words "I feel something objectively". From my own perspective (and it would appear your perspective) we can discuss that and consider whether it can make sense. However, my feeling after going through this long thread is that there are people who could not discuss it, because it is a statement of someone's feeling, and therefore in the immortal words of the Oprah/Meghan interview it is "my truth". You cannot challenge that. Yes, I am what I am and believe what I do because I do. But also, I am the objective creation of my genetics and experiences, which dictate my beliefs. I am both simultaneously.

To the extent that I have views on any of this it is not primarily about the truth or otherwise of different opinions. It is more a feeling of sadness and regret. The absolute subjective position drifts into radical relativism, and also (I think) into an unattractive dualism. These shut down the ability to engage fully with others as equals in discussing what matters in life.

The absolute subjectivist positions the subject as apart from the other people and from the flow of events. They become a disembodied consciousness which makes judgements about things as though it is not partaking in the flow of events that it is judging; as if its judgements are pure and separate from the grubbiness of engaging with others. This is a Godlike position to occupy: standing outside events and deifying the subject. Well no: you're in the flow, not outside it.

As a side issue (and it's not my field) I read something which indicated that when people do something you can scan their brains and identify what seem to be the patterns of electrical activity connected with the consciousness of making a decision. The interesting thing was that (objectively if you like) those patterns were observed to occur after the activity itself which the person (subjectively if you like) thought they had decided to do. It was as if a more reasonable characterisation of what was going on is that the body did something, and the consciousness rationalised it afterwards as something it had decided to do. I haven't a clue how anyone might have done the experiments, or how valid they might be, but I thought it was fascinating and very plausible.

It's a bit like how we think vision gives us an instantaneous video show of what is happening, whereas the computational power to achieve that would be unfathomably large, and experiments can be constructed to demonstrate that it is not the case. We construct the video show, which makes it partly subjective (as a creation of the subject), but it is also partly objective (as it does reflect external influences). It is also bound to lag whatever is impacting on us, because the brain cannot process instantaneously.

A great remark I heard once described the brain as a machine for jumping to conclusions on the basis of inadequate information.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> We're talking about art objects here, and I think it is agreed that they exist. But the esthetic question is whether, beyond their physical existence whose several features, qualities, dimensions can be measured and agreed upon, there exists within the object some other interstitial quality that can be described as excellence, greatness, etc. Or are these not attributes that we bring as perceiving individuals to the art object and thus imbue it with this property or properties. Everyone's eyes, unless deformed, see a Henry Moore statue there as a solid mass. What they choose to make of it; how they clothe it with meaning and significance is another matter. If everyone had the same head and the same clonelike contents of that head, then we'd be closer to the Platonic goal set by our objectivist friends of perceiving an aura within and radiating from the object that all experience equally and together. The best we can do with what we have is form a consensus view and attempt to persuade others that that is what they see/hear or should see/hear. Does not work for me, and, privately, I think doesn't actually work for anybody.


Ah, but it does work for most people. That was the point of my example of the magician. People flock to Las Vegas to see these elaborate illusions, knowing full well they are illusions. People are terrified at horror movies, moved to tears by tragedies or romances, etc., knowing full well these are actors reading lines from a script, with costumes and makeup, digital special effects, stunt doubles, etc.

Harry Houdini, one of history's greatest magicians and illusionists, spent his later years tirelessly working to convince people that all magic tricks are an elaborate fraud. He spawned a whole genre of paranormal debunking, for example the late James Randi. Yet the need to be fooled persists.

And please, everyone, don't think of me as an "extreme subjectivist", whatever that means. Art fulfills our need for illusion, but that's just art. Science is a very different thing. In science, we patiently try to weed away illusion and inaccuracy in our perceptions and creep ever closer to objective truth. We never completely reach objective truth, but we accept the idea of its existence and its legitimacy as our goal.

With art, it isn't that objective truth doesn't exist, it's that art has a different purpose than the scientific search for it.


----------



## Eclectic Al

fluteman said:


> Ah, but it does work for most people. That was the point of my example of the magician. People flock to Las Vegas to see these elaborate illusions, knowing full well they are illusions. People are terrified at horror movies, moved to tears by tragedies or romances, etc., knowing full well these are actors reading lines from a script, with costumes and makeup, digital special effects, stunt doubles, etc.
> 
> Harry Houdini, one of history's greatest magicians and illusionists, spent his later years tirelessly working to convince people that all magic tricks are an elaborate fraud. He spawned a whole genre of paranormal debunking, for example the late James Randi. Yet the need to be fooled persists.


And what a sterile life if you can't engage in that way.

I recall reading A Tale of Two Cities (while happening to have Prokofiev's 1st Violin concerto on). I was very caught up in the sacrifice of Sidney Carton. I know it is ink on a page, not a description of real events, blah blah. So what? If I avoid being caught up in the illusion it will be my loss. How can you be part of a real community without entering into an imaginative experience relating to others' situations, be they real people or artfully created fictions? I don't mean entering into the others' experiences by intellectual analysis; I mean by going with the illusion that you might share their experiences.

That would be coming on for 40 years ago now and I am sure that my reaction to Prokofiev's VC is still coloured by that.


----------



## fluteman

Eclectic Al said:


> And what a sterile life if you can't engage in that way.
> 
> I recall reading A Tale of Two Cities (while happening to have Prokofiev's 1st Violin concerto on). I was very caught up in the sacrifice of Sidney Carton. I know it is ink on a page, not a description of real events, blah blah. So what? If I avoid being caught up in the illusion it will be my loss. How can you be part of a real community without entering into an imaginative experience relating to others' situations, be they real people or artfully created fictions? I don't mean entering into the others' experiences by intellectual analysis; I mean by going with the illusion that you might share their experiences.
> 
> That would be coming on for 40 years ago now and I am sure that my reaction to Prokofiev's VC is still coloured by that.


Exactly. I love that anecdote, well said. Finally, after over 1,000 posts, I see that at least someone fully understands what I've been trying to say about art. I do respect the opposing position of Zhdanov. There is a certain nobility in his insistence that his own particular illusion is not an illusion. It is a philosophy; he doesn't fully embrace empiricism. My best wishes to him, and to all of you.


----------



## Strange Magic

In reading these detailed and thoughtful posts, I, as a total subjectivist when it comes to "excellence" or "quality" in art appreciation, find the secret subjectivist within each poster trying to persuade herself of the existence of such qualities within art objects. I am not interested in the speculated realities at the quantum level--Richard Feynman told us decades ago that "nobody really understands this stuff"--and a number of charlatans have made money off trying to persuade others that the path to spiritual health was somehow linked to a certain "proper" grasp of such microcosmic principles. I am convinced of the existence of art objects, yet find no evidence beyond my opinion of the quality of the object for the purpose of pleasing me, causing me to think, to feel, to engage with it. I am offered as a consolation prize my choice of consensuses: the established rankings--highly variable overall, but often tightly bunched within a conferring cluster, and am told to be content with that, but now elevated to an objective fact. And it is a fact that, within certain circles, Bach is preferred to Brahms--no one disputes this. In other circles, the songs of Bob Dylan are preferred to those of Hugo Wolf. But the objectivists have esthetics exactly backward. They preach that greatness, excellence is inherent in this mass of material or the vibrations thereof, and hence comes the consensus. The reality is that the consensus (and there is a near-infinite--let's say Very Large--number of consensuses) imbues the inert art object with its "greatness/excellence".

What is a great or excellent table? I raised this question before. A table becomes great only when it is very well matched to its proposed use. Unlike, say, holding dinner for 40 guests, doing a jigsaw puzzle, or performing butchery, quite specific tasks that can clearly by observed to be properly executed by the table (40 people getting dinner off a card table would be something to see), the usefulness of art is to please millions of individuals, individually. Nobody goes into a concert hall and says unless everybody likes this music, I can't like it. We can apply the same standard to the appearance, the design, the finish, the beauty of the table. The table that seats 40 can be rough-hewn or elaborately decorated with inlay, made of oak or pine or steel, at the judgment of the buyer.

In a nutshell, subjectivist esthetics grants or restores to the individual perceiver and "consumer" of art the freedom that is their natural condition as unique beings to validly and authentically interact with art. The consensuses, and there will be many, can come later--and they will be the objective data points. And yet the entire structure of art and art criticism is left largely intact--no worlds crash down, no one (we hope) runs amok denying the existence of art or of the idea of hierarchies of standards and qualities. The situation remains as it appears--people agreeing and disagreeing about art, but still enjoying it.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Eclectic Al:* '
> To the extent that I have views on any of this it is not primarily about the truth or otherwise of different opinions. It is more a feeling of sadness and regret. The absolute subjective position drifts into radical relativism, and also (I think) into an unattractive dualism. These shut down the ability to engage fully with others as equals in discussing what matters in life.
> 
> The absolute subjectivist positions the subject as apart from the other people and from the flow of events. They become a disembodied consciousness which makes judgements about things as though it is not partaking in the flow of events that it is judging; as if its judgements are pure and separate from the grubbiness of engaging with others. This is a Godlike position to occupy: standing outside events and deifying the subject. Well no: you're in the flow, not outside it."


I understand your concern for the spiritual health of esthetic subjectivists like myself, but I think you may be using such as yet another reason to not absorb the idea fully that quality/excellence do not inhere within art objects. But I can assure you that we subjectivists cry and bleed along with others (and also alone) when deeply moved by specific art objects--I related before listening to PJ Harvey's gripping album on the death and chaos of WWI, _Let England Shake_. I admit I am a weepy guy and often find myself tearing up over wonderful music and wonderful experiences of it in concert halls.

So I counsel that you not put too much weight onto the wagon of the supposed isolation, indifference, and narcissism/solipsism of the total esthetic subjectivist. Not only is the wagon too frail to support the load, there is always the possibility of the obvious riposte.....


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> I am convinced of the existence of art objects, yet find no evidence beyond my opinion of the quality of the object for the purpose of pleasing me, causing me to think, to feel, to engage with it.


You find no evidence, nor can anyone else, because there is no evidence. Art is not based on evidence. Science is based on evidence. Art is based on the human need for illusion.

Just a footnote: Did you know that although David Copperfield is by far the most famous and successful (and enormously wealthy due to that success) magician of modern times, his technical skills as a professional magician are only fair to middling, a fact that the entire professional magic community, including Copperfield himself, acknowledges? Interesting, I think.

Edit: I loved Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman (his memoir).


----------



## Eclectic Al

Strange Magic said:


> _Let England Shake_


I do quite like that album, I must admit.

I assume that the sounds interact objectively with my objective sense equipment, creating an objective reaction in my brain, which I then (after the event) subjectively experience as pleasure. This will be because the emergent property which is my consciousness is rationalising the physical sensations that are being generated by this interaction. Whether I experience it as a good experience or not is entirely outside my subjective gift or ability to reason about it, and is an objective attribute of the passing moment.

Do I believe the above? I haven't a clue. I don't think it really matters.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> You find no evidence, nor can anyone else, because there is no evidence. Art is not based on evidence. Science is based on evidence. Art is based on the human need for illusion.
> 
> Just a footnote: Did you know that although David Copperfield is by far the most famous and successful (and enormously wealthy due to that success) magician of modern times, his technical skills as a professional magician are only fair to middling, a fact that the entire professional magic community, including Copperfield himself, acknowledges? Interesting, I think.
> 
> Edit: I loved Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman (his memoir).


Feynman is priceless! We totally agree. The bio of him, _Genius_, by James Gleick, is very good. And so are Feynman's other books both on his adventures (the Challenger catastrophe investigation) and his speculations on science and what interested him. A treasure of a human being.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

tgjisrhugvehnthuvrs


----------



## Zhdanov

SanAntone said:


> I ask for the objective evidence, something as simple as listing the composers in the top tier,


strawman... top classical is not easily defined and takes research to find out, which nobody did in honest because of not caring that much until now, but this does not apply when classical is compared with mass culture, where the latter simply has no chance, so the extrapolation of classical affairs on to mass-culture's was invalid, top composers list or not.


----------



## Strange Magic

Zhdanov said:


> strawman... top classical is not easily defined and takes research to find out, which nobody did in honest because of not caring that much until now, but this does not apply when classical is compared with mass culture, where the latter simply has no chance, so the extrapolation of classical affairs on to mass-culture's was invalid, top composers list or not.


Here is a quote by the great scholar of Greek civilization, H.D.F. Kitto, that I have always savored:

"A high culture must, historically speaking, originate with an aristocratic class, because this alone has the time and energy to create it. If it remains for too long the preserve of the aristocrat, it becomes first elaborate and then silly....."

Kitto: _The Greeks_


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> Here is a quote by the great scholar of Greek civilization,


it isn't about quotes but facts that classical is the only music existing, aristocracy demonisation or not, but what should be pointed out - how ever you demonise the nobles, they are no fools and take only the best from life.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> Here is a quote by the great scholar of Greek civilization, H.D.F. Kitto, that I have always savored:
> 
> "A high culture must, historically speaking, originate with an aristocratic class, because this alone has the time and energy to create it. If it remains for too long the preserve of the aristocrat, it becomes first elaborate and then silly....."
> 
> Kitto: _The Greeks_


Great quote from, for me, one of the greatest translators of the ancient Greek classics into English of all time. Here's a shorter quote from the English novelist Somerset Maugham: "The only important thing in a book is the meaning that it has for you."


----------



## Zhdanov

don't say either that it was elites who deprived you of access to best things, because in most cases it were you depriving yourself from classical and, instead, going with mass culture.


----------



## science

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> tgjisrhugvehnthuvrs


The goofy jangling is so ridiculous! Heavy ubiquities get very earnest, heeding not the hunger under very reasonable silences.

I can always figure these things out.


----------



## fluteman

Zhdanov said:


> don't say either that it was elites who deprived you of access to best things, because in most cases it were you depriving yourself from classical and, instead, going with mass culture.


Do you really think I've deprived myself of classical music, Mr. Zhdanov? I can, and do, play, or sing, long stretches, even entire movements, of concertos, symphonies, string quartets and other works of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, and others, from memory. Or at least the entire opening exposition up to the double bar. Bach cello suites. The Mozart Jupiter symphony. Beethoven's violin sonata no. 8. Schubert's string quartet no. 14, Death and the Maiden. The Brahms violin concerto. Many others.

I've been to the Bolshoi and the Moscow Conservatory, by the way, for concerts. I've heard Russian musicians such as Nathan Milstein, Leonid Kogan, Vladimir Ashkenazy, and more recently, Vadim Repin, perform in person. So how have I been deprived of western classical music?


----------



## Strange Magic

Zhdanov said:


> don't say either that it was elites who deprived you of access to best things, because in most cases it were you depriving yourself from classical and, instead, going with mass culture.


I admire, as does fluteman, I believe, your dedication to only Classical Music (and only that within very well defined boundaries). There is a quality of a Medieval Knight of the Hospital or a Templar taking vows renouncing Sin and Error and devoting oneself to a high and ennobling cause. For you, with whom does your devotion to such music end? Is Béla Bartók an acceptable composer? Martinů? How about Hovhaness or Rautavaara? I ask in all sincerity and curiosity.


----------



## BachIsBest

Strange Magic said:


> In reading these detailed and thoughtful posts, I, as a total subjectivist when it comes to "excellence" or "quality" in art appreciation, find the secret subjectivist within each poster trying to persuade herself of the existence of such qualities within art objects. I am not interested in the speculated realities at the quantum level--Richard Feynman told us decades ago that "nobody really understands this stuff"--and a number of charlatans have made money off trying to persuade others that the path to spiritual health was somehow linked to a certain "proper" grasp of such microcosmic principles.


I think, of all university courses, it is possibly quantum mechanics that causes more philosophical crisis than any other. It is true that the nature of reality is a subject of rampant speculation and that, as Feynmann put it, (your paraphrasing captured the spirit of the quote) "I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics", we can, however, also safely say that the idea of a fixed, non-probabilistic, and observer-independant reality is, within reason, false.

If you don't want to take into account science into your personal philosophy, I can't make you. But I don't think serious philosophical positions and arguments should run counter to science or flippantly dismiss science.


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> I think, of all university courses, it is possibly quantum mechanics that causes more philosophical crisis than any other. It is true that the nature of reality is a subject of rampant speculation and that, as Feynmann put it, (your paraphrasing captured the spirit of the quote) "I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics", we can, however, also safely say that the idea of a fixed, non-probabilistic, and observer-independant reality is, within reason, false.
> 
> If you don't want to take into account science into your personal philosophy, I can't make you. But I don't think serious philosophical positions and arguments should run counter to science or flippantly dismiss science.


In Heinz Pagels' fine book on quantum physics, _The Cosmic Code_ he discusses those issues but raises a cautionary flag, as do many QP authorities, into overreading the indeterminism of QM into ordinary everyday human life and activity. This is reminiscent of my philosophical guide Ernest Nagel preferring to teach in the classroom what he believed outside and vice versa. Are you a Deepak Chopra devotee, perchance? He is, in the opinion of many, a fine salesman indeed. But we are discussing esthetics on the mega-scale of human agency.


----------



## ArtMusic

SanAntone said:


> You're right, it isn't objective. And this has been proven since when I ask for the objective evidence, something as simple as listing the composers in the top tier, all you come back with are fuzzy, vague, posts without any specificity.
> 
> List this alleged top tier of objectively great composers. Explain if they are all simply equally "great" or can they be ranked, objectively. If they are all equally great, what separates them from the second tier, of objectively not quite great composers. And what's to stop someone making a list with different composers on it?
> 
> Honestly, your task is huge and according to you impossible. All this in order to avoid simply admitting that it is a subjective list of composers you think are great because you really like their music. And since you can't demonstrate it you are taking this top tier on faith, like religious belief.
> 
> Your argument boils down to: "it just is so."


You should read the excellent discourse by Sir Joshua Reynolds on art to give a more balances view beyond postmodernism and why art is not arbitrary, and why not anybody can call themselves an artist and why not everything is art because someone arbitrarily calls it so.


----------



## ArtMusic

science said:


> Surely this is not subjective.
> 
> Nor this.
> 
> There it is.
> 
> I doubt you guys have much to worry about. Power is increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. The democratic moment may be ending. Pretty soon rich people will be able to enforce their tastes again, just like in the good old days. Maybe I'll be broken at the wheel for daring to oppose them, and you can cheer it on as you make your way to enjoy some of the approved music.


Avoid simplistic reductivism for the reasons I explained. For your information, art has come a long away before the mid-20th century to avoid this, that the learned masters are precisely in the position to state what matters in art and to not receive instructions from elsewhere, certainly not the common people who borrow apparent rationalism from other principles.


----------



## Strange Magic

ArtMusic said:


> Avoid simplistic reductivism for the reasons I explained. For your information, art has come a long away before the mid-20th century to avoid this, that the learned masters are precisely in the position to state what matters in art and to not receive instructions from elsewhere, certainly not the common people who borrow apparent rationalism from other principles.


What does this mean? I ask because I don't know. Please explain.


----------



## ArtMusic

Strange Magic said:


> What does this mean? I ask because I don't know. Please explain.


Read up on discourses to explain how art is understood written before the 20th century to have a more balanced view. That's how I got educated on this matter.


----------



## Strange Magic

ArtMusic said:


> Read up on discourses to explain how art is understood written before the 20th century to have a more balanced view. That's how I got educated on this matter.


Yes, but what does your post mean?


----------



## ArtMusic

Strange Magic said:


> Yes, but what does your post mean?


This will be my last post. I am no longer contributing to this thread.

All I want to say now is this has made me more convinced about the objectivity debate. Simple reductivism doesn't apply to the complexities of art. That art has come a long way through centuries of development made possible through learned masters. Unfortunately this doesn't mean anyone can be an artist nor anything can be art, indeed the golden ages of art in the past have shown that it were the masters who had the most to say about art then and today.


----------



## BachIsBest

Strange Magic said:


> In Heinz Pagels' fine book on quantum physics, _The Cosmic Code_ he discusses those issues but raises a cautionary flag, as do many QP authorities, into overreading the indeterminism of QM into ordinary everyday human life and activity. This is reminiscent of my philosophical guide Ernest Nagel preferring to teach in the classroom what he believed outside and vice versa. Are you a Deepak Chopra devotee, perchance? He is, in the opinion of many, a fine salesman indeed. But we are discussing esthetics on the mega-scale of human agency.


We are not overreading quantum mechanics into everyday life; we are not even talking about everyday life. We are talking about philosophical positions on objectivity and reality which should take into account our understanding of reality.

Please do not suggest I follow some sort of new-age garbage with absolutely no evidence; I had no idea who Deepak Chopra was before this. I don't want this to turn into some sort of bragging contest, but quantum mechanics is one of the few things I would be reasonably well qualified to talk about. Aesthetic philosophy is a hobby; quantum mechanics is directly pertinent to my work.


----------



## Strange Magic

ArtMusic said:


> This will be my last post. I am no longer contributing to this thread.
> 
> All I want to say now is this has made me more convinced about the objectivity debate. Simple reductivism doesn't apply to the complexities of art. That art has come a long way through centuries of development made possible throukgh learned masters. Unfortunately this doesn't mean anyone can be an artist nor anything can be art, indeed the golden ages of art in the past have shown that it were the masters who had the most to say about art then and today.


All I wanted you to do was to provide a Plain English version of your post. I couldn't grasp what you were saying. Maybe you could deputize someone to do that, if you're leaving the thread.


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> We are not overreading quantum mechanics into everyday life; we are not even talking about everyday life. We are talking about philosophical positions on objectivity and reality which should take into account our understanding of reality.
> 
> Please do not suggest I follow some sort of new-age garbage with absolutely no evidence; I had no idea who Deepak Chopra was before this. I don't want this to turn into some sort of bragging contest, but quantum mechanics is one of the few things I would be reasonably well qualified to talk about. Aesthetic philosophy is a hobby; quantum mechanics is directly pertinent to my work.


Great! Let's have a QM explanation or analysis or even a confirmation of either position in the seemingly endless flow of these numerous threads. You brought up QM and put it on the table; I didn't.


----------



## BachIsBest

Strange Magic said:


> Great! Let's have a QM explanation or analysis or even a confirmation of either position in the seemingly endless flow of these numerous threads. You brought up QM and put it on the table; I didn't.


I brought up QM to disprove a scientifically incorrect philosophical position. QM does not prove my position on objectivity in music and you know I never claimed such a thing.


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> I brought up QM to disprove a scientifically incorrect philosophical position. QM does not prove my position on objectivity in music and you know I never claimed such a thing.


I am at a loss to determine, though, what bearing--if any--your introducing QM into the thread had to do with what we were discussing. There have been, now, thousands of posts, and I may have lost or forgotten the link that would introduce QM into the equation in any form. I certainly don't recall the scientifically incorrect philosophical position. Was it mine? Bad memory.


----------



## fluteman

ArtMusic said:


> Avoid simplistic reductivism for the reasons I explained. For your information, art has come a long away before the mid-20th century to avoid this, that the learned masters are precisely in the position to state what matters in art and to not receive instructions from elsewhere, certainly not the common people who borrow apparent rationalism from other principles.


This is a joke, right? The "learned masters"? Who are they?


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

science said:


> The goofy jangling is so ridiculous! Heavy ubiquities get very earnest, heeding not the hunger under very reasonable silences.
> 
> I can always figure these things out.


That is actually a revised nonsensical post... my first go at it produced too high a concentration of vowels for my liking.


----------



## RogerWaters

ArtMusic said:


> You should read the excellent discourse by Sir Joshua Reynolds on art to give a more balances view beyond postmodernism and why art is not arbitrary, and why not anybody can call themselves an artist and why not everything is art because someone arbitrarily calls it so.


There is a big difference between a postmodernist critique of the objectivity of artistic judgements and what you might call a 'positivist' one ("a philosophical system recognizing only that which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and therefore rejecting metaphysics and theism").

Postmodernists do not like the clear mix of logic and empiricism that you might call positivism and there is a difference between the self-defeating, rather drastic, tenants of postmodernism (that truth is relative, let alone artistic taste, the death of the author, etc.) and the 'positivist' observation that value statements come to rest ultimately on human preferences.

FYI, I read Roger Scruton, and in no way see a contradiction between this and the facts of the matter- that aesthetic judgement inevitably comes to rest on human preferences, at some point in the chain of reasoning.


----------



## fluteman

BachIsBest said:


> I think, of all university courses, it is possibly quantum mechanics that causes more philosophical crisis than any other. It is true that the nature of reality is a subject of rampant speculation and that, as Feynmann put it, (your paraphrasing captured the spirit of the quote) "I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics", we can, however, also safely say that the idea of a fixed, non-probabilistic, and observer-independant reality is, within reason, false.
> 
> If you don't want to take into account science into your personal philosophy, I can't make you. But I don't think serious philosophical positions and arguments should run counter to science or flippantly dismiss science.


Who is dismissing science? Art is not science. The artist solely addresses the audience's subjective aesthetic values or tastes, which humans have a deeply felt need to satisfy. Art that addresses that need, in more or less people, to a greater or lesser extent, can be called more or less successful, or good, or great, if for some reason one needs to rank art under a merit system.

If one wanted to scientifically analyze the reasons or causes for artistic success, one would have to observe and analyze the perception and sensory processes of the audience members, not the art itself. Many scientists do that kind of research. I have known some personally. One could also empirically observe what kinds of art, including music, are successful. No need to be a scientist for that. Western classical music is only one of many genres that has an audience in modern times.

In simple terms, one can never tell anyone what good art is, not if you are Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin, though they both tried to do so, not if you are a scientist, and not even if you are a "learned master", whomever ArtMusic was referring to with that term. One can only observe what art people actually like and try to analyze their sensory and thought processes to find out why.


----------



## consuono

RogerWaters said:


> ...
> Postmodernists do not like the clear mix of logic and empiricism that you might call positivism and there is a difference between the self-defeating, rather drastic, tenants of postmodernism (that truth is relative, let alone artistic taste, the death of the author, etc.) and the 'positivist' observation that value statements come to rest ultimately on human preferences. ...


OK, one more thing. There's really no practical difference between those two approaches. It's ultimately all relative. The difference is primarily that postmodernists would say that that "clear mix (?) of logic and empiricism" can also be a tool of oppression. In other words what you've outlined here is less overtly political than the usual postmodern thinking, but it ends up in the same place.


----------



## RogerWaters

Eclectic Al said:


> Some people believe that there are objective "laws" relating to music, but it is (I think) apparent they cannot prove it (if proof is taken to refer to some sort of logical deduction from indisputable "facts"). The people identifying on this thread as the outright subjectivists seem to think that the inability of the objectivists to prove their case somehow proves the subjectivists' point. I don't really see why.
> 
> Neither side is able to prove their case, because the nature of the hypothesis in question is not amenable to proof.


Let's all stop the sophistry and get to the point.

Aesthetic judgements are intimately coloured by human preferences. Unlike judgements about mathematical, logical or empirical reality.

Result: only if you agree with the preferences of the artistic critic do you have any objective REASON to be bound by their judgements.

Simple as that.



Eclectic Al said:


> On occasions people have veered close to agreeing the real position here: which is that there are objective and subjective elements at play in appreciating music, about the interplay between which we could (perhaps) have a fruitful discussion. However, then an extremist will re-inject conflict based on dogma, rather than a willingness to engage. I find that the most disappointing aspect of this discussion.


I would 're-inject' based on (I hope) sound reasoning. See above.



Eclectic Al said:


> I detect more extremism here from the subjectivist camp. I guess this is because they note that perception (of anything) by a thinking subject is "subjective", and so get frustrated if others appear to reject that point. I agree with them about this point, but find it to be a somewhat pointless position to defend.


No.

Of course thinking is done by a subject. But this doesn't make all judgements subjective. Mathematical judgements are made by subjects, but they aren't subjective.

What makes a judgement subjective is that it is coloured by human preferences, as opposed to the mind-independent world.



Eclectic Al said:


> they believe that you like what you like because you like it, and that there is no "why" to be uncovered. There may be a degree of truth in that position but it is just an assertion, and needs justification if it is to be taken to be more than just that.


No.

Of course there is a 'why' behind why someone likes something. No subjectivist would deny this. In fact, they usually play it up - as, in their eyes, this 'why' is arbitrary, from a cosmic point of view (because I grew up listening to it, for instance), unlike the 'why' behind why someone believes 1+2=2 (because it's objectively true).



Eclectic Al said:


> My own position is that the nature of "I" as a subject has been formed by genetics and experience. I like what I like subjectively because I am the subject doing the liking. However, I am what I am because of influences acting on me as an object of those influences, and it is those objective matters which have some hope of explaining why I like what I like. Once "I" have been formed by those experiences *my feelings are objective* (for me, as the subject having the impressions). I cannot do otherwise than like what I like. You might like other things, but you also do that because of how you have been shaped as an object to become the subject that you are.


You may use language as you like, but this is not a conventional understanding of 'objective'. Your account would render the existence of Thor objective - if you had the feeling he existed.



Eclectic Al said:


> I also think the extreme subjectivist position is self-defeating. The case seems to be that the only thing which matters about the quality of a piece of music is how I feel about it. I feel that it is great, and therefore it is great. That seems to express the case. Now suppose that I feel that it is objectively great. That is, my subjective experience is that the music has qualities which I feel are objectively superior to those of other music. I feel that it is objectively great, and therefore it is objectively great.


See above why this is utterly fallacious reasoning, due to incorrect usage of the term 'objective'.



Eclectic Al said:


> Someone who doesn't accept the extreme subjectivist position can argue against the above, but I am not clear how an extreme subjectivist can. *A subjectivist cannot require me to justify my position, because they think there is no "why" anyway*. If I could explain it would be by way of an explanation with objective content, and that is not something they would be willing to give any weight to anyway.


What a straw man.

Can we please set it on fire? That people like ArtMusic and co have liked such a misguided post is, I'm afraid, a piece of information about some of the 'objectivists' around here.


----------



## RogerWaters

consuono said:


> OK, one more thing. There's really no practical difference between those two approaches. It's ultimately all relative. The difference is primarily that postmodernists would say that that "clear mix (?) of logic and empiricism" can also be a tool of oppression. In other words what you've outlined here is less overtly political than the usual postmodern thinking, but it ends up in the same place.


It doesn't end up in the same place.

Go spent time amongst post-modernists. You won't find many of them listening to classical music (white, dead, male music etc). But even Einstein loved classical music. Oppenheimer was a poet and follower of the beauty of the Hindu scriptures. Etc.

The postmodern position is that culture is a product of power interests. The 'positivist' position is that culture is the product of many complex, interconnecting forces, including _human nature_. Post-modernists reject human nature.

I'm, loosely speaking, a 'positivist', but I don't think the love of Classical music renders me a puppet of power structures.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

> Post-modernists reject human nature.


You're sounding kinda like Jordan Peterson bro.


----------



## consuono

> The postmodern position is that culture is a product of power interests.


And I've seen that sentiment expressed in this thread. You *will* find postmodernism in the classical music world. This thread is actually dripping with it.

https://www.academia.edu/3058366/Postmodernism_and_Music

I don't know about Oppenheimer, but I don't think Einstein would have much of a problem ascribing "greatness" to music or composers.


----------



## RogerWaters

consuono said:


> And I've seen that sentiment expressed in this thread. You *will* find postmodernists in the classical music world.
> 
> https://www.academia.edu/3058366/Postmodernism_and_Music
> 
> I don't know about Oppenheimer, but I don't think Einstein would have much of a problem ascribing "greatness" to music or composers.


For sure.

But I would think he would recognise this greatness is a matter of artists expending great skill and ingenuity hooking into human preferences/cognitive structures, as opposed to some rational logos or cosmic ear.


----------



## consuono

RogerWaters said:


> For sure.
> 
> But I would think he would recognise this greatness is a matter of artists expending great skill and ingenuity hooking into human preferences/cognitive structures, as opposed to some rational logos or cosmic ear.


Does it really matter one way or the other except as a badge to proclaim your anti-theism or theism, or the similarity of your convictions to one or the other? In practical.terms,, no. That's ultimately what these 72 pages have been about, not the quality of music. And it's a dead end, and I'm done. For sure this time.


----------



## fbjim

This is maybe the same thing, but I'd rather say that art can not be separated from eg the historical power struggles and structures of the culture in which they were created, rather than saying they're the result of them. (this pops up a lot when people talk about 'political' art)


(just as an example, we had people mentioning how the complexity of classical music was a result of an aristocrat class which frankly had too much leisure time on their hands after making passive rentier income all day long)


----------



## fluteman

RogerWaters said:


> Let's all stop the sophistry and get to the point.
> 
> Aesthetic judgements are intimately coloured by human preferences. Unlike judgements about mathematical, logical or empirical reality.
> 
> Result: only if you agree with the preferences of the artistic critic do you have any objective REASON to be bound by their judgements.
> 
> Simple as that.
> 
> I would 're-inject' based on (I hope) sound reasoning. See above.
> 
> No.
> 
> Of course thinking is done by a subject. But this doesn't make all judgements subjective. Mathematical judgements are made by subjects, but they aren't subjective.
> 
> What makes a judgement subjective is that it is coloured by human preferences, as opposed to the mind-independent world.
> 
> No.
> 
> Of course there is a 'why' behind why someone likes something. No subjectivist would deny this. In fact, they usually play it up - as, in their eyes, this 'why' is arbitrary, from a cosmic point of view (because I grew up listening to it, for instance), unlike the 'why' behind why someone believes 1+2=2 (because it's objectively true).
> 
> You may use language as you like, but this is not a conventional understanding of 'objective'. Your account would render the existence of Thor objective - if you had the feeling he existed.
> 
> See above why this is utterly fallacious reasoning, due to incorrect usage of the term 'objective'.
> 
> What a straw man.
> 
> Can we please set it on fire? That people like ArtMusic and co have liked such a misguided post is, I'm afraid, a piece of information about some of the 'objectivists' around here.


Yes, except I am not a 'subjectivist', and have no idea what that means. I am an empiricist, like most educated people in the modern world. I believe in science, not least because the scientific method has proved its effectiveness for centuries, indeed ever since it became the primary way we look at the world.

But it is the height of illogic and unscientific thinking to suggest that works of art, the sole purpose of which is to appeal to the aesthetic tastes, can ever have some objective, measurable value as works of art independent of how people perceive them, and perceptions vary, sometimes slightly, sometimes greatly, from one person to the next.

Before the age of science and empiricism, religious institutions like the Catholic Church often claimed authority to pronounce what art was good and what bad. Those who seek to return to such a system, whatever their supposed source of authority, are taking an anti-science position.


----------



## BachIsBest

Strange Magic said:


> I am at a loss to determine, though, what bearing--if any--your introducing QM into the thread had to do with what we were discussing. There have been, now, thousands of posts, and I may have lost or forgotten the link that would introduce QM into the equation in any form. I certainly don't recall the scientifically incorrect philosophical position. Was it mine? Bad memory.


I actually don't believe I brought up QM in response to you; it was another poster and then you responded to my response.


----------



## SanAntone

> Before the age of science and empiricism, religious institutions like the Catholic Church often claimed authority to pronounce what art was good and what bad. Those who seek to return to such a system, whatever their supposed source of authority, are taking an anti-science position.


In more recent times the USSR controlled what music was acceptable. Today, the "cancel culture" is exerting pressure against literature, and maybe music, although I can't think of an example.

I am bothered whenever I hear someone say, "it is settled science." My understanding is that science adjusts its theories as new data emerges. What may appear to be settled today could become unsettled in a decade. Also, science can tell us what things are made of, and how things occur, but not if they are good or bad. E.G. cloning: science can describe how it is done but not if it is ethical.

Further, the scope of science is limited to things that can be demonstrated repeatedly and confirmed. Singularities confound science, as do metaphysical issues.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> Yes, except I am not a 'subjectivist', and have no idea what that means. I am an empiricist, like most educated people in the modern world. I believe in science, not least because the scientific method has proved its effectiveness for centuries, indeed ever since it became the primary way we look at the world.
> 
> But it is the height of illogic and unscientific thinking to suggest that works of art, the sole purpose of which is to appeal to the aesthetic tastes, can ever have some objective, measurable value as works of art independent of how people perceive them, and perceptions vary, sometimes slightly, sometimes greatly, from one person to the next..


I like the way you claim to have no idea what a 'subjectivist' means in the first sentence and then as much as go ahead and describe subjectivity in the 2nd paragraph.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> In more recent times the USSR controlled what music was acceptable. Today, the "cancel culture" is exerting pressure against literature, and maybe music, although I can't think of an example.
> 
> I am bothered whenever I hear someone say, "it is settled science." My understanding is that science adjusts its theories as new data emerges. What may appear to be settled today could become unsettled in a decade. Also, science can tell us what things are made of, and how things occur, but not if they are good or bad. E.G. cloning: science can describe how it is done but not if it is ethical.
> 
> Further, the scope of science is limited to things that can be demonstrated repeatedly and confirmed. Singularities confound science, as do metaphysical issues.


Yes. Science never gets us all the way to the full truth, but it gets us as close as possible, and in most contexts is the best tool we have to analyze our environment. It isn't a particularly useful tool for analyzing art, certainly not to the level of comparisons between Vanilla Ice and Mahler, unless one includes social sciences like cultural anthropology.


----------



## DaveM

RogerWaters said:


> Let's all stop the sophistry and get to the point.
> 
> Aesthetic judgements are intimately coloured by human preferences. Unlike judgements about mathematical, logical or empirical reality.
> 
> Result: only if you agree with the preferences of the artistic critic do you have any objective REASON to be bound by their judgements.
> 
> Simple as that.
> I would 're-inject' based on (I hope) sound reasoning. See above.
> No.
> 
> Of course thinking is done by a subject. But this doesn't make all judgements subjective. Mathematical judgements are made by subjects, but they aren't subjective.
> 
> What makes a judgement subjective is that it is coloured by human preferences, as opposed to the mind-independent world.
> 
> No.
> 
> Of course there is a 'why' behind why someone likes something. No subjectivist would deny this. In fact, they usually play it up - as, in their eyes, this 'why' is arbitrary, from a cosmic point of view (because I grew up listening to it, for instance), unlike the 'why' behind why someone believes 1+2=2 (because it's objectively true).
> 
> You may use language as you like, but this is not a conventional understanding of 'objective'. Your account would render the existence of Thor objective - if you had the feeling he existed.
> 
> See above why this is utterly fallacious reasoning, due to incorrect usage of the term 'objective'.
> 
> What a straw man.
> 
> Can we please set it on fire? That people like ArtMusic and co have liked such a misguided post is, I'm afraid, a piece of information about some of the 'objectivists' around here.


'Let's stop the sophistry', 'utterly fallacious reasoning', 'What a straw man': This has become the language of the subjectivists: The disrespectful, self-righteous put-down. And the Likes it got is, I'm afraid a piece of information about some of the subjectivists around here.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> The artist solely addresses the audience's subjective aesthetic values or tastes[...]
> 
> If one wanted to scientifically analyze the reasons or causes for artistic success, *one would have to observe and analyze the perception and sensory processes of the audience members, **not the art itself. *
> 
> In simple terms, one can never tell anyone what good art is[...] One can *only *observe what art people actually like and try to analyze their sensory and thought processes to find out why.


I'd like to write a good fugue. What conservatory can I attend in order to learn to analyze people's sensory and thought processes? I presume I would not be studying Bach, although he must have been an excellent mind reader in view of his appeal to the sensory and thought processes of people 300 years later.


----------



## RogerWaters

DaveM said:


> 'Let's stop the sophistry', 'utterly fallacious reasoning', 'What a straw man': This has become the language of the subjectivists: The disrespectful, self-righteous put-down. And the Likes it got is, I'm afraid a piece of information about some of the subjectivists around here.


You go ahead and tell me why my characterisations of his post are wrong. Did you even read his characterising of the subjectivist position? Clearly a straw man.

The matter is simple yet you objectivists, with some exceptions, insist that black is white.

Aesthetic judgements ultimately bottom out in human preferences, unlike mathematical or empirical judgements. Thus, if I don't _prefer_ complexity, fugues, harmonic skill, etc. I have absolutely no objective reason to agree with the aesthetic judgements of classical music listeners.

That's the reality, I submit. If you think it isn't, why don't you explain why, instead of moralising?

Don't point me back to post 3867 of thread 56. Make your case.

It's now or never, buddy.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> 'Let's stop the sophistry', 'utterly fallacious reasoning', 'What a straw man': This has become the language of the subjectivists: The disrespectful, self-righteous put-down. And the Likes it got is, I'm afraid a piece of information about some of the subjectivists around here.


I note your repeated complaints, not so much about the arguments against objectivism, but your ongoing and one-sided critiques of the language used by subjectivists alone, you allege. And again I suggest you stick to either energetically providing evidence for your view that excellence is intrinsic in art objects, or demolish the idea that perceivers bring their unique experiences, neurology, etc. to the art object and clothe it with their esthetic fabric. Your allies have given as much as they've gotten (before some quit the field); I think we're about even in the rhetoric department but the moaning seems to come from one side only.


----------



## DaveM

RogerWaters said:


> You go ahead and tell me why my characterisations of his post are wrong. Did you even read his characterising of the subjectivist position? Clearly a straw man.
> 
> The matter is simple yet you objectivists, with some exceptions, insist that black is white.
> 
> Aesthetic judgements ultimately bottom out in human preferences, unlike mathematical or empirical judgements. Thus, if I don't _prefer_ complexity, fugues, harmonic skill, etc. I have absolutely no objective reason to agree with the aesthetic judgements of classical music listeners.
> 
> That's the reality, I submit. If you think it isn't, why don't you explain why, instead of moralising?
> 
> Don't point me back to post 3867 of thread 56. Make your case.
> 
> It's now or never, buddy.


What's going to happen if it isn't now? Never? I choose 'never' when it come to responding to someone who always claims there's been no response. And I'm not your buddy.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> .. but the moaning seems to come from one side only.


He says while moaning.


----------



## Gallus

RogerWaters said:


> _Imagine that these aliens happen to experience Bach as it would sound to us played underwater_, due to the unique nature of their neural wiring between ears and brain centres (which is in turn due to adaptation to their own unique terrestrial atmosphere). The result is a complex canvass of stimulation, but one that leaves them emotionally unmoved.
> 
> Are these creatures _wrong_ to not find Bach 'Great' to listen to?


No. They would only be wrong if they insisted that Bach was not 'Great' _to humans with a different neural wiring_.

I haven't been on here in a couple of months. Did this thread really get 50 pages?


----------



## SanAntone

Woodduck said:


> I'd like to write a good fugue. What conservatory can I attend in order to learn to analyze people's sensory and thought processes? I presume I would not be studying Bach, although he must have been an excellent mind reader in view of his appeal to the sensory and thought processes of people 300 years later.


I studied 18th century counterpoint at music school, which was basically the study of Bach's methodology. However, no one in my class came close to writing a fugue as satisfying as one by Bach. Part of it is that during Bach's lifetime, this style was pervasive and something composers picked up almost by osmosis. These composers had not heard Beethoven, much less Wagner or Schoenberg. Our sensibilities have been influenced by everything since the time of Bach including Stockhausen, The Beatles and rap.

In our time, studying 18th century counterpoint it is artificial, i.e. exercises with rules about voice leading, templates for subject and counter subjects, typical key modulations, etc., and we were not devoted to writing in that style, but more concerned with just completing the course.

I am not saying that someone couldn't achieve counterpoint at the same level as Bach, and arguably some composers have (Shostakovich, Hindemith) but what I am saying is simply that studying 18th century counterpoint will not turn you into a Bach.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> What's going to happen if it isn't now? Never? I choose 'never' when it come to responding to someone who always claims there's been no response. And I'm not your buddy.


Yeah, like you have never responded to my requests that you post the composers in your top tier, and second tier, and explain how they got there.

You brought it up, but have avoided actually laying it out.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> Yeah, like you have never responded to my requests that you post the composers in your top tier, and second tier, and explain how they got there.
> 
> You brought it up, but have avoided actually laying it out.


I never brought up anything about a list of top tier, second tier composers. In any event, maybe you can think of another, more likely reason why I didn't respond to you.

Btw, are composers that might be what we call top tier composers in the CPT era a mystery to you? No idea whatsoever?


----------



## DaveM

I think it’s time for this thread to be shut down.


----------



## Woodduck

SanAntone said:


> I studied 18th century counterpoint at music school, which was basically the study of Bach's methodology. However, no one in my class came close to writing a fugue as satisfying as one by Bach. Part of it is that during Bach's lifetime, this style was pervasive and something composers picked up almost by osmosis. These composers had not heard Beethoven, much less Wagner or Schoenberg. Our sensibilities have been influenced by everything since the time of Bach including Stockhausen, The Beatles and rap.
> 
> In our time, studying 18th century counterpoint it is artificial, i.e. exercises with rules about voice leading, templates for subject and counter subjects, typical key modulations, etc., and we were not devoted to writing in that style, but more concerned with just completing the course.
> 
> I am not saying that someone couldn't achieve counterpoint at the same level as Bach, and arguably some composers have (Shostakovich, Hindemith) but what I am saying is simply that studying 18th century counterpoint will not turn you into a Bach.


Oh, I agree completely. My point was quite different. If we DO want to learn to write a fugue that will satisfy listeners for 300 years - or even 3 minutes - we'll get much further studying Bach than examining people's neural networks, as fluteman seems to be suggesting. "Studying Bach" doesn't mean studying the ''rules" of counterpoint. It means exposing ourselves to his (and other composers') work until the aesthetic principles undergirding those rules (but sometimes expanding or contradicting them), which we already intuit but can't describe, become sufficiently clear to our subconscious - which is more sensitive and discriminating than our conscious mind by orders of magnitude - to allow us to compose a piece that "works."

The futility of asking people to demonstrate or "prove" artistic excellence lies very substantially here: in the fact that aesthetic perception is subtle, complex, and thus largely of necessity a subconscious process, and only its grosser aspects can be either grasped or articulated in the conscious medium of language. Mendelssohn said that the meaning of music is not too general to put into words, but too specific. Actually, it's both, and at both language fails.


----------



## RogerWaters

DaveM said:


> I think it's time for this thread to be shut down.


Says the person who has been asked to contribute a substantive argument, or in the very least a few _reasons_ why his evil opponents are wrong.


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> The futility of asking people to demonstrate or "prove" artistic excellence lies very substantially here: in the fact that aesthetic perception is subtle, complex, and thus largely of necessity a subconscious process, and only its grosser aspects can be either grasped or articulated in the conscious medium of language. Mendelssohn said that the meaning of music is not too general to put into words, but too specific. Actually, it's both, and at both language fails.


Slightly orthogonal, but as a 'subjectivist', ultimately, I don't think there is any problem 'proving' artistic excellence - _among people who share common assumptions/preferences about how music should go_. This is not ad hoc. It stems directly from the reality of the matter that aesthetic judgements bottom-out with appeal to human preferences.

I.e. people sticking to their own threads - common practice people to threads about common practice composers; avant-guard people to threads about avant-guard music, etc.

If crossover is to occur, the most someone from an opposing camp with different preferences can reasonably attempt (beyond general cajoling, shaming, flaming rhetoric) is to try to convince an 'opponent' that their own assumptions are the better ones, by appealing to some deeper values both parties might share. I.e. common-practice people might appeal to more 'inclusive' nature of common-practice music in comparison to the elitism of avant-garde music: the deeper shared value here being democratic preferences, or something.


----------



## Ethereality

*@Woodduck*. You and your friends' reasoning is off about that. Writing a good fugue is about writing what you _perceive_ is excellence within Bach's and others' fugues, even moods and characteristics outside fugues. You can even extend this to say, as a goal of pleasing others musically, I should focus on aspects they perceive to be great, and avoid those within the material they don't. Greatness, objectively, cannot exist within music, because even _most_ people, which you still have not caught onto, don't consider Bach's music to be great. The music can be said to be universally audible, even good to some portion of humanity, and great to his fans, as is readily admitted. But we're not jumping to easy stats to make thorough, personal artistic conclusions. You can't build an objective theory out of pieces that don't hold up, but you should've figured this out by now. 73 pages. I think your own personal 'objectivity' hinders your ability to make trustworthy judgments about people.

If there were a thumbs down system for musical objectivists, it's no doubt their post points would also even out to a nice neutrality. *Luckily* you have a fine support group here for your school of ideas. But when even more perspectives and schools become ostracized on this forum, I'm sure you'll adjust your way of speaking to be even more neutral and vague, if your goal is to just support what Woodduck and only Woodduck values.


----------



## DaveM

RogerWaters said:


> Says the person who has been asked to contribute a substantive argument, or in the very least a few _reasons_ why his evil opponents are wrong.


Why not go back and read the 3 threads on this subject or am I supposed to bring you up to date with my posts whenever you decide to drop in? At least, when I respond, it is with a broad perspective with some nuance rather than the same narrow argument that can be summarized in one or 2 sentences repeated over and over with a word changed here and there and, as necessary, added snark to fill out the thin content.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Ethereality said:


> *@Woodduck*. You and your friends' reasoning is off about that. Writing a good fugue is about writing what you _perceive_ is excellence within Bach's and others' fugues. You can even extend this to say, as a goal of pleasing others musically, I should focus on aspects they perceive to be great, and avoid those within the material they don't. Greatness, objectively, cannot exist within music, because even _most_ people, which you still have not caught onto, don't consider Bach's music to be great. The music can be said to be universally audible, even good to some portion of humanity, and great to his fans, as is readily admitted. You can't build an objective theory out of pieces that don't hold up, but you should've figured this out by now. 73 pages. Your own personal 'objectivity' hinders your ability to make trustworthy judgments about people.


I don't think Bach or Shostakovich or whoever is really thinking so much of how or what other people perceive is great when they wrote their fugues. they wrote what they perceived was great or interesting. I think by looking too much in the mirror of what other people think or perceive, you could actually lose sight of what it takes to make something worthwhile to yourself first, and then possibly to others. Bach didn't worry about something being too dissonant, that would upset his fans. He cared first for himself to be satisfied. People didn't value him as much as Telemann back then, but they have caught on. I don't know what you mean by most people don't consider Bach's music to be great. He's considered consistently within the top 3. The general public, outside of Classical fans are irrelevant.


----------



## RogerWaters

DaveM said:


> Why not go back and read the 3 threads on this subject or am I supposed to bring you up to date with my posts whenever you decide to drop in? At least, *when I respond, it is with a broad perspective* with some nuance rather than the same narrow argument that can be summarized in one or 2 sentences repeated over and over with a word changed here and there and, as necessary, added snark to fill out the thin content.


Do enlighten me about your 'broad perspectives', in comparison with my own 'narrow arguments'! All I've seen from you is you taking _moral_ issue with my arguments, not _rational_ issue.

What have you got which shows aesthetic judgements to be above and beyond human preferences, such that someone with _different_ preferences is 'wrong' to disagree with 'received wisdom', in a similar sense to how someone is _wrong_ to judge that 1+1=3 or that the world is flat?

I would welcome the chance to engage with you in a rational, dialectical manner as opposed to a slightly upgraded version of chimpanzee sniping.


----------



## Ethereality

Phil loves classical said:


> The general public, outside of Classical fans are irrelevant.


This is called a strawman. As you already clearly stated, one's ideas about music are the most significant. If you were to ask me: The Big 3 have an air of busyness and added count to their music, which I have witnessed many felt have added a _false_ sense of complexity that doesn't go as far as it seems someone being 'complex' should. But you're the one who clearly supports musical perspectives and schools, so I gave you my own. It is this one self-selecting, or rather self-widdling down phenomenon, dubbing themselves 'Classical fans,' that is irrelevant. The whole of musicianship is even slightly less relevant, but still so when it comes to the objective truth, which is the deep and complex perception of musical _perfection_ each different within different people. I can form this strawman out of the people I agree aesthetically with, but it would be as pointless as yours, which is more convenient for you to bring up as you are well-suited amidst its arbitrarity. What you aren't here, is a real objectivist, as an objectivist realizes what is objective and what is not.


----------



## DaveM

RogerWaters said:


> What have you got which shows aesthetic judgements to be above and beyond human preferences, such that someone with _different_ preferences is 'wrong' to disagree with 'received wisdom', in a similar sense to how someone is _wrong_ to judge that 1+1=3 or that the world is flat?


There's that 'sentence or 2' I was talking about. What more do you have to discuss? Nothing.



> I would welcome the chance to engage with you in a rational, dialectical manner as opposed to a slightly upgraded version of chimpanzee sniping.


I'd be happy to if I'd seen evidence of it from you in the past.


----------



## BachIsBest

Ethereality said:


> *@Woodduck*. You and your friends' reasoning is off about that. Writing a good fugue is about writing what you _perceive_ is excellence within Bach's and others' fugues.


This is a ridiculous distinction to make. What are you going to insist next, that we don't claim the sky is blue but rather that we _percieve_ the sky to be blue.

Ultimately, everything is filtered through our perceptions, to point this out is unhelpful, and to insist that everyone write _percieve_ before every statement about a perception they make is, I _percieve_, rather silly.


----------



## mikeh375

Ethereality said:


> *@Woodduck*............Writing a good fugue is about writing what you _perceive_ is excellence within Bach's and others' fugues. You can even extend this to say, as a goal of pleasing others musically, I should focus on aspects they perceive to be great, and avoid those within the material they don't.


Writing a good fugue is always first and foremost about the subject. Anachronistic style is only relevant to a composer who has not moved past CP. The fugue form (perhaps somewhat ironically, given it's rigour) is a remarkably freeing form to work in and suits individuality very well. The compromise in musical choice you suggest to gain popularity is not the healthiest nor the best approach to self expression, nor indeed is it helpful for development of the art imo.


----------



## RogerWaters

DaveM said:


> There's that 'sentence or 2' I was talking about. What more do you have to discuss? Nothing.


I don't follow you.

Can you at least link to posts you've made, if you don't wish to repeat yourself, where you have given good reasons for musical objectivity?

Failing that, you stated above that you take my arguments to be narrow and simplistic. How so?



DaveM said:


> I'd be happy to if I'd seen evidence of it from you in the past.


I believe I started this entire thread, mate, with a thought experiment intended to probe members' conception of musical objectivity. It was an exercise in conceptual analysis that fired off numerous responses. If that's not engaging in argument in good faith (rationally, abstractly, playing the issue not the man), I don't know what is.


----------



## Ethereality

mikeh375 said:


> Writing a good fugue is always first and foremost about the subject.


Just untrue. Some may think a good fugue is one that hasn't much fugal about it. It's like writing a piece in A sharp major, "although the root of the piece, I didn't stay directly in A sharp that often":



BachIsBest said:


> This is a ridiculous distinction to make. What are you going to insist next, that we don't claim the sky is blue but rather that we _percieve_ the sky to be blue.


The note of A sharp is just that. Sky blue also has an objective frequency, like the notes of a scale. How do I paint a good color blue? Should I paint my house blue because I can paint blue *well*? Now that we've established the color blue is so great, maybe we should forget music.



BachIsBest said:


> Ultimately, everything is filtered through our perceptions, to point this out is *unhelpful*, and to insist that everyone write _percieve_ before every statement about a perception they make is, I _percieve_, rather silly.


I disagree. Pointing it out has proved to be very helpful, as it's finally getting people in your camp to admit something objective. Maybe even learning the difference...? I'm picking up in your post here that you haven't. "I percieve that writing a good fugue isn't about what one perceives." Sorry, if you're perceiving that a fugue is naturally good, then it is about what you percieve.


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> *@Woodduck*. You and your friends' reasoning is off about that. Writing a good fugue is about writing what you _perceive_ is excellence within Bach's and others' fugues, even moods and characteristics outside fugues. You can even extend this to say, as a goal of pleasing others musically, I should focus on aspects they perceive to be great, and avoid those within the material they don't. Greatness, objectively, cannot exist within music, because even _most_ people, which you still have not caught onto, don't consider Bach's music to be great. The music can be said to be universally audible, even good to some portion of humanity, and great to his fans, as is readily admitted. But we're not jumping to easy stats to make thorough, personal artistic conclusions. You can't build an objective theory out of pieces that don't hold up, but you should've figured this out by now. 73 pages. I think your own personal 'objectivity' hinders your ability to make trustworthy judgments about people.
> 
> If there were a thumbs down system for musical objectivists, it's no doubt their post points would also even out to a nice neutrality. *Luckily* you have a fine support group here for your school of ideas. But when even more perspectives and schools become ostracized on this forum, I'm sure you'll adjust your way of speaking to be even more neutral and vague, if your goal is to just support what Woodduck and only Woodduck values.


This is the sort of misguided and presumptuous post that has me keeping my distance from these threads of late. You clearly haven't the creative experience even to begin to understand what I've said. And this - "I think your own personal 'objectivity' hinders your ability to make trustworthy judgments about people" - is positively hilarious.

Get back to me when you have, as I have, six decades of artistic creation under your belt.


----------



## Ethereality

Woodduck said:


> Get back to me when you have, as I have, six decades of artistic creation under your belt.


Thanks for the invitation. I'll be sure to do that.


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> Slightly orthogonal, but as a 'subjectivist', ultimately, I don't think there is any problem 'proving' artistic excellence - _among people who share common assumptions/preferences about how music should go_. This is not ad hoc. It stems directly from the reality of the matter that aesthetic judgements bottom-out with appeal to human preferences.


I disagree completely that aesthetic judgments "bottom out" at preferences. "Preferences" - i.e., styles of art - don't materialize out of thin air. They have sources in human nature, and so they bottom out at the same place that greater human perceptions, concepts and values bottom out. That bottom is quite a bit farther down, farther than we can see.

The thing that most annoys me about this discussion is the shallowness of it. An aesthetics that "bottoms out" at preferences sounds about equivalent to the Ben & Jerry's theory of art appreciation advanced by Strange Magic. When people talk about art like this I wonder what planet I've been transported to. Could someone please beam me back to the world of Bach and Wagner?


----------



## Eclectic Al

RogerWaters said:


> You go ahead and tell me why my characterisations of his post are wrong. Did you even read his characterising of the subjectivist position? Clearly a straw man.
> 
> The matter is simple yet you objectivists, with some exceptions, insist that black is white.
> 
> Aesthetic judgements ultimately bottom out in human preferences, unlike mathematical or empirical judgements. Thus, if I don't _prefer_ complexity, fugues, harmonic skill, etc. I have absolutely no objective reason to agree with the aesthetic judgements of classical music listeners.
> 
> That's the reality, I submit. If you think it isn't, why don't you explain why, instead of moralising?
> 
> Don't point me back to post 3867 of thread 56. Make your case.
> 
> It's now or never, buddy.


To join in with the somewhat rude tone which seems to arise. My feeling is that there is a naive view prevalent here that the subjective and objective can be readily separated: hence my mixing of the terms. As I indicated, I suspect that an unspoken and naive dualism is in play.

I think fluteman (if I remember rightly) came closest to my feeling with his talk about illusions. Although he was talking about performances, I tend to think this is true of all subjective experience, because it is true of consciousness.

My guess (as an absolute non-specialist) is that consciousness is an emergent property which developed via evolution from the complexity of neural processes, and provides an illusion to conscious beings of a subjective experience. (Subjective experience is precisely that illusion, and it has fully objective causes, which are not understood, and may well never be by beings as limited as humans.) The reason it evolved is, I guess (again) because the existence of some sort of focus to decision-making neural processes is helpful in making those decisions more effective in achieving survival and propagation. The conscious experience needs to be good enough to provide an evolutionary benefit: there is no reason to believe that it is "correct", just that it presumably has sufficient alignment with whatever is out there to help us reproduce.

If you could explain consciousness to me in clear terms that you can prove, and demonstrate that it supports your arguments about art then I might accept your position.

Oh, and 1+1=2 is not a fact: it is a labelling of 1+1, and represents a definition of 2. The mathematics of the number 2 is just the mathematics of the number 1+1, and it is the relationship between 1+1 and other objects in an abstract structure that provides true, false (and maybe undecidable) statements within that structure.
Oh, and the idea that 1+1= 2 is a clear fact of whatever is out there in the "real" universe is laughably simplistic.
Oh, and the idea that objects in the world can be understood clearly and fully by us is naive too, with or without science.

It is the dogmatic certainty with which these positions are held which simultaneously amuses and worries me. There is a sort of religious zealotry about the extreme end of the subjectivist position. The reason it worries me is that it represents a denial of the importance of being a social animal (which is what we are). We quickly subside to the solipsistic childlike position that "my truth" is what matters, and thereby cease to communicate with others with any real respect.


----------



## BachIsBest

Ethereality said:


> The note of A sharp is just that. Sky blue also has an objective frequency, like the notes of a scale. How do I paint a good color blue? Should I paint my house blue because I can paint blue *well*? Now that we've established the color blue is so great, maybe we should forget music.


Yes, you could define sky blue to be some sort of frequency range of light, but when you look up and say "the sky is blue", you didn't measure any frequency range but instead made a judgement based on your perceptions. No one says "I perceive the sky to be blue" and, somehow, rather remarkable, no one ends up confused.



Ethereality said:


> I disagree. Pointing it out has proved to be very helpful, as it's finally getting people in your camp to admit something objective. Maybe even learning the difference...? I'm picking up in your post here that you haven't. "I percieve that writing a good fugue isn't about what one perceives." Sorry, if you're perceiving that a fugue is naturally good, then it is about what you percieve.


I'm afraid to point this out, but the admitting of things being objective has been done primarily by those in my camp. I'm more afraid to point this out, but no one is arguing music doesn't involve perception or isn't about perception; the argument is about whether _some_ of those perceptions can be made largely independently of personal biases in somewhat the same manner the perception that the sky is blue can be made largely independently of personal biases.


----------



## Ethereality

Woodduck said:


> They have sources in human nature, and so they bottom out at the same place that greater human perceptions, concepts and values bottom out.


I insist that you should apply this 'bottoming out' to the thread contributors at hand, and not to your own fanciful notions of objectivity.



BachIsBest said:


> I'm afraid to point this out, but the admitting of things being objective has been done primarily by those in my camp. I'm more afraid to point this out, but no one is arguing music doesn't involve perception or isn't about perception; the argument is about whether _some_ of those perceptions can be made largely independently of personal biases in somewhat the same manner the perception that the sky is blue can be made largely independently of personal biases.


I'm very well aware of what you and Woodduck have been doing.


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> I disagree completely that aesthetic judgments "bottom out" at preferences. "Preferences" - i.e., styles of art - don't materialize out of thin air.


Where, then, do you think they originate from, if not preferences? You say:



Woodduck said:


> They have sources in human nature, and so they bottom out at the same place that greater human perceptions, concepts and values bottom out.


1. What is a 'greater' human perception?
2. Why does a value judgement originating in human nature not make it a preference? Presumably my preference for sugar over ordure stems from human nature?


----------



## mikeh375

_"Writing a good fugue is always first and foremost about the subject."_

QUOTE=Ethereality;2051183]*Just untrue.* Some may think a good fugue is one that hasn't much fugal about it. 
[/QUOTE]

I shall refrain from potentially derailing a great thread with this and not comment further.


----------



## RogerWaters

Eclectic Al said:


> To join in with the somewhat rude tone which seems to arise. My feeling is that there is a naive view prevalent here that the subjective and objective can be readily separated: hence my mixing of the terms. As I indicated, I suspect that an unspoken and naive dualism is in play.
> 
> I think fluteman (if I remember rightly) came closest to my feeling with his talk about illusions. Although he was talking about performances, I tend to think this is true of all subjective experience, because it is true of consciousness.
> 
> My guess (as an absolute non-specialist) is that consciousness is an emergent property which developed via evolution from the complexity of neural processes, and provides an illusion to conscious beings of a subjective experience. (Subjective experience is precisely that illusion, and it has fully objective causes, which are not understood, and may well never be by beings as limited as humans.) The reason it evolved is, I guess (again) because the existence of some sort of focus to decision-making neural processes is helpful in making those decisions more effective in achieving survival and propagation. The conscious experience needs to be good enough to provide an evolutionary benefit: there is no reason to believe that it is "correct", just that it presumably has sufficient alignment with whatever is out there to help us reproduce.
> 
> If you could explain consciousness to me in clear terms that you can prove, and demonstrate that it supports your arguments about art then I might accept your position.


I'm not following your argument. What does this have to do with whether or not aesthetic judgements are objective or subjective?

What is your understanding of these terms, and why does music fit one, the other, or neither (as you might be saying?)



Eclectic Al said:


> It is the dogmatic certainty with which these positions are held which simultaneously amuses and worries me. There is a sort of religious zealotry about the extreme end of the subjectivist position. The reason is worries me is that it represents a denial of the importance of being a social animal (which is what we are). We quickly subside to the solipsistic childlike position that "my truth" is what matters, and thereby cease to communicate with others with any real respect.


Here we go again with moralising against subjectivists instead of addressing their arguments.

And also, I'm concerned with the truth, not with what supports social structures. If it happened that social structures would be supported by musical judgements being objective, this would not _make_ it the case that musical judgements _are_ objective.


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> Where, then, do you think they originate from, if not preferences? You say:
> 
> 1. What is a 'greater' human perception?
> 2. Why does a value judgement originating in human nature not make it a preference? Presumably my preference for sugar over ordure stems from human nature?


Your questions baffle me. I should think it obvious that art is much more than abstract forms having no source in our physical and psychological constitution or our perceptions of the world. Is this not obvious to you?


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> I'm very well aware of what you and Woodduck have been doing.


Uh - oh! Do you also have my home address and credit card number?


----------



## Ethereality

RogerWaters said:


> 1. What is a 'greater' human perception?


It's not about what the question is, but where it's applied. No matter how simple a question, the answers of the thinker will be exponentially more deep and complex than 'human nature.' This isn't a philosophy forum, it's a sit back and relax to harmonic smatterings of Bach forum.


----------



## Eclectic Al

RogerWaters said:


> I'm not following your argument. What does this have to do with whether or not aesthetic judgements are objective or subjective?
> 
> What is your understanding of these terms, and why does music fit one, the other, or neither (as you might be saying?)
> 
> Here we go again with moralising against subjectivists instead of addressing their arguments.
> 
> And also, I'm concerned with the truth, not with what supports social structures. If it happened that social structures would be supported by musical judgements being objective, this would not _make_ it the case that musical judgements _are_ objective.


What it has to do with all this is that the difference between objective and subjective is not clear. There is (for reasons that escape me) an apparent desire to pursue the claim that artistic tastes are entirely subjective, without any apparent interest in considering what is meant by the subject, and whether it can be separated from the objective world so readily.

I think that we are evolved biological animals with much similarity in our thinking processes. You can use the word subjective or the word objective, but our experiences are (i) inevitably going to be those of subjects, but (ii) have much in common because of the objective similarity in our thinking equipment. The subjective experience is hosted by that thinking machine in the objective world. Similar thinking machines will have a degree of commonality which arises from the objective similarity between them, and this seems like a highly appropriate place to use the word objective.

I don't have any problem with the idea of your aliens not agreeing with humans about what is great. There's that Wittgenstein stuff about talking lions which comes to mind at this point. Your aliens are straw men. :lol:

As I say, the naive certainty with which 1+1=2 is banded about as though it somehow demonstrates an objective truth and is a clear fact of the noumenal world beggars belief. There is absolutely no reason why your straw aliens should accept that 1+1=2 (or even understand what it meant: Wittgenstein's lion probably wouldn't). Much other sloppiness follows.


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> Your questions baffle me. I should think it obvious that art is much more than abstract forms having no source in our physical and psychological constitution or our perceptions of the world. *Is this not obvious to you?*


You may think you have stated a point clearly, and that it is obvious, without having succeeded for whatever reason. I have no wish to engage in polemics but rather the substantive points, so I am willing to take it is a shortcoming of my comprehension as opposed to your post.

You _apparently _draw a distinction between human preferences and human nature.

That's how your post reads to me. You _seem _to say musical judgements don't arise from human preference, but from human nature.

In return, I asked you why a judgement arising from human nature isn't a human preference, as I don't see the split. Human nature gives rise to _many_ human preferences (sex, shelter, belonging, sustenance, fairness, group identity).


----------



## Eclectic Al

Eclectic Al said:


> our experiences are (i) inevitably going to be those of subjects,
> 
> There is absolutely no reason why your straw aliens should accept that 1+1=2 (or even understand what it meant.


I shouldn't comment on my own posts, but I thought I would disagree with myself. 

Maybe it is not the case that our subjective experiences are those of subjects. Maybe we are all part of one subjective consciousness, what you could loosely call God. Our separateness is an absolute illusion, and is just a means whereby God (the true subject) thinks about things. The objective truth will be His thinking, and our "subjective" experience is just a strand of His thought. I understand this is a view which has been held - not unrelated to Berkeleyan idealism.

More in line with my earlier post, I started musing about aliens who appreciate the whole universe. For them they think of 1 as meaning "everything". They only think about things in terms of fractions, and the concept of 1+1 has no meaning. It is not that they have 1+1=1: it is that they don't comprehend what we're on about. Their understanding of the universe is also entirely framed in terms of rational numbers <= 1, and the idea of the real number line, continuous functions etc is nonsense to them, because their perceptions have always made them aware of the quantum nature of the universe. Infinitely small is not something their thinking equipment enables them to theorise about. However, as a result of their different physics (connected with their different senses, thinking equipment and mathematics) they have invented hyperdrives which we cannot comprehend. We will soon discover the reality of their insights, though, when they destroy the Earth to make way for a hyper-space bypass using their incomprehensible (to us) machines.


----------



## Eclectic Al

RogerWaters said:


> You _apparently _draw a distinction between human preferences and human nature.


That's not how what he said came across to me. I took it that the distinction being drawn was between "individual preference" and "human nature".

I find it an unremarkable observation that our human nature makes certain preferences unattractive to most individuals. I don't see why anyone would wish seriously to challenge it. From a human perspective this takes you in the direction of matters which are for (most) humans objective.

I also don't think that the crux of this long discussion relates to the whether you can change "most" to "all". The possibility of abnormalities in function has to be acknowledged in this fallible world. Just as you might say that ships are vehicles that sail the seas, and it does not invalidate that to observe that a torpedoed ship (say) may sink while still being a ship.

An example might be having a finger slowly crushed in a vice. It is objectively the case that for (most) people this will be unpleasant. The fact that a masochist might love it, or someone with a local anaesthetic in place might not even notice it, does not invalidate the point that this is an objective truth of human nature, and not meaningfully a matter of individual preference.


----------



## RogerWaters

Eclectic Al said:


> That's not how what he said came across to me. I took it that the distinction being drawn was between "individual preference" and "human nature".
> 
> I find it an unremarkable observation that our human nature makes certain preferences unattractive to most individuals. I don't see why anyone would wish seriously to challenge it. From a human perspective this takes you in the direction of matters which are for (most) humans objective.
> 
> I also don't think that the crux of this long discussion relates to the whether you can change "most" to "all". The possibility of abnormalities in function has to be acknowledged in this fallible world. Just as you might say that ships are vehicles that sail the seas, and it does not invalidate that to observe that a torpedoed ship (say) may sink while still being a ship.
> 
> An example might be having a finger slowly crushed in a vice. It is objectively the case that for (most) people this will be unpleasant. The fact that a masochist might love it, or someone with a local anaesthetic in place might not even notice it, *does not invalidate the point that this is an objective truth of human nature, and not meaningfully a matter of individual preference*.


Now we are getting somewhere!

I agree with you that shared preferences stemming from our genetic and cultural heritage are not individual preferences. It is an _objective truth_ that humans generally prefer suger over mud, to eat. I also agree that exceptions to the rule don't negate that it is _normal _for humans to eat sugar.

The next question is, do shared preferences, alone, mean sugar is objectively good for human beings, or objectively better than mud?

No. It's not the shared preference (for sugar over mud) that makes sugar objectively good for human beings. It's the proper functioning of human physiology. This proper function ensures that, even if some humans happen to get off on eating mud, this diet is _abnormal_. It is abnormal because it makes your body _malfunction _(quite literally, from the point of view of biological function).

When it comes to music, of course, there is no comparison. Bach doesn't make human physiology work better than Schoenberg.

All you've got, is the fact that it is an objective truth that human beings generally prefer Bach to Schoenberg.

So what? What normative basis is _this_ for judging Joe Blogs to be _wrong_ when he proclaims Schoenberg to be better than Bach??

And if Joe Blogs _isn't_ wrong for so judging, then how can it be objectively true that Bach is better than Schoenberg?


----------



## Mark Dee

I know what I like ..... Simples!


----------



## Eclectic Al

RogerWaters said:


> When it comes to music, of course, there is no comparison. Bach doesn't make human physiology work better than Schoenberg.


I'm not convinced there is an absolute difference here, and I am sure that difference cannot be proved.

It is entirely possible that some music has a positive impact on human physiology or brain functioning.

To take the analogy with sugar, some hold that refined sugar is bad for you (physiologically) whereas unrefined carbohydrates are not or are less so. I might consider that Schoenberg = refined sugar and Bach = unrefined carbohydrate.

I might want to do an experiment about establishing the benefits of unrefined carbs and the dis-benefits of refined sugar, so I would need to define what is mean by good for you or bad for you, and test it out somehow.

Similarly, I could look at the benefits of Bach and the dis-benefits of Schoenberg. I could get a sample of people and ask them how happy or unhappy they are when listening to representative works of these two. I could perhaps look at the incidence of mental illness among those who listen to a lot of one or the other. Plenty of confounding variables, of course, but I could have a go. (And there would be plenty of confounding variables in the case of sugars - after all, we all have somewhat different physiology in the same way that we have different subjective preferences. You might want to exclude diabetics, for example. Some people have slower metabolisms than others, etc.)

If I told you that people raised with a lot of classical music in the house go on to experience better lives than those with a lot of hip-hop in the house as they grow up, then you would obviously need to define "better". Suppose you define it as self-reported happiness. Having done that you could then have a go at counting.

Whatever result you found you will have a struggle to "prove" that it is a result of the different musical environment, rather than confounding variables like social deprivation, average family wealth, other educational opportunities, etc. However, you will also struggle to prove that it is not.

I know people love experiments where they play different types of music to children and look for outcomes. I don't know how convincing such experiments may be, but I certainly don't see why it is obviously the case that you would expect there to be no significant differences. Mental influences will feed back into physical outcomes, or so I would expect.


----------



## Zhdanov

art has little to do with human nature as such, but rather that of super human and super natural; a god or a demiurge creates a new reality, he builds it with politics involved and ideology as its tool, where art is part of the latter and being utilised to create masterpieces that will belong to not only this very reality under construction, but also will remain as artifacts for the realities to come, just in case a need arises.


----------



## RogerWaters

Eclectic Al said:


> I'm not convinced there is an absolute difference here, and I am sure that difference cannot be proved.
> 
> It is entirely possible that some music has a positive impact on human physiology or brain functioning.
> 
> To take the analogy with sugar, some hold that refined sugar is bad for you (physiologically) whereas unrefined carbohydrates are not or are less so. I might consider that Schoenberg = refined sugar and Bach = unrefined carbohydrate.
> 
> I might want to do an experiment about establishing the benefits of unrefined carbs and the dis-benefits of refined sugar, so I would need to define what is mean by good for you or bad for you, and test it out somehow.
> 
> Similarly, I could look at the benefits of Bach and the dis-benefits of Schoenberg. I could get a sample of people and ask them how happy or unhappy they are when listening to representative works of these two. I could perhaps look at the incidence of mental illness among those who listen to a lot of one or the other. Plenty of confounding variables, of course, but I could have a go. (And there would be plenty of confounding variables in the case of sugars - after all, we all have somewhat different physiology in the same way that we have different subjective preferences. You might want to exclude diabetics, for example. Some people have slower metabolisms than others, etc.)
> 
> If I told you that people raised with a lot of classical music in the house go on to experience better lives than those with a lot of hip-hop in the house as they grow up, then you would obviously need to define "better". Suppose you define it as self-reported happiness. Having done that you could then have a go at counting.
> 
> Whatever result you found you will have a struggle to "prove" that it is a result of the different musical environment, rather than confounding variables like social deprivation, average family wealth, other educational opportunities, etc. However, you will also struggle to prove that it is not.
> 
> I know people love experiments where they play different types of music to children and look for outcomes. I don't know how convincing such experiments may be, but I certainly don't see why it is obviously the case that you would expect there to be no significant differences. Mental influences will feed back into physical outcomes, or so I would expect.


I think you are grasping at straws here. For instance, the worse lives of hip-hop fans is going to be due to other variables, like socioeconomic status or single motherhood, etc. Nor does happiness = proper physiological functioning (which was the basis for the normative judgement when it came to sugar vs mud). I can be very happy on a happy drug while my body wastes away (etc.).

More fundamentally, food can be objectively judged better or worse for a biological system because it is the proper function of food-eating (why food-eating evolved) to fuel the body.

It is not the function of music-listening to fuel the body qua physiological system, so I don't see how you can judge music better or worse using the criterion of physiological health. That would be like judging watches on whether they are good for you cholestorol. Watches' proper function (why they are produced) is to tell the time, not to regulate cholestorol.


----------



## Ethereality

Roger you also make a fair point, that music needs to understand its place in lifeform. Because it's but one part of the bigger artform of vision and imagination, it's very easy for cannon Classical people to forget or not understand its context, being trapped within limiting walls of perspective, they don't always have the best mindsets to perceive its true worth, or what works are worth what. That is where philosophy will open you, the founding framework of the artistic process. It's not so much 'human nature,' as confidently touted by artifacts, but a tool for human discovery. To say one is great is to prematurely defeat ones own path. That is where rushed objectivism becomes a joke of the dying, needing to be retired for a time along with them, until they're ready to awaken again.


----------



## Eclectic Al

RogerWaters said:


> I think you are grasping at straws here. For instance, the worse lives of hip-hop fans is going to be due to other variables, like socioeconomic status or single motherhood, etc. Nor does happiness = proper physiological functioning (which was the basis for the normative judgement when it came to sugar vs mud). I can be very happy on a happy drug while my body wastes away (etc.).
> 
> More fundamentally, food can be objectively judged better or worse for a biological system because it is the proper function of food-eating (why food-eating evolved) to fuel the body.
> 
> It is not the function of music-listening to fuel the body qua physiological system, so I don't see how you can judge music better or worse using the criterion of physiological health. That would be like judging watches on whether they are good for you cholestorol. Watches' proper function (why they are produced) is to tell the time, not to regulate cholestorol.


So what is the function of music-listening? And why did music-listening evolve?


----------



## RogerWaters

Eclectic Al said:


> So what is the function of music-listening? And why did music-listening evolve?


Good questions that researchers speculate upon.

I'm not even sure that would be an appropriate basis upon which to judge music, though, thinking of it like this.

Suppose the function of music was to bind the social group (some academics think this). Then plenty of **** music will be 'better' than classical.

Food for thought, and with that I'm going to practice my e-minor bach invention (alone).


----------



## janxharris

_ "Music begins where the possibilities of language end"_ 
Jean Sibelius


----------



## Zhdanov

janxharris said:


> _ "Music begins where the possibilities of language end"_ Jean Sibelius


btw, music, where untitled, intends thus to say what the tongue dares not.


----------



## Eclectic Al

RogerWaters said:


> Good questions that researchers speculate upon.
> 
> I'm not even sure that would be an appropriate basis upon which to judge music, though, thinking of it like this.
> 
> Suppose the function of music was to bind the social group (some academics think this). Then plenty of **** music will be 'better' than classical.
> 
> Food for thought, and with that I'm going to practice my e-minor bach invention.


Yes. I think that it probably is substantially about social bonding. Hence, why you and I were on the same "side" in the exciting rolleyes debate with Brahmsianhorn (primarily) about there being an absolute truth which music is seeking.

We are not on the same side here because I find that the social bonding aspect of music works because of some objective similarities between members of the social group, and that subjective differences are not particularly interesting or important. The essence of music is in the sharing, not in the differences in taste.

If I make some sounds, and I really like them and find them meaningful (in some ineffable way) then I am not convinced that that is music. It's a bit like a remark Popper (I think) made about science. If you construct hypotheses and carry out experiments which seek to falsify those hypotheses, but do all this on a desert island cut off from others, then you are not doing science. You can only do science as part of a group. I tend to agree with him. I certainly think that you can only do maths by communicating with other mathematicians. If you prove a theorem (in your mind) but don't put that proof before others to consider, then I am afraid you have not conducted mathematics.

You get an evolution of musical traditions from some underlying physiological reality about people, but with the traditions going their own ways over generation upon generation with much feedback between the childhood and ongoing exposure of people to influences within a tradition, the music they appreciate, and how the tradition evolves. Their brains are shaped (objectively) through these experiences, and the thinking subjects hosted by those brains then appreciate particular pieces of music more than others because their perceptual apparatus has been objectively shaped via those mechanisms. The musical tradition is the thing persisting and evolving through time, and the people who participate in it are the objects being exposed to the tradition, shaped by it, and promoting it into the future.

In terms of the purpose of music-listening I think it is that it generates satisfaction in the subject - but find that to be vacuous as an explanation. Unless you look into the "why" it is largely a pointless remark. I think the "why" relates to the structure of your brain (and, yes, its interaction with your physiology - as the brain is not independent from physiology and your thinking being is not independent from your brain). The structure of your brain is an objective matter of the physical universe, so you don't choose what you like as a preference: it is given to you as a like by your objective make-up. Your subjective experience then seems to carry with it the illusion that you had some sort of say in the matter or that that is the important bit. I guess that making thinking beings feel that they are important is helpful in encouraging them to perpetuate their own genes, rather than (say) those of a non-relative.

That's the individual purpose of music. I think there is also a social explanation which relates to a purpose in group bonding and sharing. It's a way of effing the ineffable. For this to work there needs to be a commonality, a tradition. The tradition has a history in the objective universe and the joy which subjects take in listening to it is objectively part of their make-up while at the same time delivering value (in the sense of utility) by its function in bringing people together.

Why do people have sex? Because they like it. Why do they like it? Because it leads to continuation of their genes. Different levels of explanation. However, you have to go beyond the "because they like it" explanation for there to be any interest in the discussion.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> I studied 18th century counterpoint at music school, which was basically the study of Bach's methodology. However, no one in my class came close to writing a fugue as satisfying as one by Bach. Part of it is that during Bach's lifetime, this style was pervasive and something composers picked up almost by osmosis. These composers had not heard Beethoven, much less Wagner or Schoenberg. Our sensibilities have been influenced by everything since the time of Bach including Stockhausen, The Beatles and rap.
> In our time, studying 18th century counterpoint it is artificial, i.e. exercises with rules about voice leading, templates for subject and counter subjects, typical key modulations, etc., and we were not devoted to writing in that style, but more concerned with just completing the course.
> I am not saying that someone couldn't achieve counterpoint at the same level as Bach, and arguably some composers have (Shostakovich, Hindemith) but what I am saying is simply that studying 18th century counterpoint will not turn you into a Bach.


I've actually been curious about the differences between "Bachian counterpoint" and "counterpoint of 18th century composers who supposedly didn't know about the Bachian style" (especially those composers of the later half of the 18th century who wrote counterpoint before the revival of Bach became widespread). 
In some of them, there's less "logical complexity" (in terms of number of "devices" used) than Bach, but the use of dissonance for expression is (to me) often as satisfying as Bach's.






































So far my gut-feeling is that (other than "logical complexity" in number of "devices" used), Bach is more about
- A lot of 16th-note figures moving up and down such as 



- The chorale prelude style, which Mozart emulates in "Der, welcher wandert diese".


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> He says while moaning.


I didn't want you to moan alone. but I only moan when moaned at. :lol:


----------



## Strange Magic

Eclectic Al said:


> So what is the function of music-listening? And why did music-listening evolve?


Lot of work being done on that very subject. A very live research and speculation area. Just google any of several topics: nature of rhythm in social bonding, etc....similar topics on neurology, psychology, perception--there is world of research going on. You will be amazed (maybe).


----------



## Strange Magic

I have to sleep during the period when the Night Owls are most active, it seems, so I wake up each morning to a full breakfast of interesting (but sometimes whiny) posts on a fascinating subject, that was being prepared as I lay in the arms of Morpheus.

I find Eclectic Al makes fine points, thoughtful, carefully reasoned. The situation I find, though, is simple and does not require the lengthy but interesting analyses bestowed upon it. We have almost 8 billions of humans on the planet, and they prefer a vast spectrum of different musics and art. And the spectrum grows larger, constantly, with time and the number of perceivers and of creators of art objects. The most we can say is that groups of various sizes cluster about areas along the spectrum, and we can generalize about shared (among most, among some, or even not shared) attributes of history, neurology, psychology) traits accounting for shared enthusiasms. Some choose to go further afield and imbue the objects of music and art appreciation with objective qualities beyond those easily understood and measurable, that is to say "excellence', "greatness", when these clearly are descriptors assigned to the objects by (some of) their perceivers as a result of the perceivers finding themselves--for a host of possible reasons--drawn to those objects. Our objectivist friends like, though, to keep things simple by the ascription of greatness to a property within the loved piece, but that cannot explain why everyone not deformed or ill does not sense the greatness within--instead there is really only a consensus among the consentors.

It has been clear for thousands of years that people like different art experiences--and these days of vast choice and selection, we have both huge clusters and hundreds, thousands, millions of sub-clusters reflecting both the unique and the shared influences, histories, idiosyncrasies that typify humans. From this comes the ancient truism of _de gustibus_, to each his own, no accounting for taste, etc.


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> We have almost 8 billions of humans on the planet, and they prefer a vast spectrum of different musics and art.


so what?



Strange Magic said:


> Our objectivist friends like, though, to keep things simple by the ascription of greatness to a property within the loved piece,


loved or not, here we discuss not the preferences but an objective truth, which says - only the items of *noble* origins and high *quality* can be considered as art, and there is no other way about it, period.



Strange Magic said:


> It has been clear for thousands of years that people like different art experiences


so what?


----------



## Strange Magic

Zhdanov said:


> so what?
> 
> loved or not, here we discuss not the preferences but an objective truth, which says - only the items of *noble* origins and high *quality* can be considered as art, and there is no other way about it, period.
> 
> so what?


Good questions, all. But, getting back to an earlier request on my part, what are your views on Bela Bartok, Hovhaness, Martinu, Rautavaara, for example? Some, including myself, were interested in where in time and among which composers, your enthusiasm ends.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> I'd like to write a good fugue. What conservatory can I attend in order to learn to analyze people's sensory and thought processes? I presume I would not be studying Bach, although he must have been an excellent mind reader in view of his appeal to the sensory and thought processes of people 300 years later.


Ah, Woodduck. You take so much for granted about your culture and your society. You sit on top of a mountain of artistic tradition gradually, painstakingly built up in Europe over centuries, more or less insulated from other, geographically distant artistic traditions, some equally sophisticated and as old or older. Then, when global communication and travel technology arrives in the 20th century, and your cherished European music begins to absorb the influence of non-European traditions, and even ideas generated by the new technology itself, you prefer the more familiar pleasures of the musical world of Europe of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Your preferences are entirely understandable, and would be even if I didn't share many of them. But these are only preferences. There is nothing sacred or inevitable about western harmony or counterpoint, including Bach fugues. Other systems of harmony and counterpoint are possible, and there is more to music than harmony and counterpoint.

Even if one stays squarely within the old European tradition, technical geniuses like Alkan and Reger, whom you ridiculed earlier, calling his music "too chromatic", were capable of the most extraordinarily sophisticated harmony and counterpoint that would impress even Bach. Their music can be seen as a logical progression from some of Bach's most elaborate counterpoint, as in the fugues of the second book of the Well Tempered Clavier. So it turns out your tastes are rather narrow and specialized even within the old, traditional context. There is nothing wrong with those tastes, but nothing inherently right about them, either.

The conservatories wouldn't teach Bach's music if a small but dedicated group of people over the last 270 years didn't love it and work to keep that cultural tradition alive. It is not mathematics, physics or chemistry. The good news for you is, with the global reach of cultural influences possible today, non-westerners can learn to love Bach's music. The bad news for you is, global influence goes the other way too, in addition to the influence on our aesthetic values caused by the technology itself that I mentioned. The western musical tradition will never be the same.


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> what are your views on Bela Bartok, Hovhaness, Martinu, Rautavaara,


as if i listened to a lot of these... no idea, so far.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

fluteman said:


> Ah, Woodduck. You take so much for granted about your culture and your society. You sit on top of a mountain of artistic tradition gradually, painstakingly built up in Europe over centuries, more or less insulated from other, geographically distant artistic traditions,* some equally sophisticated and as old or older*. Then, when global communication and travel technology arrives in the 20th century, and your cherished European music begins to absorb the influence of non-European traditions, and even ideas generated by the new technology itself, you prefer the more familiar pleasures of the musical world of Europe of the 18th and 19th centuries.
> 
> Your preferences are entirely understandable, and would be even if I didn't share many of them. But these are only preferences. There is nothing sacred or inevitable about western harmony or counterpoint, including Bach fugues. Other systems of harmony and counterpoint are possible, and there is more to music than harmony and counterpoint.
> 
> Even if one stays squarely within the old European tradition, technical geniuses like Alkan and Reger, whom you ridiculed earlier, calling his music "too chromatic", were capable of the most extraordinarily sophisticated harmony and counterpoint that would impress even Bach. Their music can be seen as a logical progression from some of Bach's most elaborate counterpoint, as in the fugues of the second book of the Well Tempered Clavier. So it turns out your tastes are rather narrow and specialized even within the old, traditional context. There is nothing wrong with those tastes, but nothing inherently right about them, either.
> 
> The conservatories wouldn't teach Bach's music if a small but dedicated group of people over the last 270 years didn't love it and work to keep that cultural tradition alive. It is not mathematics, physics or chemistry. The good news for you is, with the global reach of cultural influences possible today, non-westerners can learn to love Bach's music. The bad news for you is, global influence goes the other way too, in addition to the influence on our aesthetic values caused by the technology itself that I mentioned. The western musical tradition will never be the same.


Those outside of Europe, in Asia, the Americas and around the world recognise the European composers and their music as the greatest. Where are the great composers from these other continents that compare with them?


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> I disagree completely that aesthetic judgments "bottom out" at preferences. "Preferences" - i.e., styles of art - don't materialize out of thin air. They have sources in human nature, and so they bottom out at the same place that greater human perceptions, concepts and values bottom out. That bottom is quite a bit farther down, farther than we can see.
> 
> The thing that most annoys me about this discussion is the shallowness of it. An aesthetics that "bottoms out" at preferences sounds about equivalent to the Ben & Jerry's theory of art appreciation advanced by Strange Magic. When people talk about art like this I wonder what planet I've been transported to. Could someone please beam me back to the world of Bach and Wagner?


i'm happy to accept the title of champion of the Ben & Jerry school of esthetic realism. It is shallow: almost, as I say, Euclidian in its obviousness and its simplicity. Plus all nature confirms it in the world of art and its appreciation. The reasons for preferences indeed have sources in human nature and do not materialize out of thin air--there are ongoing studies working on these preferences, and grouping them where possible into clusters and percentages.

The objectivist position that imbues art objects with "excellence", "greatness", etc. is equally shallow, but allows the pouring forth of volumes of prose, mostly testimonials and special pleading, to buttress its position. Yet there remains not a scintilla of evidence for such a numinous (to use a current phrase) attribute as inherent greatness within an art object. If it is there, why is it not generally perceived, and only makes itself known to the initiated? The matter boils down to the truism that lovers of music piece A are those who are self-selected as those who love music piece A. Meanwhile, piece A just sits there, inert, neutral, still, waiting for people to come forward and give it life and meaning.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> I like the way you claim to have no idea what a 'subjectivist' means in the first sentence and then as much as go ahead and describe subjectivity in the 2nd paragraph.


Thanks. I'm glad you finally understand the difference.


----------



## Strange Magic

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Those outside of Europe, in Asia, the Americas and around the world recognise the European composers and their music as the greatest. Where are the great composers from these other continents that compare with them?


A) You are talking still about a small percentage of the world's billions, and B) Performing western music is where what money and fame there is in "classical" music, is. Yet none of this is evidence of the presence of "objective" greatness in Western CM. I happen to think much of it is great, and yet more of it is forgettable.


----------



## fluteman

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Those outside of Europe, in Asia, the Americas and around the world recognise the European composers and their music as the greatest. Where are the great composers from these other continents that compare with them?


Then, why does the Oscar and Grammy winning music of the famous contemporary Chinese composer Tan Dun so obviously show the influence of traditional Chinese music as well as traditional western music? Clearly, many do not accept your white cultural supremacy theory.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Strange Magic said:


> A) You are talking still about a small percentage of the world's billions, and B) Performing western music is where what money and fame there is in "classical" music, is. Yet none of this is evidence of the presence of "objective" greatness in Western CM. I happen to think much of it is great, and yet more of it is forgettable.


Fluteman seems to be saying the western composers are not greater than composers from other continents. I agree this is not an argument for objective greatness. But it seems like hes saying composers and music from other continents is just as good, so i wanted to know who these composers no ones ever heard of were?


----------



## fbjim

Strange Magic said:


> i'm happy to accept the title of champion of the Ben & Jerry school of esthetic realism. It is shallow: almost, as I say, Euclidian in its obviousness and its simplicity. Plus all nature confirms it in the world of art and its appreciation. The reasons for preferences indeed have sources in human nature and do not materialize out of thin air--there are ongoing studies working on these preferences, and grouping them where possible into clusters and percentages.
> 
> The objectivist position that imbues art objects with "excellence", "greatness", etc. is equally shallow, but allows the pouring forth of volumes of prose, mostly testimonials and special pleading, to buttress its position. Yet there remains not a scintilla of evidence for such a numinous (to use a current phrase) attribute as inherent greatness within an art object. If it is there, why is it not generally perceived, and only makes itself known to the initiated? The matter boils down to the truism that lovers of music piece A are those who are self-selected as those who love music piece A. Meanwhile, piece A just sits there, inert, neutral, still, waiting for people to come forward and give it life and meaning.


aren't you just describing the people who give it meaning, regarding the "volumes of prose, testimonials, and special pleading"? I think this is just a restatement of the case that the relationship between viewer and work is fundamental to art and can't be removed from it in order to find "inate" qualities of the work beyond literal quantitative ones.

"making itself known only to the initiated" simply describes audience engagement. no work of art will be interesting to someone with no interest in engaging with it. someone, like me, who lacks the "opera gene" will get zilch out of Wagner except maybe admiring the overtures.

to go further, yes, art is the product of humans living in human societies and understanding of it can not be separated from that. but i think it's a mistake to assume this means that the "canonization" of certain works is meaningless/artbitrary/etc. if that's meaningless, so is art, because both of those are human activites that humans demonstrably have taken great efforts to do!


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

fluteman said:


> Then, why does the Oscar and Grammy winning music of the famous contemporary Chinese composer Tan Dun so obviously show the influence of traditional Chinese music as well as traditional western music? Clearly, many do not accept your white cultural supremacy theory.


Its seems you've assumed I'm white. Tan Dun is just as good as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven etc, etc, etc?


----------



## fbjim

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Those outside of Europe, in Asia, the Americas and around the world recognise the European composers and their music as the greatest. Where are the great composers from these other continents that compare with them?


to be frank, this is like saying that those around the world recognize Starbucks and McDonalds as the world's greatest coffee and cuisine, respectively. it's a product of the packaging and selling of Western culture worldwide.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Eclectic Al:* "We are not on the same side here because I find that the social bonding aspect of music works because of some objective similarities between members of the social group, and that subjective differences are not particularly interesting or important. The essence of music is in the sharing, not in the differences in taste."


While I agree that the love of music may have begun as a bonding mechanism, and still clearly is, the subsequent emergence of literally thousands of influences to work to differentiate the individual experiences, thought processes, experiences, histories tends to amplify the individuation, the idiosyncrasy, of people, and to give them agency and uniqueness. When everyone in Zog's tribe shared exactly the same life style and environment--physical and mental--then there was more a possibility of sharing of the very limited esthetic resources available. Subjective differences between people are exactly what makes these differences interesting--moreso than what serves to group people. The question always (Woodduck hates this) is Who is to be Master? I prefer that I have full agency, or as full as possible) in my choices of what is valid to enjoy.


----------



## fluteman

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Its seems you've assumed I'm white. Tan Dun is just as good as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven etc, etc, etc?


When did I assume you are white? You are the one doing all the assuming.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

fbjim said:


> to be frank, this is like saying that those around the world recognize Starbucks and McDonalds as the world's greatest coffee and cuisine, respectively. it's a product of the packaging and selling of Western culture worldwide.


no, no its not.

Europeans love food and coffee from other countries. I just want to know those composers from other continents who are as good as the European ones???


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

fluteman said:


> When did I assume you are white? You are the one doing all the assuming.


you didn't answer the question.

Tan Dun is just as good as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven etc, etc, etc?


----------



## fbjim

Strange Magic said:


> While I agree that the love of music may have begun as a bonding mechanism, and still clearly is, the subsequent emergence of literally thousands of influences to work to differentiate the individual experiences, thought processes, experiences, histories tends to amplify the individuation, the idiosyncrasy, of people, and to give them agency and uniqueness. When everyone in Zog's tribe shared exactly the same life style and environment--physical and mental--then there was more a possibility of sharing of the very limited esthetic resources available. Subjective differences between people are exactly what makes these differences interesting--moreso than what serves to group people. The question always (Woodduck hates this) is Who is to be Master? I prefer that I have full agency, or as full as possible) in my choices of what is valid to enjoy.


only individuals can determine what is valid for themselves to enjoy. what individuals (capital-L Literally) can not do is provide a cultural context for the works they do enjoy.

to that end, someone whose sense of aesthetics resonates strongly with Chabrier and finds him a far more enjoyable composer than Bach or Beethoven or whoever - is only interesting and individualist specifically because of the cultural context of Chabrier being a "second tier" composer.


----------



## SanAntone

IMO, this thread has become toxic with the cultural biases being expressed. It is unfortunate that the forum guidelines do not address this kind of behavior, which is just as troubling as personal insulting and uncivil posts.


----------



## fbjim

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> no, no its not.
> 
> Europeans love food and coffee from other countries. I just want to know those composers from other continents who are as good as the European ones???


at what, producing western classical music?

i'd also really doubt your initial premise that it's generally agreed around the world that western classical music is "the best". you won't even get a plurality of people in _the west_ saying that.


----------



## fluteman

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> you didn't answer the question.
> 
> Tan Dun is just as good as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven etc, etc, etc?


You didn't answer my question. My answer to your question is, yes, in my opinion. Very much so. Not only as good, but in some ways, better.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

fbjim said:


> at what, producing western classical music?
> 
> i'd also really doubt your initial premise that it's generally agreed around the world that western classical music is "the best". you won't even get a plurality of people in _the west_ saying that.


Who are the composers from other continents who are known and admired throughout the world as being equal to those of the west?


----------



## fbjim

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Who are the composers from other continents who are known and admired throughout the world as being equal to those of the west?


i think saying that the greatest historical composers of western classical music are from the west is a bit of a tautology

which culture produced the greatest Chinese literature?


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

fbjim said:


> i think saying that the greatest historical composers of western classical music are from the west is a bit of a tautology
> 
> which culture produced the greatest Chinese literature?


Disingenuous:

not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Strange Magic said:


> I have to sleep during the period when the Night Owls are most active, it seems, so I wake up each morning to a full breakfast of interesting (but sometimes whiny) posts on a fascinating subject, that was being prepared as I lay in the arms of Morpheus.
> 
> I find Eclectic Al makes fine points, thoughtful, carefully reasoned. The situation I find, though, is simple and does not require the lengthy but interesting analyses bestowed upon it. We have almost 8 billions of humans on the planet, and they prefer a vast spectrum of different musics and art. And the spectrum grows larger, constantly, with time and the number of perceivers and of creators of art objects. The most we can say is that groups of various sizes cluster about areas along the spectrum, and we can generalize about shared (among most, among some, or even not shared) attributes of history, neurology, psychology) traits accounting for shared enthusiasms. Some choose to go further afield and imbue the objects of music and art appreciation with objective qualities beyond those easily understood and measurable, that is to say "excellence', "greatness", when these clearly are descriptors assigned to the objects by (some of) their perceivers as a result of the perceivers finding themselves--for a host of possible reasons--drawn to those objects. Our objectivist friends like, though, to keep things simple by the ascription of greatness to a property within the loved piece, but that cannot explain why everyone not deformed or ill does not sense the greatness within--instead there is really only a consensus among the consentors.
> 
> It has been clear for thousands of years that people like different art experiences--and these days of vast choice and selection, we have both huge clusters and hundreds, thousands, millions of sub-clusters reflecting both the unique and the shared influences, histories, idiosyncrasies that typify humans. From this comes the ancient truism of _de gustibus_, to each his own, no accounting for taste, etc.


Yeah. I'm not very bothered about the "great" label or about whether one type of music is better than another from a Godlike standpoint. I have a more modest objective.

I don't think I am arguing against a subjectivist position per se. What I am arguing against is a radically individualist position (and I am doing this because I think subjective is often being used in this thread as code for individualist).

My modest objective is to convey an opinion that there are non-individualist (and in that sense, objective) aspects to the evaluation of an art object by a thinking subject perceiving it.

I don't believe that thinking subjects can validly claim to be thinking about topics of this sort without having been exposed to a social environment and shaped by that environment (as they will inevitably have had experiences of some sort). What they feel to be an individual response is not constructed autonomously, but is substantially shaped by objective influences from the environment they have experienced. I don't see how that can be at all controversial.

If you accept that the individual experience (while necessarily subjective) is substantially formed by social influences then, narrowing it down, you can progress towards investigating the form of the musical "tradition" which those social influences communicate to the individual, and you can explore the extent to which there may be an evaluative framework which might allow you to say that one work is "better" or "worse" than another in the context of that framework. You might even be able to suggest that one particular work is "great" in that context. It doesn't even matter if the individual feels that they are rejecting the tradition - the tradition remains a shaping influence on their preferences (and maybe a particularly potent one), and the extent of the rejection could perhaps be evaluated. I don't think it weakens this to say that evaluations are being done within a framework - all evaluations are like that.

I don't know how you might go about doing the above, but I think other posters here could have a go, and it doesn't seem to me to be an empty project. On the other hand, a purely individualist position does seem to me to be empty, as it leaves you with nothing to talk about, beyond "I like it because I like it".

Hence, I think I am railing against individualism, not against subjectivity. I find the idea of absolutely individual tastes in music incoherent, in that it goes against how I understand that tastes are formed.


----------



## fbjim

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> disingenuous:
> 
> not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.


if your point is fundamentally that the greatest composers of a western musical form are western, that's effectively a tautology.

if your point is that "worldwide", western classical music is widely regarded as the greatest music ever made, it's probably worth noting that this isn't even something people living in the west today would agree on.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

fbjim said:


> if your point is fundamentally that the greatest composers of a western musical form are western, that's effectively a tautology.
> 
> if your point is that "worldwide", western classical music is widely regarded as the greatest music ever made, it's probably worth noting that this isn't even something people living in the west today would agree on.


My point is that Beethoven, Mozart etc are world renowned, and have been largely esteemed to be among the greatest composers of music that ever lived.

My question is; Who are those composers, of any music, from other continents, that have been recognised around the world as the greatest, who have transcended nationalities and cultures?


----------



## Strange Magic

fbjim said:


> aren't you just describing the people who give it meaning, regarding the "volumes of prose, testimonials, and special pleading"? I think this is just a restatement of the case that the relationship between viewer and work is fundamental to art and can't be removed from it in order to find "inate" qualities of the work beyond literal quantitative ones.
> 
> "making itself known only to the initiated" simply describes audience engagement. no work of art will be interesting to someone with no interest in engaging with it. someone, like me, who lacks the "opera gene" will get zilch out of Wagner except maybe admiring the overtures.
> 
> to go further, yes, art is the product of humans living in human societies and understanding of it can not be separated from that. but i think it's a mistake to assume this means that the "canonization" of certain works is meaningless/artbitrary/etc. if that's meaningless, so is art, because both of those are human activites that humans demonstrably have taken great efforts to do!


I think we mostly agree. But I do not hold that canonizations of certain works is "arbitrary" or "meaningless" in a random-number or white noise sort of way. Such canonizations do reflect clusters along a spectrum of both art and perceivers and do indicate, within certain populations, elements of shared history, neurology, etc. But it is important to not inflate such a clustering and canonization into a grand statement establishing a Platonic, Ideal attribution of inherent excellence within any art object.


----------



## fbjim

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> My point is that Beethoven, Mozart etc are world renowned, and have been largely esteemed to be among the greatest composers of music that ever lived.
> 
> My question is; Who are those composers, of any music, from other continents, that have been recognised around the world as the greatest, who have transcended nationalities and cultures?


Coca-Cola is renowned as an enormously popular beverage worldwide- it has transcended nationalities and cultures and is clearly the greatest beverage ever made. Only "woke culture" would posit that Turkish coffee or Japanese tea could compare to a bottle of Coca-Cola.

(in other words what you're really describing is the exportation and monetization of Western culture which has many factors, most of which have nothing to do with any sort of artistic merit, and more due to historical factors)


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

fbjim said:


> Coca-Cola is renowned as an enormously popular beverage worldwide- it has transcended nationalities and cultures and is clearly the greatest beverage ever made. Only "woke culture" would posit that Turkish coffee or Japanese tea could compare to a bottle of Coca-Cola.
> 
> (in other words what you're really describing is the exportation and monetization of Western culture which has many factors, most of which have nothing to do with any sort of artistic merit, and more due to historical factors)


Or... in other words you cant name any


----------



## fbjim

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Or... in other words you cant name any


if you're asking me to name great historical non-western composers of a historically western art form, that's a silly question.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Eclectic Al:* "Hence, I think I am railing against individualism, not against subjectivity. I find the idea of absolutely individual tastes in music incoherent, in that it goes against how I understand that tastes are formed."


While it is difficult to have an art experience, unless one is an artist interacting with one's own work (Blake?), without another person (artist) supplying the art, yet it is not only possible but quite usual--in my case anyway--to encounter a work in isolation and to be moved by it (have a powerful reaction by encountering it). When I first heard flamenco _cante_, it was love right away. Same with numerous pieces of music of every sort, irrespective of and free of the outside influence of others--sometime the _Zeitgeist_ at play but often not. Who listens to _cante flamenco_? Essentially nobody then and nobody now. We only discover after the fact that others out there share our enthusiasm.

So I do not share your aversion to individualism. We may have made a Faustian bargain when we, as a culture, allowed individualism to bloom, but the rewards in most of our cases outweigh the losses.


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> Coca-Cola is renowned as an enormously popular beverage worldwide- it has transcended nationalities and cultures and is clearly the greatest beverage ever made. Only "woke culture" would posit that Turkish coffee or Japanese tea could compare to a bottle of Coca-Cola.
> 
> (in other words what you're really describing is the exportation and monetization of Western culture which has many factors, most of which have nothing to do with any sort of artistic merit, and more due to historical factors)


I love Japanese genmaicha tea and Turkish coffee, especially Turkish or Egyptian sand coffee. Vietnamese-style coffee and Hong Kong milk tea, too. Do I have to prove these are inherently superior to Coke?


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

fbjim said:


> if you're asking me to name great historical non-western composers of a historically western art form, that's a silly question.


but you already know that I said "of any music".


----------



## fbjim

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> but you already know that I said "of any music".


and i already said that just isn't demonstrably true, not even for western listeners.

if I say (quite reasonably, in my opinion) that the most important musical artists of the 20th century are James Brown, or Kraftwerk, have we learned anything about the supposed inherent excellence of western classical music? or is it more likely that what we've learned is that cultures, separated by time and space, have different aesthetic values and that there is a limit to how much we can compare the works of Bach to things outside the Western classical sphere?


----------



## Strange Magic

fbjim said:


> and i already said that just isn't demonstrably true, not even for western listeners.
> 
> if I say (quite reasonably, in my opinion) that the most important musical artists of the 20th century are James Brown, or Kraftwerk, have we learned anything about the supposed inherent excellence of western classical music? or is it more likely that what we've learned is that cultures, separated by time and space, have different aesthetic values and that there is a limit to how much we can compare the works of Bach to things outside the Western classical sphere?


I know! Let's set up a poll!


----------



## fluteman

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> but you already know that I said "of any music".


I've already answered that question. But why do I have to explain or defend my preferences to you? I am not demanding you agree with them. That is another question you have yet to answer. It seems as if you believe only you get to ask the questions, and others have to answer them. That's called interrogation, and this is not the Gestapo.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> I've already answered that question. But why do I have to explain or defend my preferences to you? I am not demanding you agree with them. That is another question you have yet to answer. It seems as if you believe only you get to ask the questions, and others have to answer them. That's called interrogation, and this is not the Gestapo.


The Rhetorical Question is the standard fallback/default reaction to an argument situation that is not going well. The idea is to bury the opposition alive in a mire of questions and thus indefinitely postpone having to address the issue.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> The Rhetorical Question is the standard fallback/default reaction to an argument situation that is not going well. The idea is to bury the opposition alive in a mire of questions and thus indefinitely postpone having to address the issue.


I'm a lawyer who routinely litigates cases in court. You probably can hazard a guess as to whether I'm familiar with the technique.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

fluteman said:


> I've already answered that question. But why do I have to explain or defend my preferences to you? I am not demanding you agree with them. That is another question you have yet to answer. It seems as if you believe only you get to ask the questions, and others have to answer them. That's called interrogation, and this is not the Gestapo.


:lol::lol::lol:

Please remind me of the question or questions i have avoided.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Strange Magic said:


> The Rhetorical Question is the standard fallback/default reaction to an argument situation that is not going well. The idea is to bury the opposition alive in a mire of questions and thus indefinitely postpone having to address the issue.


But whats really happened is I've only asked one question.


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> The idea is to bury the opposition alive in a mire of questions and thus indefinitely postpone having to address the issue.


why did you interrogate me on Bartok & Co then?


----------



## fluteman

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> :lol::lol::lol:
> 
> Please remind me of the question or questions i have avoided.


(1) When did I assume you are white? (2) Why do I have to explain or defend my preferences in music to you? and now: (3) Why can't you bother to scroll up and read the questions I've asked you? and (4) Given the above, why should I bother continuing this conversation with you?


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

fbjim said:


> and i already said that just isn't demonstrably true, not even for western listeners.
> 
> if I say (quite reasonably, in my opinion) that the most important musical artists of the 20th century are James Brown, or Kraftwerk, have we learned anything about the supposed inherent excellence of western classical music? or is it more likely that what we've learned is that cultures, separated by time and space, have different aesthetic values and that there is a limit to how much we can compare the works of Bach to things outside the Western classical sphere?


James Brown and Kraftwerk are both modern western music, so they're not relevant to my question, I asked for non-westerners.

If we look back in history, where are all the composers (because there are loads from Europe) of any music, from other continents, who are esteemed worldwide as greats?


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

fluteman said:


> (1) When did I assume you are white? (2) Why do I have to explain or defend my preferences in music to you? and now: (3) Why can't you bother to scroll up and read the questions I've asked you? and (4) Given the above, why should I bother continuing this conversation with you?


(1) you said "any do not accept your white cultural supremacy theory" - I could be non-white and hold to a "white cultural supremacy theory"?

(2) I didn't say you do.

(3) its clearer if you re-state them.

(4) Its up to you.


----------



## fluteman

Zhdanov said:


> why did you interrogate me on Bartok & Co then?


That's not an interrogation. Strange Magic and I genuinely were interested in your opinion. You answered the question, and I appreciate that. Thank you.


----------



## fluteman

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> (1) you said "any do not accept your white cultural supremacy theory" - I could be non-white and hold to a "white cultural supremacy theory"?
> 
> (2) I didn't say you do.
> 
> (3) its clearer if you re-state them.
> 
> (4) Its up to you.


Yes. There, all done, we've answered each others' questions. This thread would be a lot shorter if everyone did that.


----------



## Strange Magic

Zhdanov said:


> why did you interrogate me on Bartok & Co then?


Not a rhetorical question. As I said in my initial post requesting your views, I personally would like to know where your enthusiasm for composers and their works ends in time. Where/what are your outer limits? I have stated on numerous occasions that I am a Bach-to-Bartok CM lover; Bartok can serve as the edge of my CM world: "Beyond Here Lie Monsters."

How about you?


----------



## janxharris

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> James Brown and Kraftwerk are both modern western music, so they're not relevant to my question, I asked for non-westerners.
> 
> If we look back in history, where are all the composers (because there are loads from Europe) of any music, from other continents, who are esteemed worldwide as greats?


Well if you want non-western then Stravinsky et al....but you originally asked for non-Europeans.

It is generally accepted that many of the great composers are European - what is your point?


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> I think we mostly agree. *But I do not hold that canonizations of certain works is "arbitrary" or "meaningless" in a random-number or white noise sort of way. Such canonizations do reflect clusters along a spectrum of both art and perceivers and do indicate, within certain populations, elements of shared history, neurology, etc.* But it is important to not inflate such a clustering and canonization into a grand statement establishing a Platonic, Ideal attribution of inherent excellence within any art object.


So, you 'do not hold that canonizations of certain works is _arbitrary_ or _meaningless_' in a random way. And 'Such canonizations do reflect clusters along a spectrum of both art and perceivers', etc. which could refer to music of the CPT era.

Guess what one of the antonyms of 'arbitrary' is? Objective.

I'm happy that you allow for some objectivity in the establishment of canonizations in the 'cluster along a spectrum of art' such as that of the CPT era.


----------



## fbjim

janxharris said:


> Well if you want non-western then Stravinsky et al....but you originally asked for non-Europeans.
> 
> It is generally accepted that many of the great composers are European - what is your point?


my point is that i don't think we can draw any particularly staggering conclusions that the most notable composers of a western musical discipline were westerners


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> Where/what are your outer limits?


i do no go beyond Offenbach, Lehar & Kalman.


----------



## Strange Magic

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> My point is that Beethoven, Mozart etc are world renowned, and have been largely esteemed to be among the greatest composers of music that ever lived.
> 
> My question is; Who are those composers, of any music, from other continents, that have been recognised around the world as the greatest, who have transcended nationalities and cultures?


I think the custom of setting down music in scores so that others can or will perform them as indicated is a Western tradition. Other cultures relied upon a Master/Pupil tradition to pass down musical tradition. Plus improv played a large part in the performance. Yet many of these same cultures clearly had written records of other things. It's an accident of music history.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> Not a rhetorical question. As I said in my initial post requesting your views, I personally would like to know where your enthusiasm for composers and their works ends in time. Where/what are your outer limits? I have stated on numerous occasions that I am a Bach-to-Bartok CM lover; Bartok can serve as the edge of my CM world: "Beyond Here Lie Monsters."
> 
> How about you?


Fair enough, though Bartok died in 1945. You did say you liked the music of Martinu, and he lived until 1959. I'm a fan of Hindemith and Poulenc, both of whom lived until 1963, and Copland, who lived until 1990. Ned Rorem, arguably the last surviving prominent composition student of Nadia Boulanger, is still alive at 97. But I'll accept your answer of Bartok. After all, we have to draw the line somewhere!

Don't we?


----------



## fbjim

Strange Magic said:


> I think the custom of setting down music in scores so that others can or will perform them as indicated is a Western tradition. Other cultures relied upon a Master/Pupil tradition to pass down musical tradition. Plus improv played a large part in the performance. Yet many of these same cultures clearly had written records of other things. It's an accident of music history.


not to mention things like religions having differing opinions on how much music should be regulated, or banning it outright- which, if you believe the Palestrina legend, came close to happening in the West (though this is probably fanciful)


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> So, you 'do not hold that canonizations of certain works is _arbitrary_ or _meaningless_' in a random way. And 'Such canonizations do reflect clusters along a spectrum of both art and perceivers', etc. which could refer to music of the CPT era.
> 
> Guess what one of the antonyms of 'arbitrary' is? Objective.
> 
> I'm happy that you allow for some objectivity in the establishment of canonizations in the 'cluster along a spectrum of art' such as that of the CPT era.


I have always recognized the existence of clustering in esthetics. Also in tasting fine (and wretched) wines, ice cream, etc. I also have stressed that the clustering phenomenon has its roots in the history, neurology, psychology, etc. of individuals but the clustering comes from summing of these individual responses. All objective, but not in the sense of imbuing art objects with inherent excellence. I am happy, though, that you are happy, but there is no revelation here--it's what I've been posting since The Beginning.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

janxharris said:


> Well if you want non-western then Stravinsky et al....but you originally asked for non-Europeans.
> 
> It is generally accepted that many of the great composers are European - what is your point?


Yes it is generally accepted in the real world but apparently not on TC.

I was replying to a post where _fluteman_ implied that the music of other cultures/continents is not inferior to western composers. I was asking for the names of great composers from history from other cultures/countries. Which have not yet been supplied for obvious reasons.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> Fair enough, though Bartok died in 1945. You did say you liked the music of Martinu, and he lived until 1959. I'm a fan of Hindemith and Poulenc, both of whom lived until 1963, and Copland, who lived until 1990. Ned Rorem, arguably the last surviving prominent composition student of Nadia Boulanger, is still alive at 97. But I'll accept your answer of Bartok. After all, we have to draw the line somewhere!
> 
> Don't we?


My Bartok reference as an endpoint was a combination of sticking with a Big B to match the Big B of Bach on the other end, and that Bartok represents an ill-defined place where pieces I love mingle a lot with pieces I don't in the works of a single relatively "modern" composer. Time has much less to do with it. There are some pieces I like that were composed metaphorically "Yesterday".


----------



## Strange Magic

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Yes it is generally accepted in the real world but apparently not on TC.
> 
> I was replying to a post where _fluteman_ implied that the music of other cultures/continents is not inferior to western composers. I was asking for the names of great composers from history from other cultures/countries. Which have not yet been supplied for obvious reasons.


The reasons are indeed obvious, and were laid out clearly in several answering posts. We all agree that the answer is obvious.


----------



## science

DaveM said:


> There's that 'sentence or 2' I was talking about. What more do you have to discuss? Nothing.


There really isn't much more to it actually. The entire question is whether what makes art good or bad are things like human preferences and values or something like the laws of physics.


----------



## Zhdanov

science said:


> The entire question is whether what makes art good or bad are things like human preferences and values or something like the laws of physics.


their something like the manual to a technology which makes art.


----------



## SanAntone

> fluteman implied that the music of other cultures/continents is not inferior to western composers. I was asking for the names of great composers from history from other cultures/countries. Which have not yet been supplied for obvious reasons.


First of all the term "composer" does not apply in many cases in non-western cultures. E.G., *West African griots* (historian, storyteller, praise singer, poet, or musician. The griot is a repository of oral tradition and is often seen as a leader due to their position as an advisor to royal personages. As a result of the former of these two functions, they are sometimes called a bard).

*Flamenco* singers or guitarists.

*Carnatic* throat singers, or *Northern Indian classica*l musicians.

However, some non-European composers from American include *Duke Ellington*, *Thelonious Monk*, and *Wynton Marsalis*.

I could list any number of musicians, music creators, from every non-European country in the world, but I'd have to spend time doing the research, which to reply in this forum in answer to the quoted post is not enough of an incentive.

The cultural chauvinism inherent in the distasteful post (as well as others) I responded to is something that I find extremely disrespectful to world musicians and the cultures they represent.


----------



## janxharris

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Yes it is generally accepted in the real world but apparently not on TC.
> 
> I was replying to a post where _fluteman_ implied that the music of other cultures/continents is not inferior to western composers. I was asking for the names of great composers from history from other cultures/countries. Which have not yet been supplied for obvious reasons.


I don't necessarily accept that 'music of other cultures/continents is inferior to western composers'. Why would anyone say such a thing?


----------



## Art Rock

Then there is Xiqu (known in the West as Chinese Opera), a tradition going back 17 centuries, that was the main music form enjoyed in China until the Cultural revolution, and is still enjoyed by many of the older generation in China. More than thirty famous pieces of Chinese opera continue to be performed today.


----------



## Zhdanov

SanAntone said:


> the term "composer" does not apply in many cases in non-western cultures.


why mention them if so?


----------



## BachIsBest

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Yes it is generally accepted in the real world but apparently not on TC.
> 
> I was replying to a post where _fluteman_ implied that the music of other cultures/continents is not inferior to western composers. I was asking for the names of great composers from history from other cultures/countries. Which have not yet been supplied for obvious reasons.


European's were pretty well the only culture to develop a sophisticated classical music tradition; one could argue, to a certain degree, that India developed something like a nascent classical music tradition, but that's about it. Every culture (including Europe) has folk music traditions, but these did not inhabit the same role as European classical music and to compare them is difficult. Additionally, due to the nature of these traditions, as many have pointed out, there isn't a method of historically recording "credit".

However, I do get where you are coming from. There is an obsession nowadays to deny that the West achieved anything other cultures didn't. The Western Classical Music tradition is obviously unique amongst world music in its sophistication; it's almost as if one culture invented the "novel" of music well the rest only had "oral storytelling" (again, with India occupying a bit of a grey zone).

Before someone accuses me of white supremacy (which is one of the "in" insults of today whenever you disagree with someone), this "one culture invented a thing other cultures largely didn't" thing isn't unique to Europe. For example, if you look at the martial arts traditions in Eastern cultures, although there European martial arts traditions like wrestling, there is simply no real comparable in Western cultures.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

janxharris said:


> I don't necessarily accept that 'music of other cultures/continents is inferior to western composers'. Why would anyone say such a thing?


You said "It is generally accepted that many of the great composers are European" have there been greater than these from other continents?


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

SanAntone said:


> The cultural chauvinism inherent in the distasteful post (as well as others) I responded to is something that I find extremely disrespectful to world musicians and the cultures they represent.


The other continents acknowledge that the greatest composers came form Europe.


----------



## Nereffid

BachIsBest said:


> There is an obsession nowadays to deny that the West achieved anything other cultures didn't. The Western Classical Music tradition is obviously unique amongst world music in its sophistication


But then we simply come back to whether "sophistication" is a thing that demonstrates superiority.

I suspect that, as always, sophistication is definitely something that demonstrates superiority, until we find something sophisticated that we don't like, which will then need to be redefined as decadence or some such.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> I have always recognized the existence of clustering in esthetics. Also in tasting fine (and wretched) wines, ice cream, etc. I also have stressed that the clustering phenomenon has its roots in the history, neurology, psychology, etc. of individuals but the clustering comes from summing of these individual responses. All objective, but not in the sense of imbuing art objects with inherent excellence. I am happy, though, that you are happy, but there is no revelation here--it's what I've been posting since The Beginning.


But you're backtracking from the important point stemming from:
_ So, you 'do not hold that canonizations of certain works is arbitrary or meaningless' in a random way. And 'Such canonizations do reflect clusters along a spectrum of both art and perceivers', etc. which could refer to music of the CPT era._

If the canonization of certain works in the 'clusters along a spectrum of art' such as that of music in the CPT era i*s not 'arbitrary' or 'meaningless' in 'random way*' (the latter are your words) then that, by definition, allows for some objectivity in that canonization. It follows therefore that there can be some objectivity in determining which works are better representations than others in that canonization.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> I have always recognized the existence of clustering in esthetics. Also in tasting fine (and wretched) wines, ice cream, etc. I also have stressed that the clustering phenomenon has its roots in the history, neurology, psychology, etc. of individuals but the clustering comes from summing of these individual responses. All objective, but not in the sense of imbuing art objects with inherent excellence. I am happy, though, that you are happy, but there is no revelation here--it's what I've been posting since The Beginning.


But you're backtracking from the important point stemming from:
_ So, you 'do not hold that canonizations of certain works is arbitrary or meaningless' in a random way. And 'Such canonizations do reflect clusters along a spectrum of both art and perceivers', etc. which could refer to music of the CPT era._

If the canonization of certain works in the 'clusters along a spectrum of art' such as that of music in the CPT era i*s not 'arbitrary' or 'meaningless' in a random way*' (the latter are your words) then that, by definition, allows for some objectivity in that canonization. It follows therefore that there can be some objectivity in determining which works are better representations than others in that canonization.

As for '_ All objective, but not in the sense of imbuing art objects with inherent excellence_: Works of composers of the CPT era are not like naturally colored rocks where one decides which is prettier. They are the result of the education, skill and inherent talent of a composer who may create something that is demonstrably more remarkable than other works.

With the above in mind, what do you make of the following from Encyclopedia.com. Why is it stated without equivocation? And why do other encyclopedias use similar superlatives? Why don't they ever say anything along the line of your repeated 'total subjectivity' mantra?

_Beethoven, Ludwig van, great German composer whose unsurpassed genius, expressed with supreme mastery in his syms., chamber music, concertos, and piano sonatas, revealing an extraordinary power of invention, marked a historic turn in the art of composition._


----------



## fluteman

BachIsBest said:


> European's were pretty well the only culture to develop a sophisticated classical music tradition; one could argue, to a certain degree, that India developed something like a nascent classical music tradition, but that's about it.


There are many people in India, not to mention China, who would not agree with that. But you are welcome to that opinion. Different opinions on things like this are fundamental to the aesthetic experience. Just don't expect people to concede you have pronounced some inherent, verifiable truth.


----------



## SanAntone

Concerning non-western classical music, this is a good book for the uninformed:

*The Other Classical Musics: Fifteen Great Traditions*


----------



## janxharris

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> You said "It is generally accepted that many of the great composers are European" have there been greater than these from other continents?


Suggest a comparison and I'll have a listen.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

SanAntone said:


> Concerning non-western classical music, this is a good book for the uninformed:
> 
> *The Other Classical Musics: Fifteen Great Traditions*
> 
> View attachment 153920


Is the music on a par with western classical or better?


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> Ah, Woodduck. You take so much for granted about your culture and your society. You sit on top of a mountain of artistic tradition gradually, painstakingly built up in Europe over centuries, more or less insulated from other, geographically distant artistic traditions, some equally sophisticated and as old or older. Then, when global communication and travel technology arrives in the 20th century, and your cherished European music begins to absorb the influence of non-European traditions, and even ideas generated by the new technology itself, you prefer the more familiar pleasures of the musical world of Europe of the 18th and 19th centuries.
> 
> Your preferences are entirely understandable, and would be even if I didn't share many of them. But these are only preferences. There is nothing sacred or inevitable about western harmony or counterpoint, including Bach fugues. Other systems of harmony and counterpoint are possible, and there is more to music than harmony and counterpoint.
> 
> Even if one stays squarely within the old European tradition, technical geniuses like Alkan and Reger, whom you ridiculed earlier, calling his music "too chromatic", were capable of the most extraordinarily sophisticated harmony and counterpoint that would impress even Bach. Their music can be seen as a logical progression from some of Bach's most elaborate counterpoint, as in the fugues of the second book of the Well Tempered Clavier. So it turns out your tastes are rather narrow and specialized even within the old, traditional context. There is nothing wrong with those tastes, but nothing inherently right about them, either.
> 
> The conservatories wouldn't teach Bach's music if a small but dedicated group of people over the last 270 years didn't love it and work to keep that cultural tradition alive. It is not mathematics, physics or chemistry. The good news for you is, with the global reach of cultural influences possible today, non-westerners can learn to love Bach's music. The bad news for you is, global influence goes the other way too, in addition to the influence on our aesthetic values caused by the technology itself that I mentioned. The western musical tradition will never be the same.


What this elaborate defense of non-Western musical traditions has to do with the statement you quote, I can't fathom. You made an apparently simple claim, and I offered a simple refutation. Your attempts to diagnose my artistic biases are gratuitous and irrelevant.

Another example of why I'm finding it unprofitable to wallow in the murky muck of this discussion.


----------



## SanAntone

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Is the music on a par with western classical or better?


I think it is.

I also do not believe that there is some characteristic about Western European culture which would position it at the apogee of cultural achievement. The music of non-Western cultures offer rich musical traditions which in unique ways equal or outshine the Western European classical body of music.

However, it is different music from the western classical tradition.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

SanAntone said:


> I think it is.
> 
> I also do not believe that there is some characteristic about Western European culture which would position it at the apogee of cultural achievement. The music of non-Western cultures offer rich musical traditions which in unique ways equal or outshine the Western European classical body of music.
> 
> However, it is different music from the western classical tradition.


can you post some of the best they have to offer so we can have a listen?


----------



## SanAntone

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> can you post some of the best they have to offer so we can have a listen?


No. I posted a good resource, which offers examples as well as a short history of 15 different traditions. If you are really interested, that is the best thing I can offer.


----------



## Bulldog

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> The other continents acknowledge that the greatest composers came form Europe.


I don't think there is any evidence that the above statement is correct.


----------



## Bulldog

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> can you post some of the best they have to offer so we can have a listen?


It would be a waste of time to post music that you have already declared to be inferior.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *DaveM:* "As for ' All objective, but not in the sense of imbuing art objects with inherent excellence. Works of composers of the CPT era are not like colored rocks where one decides which is prettier. They are the result of the education, skill and inherent talent of a composer who may create something that is demonstrably more remarkable than other works."


Works of the CPT era are like colored rocks where one decides which is prettier. They are the result of the education, skill, and inherent talent of a composer who may create something that is demonstrably more remarkable {different} than other works. I then examine the rocks (listen to the music) and decide what I prefer and what I do not. It's like choosing among fine wines.

Nothing has changed.


----------



## Zhdanov

SanAntone said:


> *The Other Classical Musics: Fifteen Great Traditions*


the word 'classical' denotes relation to Ancient Rome & Greece or their system of values, not any other culture or its tradition.


----------



## science

Zhdanov said:


> the word 'classical' denotes relation to Ancient Rome & Greece or their system of values, not any other culture or its tradition.


There is also "Classical China" and so on .


----------



## Zhdanov

science said:


> There is also "Classical China" and so on .


same as 'classical' wrongly applied to car brands or movies etc.


----------



## Zhdanov

so i call on everyone to strictly talk classical here.


----------



## science

Zhdanov said:


> same as 'classical' wrongly applied to car brands or movies etc.


I'm not sure you can legislate this. It might be time to rectify the names.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *DaveM:*. "With the above in mind, what do you make of the following from Encyclopedia.com. Why is it stated without equivocation? And why do other encyclopedias use similar superlatives? Why don't they ever say anything along the line of your repeated 'total subjectivity' mantra?"
> 
> Beethoven, Ludwig van, great German composer whose unsurpassed genius, expressed with supreme mastery in his syms., chamber music, concertos, and piano sonatas, revealing an extraordinary power of invention, marked a historic turn in the art of composition."


Here we have two repeated phenomena: A) The appeal, like a medieval scholastic, to Prior Authority, Encyclopedia.com, and B) The rhetorical questions. I note the stern refusal of the Encyclopedia.com author to mix opinion in with fact.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Here we have two repeated phenomena: A) The appeal, like a medieval scholastic, to Prior Authority, Encyclopedia.com, and B) The rhetorical questions. I note the stern refusal of the Encyclopedia.com author to mix opinion in with fact.


This is a total evasion and inability to answer direct questions which is what you do when presented with anything that may question your position. Encyclopedias have traditionally been a source of education for many years. You can't just dismiss what is written in them as being irrelevant to the subject, especially using some ridiculous analogy -which you mistake for an eloquent put-down- with medieval scholasticism. Is it your position that when parents refer their children to encyclopedias for information that they are like 'medieval scholastics'? You do the same when presented with a losing position in a poll. You pull out Latin as if it dismisses the fact that you may be on the losing position of the argument.

All you ever present is your opinion with nothing to back it up. When it comes to your dismissal of the use of 'great' and 'greatness' as meaningless beyond pure subjectivity, you have no explanation why it is used in educational sources when applied to some of the renowned composers and their works.

The point here is not that encyclopedias and polls prove an argument beyond a reasonable doubt. The point is that they can suggest that an argument is not specious and that the person without any corroborating information may be wrong.

Finally, one way to avoid answering questions is to declare them as rhetorical. How about answering them as directly as they were asked. Or are you simply unable to.


----------



## SanAntone

> All you ever present is your opinion with nothing to back it up.


This is rich coming from you. You post references to "the top tier" of composers but refuse to list the names you consider in this top tier. I suspect your reluctance is because you know that it won't be an objective list, that any number of people would create a different top tier list. So, you avoid going on record, as if this improves your argument.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> What this elaborate defense of non-Western musical traditions has to do with the statement you quote, I can't fathom. You made an apparently simple claim, and I offered a simple refutation. Your attempts to diagnose my artistic biases are gratuitous and irrelevant.
> 
> Another example of why I'm finding it unprofitable to wallow in the murky muck of this discussion.


Gratuitous and irrelevant? You mentioned (a bit sarcastically, but that's fine, I enjoy your style) trying to study human perception and thought processes at a conservatory. But notice the word "conservatory" is derived from the word "conserve", actually from the Italian "conservato" (stored or preserved) and Latin "ory" (a place for) and originally was used to describe a structure used for storing food. Today we use the word to mean a place for storing and preserving western traditions of classical music, and other western traditions of art (often collectively called the "fine arts").

One thing a conservatory is not used for, by definition, is science, as science is not concerned with storing and preserving traditions, but rather, ever advancing the boundaries of our knowledge. Only the latest, current science is good science. Any older science that has been superseded and become out-of-date is discarded. The laboratory and the observatory are the right "orys" for one who wants to study science, but scientists often also need to go out into what they charmingly refer to as "the field."

Your inability to study human perception and thought processes at the conservatory only illustrates the fundamental difference between art, that is based on cultural tradition, and science, that is based on empirical observation. If you can't grasp that, people who teach and study at the conservatory will be quite puzzled at your insistence on going to the wrong building.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *DaveM:* "All you ever present is your opinion with nothing to back it up. When it comes to your dismissal of the use of 'great' and 'greatness' as meaningless beyond pure subjectivity, you have no explanation why it is used in educational sources when applied to some of the renowned composers and their works.
> 
> The point here is not that encyclopedias and polls prove an argument beyond a reasonable doubt. The point is that they can suggest that an argument is not specious and that the person without any corroborating information may be wrong.
> 
> Finally, one way to avoid answering questions is to declare them as rhetorical. How about answering them as directly as they were asked.{?}. Or are you simply unable to.{?}


Where to begin? I submit that the encyclopedias you cite are written by people like DaveM (and like me also) who have hierarchies of greatness--in your and their case pure consensus; in mine, my individual decisions. That's what all this has been about from the jump. In a case like this, I have witnesses and testimony both here on TC and thousands of years of understanding that opinion is at the heart of esthetic choice. And it is clear beyond peradventure that your questions are 99.44% rhetorical. I have taken the liberty of adding question marks to your latest.

Your problem, besides being with the nuts and bolts of my position, is with my relentless assertion that I am correct and your suspicion that I may be. But both you and I love the music and art we love. Our difference is that I do not question, or feel the need to question, your choices or mine.


----------



## Ethereality

I actually adore the following list I compiled, not for objective truth, which is as good as any expert claiming experience, but because it has a mathematical proof for showing the strongest niche gravitations of people. For example, 'not everyone is into x composer, or have heard of them, but there are more people who clearly gravitate towards this composer strongly than weakly." I'm going to post something like this showing the strongest niche groups of all listeners from larger ratings databases, if other 'subjectivists' would care to give me their lists, we could view the end result. This has a very great usage: (a) It allows you to more quickly diversify your listening, and, (b) creates a mathematically perfect sample of what subforums should be created in a community; given that a niche offers similar composers, how 'great' or 'wide' one niche is will show no detriment to how segregated it is from others. For instance, having only one forum for Baroque and Classical era music (because it only has a few niche composers as demonstrated by polling) will have no detriment to the sense of comprehensiveness within its discussions. It will simply be a more popular forum, with more connected discussions. Same for the unpopular niche forums. We would highly benefit, beyond understanding, having a discussion board divided as such. See here: How do you tell by listening to a piece that it's objectively great?

The deeper explanation of what I mean starts here, continued throughout the thread: https://www.talkclassical.com/54703-least-favorite-big-three-33.html#post1982403


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Bulldog said:


> It would be a waste of time to post music that you have already declared to be inferior.


Sounds like you're worried


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> Gratuitous and irrelevant? You mentioned (a bit sarcastically, but that's fine, I enjoy your style) trying to study human perception and thought processes at a conservatory. But notice the word "conservatory" is derived from the word "conserve", actually from the Italian "conservato" (stored or preserved) and Latin "ory" (a place for) and originally was used to describe a structure used for storing food. Today we use the word to mean a place for storing and preserving western traditions of classical music, and other western traditions of art (often collectively called the "fine arts").
> 
> One thing a conservatory is not used for, by definition, is science, as science is not concerned with storing and preserving traditions, but rather, ever advancing the boundaries of our knowledge. Only the latest, current science is good science. Any older science that has been superseded and become out-of-date is discarded. The laboratory and the observatory are the right "orys" for one who wants to study science, but scientists often also need to go out into what they charmingly refer to as "the field."
> 
> *Your inability to study human perception and thought processes at the conservatory only illustrates the fundamental difference between art, that is based on cultural tradition, and science, that is based on empirical observation. If you can't grasp that, people who teach and study at the conservatory will be quite puzzled at your insistence on going to the wrong building.*


What? 

Who are you talking to here, and about what? Not me or anything I said.

There must be some basic misunderstanding at work here, as this goes even further down a rabbit hole. The muck I called this conversation now feels like the La Brea tar pits.

I'm not going to try backtracking in order to figure this out.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> Where to begin? I submit that the encyclopedias you cite are written by people like DaveM (and like me also) who have hierarchies of greatness--in your and their case pure consensus; in mine, my individual decisions. That's what all this has been about from the jump. In a case like this, I have witnesses and testimony both here on TC and thousands of years of understanding that opinion is at the heart of esthetic choice. And it is clear beyond peradventure that your questions are 99.44% rhetorical. I have taken the liberty of adding question marks to your latest.
> 
> Your problem, besides being with the nuts and bolts of my position, is with my relentless assertion that I am correct and your suspicion that I may be. But both you and I love the music and art we love. Our difference is that I do not question, or feel the need to question, your choices or mine.


How can I get you more interested in the concept of tradition? Oh! I know!


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> This is rich coming from you. You post references to "the top tier" of composers but refuse to list the names you consider in this top tier. I suspect your reluctance is because you know that it won't be an objective list, that any number of people would create a different top tier list. So, you avoid going on record, as if this improves your argument.


I'm in a classical music forum, discussing issues with people who presumably are experienced with music of the CPT era. When I talk about our top tier composers, I assume, given all the discussions and polls on the subject here, that people here will have some idea -without needing an exact list- who I might be talking about.

Are composers that might be what we call top tier composers in the CPT era a mystery to you? No idea whatsoever? If you're at a concert and the conductor says, 'This is a work from one of the top tier composers of the 19th century, do you have a big question mark over your head? Do you jump up and demand an explanation because you have no clue what he/she could possibly be talking about.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> What?
> 
> Who are you talking to here, and about what? Not me or anything I said.
> 
> There must be some basic misunderstanding at work here, as this goes even further down a rabbit hole. The muck I called this conversation now feels like the La Brea tar pits.
> 
> I'm not going to try backtracking in order to figure this out.


Here is what you said, in post no. 1078:



Woodduck said:


> I'd like to write a good fugue. What conservatory can I attend in order to learn to analyze people's sensory and thought processes? I presume I would not be studying Bach, although he must have been an excellent mind reader in view of his appeal to the sensory and thought processes of people 300 years later.


My response was that you can't learn to analyze people's sensory and thought processes at a conservatory. A conservatory is for storing and preserving artistic traditions, not empirical analysis, which is the domain of science. You seem not to understand or remember your own question. But that's OK, I can move on.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> I'm in a classical music forum, discussing issues with people who presumably are experienced with music of the CPT era. When I talk about our top tier composers, I assume, given all the discussions and polls on the subject here, that people here will have some idea -without needing an exact list- who I might be talking about.
> 
> Are composers that might be what we call top tier composers in the CPT era a mystery to you? No idea whatsoever? If you're at a concert and the conductor says, 'This is a work from one of the top tier composers of the 19th century, do you have a big question mark over your head? Do you jump up and demand an explanation because you have no clue what he/she could possibly be talking about.


It's as if I never posted Post #1223......... Maybe it hasn't been read. All those questions......


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> I'm in a classical music forum, discussing issues with people who presumably are experienced with music of the CPT era. When I talk about our top tier composers, I assume, given all the discussions and polls on the subject here, that people here will have some idea -without needing an exact list- who I might be talking about.
> 
> Are composers that might be what we call top tier composers in the CPT era a mystery to you? No idea whatsoever? If you're at a concert and the conductor says, 'This is a work from one of the top tier composers of the 19th century, do you have a big question mark over your head? Do you jump up and demand an explanation because you have no clue what he/she could possibly be talking about.


This thread is about whether these judgments are objective or subjective. Your refusal to post the list you have in your head is proof of your lack of confidence in your argument, because then it would be open to challenge. I could post my equally valid list of different composers, and it would be evidence that your top tier is not an objective determination, but two people posting subjective lists of top tier composers.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Strange Magic said:


> Getting back to keys and locks, no one suggests the keys are all the same or are indeterminate; they each have their objective, verifiable, measurable qualities, properties, quantities. Greatness is not one of those properties.


I think you'll find it hard to maintain such a separation between objective and subjective. Look at the first motive of the Scherzo of Mahler's Fifth. Its very shape shows it to be the embodiment of a leaping strength. It is neither somber nor tearful. Mahler knows this, which is why the working-out of this motive creates a Scherzo of that bounding nature. He could have tried to create a sadder movement using that same motive, but he would have been going against properties inherent in his material.


----------



## ArtMusic

SanAntone said:


> This thread is about whether these judgments are objective or subjective. Your refusal to post the list you have in your head is proof of your lack of confidence in your argument, because then it would be open to challenge. I could post my equally valid list of different composers, and it would be evidence that your top tier is not an objective determination, but two people posting subjective lists of top tier composers.


That is why there is no golden age today with the arts because individual arbitrariness has encouraged the mass production of art by anyone who can call themselves "an artist" and whatever they produce "is art". The only solution to this problem is time itself, that over time, natural selection will wash out and the better artists and art will survive.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Where to begin? I submit that the encyclopedias you cite are written by people like DaveM (and like me also) who have hierarchies of greatness--in your and their case pure consensus; in mine, my individual decisions. That's what all this has been about from the jump.


Presumably, the people who write encyclopedia content are highly educated on the subjects. For you to diminish them is convenient for you when you don't agree with them and, when, to do otherwise might indicate that someone, somewhere, may know more about a subject than you do.



> In a case like this, I have witnesses and testimony both here on TC and thousands of years of understanding that opinion is at the heart of esthetic choice. And it is clear beyond peradventure that your questions are 99.44% rhetorical. I have taken the liberty of adding question marks to your latest.


If the fact that you have 'witnesses and testimony' (you've been watching too much TV) on TC is significant so is the fact that I do also, in addition to a poll. As for the 'thousands of years of understanding about esthetic choice': You've just dismissed anything in an encyclopedia as opinion. What allows you to say that what may have been written in the distant past is fact? Your experts state facts and mine state opinions? Not to mention that using millennia in any context here is desperation in the extreme.



> Your problem, besides being with the nuts and bolts of my position, is with my relentless assertion that I am correct and your suspicion that I may be.


Dream along.



> But both you and I love the music and art we love. Our difference is that I do not question, or feel the need to question, your choices or mine.


This has nothing to do with your choices or mine.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> This thread is about whether these judgments are objective or subjective. Your refusal to post the list you have in your head is proof of your lack of confidence in your argument, because then it would be open to challenge. I could post my equally valid list of different composers, and it would be evidence that your top tier is not an objective determination, but two people posting subjective lists of top tier composers.


Suggesting that I am referring to an exactly ordered list is ridiculous. Allowing for elements of objectivity means that in any poll of our top composers, often the same composers will appear over and over again often in somewhat different order because, as I have said more than once, in these decisions subjectivity intrudes everywhere.

You didn't answer my questions. I guess the whole concept of top tier composers is beyond your understanding.


----------



## fluteman

Isaac Blackburn said:


> I think you'll find it hard to maintain such a separation between objective and subjective. Look at the first motive of the Scherzo of Mahler's Fifth. Its very shape shows it to be the embodiment of a leaping strength. It is neither somber nor tearful. Mahler knows this, which is why the working-out of this motive creates a Scherzo of that bounding nature. He could have tried to create a sadder movement using that same motive, but he would have been going against properties inherent in his material.


And yet, even some classical music enthusiasts can't stand Mahler's music. At the beginning of the Mahler renaissance, when Leonard Bernstein was trying to convince the Vienna Philharmonic to play it, some of its members referred to it as "**** music", or, to quote them verbatim in the original German, Scheißmusik.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> Suggesting that I am referring to an exactly ordered list is ridiculous. Allowing for elements of objectivity means that in any poll of our top composers, often the same composers will appear over and over again often in somewhat different order because, as I have said more than once, in these decisions subjectivity intrudes everywhere.
> 
> You didn't answer my questions. I guess the whole concept of top tier composers is beyond your understanding.


No, it isn't beyond my understanding. And I did not stipulate for "an exactly ordered list" (although if this were really an objective exercise, that would not be hard).

As I said, I doubt our lists of unordered "top tier composers" would be identical. But apparently, you are reluctant to back up your own posts with something as simple as your list of top tier composers.


----------



## RogerWaters

SanAntone said:


> No, it isn't beyond my understanding. And I did not stipulate for "an exactly ordered list" (although if this were really an objective exercise, that would not be hard).
> 
> As I said, I doubt our lists of unordered "top tier composers" would be identical. But apparently, you are reluctant to back up your own posts with something as simple as your list of top tier composers.


In my experience, your interlocutor here isn't exactly forthcoming with putting his cards on the table.

Talking the talk without walking the walk.


----------



## RogerWaters

Eclectic Al said:


> Yes. I think that it probably is substantially about social bonding. Hence, why you and I were on the same "side" in the exciting rolleyes debate with Brahmsianhorn (primarily) about there being an absolute truth which music is seeking.
> 
> We are not on the same side here because I find that the social bonding aspect of music works because of some objective similarities between members of the social group, and that subjective differences are not particularly interesting or important. The essence of music is in the sharing, not in the differences in taste.
> 
> If I make some sounds, and I really like them and find them meaningful (in some ineffable way) then I am not convinced that that is music. It's a bit like a remark Popper (I think) made about science. If you construct hypotheses and carry out experiments which seek to falsify those hypotheses, but do all this on a desert island cut off from others, then you are not doing science. You can only do science as part of a group. I tend to agree with him. I certainly think that you can only do maths by communicating with other mathematicians. If you prove a theorem (in your mind) but don't put that proof before others to consider, then I am afraid you have not conducted mathematics.
> 
> You get an evolution of musical traditions from some underlying physiological reality about people, but with the traditions going their own ways over generation upon generation with much feedback between the childhood and ongoing exposure of people to influences within a tradition, the music they appreciate, and how the tradition evolves. Their brains are shaped (objectively) through these experiences, and the thinking subjects hosted by those brains then appreciate particular pieces of music more than others because their perceptual apparatus has been objectively shaped via those mechanisms. The musical tradition is the thing persisting and evolving through time, and the people who participate in it are the objects being exposed to the tradition, shaped by it, and promoting it into the future.
> 
> In terms of the purpose of music-listening I think it is that it generates satisfaction in the subject - but find that to be vacuous as an explanation. Unless you look into the "why" it is largely a pointless remark. I think the "why" relates to the structure of your brain (and, yes, its interaction with your physiology - as the brain is not independent from physiology and your thinking being is not independent from your brain). The structure of your brain is an objective matter of the physical universe, so you don't choose what you like as a preference: it is given to you as a like by your objective make-up. Your subjective experience then seems to carry with it the illusion that you had some sort of say in the matter or that that is the important bit. I guess that making thinking beings feel that they are important is helpful in encouraging them to perpetuate their own genes, rather than (say) those of a non-relative.
> 
> That's the individual purpose of music. I think there is also a social explanation which relates to a purpose in group bonding and sharing. It's a way of effing the ineffable. For this to work there needs to be a commonality, a tradition. The tradition has a history in the objective universe and the joy which subjects take in listening to it is objectively part of their make-up while at the same time delivering value (in the sense of utility) by its function in bringing people together.
> 
> Why do people have sex? Because they like it. Why do they like it? Because it leads to continuation of their genes. Different levels of explanation. However, you have to go beyond the "because they like it" explanation for there to be any interest in the discussion.


Good morning in the land down under.

You seem to be basically saying that it's not arbitrary why human beings _generally_ prefer certain sounds over others.

I agree with you.

However, I don't see what this has to do with the objective vs subjective debate.

Human beings _generally_ prefer sex over asexuality. Does this mean Joe Bloggs is _wrong_ to be asexual? And if he is not wrong, then how can preferring sex to asexuality be objectively good?! (Assumption: if a judgement is objectively true, then one is violating some kind of normative standard (not merely _statistical_ standard) in denying it.

Wikipedia's entry on normativity is poignant here:



> Normative generally means relating to an evaluative standard. Normativity is the phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good or desirable or permissible and others as bad or undesirable or impermissible. A norm in this normative sense means a standard for evaluating or making judgments about behavior or outcomes. *Normative is sometimes also used, somewhat confusingly, to mean relating to a descriptive standard: doing what is normally done or what most others are expected to do in practice. In this sense a norm is not evaluative, a basis for judging behavior or outcomes; it is simply a fact or observation about behavior or outcomes, without judgment*. Many researchers in this[clarification needed] field try to restrict the use of the term normative to the evaluative sense and refer to the description of behavior and outcomes as positive, descriptive, predictive, or empirical.[1][2]


What _good_ is a conception of 'objectivity' which does not admit of an _evaluative standard_?

Mathematical, scientific, moral judgements (when true) admit of an evaluative standard (one is _in error_ by denying them), but this evaluative standard certainty does not derive from mere consensus.

TL;DR: I can't see how you get an evaluative standard from what you've said above because, it seems to me, what you say above captures what is (statistically) normal - not what is normative. And without admitting of/giving rise to evaluative standards, 'objectivity' isn't worth its name.


----------



## cybernaut

ArtMusic said:


> That is why there is no golden age today with the arts because individual arbitrariness has encouraged the mass production of art by anyone who can call themselves "an artist" and whatever they produce "is art". The only solution to this problem is time itself, that over time, natural selection will wash out and the better artists and art will survive.


Or it could be the opposite: with the decreasing intelligence of the species, the better art will be washed away.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/13/health/falling-iq-scores-study-intl/index.html


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM - I'll tell you what, I'll post my list and the reason why I put the composer in the top tier, listed chronologically.

*Guillaume de Machaut*. Very influential poet/composer of the 14th century, credited with composing the first example of a complete setting of the mass text by a single composer. His complete works have survived in five manuscript collections easiiy making him the composer with the most music to have survived.

*Josquin*. Also very influential composer of the Renaissance period, his works appear in many collections usually interpreted as a composer widely admired. His name appears in treatises both during and after his lifetime, and a number of composers cite him as their "master."

*Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina*. His works are widely seen as the apogee of 16th century counterpoint. His 104 mass settings have a uniform excellence, so much so, that his practice was considered "perfect" and the basic rules of counterpoint were developed from a analysis of his works. When one speaks of the High Renaissance, Palestrina's name is usually the first to be mentioned.

*J.S. Bach*. Who I consider the greatest composer of the Baroque period, his contrapuntal methodology has been codified into treatises used as pedagogical studies and taught in most music conservatories. His keyboard, organ, and sacred choral music has entered the standard repertory like no other composer, and often cited as a candidate for the greatest composer of all.

*Joseph Haydn*. Credited with single-handedly setting the standard for the Classical Period symphony, string quartet and piano trio. He was admired by both Mozart and Beethoven. Beethoven wished to study with him, and may have had a few lessons, but Haydn suggested he find someone more dedicated to teaching him, which Beethoven did. Mozart dedicated a group of string quartets to Haydn as a form of homage. Haydn lived a long life, mostly in the service of a single aristocratic employer, and was distant from the main centers of musical activity. However, he still managed to be widely known and respected all across Europe and England, where he was repeatedly invited for concert tours.

*Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart*. Master of most of the standard forms of composition for the Classical Period, he especially excelled in the concerto and opera. If you asked almost anyone to name a great classical composer, many if not most would name Mozart. He has entered the popular consciousness like no other composer, and is the epitome of the genius prodigy.

*Ludwig van Beethoven*. Need I say why?

*Johannes Brahms*. Often said to be the true descendant of Beethoven. Brahms was so critical of his work that he is reported to have burned more works than he left behind. His solo piano music, symphonies, and his late chamber music are some of the finest examples of those forms. He carried on a style of composition somewhat conservative for the Romantic period; he steadfastly held to the formal structures perfected by Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. But he also was deceptively innovative.

*Arnold Schoenberg*. Some call him the last Romantic, others the first Modern composer. He certainly straddled those two major periods of musical composition as a giant. His 12-tone method was a major innovation for the 20th century and influenced countless later composers.

*Igor Stravinsky*. Another major 20th century composer, whose music is some of the most creative and innovative for several different "schools." His three early ballets were extremely impactful; during his mid-career Neoclassicism, and then his late career version of Serialism, he produced masterpieces in every style he worked.

That is my list of ten top tier composers and why I think they belong there.


----------



## Strange Magic

Isaac Blackburn said:


> I think you'll find it hard to maintain such a separation between objective and subjective. Look at the first motive of the Scherzo of Mahler's Fifth. Its very shape shows it to be the embodiment of a leaping strength. It is neither somber nor tearful. Mahler knows this, which is why the working-out of this motive creates a Scherzo of that bounding nature. He could have tried to create a sadder movement using that same motive, but he would have been going against properties inherent in his material.


I guess that was the only path for Mahler at that moment. Any other paths would have led to mediocracy. All art is thus inexorably moving forward with wheels of steel on rails of steel. Best of all possible worlds, by definition.


----------



## cybernaut

RogerWaters said:


> Human beings _generally_ prefer sex over asexuality. Does this mean Joe Bloggs is _wrong_ to be asexual? And if he is not wrong, then how can preferring sex to asexuality be objectively good?! (Assumption: if a judgement is objectively true, then one is violating some kind of normative standard (not merely _statistical_ standard) in denying it.


Is Joe Bloggs "wrong" to be asexual? It depends on how you define "wrong."
It's clearly not advantageous for a species which procreates sexually if its individuals are asexual. But then again, we have too many humans on the planet, so Joe Blogg's asexuality might be a "good" thing.

Is Joe Bloggs "abnormal" for being asexual? I think yes. But LeBron James is abnormal at being so great at basketball and Einstein was abnormal at being so great in theoretical physics. So again, being "abnormal" does not mean bad or good.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> No, it isn't beyond my understanding. And I did not stipulate for "an exactly ordered list" (although if this were really an objective exercise, that would not be hard).
> 
> As I said, I doubt our lists of unordered "top tier composers" would be identical. But apparently, you are reluctant to back up your own posts with something as simple as your list of top tier composers.


Since I am not suggesting 100% objectivity and since the concept of top tier composers is not beyond your understanding, why would the mere mentioning of such a thing require me to write down a list. And in repeatedly demanding it, who do you think you are anyway? It's that sort of thing that makes me wonder why am I engaging with you in the first place. We have nothing further to discuss.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> DaveM - I'll tell you what, I'll post my list and the reason why I put the composer in the top tier, listed chronologically.
> 
> *Guillaume de Machaut*. Very influential poet/composer of the 14th century, credited with composing the first example of a complete setting of the mass text by a single composer. His complete works have survived in five manuscript collections easiiy making him the composer with the most music to have survived.
> 
> *Josquin*. Also very influential composer of the Renaissance period, his works appear in many collections usually interpreted as a composer widely admired. His name appears in treatises both during and after his lifetime, and a number of composers cite him as their "master."
> 
> *Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina*. His works are widely seen as the apogee of 16th century counterpoint. His 104 mass settings have a uniform excellence, so much so, that his practice was considered "perfect" and the basic rules of counterpoint were developed from a analysis of his works. When one speaks of the High Renaissance, Palestrina's name is usually the first to be mentioned.
> 
> *J.S. Bach*. Who I consider the greatest composer of the Baroque period, his contrapuntal methodology has been codified into treatises used as pedagogical studies and taught in most music conservatories. His keyboard, organ, and sacred choral music has entered the standard repertory like no other composer, and often cited as a candidate for the greatest composer of all.
> 
> *Joseph Haydn*. Credited with single-handedly setting the standard for the Classical Period symphony, string quartet and piano trio. He was admired by both Mozart and Beethoven. Beethoven wished to study with him, and may have had a few lessons, but Haydn suggested he find someone more dedicated to teaching him, which Beethoven did. Mozart dedicated a group of string quartets to Haydn as a form of homage. Haydn lived a long life, mostly in the service of a single aristocratic employer, and was distant from the main centers of musical activity. However, he still managed to be widely known and respected all across Europe and England, where he was repeatedly invited for concert tours.
> 
> *Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart*. Master of most of the standard forms of composition for the Classical Period, he especially excelled in the concerto and opera. If you asked almost anyone to name a great classical composer, many if not most would name Mozart. He has entered the popular consciousness like no other composer, and is the epitome of the genius prodigy.
> 
> *Ludwig van Beethoven*. Need I say why?
> 
> *Johannes Brahms*. Often said to be the true descendant of Beethoven. Brahms was so critical of his work that he is reported to have burned more works than he left behind. His solo piano music, symphonies, and his late chamber music are some of the finest examples of those forms. He carried on a style of composition somewhat conservative for the Romantic period; he steadfastly held to the formal structures perfected by Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. But he also was deceptively innovative.
> 
> *Arnold Schoenberg*. Some call him the last Romantic, others the first Modern composer. He certainly straddled those two major periods of musical composition as a giant. His 12-tone method was a major innovation for the 20th century and influenced countless later composers.
> 
> *Igor Stravinsky*. Another major 20th century composer, whose music is some of the most creative and innovative for several different "schools." His three early ballets were extremely impactful; during his mid-career Neoclassicism, and then his late career version of Serialism, he produced masterpieces in every style he worked.
> 
> That is my list of ten top tier composers and why I think they belong there.


Great job, SanAntone. That is the 9th best top ten composer list ever posted on TC.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Presumably, the people who write encyclopedia content are highly educated on the subjects. For you to diminish them is convenient for you when you don't agree with them and, when, to do otherwise might indicate that someone, somewhere, may know more about a subject than you do.


Ditto for you. I don't need to rely on encyclopedias though. My case is straightforward, simple, and correct



> *DaveM:*"If the fact that you have 'witnesses and testimony' (you've been watching too much TV) on TC is significant so is the fact that I do also, in addition to a poll. As for the 'thousands of years of understanding about esthetic choice': You've just dismissed anything in an encyclopedia as opinion. What allows you to say that what may have been written in the distant past is fact? Your experts state facts and mine state opinions? Not to mention that using millennia in any context here is desperation in the extreme."


See my reply above and in previous post.



> *DaveM:*"Dream along."


I think I've touched a sore tooth.



> *DaveM:*"This has nothing to do with your choices or mine".


I'm sure that there is no implication here that your love of music is greater than mine.


----------



## RogerWaters

DaveM said:


> Suggesting that I am referring to an exactly ordered list is ridiculous. Allowing for elements of objectivity means that in any poll of our top composers, often the same composers will appear over and over again often in somewhat different order because, as I have said more than once, in these decisions subjectivity intrudes everywhere.
> 
> You didn't answer my questions. I guess the whole concept of top tier composers is beyond your understanding.


There may be a (loose) list of top tier composers, among classical music fans.

Why those who have thought about the matter and reject classical music have any objective reason (i.e. beyond your personal hopes and wishes about the dominance of classical music) to care about these composers, has not been established.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Strange Magic said:


> I guess that was the only path for Mahler at that moment. Any other paths would have led to mediocracy. All art is thus inexorably moving forward with wheels of steel on rails of steel.


That's right, in spite of your sarcasm. "All that is not perfect down to the smallest detail is doomed to perish."


----------



## Strange Magic

Isaac Blackburn said:


> That's right, in spite of your sarcasm. "All that is not perfect down to the smallest detail is doomed to perish."


Good to know. What follows then, relentlessly, is that all existing art is "perfect down to the smallest detail". I was not aware of this. This is not just objectivism, it is revelation, epiphany. Roll over Plato, and tell Tchaikovsky the news.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Ditto for you. I don't need to rely on encyclopedias though. My case is straightforward, simple, and correct


I can see you've never been in a debate before. Since you've already talked about witnesses and testimony, I can only imagine what kind of a lawyer you would be. The judge says, 'Mr. Magic, you may present your case.' Mr. Magic says, 'My case is straightforward, simple, and correct. I need no corroborating opinion. I rest my case.' 'But Mr. Magic', says the judge, 'You need some kind of evidence.' Mr. Magic responds, ' It's all argumentum ad popularum. Besides I have thousands of years of something or other supporting me.' The judge says, 'Sit down Mr. Magic. You're not making any sense.'


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Strange Magic said:


> Good to know. What follows then, relentlessly, is that all existing art is "perfect down to the smallest detail". I was not aware of this. This is not just objectivism, it is revelation, epiphany. Roll over Plato, and tell Tchaikovsky the news.


This is an aside from the point I made earlier, but yes, much great art is in fact perfect, perfect in its presentation of an organic idea. Brahms and Mahler were able to understand the entire structure of their compositions in an almost bodily sense, which helped them attend to the smallest imperfections- whether those be notes that cloud the idea or turns of phrase that weaken the flow of forces.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> I can see you've never been in a debate before. Since you've already talked about witnesses and testimony, I can only imagine what kind of a lawyer you would be. The judge says, 'Mr. Magic, you may present your case.' Mr. Magic says, 'My case is straightforward, simple, and correct. I need no corroborating opinion. I rest my case.' 'But Mr. Magic', says the judge, 'You need some kind of evidence.' Mr. Magic responds, ' It's all argumentum ad popularum. Besides I have thousands of years of something or other supporting me.' The judge says, 'Sit down Mr. Magic. You're not making any sense.'


Argumentum ad popularum. That's at the heart of the consensus argument that excellence inheres within art objects: 'We all say so, so it must be true." Not an atom, not a quark of evidence that this is true does not dissuade the Believers. I think I'll stick with my side of the debate. We miss your debating skills in the Groups where some of us have been tussling almost daily with a small horde of polemicists on politics and religion who have come and quietly gone over the years.

Again, I counsel you to attempt to focus on evidence that your view is right and/or that ours is wrong. You continually revert back to process complaints rather than dealing with substance.

My advice will be ignored.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> DaveM - I'll tell you what, I'll post my list and the reason why I put the composer in the top tier, listed chronologically.
> 
> *Guillaume de Machaut*. Very influential poet/composer of the 14th century, credited with composing the first example of a complete setting of the mass text by a single composer. His complete works have survived in five manuscript collections easiiy making him the composer with the most music to have survived.
> 
> *Josquin*. Also very influential composer of the Renaissance period, his works appear in many collections usually interpreted as a composer widely admired. His name appears in treatises both during and after his lifetime, and a number of composers cite him as their "master."
> 
> *Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina*. His works are widely seen as the apogee of 16th century counterpoint. His 104 mass settings have a uniform excellence, so much so, that his practice was considered "perfect" and the basic rules of counterpoint were developed from a analysis of his works. When one speaks of the High Renaissance, Palestrina's name is usually the first to be mentioned.
> 
> *J.S. Bach*. Who I consider the greatest composer of the Baroque period, his contrapuntal methodology has been codified into treatises used as pedagogical studies and taught in most music conservatories. His keyboard, organ, and sacred choral music has entered the standard repertory like no other composer, and often cited as a candidate for the greatest composer of all.
> 
> *Joseph Haydn*. Credited with single-handedly setting the standard for the Classical Period symphony, string quartet and piano trio. He was admired by both Mozart and Beethoven. Beethoven wished to study with him, and may have had a few lessons, but Haydn suggested he find someone more dedicated to teaching him, which Beethoven did. Mozart dedicated a group of string quartets to Haydn as a form of homage. Haydn lived a long life, mostly in the service of a single aristocratic employer, and was distant from the main centers of musical activity. However, he still managed to be widely known and respected all across Europe and England, where he was repeatedly invited for concert tours.
> 
> *Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart*. Master of most of the standard forms of composition for the Classical Period, he especially excelled in the concerto and opera. If you asked almost anyone to name a great classical composer, many if not most would name Mozart. He has entered the popular consciousness like no other composer, and is the epitome of the genius prodigy.
> 
> *Ludwig van Beethoven*. Need I say why?
> 
> *Johannes Brahms*. Often said to be the true descendant of Beethoven. Brahms was so critical of his work that he is reported to have burned more works than he left behind. His solo piano music, symphonies, and his late chamber music are some of the finest examples of those forms. He carried on a style of composition somewhat conservative for the Romantic period; he steadfastly held to the formal structures perfected by Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. But he also was deceptively innovative.
> 
> *Arnold Schoenberg*. Some call him the last Romantic, others the first Modern composer. He certainly straddled those two major periods of musical composition as a giant. His 12-tone method was a major innovation for the 20th century and influenced countless later composers.
> 
> *Igor Stravinsky*. Another major 20th century composer, whose music is some of the most creative and innovative for several different "schools." His three early ballets were extremely impactful; during his mid-career Neoclassicism, and then his late career version of Serialism, he produced masterpieces in every style he worked.
> 
> That is my list of ten top tier composers and why I think they belong there.


I didn't see your post while posting my last post. I respect that you took the time. I note that you list them as 'ten top tier composers' and not _the_ top ten which is in keeping with what I was talking about: top tier, not _the_ top tier. You have presented some *credible objective evidence *for these being 'top tier', but subjectivity means other lists will be different while still including some of the same composers. One problem is that I specifically refer to the CPT era when discussing this subject which doesn't include 2 or 3 of your composers.

It occurs to me that one thing that likely distinguishes top tier composers is that they are, in some way, iconic. They have, among other things, accomplished something original and/or have in some way stimulated composers that followed. You appear to make a case for that with your choices. I would submit that that is part of objective information that I believe is part of this process.

What I can't understand is why you jumped on my use of the term, top tier composers, in the first place. I never even insinuated it was some fixed 100% objective list. I have never discussed this subject like that.

When I get time, I'll post my list.


----------



## Strange Magic

Isaac Blackburn said:


> It certainly applies of the greatest art. Brahms and Mahler were able to understand the entire structure of their compositions in an almost bodily sense, which helped them attend to the smallest imperfections- whether those be notes that cloud the idea or turns of phrase that weaken the flow of forces.
> 
> Most created artworks do not skillfully explore the properties of their material. That is in large part why those works are not considered as good.


Are you withdrawing your quote? Or offering it now with provisos and exceptions and conditions. I admire your mind-meld with Brahms and Mahler, and wish I knew them as well.


----------



## ArtMusic

RogerWaters said:


> There may be a (loose) list of top tier composers, among classical music fans.
> 
> Why those who have thought about the matter and reject classical music have any objective reason (i.e. beyond your personal hopes and wishes about the dominance of classical music) to care about these composers, has not been established.


Because not every note written down on music sheets and performed is necessarily classical music, unless of course you subscribe to postmodernism of the 1950's where anyone can be an artist and anything can be art when declared so by anyone. Here lies the fundamental problem with individualism and arbitrariness.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Strange Magic said:


> Are you withdrawing your quote? Or offering it now with provisos and exceptions and conditions. I admire your mind-meld with Brahms and Mahler, and wish I knew them as well.


The purpose of the quote was to show Mahler's relentless desire for perfection -that "one path" forward that you spoke of. There are better and worse paths, and it is often the emotional, structural, and narrative properties of the material that determine the success of these paths.


----------



## Strange Magic

Isaac Blackburn said:


> The purpose of the quote was to show Mahler's relentless desire for perfection -that "one path" forward that you spoke of. There are better and worse paths, determined by the composer's material and overarching idea, and the masters knew this.


With all that labor toward perfection so evident to the lynx-eyed observer, or to anybody, really, perfection being what it is, we expect near-universal acclaim for a whole bunch of composers and works based on something other than a mere consensus. Yet we find debate, argumentation, votes, polls. Go figure.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

I don't disagree that there is disagreement. Even if artistic quality was a rigidly quantifiable property, there would still be disagreement; people would have varying degrees of knowledge concerning the artworks in question. However, _quality_ cannot be _quantified_, much less the quality of_ art,_ which reflects the subjectivity of the experienced world.

Nonetheless, its presence can be shown- with reference to the score, that is, objectively. There's no real separation between "objective" qualities such as harmonic shape and "subjective" qualities such as emotion and even quality. The more subjective qualities are messier to talk about, but just as present in the artwork, for the art is just as much a communication of an experience as it is a series of notes.

I posted an example in a previous post:


Isaac Blackburn said:


> I think you'll find it hard to maintain such a separation between objective and subjective. Look at the first motive of the Scherzo of Mahler's Fifth. Its very shape shows it to be the embodiment of a leaping strength. It is neither somber nor tearful. Mahler knows this, which is why the working-out of this motive creates a Scherzo of that bounding nature. He could have tried to create a sadder movement using that same motive, but he would have been going against properties inherent in his material.


----------



## mmsbls

I think many here, including some participants, are rather surprised that this discussion has continued for so long. I have stated that I think the two sides actually agree on most if not all arguments but seem to be arguing past one another. In other words they are not arguing against the other sides actual argument. 

I think everyone on TC would agree that a top 10 list of composers would be subjective. There may be significant overlap, but lists would differ and sometimes include no common names. Further lists of "great" composers would differ due to subjective views. Again, lists may have significant overlap, but people would draw the line between great and not great in varying ways. So I believe everyone would agree with those arguing for subjectivity of greatness. 

I also think that those arguing for subjectivity actually agree that knowledgeable people could create reasoned arguments based on objective criteria (and some subjective ones) leading to the conclusion that particular composers can be placed in a high tier. Those composers are special in some way such that they are better choices for music history classes than a randomly selected composer. By random, I don't mean Holst, Albinoni, or Salieri. All of those composers are exceptional. I mean composers chosen at random from Naxos's list of all composers. Such a selection would likely lead 99% of TC members to choose composers they have never heard of. Yes, there is some subjectivity in selecting great, top tier, or top 10 composers, but there are clearly generally agreed upon criteria that people can use to roughly order composers into those worthy of music history class study and those less worthy.

In short whether Mozart is the best composer is a subjective choice, but there would be little argument over whether Mozart's music should be selected over my music for a music history class.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> What I can't understand is why you jumped on my use of the term, top tier composers, in the first place. I never even insinuated it was some fixed 100% objective list. I have never discussed this subject like that.


As I said in an earlier post, this thread, has as well as several others have been all about whether music can be objectively assessed for quality, or is it a subjective process. By asking for your top tier list, I was sure I could demonstrate that our lists would be different and as you have admitted there is a subjective aspect to creating these lists.

I have maintained throughout these discussions that I believe that those of you on the "objectivist" side were misusing the term "objective" since I maintain that questions which are truly answered using objective data do not have a range of correct responses.

You admit there is a subjective aspect, which is enough for me. I am confounded that it took this long for us to realize that we essentially agree, but we use different terminology to describe the same phenomenon.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> I can see you've never been in a debate before. Since you've already talked about witnesses and testimony, I can only imagine what kind of a lawyer you would be. The judge says, 'Mr. Magic, you may present your case.' Mr. Magic says, 'My case is straightforward, simple, and correct. I need no corroborating opinion. I rest my case.' 'But Mr. Magic', says the judge, 'You need some kind of evidence.' Mr. Magic responds, ' It's all argumentum ad popularum. Besides I have thousands of years of something or other supporting me.' The judge says, 'Sit down Mr. Magic. You're not making any sense.'


As a lawyer myself, I have to point out that the burden of proof is not on Strange Magic, but on his opponents. When one contends there are objectively universal concepts that always hold under all conditions, one must prove their existence either empirically or by deductive logic. This is a difficult job in the case of taste, as by definition in the sense we are using it refers to individual preference. This means showing at minimum that every human being who has ever lived has identical taste in some way. Then, a work of art better tailored to that taste could objectively be said to be a better work of art in a meaningful sense.

That may seem possible, at least in theory. After all, there are many objective attributes that all humans share, being warm blooded, for example. However, a piece of music is a combination of such a multitude of sensual perceptions, and human perception is so dependent on and sensitive to so many physiological, psychological and environmental factors that vary so widely from one person to the next, that it would be a very tall order. Unsurprisingly, no such proof has ever been accomplished.

One method, advocated by many here, that I'll call the "statistical" method, would be to find a taste that is at least highly similar in a large number of individuals over a long period of time. Say, finding a Bach fugue to be elegant, ingenious, beautiful, and thus aesthetically pleasing. They could argue that this taste could develop in many more given an extended opportunity to hear this music, and perhaps education in what to listen for. The fact that many people still enjoy Bach's music 270 years after his death also could be used to buttress the argument. SanAntone and others have expressed this approach well.

I like the statistical method, as finding absolute, universal, objective truth is such a tough goal to reach empirically. In the end, one can only conclude that Bach's music is great in certain contexts, or among certain populations. Strange Magic isn't too impressed with that, but as we each perceive everything in the world in a unique context, having a specific taste in common with so many, over such a long period, even if the commonality is only approximate, I think is significant and important. And certainly, it is an objective fact. It just doesn't get us all the way there.

A second method I am much less impressed with, I'll call the authority method. Here, if we no longer see the Catholic Church or other religious institution or strong man rulers like Hitler, Stalin or Mao as a source of authority on aesthetic merit, we might look to "learned masters", an approach advocated here by ArtMusic and Zhdanov, and even Woodduck at times. I don't like this method because it involves an abandonment of empirical principles that I think have served humanity well. But I can see its appeal to those uncomfortable with the shortcomings of empiricism.

Those like Strange Magic who see no value in either approach need to be comfortable with their inability to validate their tastes, which he says he is. But if you forced him to carefully and honestly map out all his musical tastes, no doubt you could find patterns (he has admitted to some if you've been reading his posts carefully). Then you could argue that his preferences are neither random, nor entirely unique to him, and then show how they fit in many ways with the results implied by the statistical or authority methods. He would say that means nothing. You could argue it doesn't mean everything, but it does mean something significant. What exactly, it's hard to say.

So as my closing statement, I'd say in the end we have to choose an approach without being able to conclusively prove the superiority of that approach or the results it provides.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

fluteman said:


> Then, a work of art better tailored to that taste could objectively be said to be a better work of art in a meaningful sense.


This seems like the cause of the disagreement. I do not believe that better works are those which appeal more strongly to a broader work of tastes. I believe artistic quality exists_ before _taste, and strong/wide appeal to those with varied tastes is an indicator _of it_.

Good artworks are strong, meaningful, life-giving, and even transcendent. They tell us about the artistic material, and about the world and our existence within it. Whether or not someone has a "taste" for meaning, emotion, and strength in existence is not the problem of the artist.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman, as can be predicted, I love your post! The check is in the mail.  One thing I will cheerfully affirm is that I am solidly in the middle of many consensuses if that pleases or consoles anyone. I like Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and a whole bunch more composers and their works and regard some of those works as near-perfect. In fact, I'll give one example of a piece that doesn't have a wrong note in it: Ravel's _Concerto for the Left Hand_. That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it; it's a musical _stupor mundi_ if ever there was one. All kinds of patterns in my tastes; the key thing is that I remain completely at ease with my selections and, though I'll listen to or read critiques of my choices, and enjoy them (sometimes), I remain unmoved. Eclectic Al has brought forth his aversion to individuality perhaps unchained, but esthetics is where, if anywhere, one should feel free to follow one's bliss.


----------



## ArtMusic

fluteman said:


> As a lawyer myself, ....


Are you giving a legal opinion here?

The problem with the arguments presented is that the real agenda is one of defending mediocre art. If you like something that someone has arbitrarily declared it is art, then that's good for you. If you subscribe to that postmodernism way of thinking from the 1950's then anything can be art, effectively there is no art; art is arbitrary. Much of modern art is exactly what arbitrary does to art. The complexity of good art is beyond the simplistic reductivism shown here along the lines of "show me a list of inherently good composers' music like 4 x 7 =28" or apply a "scientific" or a "legal" approach (first time I have come across this in this thread). Hundreds of years of fine development that took the best of westerns art masters for us to inherit isn't for you to pull down in a few sentences at an internet forum, scientifically or legally.


----------



## Strange Magic

Isaac Blackburn said:


> This seems like the cause of the disagreement. I do not believe that better works are those which appeal more strongly to a broader work of tastes. I believe artistic quality exists_ before _taste, and strong/wide appeal to those with varied tastes is an indicator _of it_.
> 
> Good artworks are strong, meaningful, life-giving, and even transcendent. They tell us about the artistic material, and about the world and our existence within it. Whether or not someone has a "taste" for meaning, emotion, and strength in existence is not the problem of the artist.


The first paragraph exhibits the proposition to be demonstrated--the existence of artistic quality _before_ taste. The consensus of those liking the work is alleged to constitute proof _ex post facto_ of what is a pure assertion, a belief.

The second paragraph I certainly agree with on an individual basis, with the possible exception of _life-giving_: Several of Goya's paintings will bring a chill to even the hardest of hearts. But I grant that some artists sometimes may not care about whether their works are to anyone's taste; Blake presents an interesting test case, though can we ever be sure. Mozart was pretty happy when people liked his stuff and often said so to his father, though he was a bit cocky about it.


----------



## Haydn70

SanAntone said:


> DaveM - I'll tell you what, I'll post my list and the reason why I put the composer in the top tier, listed chronologically.
> 
> *Guillaume de Machaut*. Very influential poet/composer of the 14th century, credited with composing the first example of a complete setting of the mass text by a single composer. His complete works have survived in five manuscript collections easiiy making him the composer with the most music to have survived.
> 
> *Josquin*. Also very influential composer of the Renaissance period, his works appear in many collections usually interpreted as a composer widely admired. His name appears in treatises both during and after his lifetime, and a number of composers cite him as their "master."
> 
> *Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina*. His works are widely seen as the apogee of 16th century counterpoint. His 104 mass settings have a uniform excellence, so much so, that his practice was considered "perfect" and the basic rules of counterpoint were developed from a analysis of his works. When one speaks of the High Renaissance, Palestrina's name is usually the first to be mentioned.
> 
> *J.S. Bach*. Who I consider the greatest composer of the Baroque period, his contrapuntal methodology has been codified into treatises used as pedagogical studies and taught in most music conservatories. His keyboard, organ, and sacred choral music has entered the standard repertory like no other composer, and often cited as a candidate for the greatest composer of all.
> 
> *Joseph Haydn*. Credited with single-handedly setting the standard for the Classical Period symphony, string quartet and piano trio. He was admired by both Mozart and Beethoven. Beethoven wished to study with him, and may have had a few lessons, but Haydn suggested he find someone more dedicated to teaching him, which Beethoven did. Mozart dedicated a group of string quartets to Haydn as a form of homage. Haydn lived a long life, mostly in the service of a single aristocratic employer, and was distant from the main centers of musical activity. However, he still managed to be widely known and respected all across Europe and England, where he was repeatedly invited for concert tours.
> 
> *Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart*. Master of most of the standard forms of composition for the Classical Period, he especially excelled in the concerto and opera. If you asked almost anyone to name a great classical composer, many if not most would name Mozart. He has entered the popular consciousness like no other composer, and is the epitome of the genius prodigy.
> 
> *Ludwig van Beethoven*. Need I say why?
> 
> *Johannes Brahms*. Often said to be the true descendant of Beethoven. Brahms was so critical of his work that he is reported to have burned more works than he left behind. His solo piano music, symphonies, and his late chamber music are some of the finest examples of those forms. He carried on a style of composition somewhat conservative for the Romantic period; he steadfastly held to the formal structures perfected by Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. But he also was deceptively innovative.
> 
> *Arnold Schoenberg*. Some call him the last Romantic, others the first Modern composer. He certainly straddled those two major periods of musical composition as a giant. His 12-tone method was a major innovation for the 20th century and influenced countless later composers.
> 
> *Igor Stravinsky*. Another major 20th century composer, whose music is some of the most creative and innovative for several different "schools." His three early ballets were extremely impactful; during his mid-career Neoclassicism, and then his late career version of Serialism, he produced masterpieces in every style he worked.
> 
> That is my list of ten top tier composers and why I think they belong there.


An excellent list...bravo SanAntone! (I especially like your comments re: Haydn...but I appreciate your comments on all the composers.)


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> Here is what you said, in post no. 1078:
> 
> My response was that you can't learn to analyze people's sensory and thought processes at a conservatory. A conservatory is for storing and preserving artistic traditions, not empirical analysis, which is the domain of science. You seem not to understand or remember your own question. But that's OK, I can move on.


It was a joke, fluteman! You said:

_"if one wanted to scientifically analyze *the reasons or causes for artistic success*, one would have to observe and analyze the perception and sensory processes of the audience members, *not the art itself.*"_ (emphasis mine)

And then:

_"one can never tell anyone what good art is[...] One can *only* observe what art people actually like and try to analyze their sensory and thought processes to find out why." _(emphasis mine)

I thought that a request for the name of a conservatory where one can learn to analyze people's sensory and thought processes was a fairly witty send-up. A few other people evidently thought so too.

If I need to spell it out deadpan: studying ONLY the human brain will not tell you why Bach is honored around the world after three centuries. That is best understood by studying the art itself, after which neurologists may be able (eventually) to say something to warm the hearts of those who would subordinate and discredit their intuition in deference to the need for scientific "proof." Some people will never understand Bach's music, but others will get it very quickly, as I and millions of others have done. Using the incomprehension of the former as a basis for assessing the quality of art - how do your "Outer Mongolians" get to vote on Bach's genius? - is one of the things I find bizarre about this discussion. Am I qualified to judge the level of artistry in Indian sitar players? Not nearly as qualified as they are to judge themselves, and they don't need to take my feelings into account. But can I perceive that they have a remarkable and powerful artistic tradition, and can I improve my level of discrimination by exposing myself to their music, learning what to listen for, and possibly taking up a native instrument? Most certainly. It's done all the time by those with a genuine interest.

I didn't need electrodes placed on my cranium - or a conservatory, for that matter - to recognize, at an early age, the magnificence of Bach, and it took very little contact with Indian music for me to recognize its artistic richness and the brilliance of its practitioners. The fact that not everyone will have these perceptions means nothing. The fact that many people from many cultures _will_ have them is what matters, and it's there that we'll find an important clue to the nature and power of art. _Chacun a son gout_ is a fine prescription for interpersonal behavior, but for understanding anything about Bach or Ali Akbar Khan it's a nonstarter.


----------



## Strange Magic

ArtMusic said:


> Are you giving a legal opinion here?
> 
> The problem with the arguments presented is that the real agenda is one of defending mediocre art. If you like something that someone has arbitrarily declared it is art, then that's good for you. If you subscribe to that postmodernism way of thinking from the 1950's then anything can be art, effectively there is no art; art is arbitrary. Much of modern art is exactly what arbitrary does to art. The complexity of good art is beyond the simplistic reductivism shown here along the lines of "show me a list of inherently good composers' music like 4 x 7 =28" or apply a "scientific" or a "legal" approach (first time I have come across this in this thread). Hundreds of years of fine development that took the best of westerns art masters for us to inherit isn't for you to pull down in a few sentences at an internet forum, scientifically or legally.


I see we return to the "no art" mantra. I hate mediocre art myself, even if executed with great skill. And is good art necessarily complex? Like skill, complexity is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for great art. I share your lack of enthusiasm for much contemporary art and music, but that's just me. Some people love it. Opinions.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Strange Magic said:


> The first paragraph exhibits the proposition to be demonstrated--the existence of artistic quality _before_ taste. The consensus of those liking the work is alleged to constitute proof _ex post facto_ of what is a pure assertion, a belief.


It may be that a work of art that appeals to more people does so because it says something deeper and more universal about existence. But it may also be that it is simply easier to understand. Thus tastes must be understood as something separate from deeper knowledge of the properties of the artwork itself.

Four years ago I believed Brahms was feeble in expression. My tastes were different back then, but that is a polite way of saying I was wrong. My tastes of today match closer with the true artistic quality of Brahms' works, and that we can judge tastes so, indicates again the separation between tastes and quality and the existence of a realm of quality "beneath" taste.

I wonder if I am not consistently talking past you, because your position seems to me very extreme. Do you believe that we cannot make statements such as "Brahms is expressive?" If one can make those statements then one is already in the realm of experience and emotional properties and halfway to overall quality.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Woodduck:* "I didn't need electrodes placed on my cranium - or a conservatory, for that matter - to recognize, at an early age, the magnificence of Bach, and it took very little contact with Indian music for me to recognize its artistic richness and the brilliance of its practitioners. The fact that not everyone will have these perceptions means nothing. The fact that many people from many cultures will have them is what matters, and it's there that we should begin if we want to understand the nature and power of art."


This is a strong argument for something that has already been agreed upon by all: that consensuses (plural) exist throughout the entire spectrum of human arts--there are clusters of enthusiasts for any and every form of artistic expression; every sort of art object. But I'm not sure that "not everyone will have these perceptions means nothing", if one imbues the art itself with inherent properties of magnificence. The assertion will be that, if some see it (the consensus), it is surely there. The fact that many people from many cultures have such perceptions is, in fact, the consensus, a summed opinion of individual but not universal opinions (I exclude those who have never experienced the piece).


----------



## Strange Magic

Isaac Blackburn said:


> It may be that a work of art that appeals to more people does so because it says something deeper and more universal about existence. But it may also be that it is simply easier to understand. Thus tastes must be understood as something separate from deeper knowledge of the properties of the artwork itself.
> 
> Four years ago I believed Brahms was feeble in expression. My tastes were different back then, but that is a polite way of saying I was wrong. My tastes of today match closer with the true artistic quality of Brahms' works, and that we can judge tastes so, indicates again the separation between tastes and quality and the existence of a realm of quality "beneath" taste.


What I find to be true is the retroactive assigning of virtues of all sorts to pieces of music we like, after the liking process has begun. "I know what I like, and I like what I know" goes the song. As a Brahms enthusiast myself, I celebrate your discovery with repeated hearing of what I consider his formidable gifts.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Strange Magic said:


> What I find to be true is the retroactive assigning of virtues of all sorts to pieces of music we like, after the liking process has begun. "I know what I like, and I like what I know" goes the song. As a Brahms enthusiast myself, I celebrate your discovery with repeated hearing of what I consider his formidable gifts.


I wonder if I am not consistently talking past you, because your position seems to me very extreme. Do you believe that we cannot make statements such as "Brahms is expressive?" If one _can_ make those statements then one is already in the realm of experience and emotional properties and halfway to overall quality.

If, on the other hand, you don't think we can make those statements (we might have an alien species which hears frequencies significantly distorted), then I think you misunderstand the nature and purpose of art. Such an alien species would simply be unable to understand Brahms, and therefore ineligible to make pronouncements on his music.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> This is a strong argument for something that has already been agreed upon by all: that consensuses (plural) exist throughout the entire spectrum of human arts--there are clusters of enthusiasts for any and every form of artistic expression; every sort of art object. But I'm not sure that "not everyone will have these perceptions means nothing", if one imbues the art itself with inherent properties of magnificence. The assertion will be that, if some see it (the consensus), it is surely there. The fact that many people from many cultures have such perceptions is, in fact, the consensus, a summed opinion of individual but not universal opinions (I exclude those who have never experienced the piece).


You must recognize the trickiness of phrases such as "if one imbues the art itself with inherent properties of magnificence." And there is no implication that "if some see [a thing], it is surely there [where?]" We're talking about art, not Richard Nixon's face in an eggplant. I counter with the assertion that from the fact that some don't see the excellence of Bach or Ali Akbar Khan we can conclude nothing about the excellence of Bach or Ali Akbar Khan. The only useful path for these folks, if they care at all, is, first, to listen to Bach, Khan and a wide range of other music with open minds and hearts, and, second, to probe the minds of others farther along on the path. But, of course, _chacun a son gout._

Nothing else I feel like responding to. I only wrote the above post to clear up fluteman's misconstrual of my witticism (which I still think is funny, "consensus" notwithstanding).


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Again, I counsel you to attempt to focus on evidence that your view is right and/or that ours is wrong. You continually revert back to process complaints rather than dealing with substance.
> 
> My advice will be ignored.


One of the fascinating things about your posting style is that you criticize others for the very things that is typical of your posts. Your posts are rampant with put-downs of posts where someone has made a good-faith effort to respond to you: 'How many thousands of times do I have to say..' and so on and yet you point the finger at me about 'process complaints'.

And for you, after all this time, to insinuate that I haven't posted with substance is disingenuous barring on dishonesty. I am not about to spend much or any time responding to you because your responses are always the same with absolutely no give. The fact that I make statements such as 'In these discussions, subjectivity intrudes everywhere' is a sign of flexibility. Your position is inflexible. You should know that inflexible positions on the far extremes don't lend themselves to productive discussion. You tell me what benefit I might get engaging with you when you pride yourself on being inflexible. You wear it like a badge of honor.

So don't lecture me about 'focusing on evidence' when you provide nothing on your part except something about witnesses here and thousands of years of such and such. And that coming from someone who touts 'argumentum ad popularlum' at every opportunity.


----------



## Strange Magic

Isaac Blackburn said:


> I wonder if I am not consistently talking past you, because your position seems to me very extreme. Do you believe that we cannot make statements such as "Brahms is expressive?" If one can make those statements then one is already in the realm of experience and emotional properties and halfway to overall quality.
> 
> If, on the other hand, you don't think we can make those statements (we might have an alien species which hears frequencies significantly distorted), then I think you misunderstand the nature and purpose of art. Such an alien species would simply be unable to understand Brahms, and therefore ineligible to make pronouncements on his music.


My position is extreme; everyone tells me so. But we can surely say "Brahms is expressive", but surely every composer is expressive--not sure what we gain here. I'm all for experience, emotional properties and am all the way to overall quality as an expression of one's individual assessment--the personal, subjective, and idiosyncratic perception that one brings to an art object.

I sense you are coming late to this Methuselah of threads--the questions of aliens, octopuses, etc. and whether Bach means anything to them either because they have no ears or strange minds has been exhaustively discussed by others (not me; I avoided those post like the plague). And I've made the outlines of my case many times in many threads many days ago. But let me direct you to two posts:#1131 and #1137 are somewhat recent restatements of my endlessly restated total subjectivist position on esthetics. We can go back to Post #154, #363, more. The truth is that my position on art appreciation is a simple one, and hence I essentially repeat it, or am compelled to repeat it over and over, as it is routinely misunderstood.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> One of the fascinating things about your posting style is that you criticize others for the very things that is typical of your posts. Your posts are rampant with put-downs of posts where someone has made a good-faith effort to respond to you: 'How many thousands of times do I have to say..' and so on and yet you point the finger at me about 'process complaints'.
> 
> And for you, after all this time, to insinuate that I haven't posted with substance is disingenuous barring on dishonesty. I am not about to spend much or any time responding to you because your responses are always the same with absolutely no give. The fact that I make statements such as 'In these discussions, subjectivity intrudes everywhere' is a sign of flexibility. Your position is inflexible. You should know that inflexible positions on the far extremes don't lend themselves to productive discussion. You tell me what benefit I might get engaging with you when you pride yourself on being inflexible. You wear it like a badge of honor.
> 
> So don't lecture me about 'focusing on evidence' when you provide nothing on your part except something about witnesses here and thousands of years of such and such. And that coming from someone who touts 'argumentum ad popularlum' at every opportunity.


I give up. No, not my position; it is inflexible. But you have decided that I have to meet you somewhere halfway and if I don't I'm a Bad Person. That's fine in politics and practical governance, but this is both way less important and yet more a situation where my understanding of the principal arguments and my experience of both myself and my approach to art, the experience of vast numbers of people over thousands of years, and human nature, tell me what is the correct view. And I stick with it, because I think it reflects reality.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> As a lawyer myself, I have to point out that the burden of proof is not on Strange Magic, but on his opponents. When one contends there are objectively universal concepts that always hold under all conditions, one must prove their existence either empirically or by deductive logic. This is a difficult job in the case of taste, as by definition in the sense we are using it refers to individual preference. This means showing at minimum that every human being who has ever lived has identical taste in some way. Then, a work of art better tailored to that taste could objectively be said to be a better work of art in a meaningful sense.


Being a lawyer doesn't make you a good judge and there is nothing other than your biased say-so that puts the burden of proof on SM's opponents. Since when? He can't put out the same argument over and over and not be held to the same level of proving his position as he demands of others.

Do you really put the following at the level of useful evidence and/or legitimate argument that I'm supposed to respond to at the level you infer in the rest of your post?: _ 'In a case like this, I have witnesses and testimony both here on TC and thousands of years of understanding that opinion is at the heart of esthetic choice...I don't need to rely on encyclopedias though. My case is straightforward, simple, and correct.'_

What kind of court are you running here?

(Btw, I'm not a lawyer, but I've testified in depositions and trials as an expert witness so unless you are a trial lawyer, I may have seen more courtrooms than you.)


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Strange Magic said:


> My position is extreme; everyone tells me so. But we can surely say "Brahms is expressive", but surely every composer is expressive--not sure what we gain here. I'm all for experience, emotional properties and am all the way to overall quality as an expression of one's individual assessment--the personal, subjective, and idiosyncratic perception that one brings to an art object.


Well, I don't think you _can_ surely say Brahms is expressive.



Strange Magic said:


> But let me direct you to two posts:#1131 and #1137 are somewhat recent restatements of my endlessly restated total subjectivist position on esthetics. We can go back to Post #154, #363, more. The truth is that my position on art appreciation is a simple one, and hence I essentially repeat it, or am compelled to repeat it over and over, as it is routinely misunderstood.


I have read those posts. I believe your position is not a _position on aesthetics _at all. It is merely an _observation_: that certain groups of people have liked certain music, and that others do not, and that the first group argues for its quality, and so on. This observation, properly understood, doesn't entail _anything_ beyond itself- for example, it does not entail that any two groups of people are equally right in their preferences.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> ...but this is both way less important and yet more a situation where my understanding of the principal arguments and my experience of both myself and my approach to art, *the experience of vast numbers of people over thousands of years, and human nature,:tell me what is the correct view.* And I stick with it, because I think it reflects reality.


Against my better sense, I can't help but ask: Given that you have frequently raised 'argumentum ad popularlum' as a dismissal whenever one has used what experts, musicologists, listeners in the CM community have said as support, how do you square away your highlighted statement as not rank hypocrisy? Presumably, your point of view is that 'the experience of vast numbers of people' over two hundred years when it comes to judgments using some objectivity regarding composers can be dismissed, but your view being (allegedly) supported by the view of 'vast numbers' over millennia is somehow more significant.

Is there some point in the passage of time that a viewpoint becomes more significant? And btw, in order for you to be hitching your star on the experience of vast numbers of people over thousands of years, there must be something significantly objective about that experience otherwise it's just a bunch of subjective opinions. Or does depending on some kind of truth based on the subjective experience of vast numbers of people over thousands of years now rise to the level of proof of your position? If so, you are talking about proof based on a whole lot of subjectivity over a whole lot of time. Hmm.


----------



## ArtMusic

Strange Magic said:


> I see we return to the "no art" mantra. I hate mediocre art myself, even if executed with great skill. And is good art necessarily complex? Like skill, complexity is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for great art. I share your lack of enthusiasm for much contemporary art and music, but that's just me. Some people love it. Opinions.


Again, reducing the criteria for good art down to simplistic reductivism. It's no wonder why any artist today can produce any art they like and have it adorned by polite critique of no substance.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> Concerning non-western classical music, this is a good book for the uninformed:
> 
> *The Other Classical Musics: Fifteen Great Traditions*
> 
> View attachment 153920


Thanks for the recommendation! I was able to find the chapter on Iran posted online (legitimately) by the author. I read it, and I'm afraid it only confirmed my viewpoints. Before the introduction of Western music theory to Iran, there were appeared to be no musical schools and music was largely about poetry with an emphasis on improvisation. This is much more reminiscent of European folk music traditions than the European classical music tradition which was my point all along.

I wish to clarify, again, that I'm not attempting to say that Iranian or any traditional music, is bad, but wish to highlight how truly unique the European classical music tradition is in world history.


----------



## RogerWaters

ArtMusic said:


> Again, reducing the criteria for good art down to simplistic reductivism. It's no wonder why any artist today can produce any art they like and have it adorned by polite critique of no substance.


This is not a good argument. It goes in the wrong direction. Just because you might not like the consequences of a truth doesn't make it less true.

Imagine taking this approach to some other judgement: "NO, by jove, the earth does NOT revolve around the sun, for then all those _atheists_ would be jumping for joy!"

You seem more interested in political critique than in the question at hand - whether musical judgements are or are not objective.


----------



## Ethereality

I tend to agree with much of what the plaintiff says, a firm ethic, but in the end, they're missing the punchline.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> fluteman, as can be predicted, I love your post! The check is in the mail.  One thing I will cheerfully affirm is that I am solidly in the middle of many consensuses if that pleases or consoles anyone. I like Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and a whole bunch more composers and their works and *regard some of those works as near-perfect. * *In fact, I'll give one example of a piece that doesn't have a wrong note in it*: Ravel's _Concerto for the Left Hand_. That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it; it's a musical _stupor mundi_ if ever there was one. All kinds of patterns in my tastes; the key thing is that I remain completely at ease with my selections and, though I'll listen to or read critiques of my choices, and enjoy them (sometimes), I remain unmoved. Eclectic Al has brought forth his aversion to individuality perhaps unchained, but *esthetics is where, if anywhere, one should feel free to follow one's bliss.*


Your "bliss" is certainly unassailable, but it isn't inexplicable. It isn't mere taste - or bliss - that leads you, or anyone, to think that a musical work "doesn't have a wrong note in it." That's precisely what a composer hopes to achieve; he needs first to see that he's achieved it, and then he hopes that others will see it. That perception of rightness - fitness, aptness, cohesion, consistency of purpose - is not generated equally by all music, not even by many a work otherwise remarkable or celebrated, and non-artists are apt to underestimate it, if they estimate it at all, as a key to a work's capacity to generate pleasure. In the context of the stylistic parameters and expressive goals chosen and established by the composer - things which it's his job to lay out in the course of the work - his choices will reveal themselves as right or wrong, better or worse. They can either reinforce the nature and point of the work, or they can undermine it.

The capacity to perceive coherence in art is, my experience as an artist and lover of art suggests irresistibly to me, innate in human beings. The perception of coherence, and the need and desire for it, is a fundamental attribute of mental functioning _as such,_ from the simplest object-perception to the most complex conceptual thought. That it should be basic in aesthetic perception, and therefore in artistic creation and enjoyment, should not be surprising. But our ability to "make sense" of a particular work or style of art - to feel that the artist's choices are good ones - is not a given and is affected by many factors. Coherence exists on different levels in different works and styles, and the balance between such contributing factors as complexity, variety, unity, predictability and surprise may vary enormously depending on the work's underlying concept. Given those things, the temptation may be to conclude, as you have, that "all aesthetics is subjective." This view fails to distinguish between the complex mental operations involved in perception and conceptualization and the raw sensations experienced (presumably) by an unborn human or an earthworm. The mind does not need to make sense of a sip of wine or a morsel of cheese, but it works in complex ways we don't, needn't, and perhaps generally shouldn't, notice as we digest a work of art. What makes art digestible and produces "bliss," in individuals and in masses of humanity, is not arbitrary or a mere accident of culture. Ask yourself why most music in the world is, in the broad sense of the term, tonal - possessing a tonal center and a hierarchy of pitches inherent in its structure and imparting coherence. Then consider that hierarchy is a basic structural principle in nature, including - once again - the functions of perception and conceptual thought.

As above, so below. Music couldn't have the power to move and delight us as it does - to penetrate so deeply into states of feeling and find places in us we hardly knew we had until some composer led us to them - if it didn't represent fundamental patterns of being and life. If a conversation about aesthetics doesn't grow from some sense of that, I can't see what value there might be in it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> DaveM - I'll tell you what, I'll post my list and the reason why I put the composer in the top tier, listed chronologically.
> *Joseph Haydn*. Credited with single-handedly setting the standard for the Classical Period symphony, string quartet and piano trio.


Seriously, have a look at these:

Antonio Caldara and the Baroque Sinfonia



hammeredklavier said:


> Btw, a lot of the exaggerated claims about Joseph Haydn being the "father of the string quartet" were originally made by Donald Francis Tovey (1875~1940). During his time, Neoclassicism, a reaction movement against the "excesses of late Romanticism", was gaining ground and the music of Joseph Haydn was being promoted more than ever before. Tovey also claimed that Beethoven's missa solemnis derives from pre-common practice music in a way that was never done in the 18th century, and I doubt how much of Michael Haydn he knew in both of these cases. Sort of like Bach, Michael was "stuck in the church", and he didn't want his music printed, so his fame died rapidly in the 19th century.
> Joseph Haydn wasn't even the first guy to utilize the ensemble (consider G.C. Wagenseil) and besides, 4 instruments taking the role of SATB, playing 4 movements is the most "basic, standardized form" any Classical-era composer could have come up with or would have eventually conformed to. There's nothing so ingenious about it.
> We could just as well call Mozart the "father of the clarinet quintet, clarinet trio, piano quartet".
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Haydn wrote his string quintet MH189 in 1773, in Salzburg - 1 year before Joseph (who was already working as a kapellmeister for the Esterhazies) published his Sun quartets (Op.20).
> This impassioned passage (
> 
> 
> 
> ) of the slow movement from Michael's MH189 seems to anticipate
> Mozart's K.551 (
> 
> 
> 
> )
> Also look at;
> Michael Haydn string quintet in G, MH 189 (1773) : [ 0:49 ~ 1:06 ]
> Mozart string quartet in E flat, K.428 (1783) : [ 0:49 ~ 1:14 ]
> Some treatment of chromaticism in the minuet (
> 
> 
> 
> ) and phrases in the finale also remind me of Mozart.
> also look at these sections from MH189 (
> 
> 
> 
> )
> and Mozart K.533 (
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also notice the similarities in the openings of Michael's G major, MH189 and Mozart's K.387, and the finales of Michael's 23rd symphony (MH 287) and Mozart's K.387.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also think that Beethoven later in his life realized the merit of Michael over Joseph:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




hammeredklavier said:


> http://mrc.hanyang.ac.kr/wp-content/jspm/20/jspm_2006_20_10.pdf#page=4
> "Mozart wrote to his father on 29 March 1783 about the musical gatherings in the apartments of Baron van Swieten: "we love to amuse ourselves with all kind of masters, ancient and modern." So music was the main object of the other of the composers Mozart and his colleagues studied in these sessions is mentioned in the Mozart correspondence by name: Johann Ernst Eberlin, for instance, or Georg Friedrich Handel, or J.S. Bach and his sons Wilhelm Friedemann and Carl Phillip Emmanuel, or Michael Haydn."
> ^If J. Haydn was so good, why isn't his name in this list?


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> This is not a good argument. It goes in the wrong direction. Just because you might not like the consequences of a truth doesn't make it less true.
> 
> Imagine taking this approach to some other judgement: "NO, by jove, the earth does NOT revolve around the sun, for then all those _atheists_ would be jumping for joy!"
> 
> You seem more interested in political critique than in the question at hand - whether musical judgements are or are not objective.


This is fine logic; its called reductio ad absurdum. Of course, it relies on the opponent finding the conclusion actually absurd. In this case, it has become abundantly clear that none of the subjectivists would find the idea of switching out the final Dona Nobis Pacem in Bach's Mass in B minor for Justin Bieber's "Baby" and calling it an excellent improvement (a stroke of genius even) because you, personally, like it, at all absurd. Because, of course, it's just my personal biases that would make me find such a thing absurd and certainly not any reasonably unbiased artistic perception I may have developed.

Of course, we now have signed urinals, regular scarves wrapped around trees, a rock (just a rock), bad puns made into $100 000 displays, white canvases, taped bananas, literal piles of dirt, and unmade beds strewn with the cloths of the now naked art emperors upheld and distinguished as "genius" and "art".

And, when the public is presented with a taped banana or yet another white canvas and dares to say "I could tape a banana or paint a white canvas" the Emporer's tailers tut-tut and spout off on how modern art is about the idea, unlike the old art people have to put _effort_ into their appreciation of the taped banana or signed urinal, and, ultimately, the tailers aver, no doubt due to the publics' inferior ideas, "you didn't have the idea". Of course, the tailers are right in a sense; great art requires great ideas and the public _didn't_ think of taping a banana to a wall.

But no beginning pianist, able to fully copy out a Chopin nocturne or a Bach fugue claims the ability to write one; they can draw the notes, understand the relation between the chords, the rules of harmony and tonality that are brought to life through playing but he recognises that he lacks the idea; the idea of the fugue or the nocturne is recognised to be beyond his capabilities of thought. The public does not exclaim "I could write those notes" even though, physically, they could.

The reason is, the difference is, that members of the public intuitively recognise that, unlike the Chopin nocturne, they could have had the idea of the white canvas, the signed urinal, or even the taped banana; they just didn't realise anyone was deluded enough to care.


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> This is fine logic; its called reductio ad absurdum. Of course, it relies on the opponent finding the conclusion actually absurd. In this case, it has become abundantly clear that none of the subjectivists would find the idea of switching out the final Dona Nobis Pacem in Bach's Mass in B minor for Justin Bieber's "Baby" and calling it an excellent improvement (a stroke of genius even) because you, personally, like it, at all absurd. Because, of course, it's just my personal biases that would make me find such a thing absurd and certainly not any reasonably unbiased artistic perception I may have developed.
> 
> Of course, we now have signed urinals, regular scarves wrapped around trees, a rock (just a rock), bad puns made into $100 000 displays, white canvases, taped bananas, literal piles of dirt, and unmade beds strewn with the cloths of the now naked art emperors upheld and distinguished as "genius" and "art".
> 
> And, when the public is presented with a taped banana or yet another white canvas and dares to say "I could tape a banana or paint a white canvas" the Emporer's tailers tut-tut and spout off on how modern art is about the idea, unlike the old art people have to put _effort_ into their appreciation of the taped banana or signed urinal, and, ultimately, the tailers aver, no doubt due to the publics' inferior ideas, "you didn't have the idea". Of course, the tailers are right in a sense; great art requires great ideas and the public _didn't_ think of taping a banana to a wall.
> 
> But no beginning pianist, able to fully copy out a Chopin nocturne or a Bach fugue claims the ability to write one; they can draw the notes, understand the relation between the chords, the rules of harmony and tonality that are brought to life through playing but he recognises that he lacks the idea; the idea of the fugue or the nocturne is recognised to be beyond his capabilities of thought. The public does not exclaim "I could write those notes" even though, physically, they could.
> 
> The reason is, the difference is, that members of the public intuitively recognise that, unlike the Chopin nocturne, they could have had the idea of the white canvas, the signed urinal, or even the taped banana; they just didn't realise anyone was deluded enough to care.


Oh.come.on.

The absurdity can't be absurd simply according to someone's personal tastes (for agreed standards of art)! The absurdity can't simply stem from how one would _like_ the world to be (no avant-garde art)! An absurd conclusion must be something *objective *like a logical contradiction or an empirical improbability/impossibility.


----------



## Ethereality

Yeah, there's another good movie where the robber's pretending to be a cop and the cop gets forced to be a robber. Martin Scorsese, something. Given life ultimatums like the above, one can only wonder why events like these take place in real life


----------



## Ethereality

Woodduck said:


> Quote


It's lovely. But we're talking about greatness firstmost, where you have drawn a universal definition in the sand, and then the added 'objective' qualifier, apparently pulled out of thin air. This thread is a mess. Sand and air don't mix well!


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> Oh.come.on.
> 
> The absurdity can't be absurd simply according to someone's personal tastes (for agreed standards of art)! The absurdity can't simply stem from how one would _like_ the world to be (no avant-garde art)! An absurd conclusion must be something *objective *like a logical contradiction or an empirical improbability/impossibility.


Yep. Cause it is just me who would find my new ending of Bach's mass absurd. This is just my wishful thinking. To be frank, your argument here is begging the question; if you assume art adheres to no objective standards, then of course my argument is wrong. Mine is to (in that it appeals to a sense of artistic quality, but at least I admitted this in saying that it relies on your opponent finding said conclusion absurd), but it is useful to know what lengths everyone will take this whole relativism thing to.

How about this for reductio ad absurdum instead. You claim you are a positivist; positivists believe that nothing is objectively true save for that which can be empirically observed and rational deductions made from those observations. Thus, according to the positivist position, the statement "nothing is objectively true save for that which can be empirically observed and rational deductions made from those observations" is not objectively true for it can not be empirically observed nor derived from rational deductions of empirical observations.

Is that better?


----------



## Ethereality

Where's the dude who said greatness was his kids playing music/noise etc. We need him/her back here to fend off these offenders.


----------



## science

BachIsBest said:


> ... that [many] members of the public intuitively recognise that, unlike the Chopin nocturne, they could have had the idea of the white canvas, the signed urinal, or even the taped banana...


And furthermore they *feel* that this matters. This is something that they *value*.


----------



## Ethereality

science said:


> And furthermore they *feel* that this matters.


I wouldn't be surprised if there's not much of that either. I can feel for all of your unique positions personally speaking.


----------



## science

Ethereality said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if there's not much of that either. I can feel for all of your unique positions personally speaking.


This went far over my head, man!


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> It's lovely. But we're talking about greatness firstmost, where you have drawn a universal definition in the sand, and then the added 'objective' qualifier, apparently pulled out of thin air. This thread is a mess. Sand and air don't mix well!


If you're going to refer to something I say, quote it and then try for a constructive response to the ideas presented. It's ironic that you accuse the thread of being a mess and then offer incoherent, useless nonstatements such as the above.


----------



## Eclectic Al

SanAntone said:


> As I said in an earlier post, this thread, has as well as several others have been all about whether music can be objectively assessed for quality, or is it a subjective process. By asking for your top tier list, I was sure I could demonstrate that our lists would be different and as you have admitted there is a subjective aspect to creating these lists.
> 
> I have maintained throughout these discussions that I believe that those of you on the "objectivist" side were misusing the term "objective" since I maintain that questions which are truly answered using objective data do not have a range of correct responses.
> 
> You admit there is a subjective aspect, which is enough for me. I am confounded that it took this long for us to realize that we essentially agree, but we use different terminology to describe the same phenomenon.


I agree with mmsbls that there is a lot of agreement here, and a lot of people arguing across each other. Where I disagree with you is in connection with answers to objective questions. To give a simple example: how many square roots of 4 are there?

Well, the answer might be 1 (the square root being 2), but then we remember -2, which also gives 4 is you square it. Hence, the answer is 1 if we are only interested in positive numbers, or 2 if we are also interested in negative numbers.

How many cube roots of 8 are there? Well some would say 1 (the single cube root being 2). The more mathematically inclined would also have 2 x (cos (2 x pi / 3) + i x sin (2 x pi / 3)) and we even have the third cube root 2 x (cos (2 x pi / 3) - i x sin (2 x pi / 3)). That's if we allow complex solutions. It would appear that the answer to the objective question is 1 or 3, depending on our decision to concern ourselves with complex solutions or to stick with real solutions. 2 roots would perhaps be a weirdly arbitrary answer.

On the other hand how many square roots does 2 have? Well, some would say 1, (being roughly 1.414); others would remember to include roughly -1.414 as well, so the answer would be 2. Others might deny that it has a square root, as they only accept rational solutions (ratios of integers), and there is no rational square root of 2. The answer would appear to be 0 solutions, 1 solution or 2 solutions, depending on what we decide is our focus of attention.

Take a more esoteric example, how many integers are there? Well, an infinite number, as you can always keep counting. How many rational numbers are there? Well, an infinite number. So there are the same number? Well, all integers are rational numbers, and there are additional rational numbers as well as the integers, so there must be more rationals? No - there are the same number, in the most natural sense of the concept (which is that you can match them one to one with each other): the two sets are "equinumerous".

How many real numbers are there (ie including numbers like the positive square root of 2)? Well, an infinite number. So there are the same number? No, not really, there are strictly more real numbers than rational numbers, in the sense that you cannot match them one to one. It's not difficult to prove this result.

So we have two infinities, with the number of real numbers strictly greater than the number of rational numbers. Here's a question: is there another infinity which is strictly larger than the number of rational numbers and strictly smaller than the number of real numbers? Take your pick: the claim that there is no such intermediate infinity is called the continuum hypothesis, and it is neither true nor false (in the sense that it is independent of the other axioms of set theory). This was an objective question in the world of mathematics (which is considered perhaps a bit more well-behaved than the world of aesthetic judgements) and it has no answer. Decide (subjectively?) that the continuum hypothesis is true, or decide that it is false. It's up to you. What mathematicians might then do is include it as an additional axiom or include its negation as an additional axiom, and see where that leads you. Of course, if you take a Platonic position you might believe that it is true (or false) in some sense which is unprovable using the other axioms.

Why the little digression into maths? Because I think there are several problems with this thread.
The first problem is that people are not clarifying terms (what do they mean by subjective and objective in the first place - I don't think a clear distinction is obvious).
The second problem is that objective questions may have a range of valid answers, dependent on what we are interested in (positive numbers, real numbers, complex numbers, infinities, etc). In different contexts we may only be interested in some solutions, and not others, and which are interesting may be subjective, so at the least this needs clarification.
The third problem is that there may also be different possible answers because the possible answers are independent of the ground rules we are using (continuum hypothesis). I doubt that what we are talking about is capable of being set out sufficiently clearly for one even to make sense of this difficulty.

It is depressing that people argue so aggressively for their own position (and others argue against) when the only real end point of discussions like this is that people might understand each others' positions a bit better, not that they will "win".


----------



## cybernaut

Eclectic Al said:


> It is depressing that people argue so aggressively for their own position (and others argue against) when the only real end point of discussions like this is that people might understand each others' positions a bit better, not that they will "win".


I'm not depressed, because I won.


----------



## janxharris

Isaac Blackburn said:


> This is an aside from the point I made earlier, but yes, much great art is in fact perfect, perfect in its presentation of an organic idea. Brahms and Mahler were able to understand the entire structure of their compositions in an almost bodily sense, which helped them attend to the smallest imperfections- whether those be notes that cloud the idea or turns of phrase that weaken the flow of forces.


In light of this - could you explain your vote in favour of Mozart's objective superiority to Brahms and Mahler?

Presumably your vote implies that their works were less than perfect?


----------



## Strange Magic

Again I sleep, and while thus employed, the TC debate machinery grinds on. Yet again, I actually miss nothing, as it turns out. I do appreciate Eclectic Al's observation just previously: "_It is depressing that people argue so aggressively for their own position (and others argue against) when the only real end point of discussions like this is that people might understand each others' positions a bit better, not that they will "win"._ I also liked Isaac Blackburn's observation in his Post #1278 that he believed my _position on aesthetics_ is not actually a position but instead _an observation_: that certain groups have liked certain music and others do not, and the first group argues for its quality, and so on. Blackburn goes on to say that the observation "doesn't entail anything beyond itself--for example...does not entail that any two groups...are equally right in their preferences."

I think he is partially correct--it is an observation, like saying I see the emperor and he is unclothed. But I do go on to have a position. and that is that those who see the emperor clothed see an illusion--that there are actual clothes on the emperor: there must be, because "we" all see those clothes; they are an integral part of an emperor's very being. No clothes, no emperor.

Similarly, I see a body of enthusiasts for this art object or that justifying their enthusiasm by ascribing innate, inherent properties to the object that causes them inexorably to adore it, to believe it to be great, magnificent. Otherwise their enthusiasm becomes mere whim in their view, and unworthy. My position, and it is one, is that every person's unique individual history, experience, neurology, psychology allows them to invest otherwise inert, lifeless, neutral art objects with meaning, value, influence--or not.

These individual assessments tend to cluster, as do most every phenomenon in nature--even random number displays show clustering on some scale or another--and the consensus thus formed of like-minded enthusiasts then becomes both testimony for both its own existence and for the alleged inherent properties of the art object--"We all agree the properties of excellence and greatness are there; they must be or the object wouldn't be great". But such inherent properties of excellence should be made of sterner stuff,saturating as they do the art object, and enormous majorities of all perceiving them should perceive the same thing, not just clusters of the sensitive elect. Yet art criticism is full of conflicting views on what's good, what's better.

So I am an observer of all this, true, and a student of history and human behavior and nature, and I see both the _ex post facto _ rationalizing of why we like the art we do, and also the long history of people repeating the weary maxims of "To each his/her own, _de gustibus_, or, as Woodduck has added to the list, _chacun a son gout_. And I arrive at the position I have.

All esthetics is personal, individual, idiosyncratic, and subjective. There are clusters--consensuses--around certain art objects among certain groups, but that's all they are--perfectly natural, perfectly simple. And because art is both very important yet not relatively "powerful" as a factor in human affairs (Kenneth Clark said it mirrored or exhibited what a civilization was like), we tend to get very argumentative about it. As in the old Nichols and May skit, it becomes a "moral issue" and they are "so much more interesting than a real issue."


----------



## fluteman

Isaac Blackburn said:


> I believe artistic quality exists_ before _taste,


OK, but the word 'art' means something produced for the purpose of aesthetic appreciation (i.e., appealing to the tastes of the audience), or in the broader sense, an act of expressing feelings, thoughts, and observations, i.e., of communication, using the creative imagination. Without a purpose of appreciation or communication, by those standard definitions, it isn't art.

That allows me, as an empiricist using what I've called the statistical method, to define artistic success as occurring when the art actually is appreciated, or actually does communicate. And that depends on the viewer. If you believe good art "tell us about the artistic material, and about the world and our existence within it" whether actual, empirically observable viewers think so or not, then you are using a version of what I called the authority method to evaluate art.


----------



## fluteman

ArtMusic said:


> Are you giving a legal opinion here?
> 
> The problem with the arguments presented is that the real agenda is one of defending mediocre art. If you like something that someone has arbitrarily declared it is art, then that's good for you. If you subscribe to that postmodernism way of thinking from the 1950's then anything can be art, effectively there is no art; art is arbitrary. Much of modern art is exactly what arbitrary does to art. The complexity of good art is beyond the simplistic reductivism shown here along the lines of "show me a list of inherently good composers' music like 4 x 7 =28" or apply a "scientific" or a "legal" approach (first time I have come across this in this thread). Hundreds of years of fine development that took the best of westerns art masters for us to inherit isn't for you to pull down in a few sentences at an internet forum, scientifically or legally.


That's a very good illustration of the use of what I've called the authority method to evaluate art. Indeed, who am I to pull down what we've inherited from the best of western art masters, i.e., challenge their authority? Well said.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

janxharris said:


> In light of this - could you explain your vote in favour of Mozart's objective superiority to Brahms and Mahler?
> 
> Presumably your vote implies that their works were less than perfect?


Perfection in music is perfection in the presentation of an idea. But the ideas themselves can be of higher or lower quality. Beethoven's 5th is a perfect work, in that it is impossible to change it for the better (without, of course, wiping the slate clean), but Beethoven's 9th, another perfect work, comes from a deeper and stronger place in the fabric of musical ideas, and so it is a better symphony.



fluteman said:


> If you believe good art "tell us about the artistic material, and about the world and our existence within it" whether actual, empirically observable viewers think so or not, then you are using a version of what I called the authority method to evaluate art.




Communication with viewers is implicit in my phrase "tells us about". But the success of an art piece in "telling us about the world" is not to be ultimately judged by how many viewers _think it does_, because those viewers possess varying degrees of understanding of the art.



Strange Magic said:


> ...I also liked Isaac Blackburn's observation in his Post #1278 that he believed my _position on aesthetics_ is not actually a position but instead _an observation_: that certain groups have liked certain music and others do not, and the first group argues for its quality, and so on. Blackburn goes on to say that the observation "doesn't entail anything beyond itself--for example...does not entail that any two groups...are equally right in their preferences."
> 
> I think he is partially correct--it is an observation, like saying I see the emperor and he is unclothed. But I do go on to have a position. and that is that those who see the emperor clothed see an illusion--that there are actual clothes on the emperor: there must be, because "we" all see those clothes; they are an integral part of an emperor's very being. No clothes, no emperor.
> 
> Similarly, I see a body of enthusiasts for this art object or that justifying their enthusiasm by ascribing innate, inherent properties to the object that causes them inexorably to adore it, to believe it to be great, magnificent. Otherwise their enthusiasm becomes mere whim in their view, and unworthy. My position, and it is one, is that every person's unique individual history, experience, neurology, psychology allows them to invest otherwise inert, lifeless, neutral art objects with meaning, value, influence--or not.


I think we get hung up on words such as "objective" and "innate". "Innate-ness" or "Within-ness", for one, is just a way of conceptualizing an object's possession of qualities.

The important thing is this: that when I say a piece of music is sad, I mean something more than "it makes me and others sad".  I am saying that sadness is embedded in the very structure of the piece. This embedding of always of a metaphorical type: for example, sadness is an emotion of passivity- therefore, slow tempos. Of course, in real artworks this communication is far more complex.


----------



## fluteman

Isaac Blackburn said:


> Perfection in music is perfection in the presentation of an idea. But the ideas themselves can be of higher or lower quality. Beethoven's 5th is a perfect work, in that it is impossible to change it for the better (without, of course, wiping the slate clean), but Beethoven's 9th, another perfect work, comes from a deeper and stronger place in the fabric of musical ideas, and so it is a better symphony.
> 
> I think we get hung up on words such as "objective" and "innate". "Innate-ness" or "Within-ness", for one, is just a way of conceptualizing an object's possession of qualities.
> 
> The important thing is this: that when I say a piece of music is sad, I mean something more than "it makes me and others sad". I am saying that sadness is embedded in the very structure of the piece. This embedding of always of a metaphorical type: for example, sadness is an emotion of passivity- therefore, slow tempos. Of course, in real artworks this communication is far more complex.


Yes, too complex for a simple, hard and fast rule like, slow tempos evoke sadness. Otherwise, we could say, That idiot composer! He meant to evoke sadness, but didn't use slow tempos! Or, he didn't mean to evoke sadness, yet used a slow tempo. His music stinks. Like Mendelssohn's Wedding March in A Midsummer Night's Dream, for an occasion so joyous, it is solemn! No wonder that's never played at weddings. But that's OK, you are an authority method guy, as can be seen when you say that music is not to be judged by the reaction of actual listeners.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Just listening to Prokofiev's 7th piano sonata. That last movement is definitely exhilarating. (I make that comment objectively. )
Is it sad? Is it angry? Is it exultant? Is it happy?

I think it is all those things simultaneously. I love composers like Prokofiev because they are masters of emotional ambiguity - another clearly objective observation.  Ravel is another one who cloaks his feelings, exquisitely in his case.

I get the feeling that there is a lack among some posts in this thread of a delight in ambiguity. Go on: embrace the undecidability of pretty much everything that matters! You might enjoy it.


----------



## Strange Magic

Isaac Blackburn said:


> The important thing is this: that when I say a piece of music is sad, I mean something more than "it makes me and others sad". I am saying that sadness is embedded in the very structure of the piece. This embedding of always of a metaphorical type: for example, sadness is an emotion of passivity- therefore, slow tempos. Of course, in real artworks this communication is far more complex.


A very clear expression--the whole post--of the extreme objectivist position. There is talk of Beethoven's 5th being perfect, not of the poster believing it to be perfect. And of the 9th being even more perfect, despite anyone's views to the contrary. I hope posters never understood my assertion of the perfection of the Ravel Left Hand concerto to be anything other than my opinion. The direct imbuing of sadness into the very fabric and interstitial space of musical sounds is also again proposed--it's not that an impression of sadness (why not just calm, peace, quiet satisfaction, a pause from stress and excitement?) is brought to the piece by the perceiver, but it is baked into it, no matter who hears it. The is Platonism on an industrial scale.


----------



## janxharris

Isaac Blackburn said:


> Perfection in music is perfection in the presentation of an idea. But the ideas themselves can be of higher or lower quality. Beethoven's 5th is a perfect work, in that it is impossible to change it for the better (without, of course, wiping the slate clean), but Beethoven's 9th, another perfect work, comes from a deeper and stronger place in the fabric of musical ideas, and so it is a better symphony.


So, to clarify, though Mahler and Brahms wrote perfect works, Mozart is superior because you consider his works are, like Beethoven's, deeper?

And you consider this set in stone?


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Strange Magic said:


> ..The direct imbuing of sadness into the very fabric and interstitial space of musical sounds is also again proposed--it's not that an impression of sadness (why not just calm, peace, quiet satisfaction, a pause from stress and excitement?) is brought to the piece by the perceiver, but it is baked into it, no matter who hears it. The is Platonism on an industrial scale.


Good grief Strange, the impression of sadness is in _response_ to certain properties in the music.

If the sounds in a piece of music are arranged as to communicate/embody certain emotional ideas, then it is sensible to say that those ideas are properties of the arrangement of the sounds.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

janxharris said:


> So, to clarify, though Mahler and Brahms wrote perfect works, Mozart is superior because you consider his works are, like Beethoven's, deeper?
> 
> And you consider this set in stone?


In that particular poll, I voted for Mozart's superiority over composers like Rimsky-Korsakov. 
Regarding the comparison between composers of the highest caliber- Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and Mahler, one thing to keep in mind is that the Mozart of 1770 is not the Mozart of 1780 or the Mozart of 1790. Each one is a better composer than the last, and comes from a deeper place musically speaking. So it's rather imprecise to make a statement like "Mozart is a better (or more skilled, more powerful) composer than Mahler" without clarifying the stage in their mastery at which we draw these composers from.
In general, though, it is reasonable to have a dimension of "depth of mastery" along which pieces can be classified apart from their local perfection.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> Being a lawyer doesn't make you a good judge and there is nothing other than your biased say-so that puts the burden of proof on SM's opponents. Since when? He can't put out the same argument over and over and not be held to the same level of proving his position as he demands of others.
> 
> Do you really put the following at the level of useful evidence and/or legitimate argument that I'm supposed to respond to at the level you infer in the rest of your post?: _ 'In a case like this, I have witnesses and testimony both here on TC and thousands of years of understanding that opinion is at the heart of esthetic choice...I don't need to rely on encyclopedias though. My case is straightforward, simple, and correct.'_
> 
> What kind of court are you running here?
> 
> (Btw, I'm not a lawyer, but I've testified in depositions and trials as an expert witness so unless you are a trial lawyer, I may have seen more courtrooms than you.)


A fair reply from an authority method guy. Who am I to judge -- anything, really? Where's my authority? I don't even know as much about courtrooms as you do.


----------



## Strange Magic

I got my notion about your notion of sadness being an intergral part of the structure of a piece of music from this of yours:



> *Isaac Blackburn:* "The important thing is this: that when I say a piece of music is sad, I mean something more than "it makes me and others sad". *I am saying that sadness is embedded in the very structure of the piece.* This embedding of always of a metaphorical type: for example, sadness is an emotion of passivity- therefore, slow tempos. Of course, in real artworks this communication is far more complex.


The escape clause is meant to be that the embedding is "metaphorical". That way you get to have the embedding any way that suits the argument, depending if you are looking to your left or your right.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Strange Magic said:


> I got my notion about your notion of sadness being an intergral part of the structure of a piece of music from this of yours:
> The escape clause is meant to be that the embedding is "metaphorical". That way you get to have the embedding any way that suits the argument, depending if you are looking to your left or your right.


First, it has to be said that human emotional vocabulary is far too simple and limited to describe music. It is not so much that a given musical structure contains 70% sadness and 30% anger as that it possesses by its structure a certain emotional/dramatic/experiential nature.

This is to be expected, since art is a medium for the human experience of reality and would be a poor material for that purpose unless it was able to communicate and embody those experiences in a sufficiently objective form that the artist could be clear enough about what he was communicating.

The imbuing of experiential qualities to the artwork works by metaphor. Pieces of music aren't human beings and can't be sad; they can, however, embody sadness, that is, their structure contains logical similarities (passivity, inwardness = slow tempo, minor tonality) to the human experience of sadness.


----------



## SanAntone

I don't identify with anything said in the posts about sadness being embodied within music. When I hear a work, e.g. _Adagio for Strings_ by Samuel Barber, I do not feel sad. In fact, the artistry of the composition brings me joy and is ennobling.

I absolutely do not believe that there is any emotional content within any piece of music. To the extent we are moved by a performance of music, the emotions are triggered by our own associations we bring to the experience.


----------



## Jacck

SanAntone said:


> I don't identify with anything said in the posts about sadness being embodied within music. When I hear a work, e.g. _Adagio for Strings_ by Samuel Barber, I do not feel sad. In fact, the artistry of the composition brings me joy and is ennobling. I absolutely do not believe that there is any emotional content within any piece of music, to the extent we are moved by a performance of music, it is our own associations we bring to the experience.


that is certainly an interesting idea. So if we have funeral march, you say that people do not experience sadness because the music itself generates sadness, but because we have been culturally trained that this kind of music is associated with funerals and death and so experience sadness? Truth is likely somewhere inbetween. Both innate responses and cultural conditioning likely play a role in experiencing the funeral march as sad. These innate responses might form the objective part of music, while the cultural conditioning the subjective part.


----------



## Strange Magic

Isaac Blackburn said:


> First, it has to be said that *human emotional vocabulary is far too simple and limited to describe music.* It is not so much that a given musical structure contains 70% sadness and 30% anger as that it possesses by its structure a certain emotional/dramatic/experiential nature.


It seems to me that the exact opposite is the case: _Music is far too simple and limited to describe the human emotional vocabulary._ Human emotion is or can be meticulously expressed by language, however, and people craft whole novels, biographies, autobiographies, plays to express same.

But perhaps I just don't understand the nuances of your position.


----------



## Strange Magic

Jacck said:


> that is certainly an interesting idea. So if we have funeral march, you say that people do not experience sadness because the music itself generates sadness, but because we have been culturally trained that this kind of music is associated with funerals and death and so experience sadness? Truth is likely somewhere inbetween. Both innate responses and cultural conditioning likely play a role in experiencing the funeral march as sad. *These innate responses might form the objective part of music, while the cultural conditioning the subjective part.*


This is the area where research is or will slowly tease out the neurological, psychological, physiological aspects of emotion from the culturally-acquired aspects--Nature and Nurture. In our Western culture, people wear black as a sign of mourning. Why not orange? Zebra stripes? But even as these elements are teased out, there remains the granular experience and unique biology, history, neurology of the individual. Art is experienced often in group settings, but it is always experienced at the level of the individual, with the possible exception of identical twins reared in the same environment and perceiving art simultaneously.


----------



## SanAntone

Jacck said:


> that is certainly an interesting idea. So if we have funeral march, you say that people do not experience sadness because the music itself generates sadness, but because we have been culturally trained that this kind of music is associated with funerals and death and so experience sadness? Truth is likely somewhere inbetween. Both innate responses and cultural conditioning likely play a role in experiencing the funeral march as sad. These innate responses might form the objective part of music, while the cultural conditioning the subjective part.


Music is sound, and sound is incapable of containing emotions which are a product of the human consciousness. Our emotional memory is responsible for our associating certain music with certain emotions. I am sure you are familiar with the idea of associating songs with experiences, some happy, some sad, some nostalgic.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

SanAntone said:


> I don't identify with anything said in the posts about sadness being embodied within music. When I hear a work, e.g. _Adagio for Strings_ by Samuel Barber, I do not feel sad. In fact, the artistry of the composition brings me joy and is ennobling.
> 
> I absolutely do not believe that there is any emotional content within any piece of music. To the extent we are moved by a performance of music, the emotions are triggered by our own associations we bring to the experience.


The experience of an artwork is always personal, and is caused by the interaction of the artwork and our own emotional and inner nature. I listen to Prokofiev and cannot help but visualize bridges and concrete; nobody will have precisely the visions that I do. The visuals that come to mind, however, are triggered by the nature of the music, which lifts corresponding memories and ideas within me into conscious view.



SanAntone said:


> Music is sound, and sound is incapable of containing emotions which are a product of the human consciousness.


Again I think words such as "containing" are the source of confusion. I think there is a simpler view, which I posted earlier:

If the sounds in a piece of music are arranged as to communicate/embody certain emotional ideas, then it is sensible to say that those ideas are properties of the arrangement of the sounds.


----------



## Jacck

SanAntone said:


> Music is sound, and sound is incapable of containing emotions which are a product of the human consciousness. Our emotional memory is responsible for our associating certain music with certain emotions. I am sure you are familiar with the idea of associating songs with experiences, some happy, some sad, some nostalgic.


I disagree with you. You position reminds of the gender ideologues who claim that there are no biologically grounded differences between the behavior/psychology of men and women, and they believe that all the behavior is culturally conditioned, despite innumerable evidence to the contratry. Yes, music is just a sound, but our brains have some structure and various patterns of sound affect the brain in various manners. For example ultrasound is known to generate anxiety in a lot of people. This is objectively measurable, since the people do not need to be even aware of the sound
https://www.strangerdimensions.com/2013/06/21/infrasound-the-fear-frequency/

I definitely do believe that the reason that consonant music is perceived as harmonious is rooted in biology, and the reason why dissonant music sounds unpleasant is likewise rooted in biology. It has something to do with how our brains process various sound frequencies and their combinations


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> It was a joke, fluteman!


I know that, dear Woodduck, and said as much. But even jokes can be revealing. How silly, even absurd, it is to suggest that a conservatory would teach its students _why_ Bach fugues are great in the sense of proving it with empirical evidence or deductive reasoning. One must accept on their authority they are great, or already believe it going in. Either way, the whole institution is built on accepting the premise that Bach's fugues are great. So, you are an authority method guy.

FWIW, I think your version of the authority method, i.e., looking to the authority of the conservatory, is better than that of ArtMusic or Zhdanov, who look to the authority of the "learned masters" themselves. As we saw from Zhdanov's response to Strange Magic's question about Bartok, his authorities are less broad minded and open to diversity than is the typical modern conservatory.


----------



## SanAntone

Isaac Blackburn said:


> The experience of an artwork is always personal, and is caused by the interaction of the artwork and our own emotional and inner nature. I listen to Prokofiev and cannot help but visualize bridges and concrete; nobody will have precisely the visions that I do. The visuals that come to mind, however, are triggered by the nature of the music and the corresponding memories and ideas within me which are lifted into conscious view by the music.


Whatever visuals you imagine when you hear music is entirely your doing. Listening to a piece of music may trigger these visuals or emotions, but as you admit, different people will experience different visuals or emotions. It is obvious to me that the music is empty of specific visuals or emotional content. These are supplied entirely by the listener.

I don't want to debate this with you, if you wish to believe that visuals or emotions are a part of the music, that is your thing.


----------



## SanAntone

Jacck said:


> I disagree with you. You position reminds of the gender ideologues who claim that there are no biologically grounded differences between the behavior/psychology of men and women, and they believe that all the behavior is culturally conditioned, despite innumerable evidence to the contratry. Yes, music is just a sound, but our brains have some structure and various patterns of sound affect the brain in various manners. For example ultrasound is known to generate anxiety in a lot of people. This is objectively measurable, since the people do not need to be even aware of the sound
> https://www.strangerdimensions.com/2013/06/21/infrasound-the-fear-frequency/
> 
> I definitely do believe that the reason that consonant music is perceived as harmonious is rooted in biology, and the reason why dissonant music sounds unpleasant is likewise rooted in biology. It has something to do with how our brains process various sound frequencies and their combinations


I am talking about music, not gender, not biology. I am 100% sure that sound, e.g. music, does not contain human emotions. Music is not a sentient being.


----------



## Jacck

SanAntone said:


> I am talking about music, not gender, not biology. I am 100% sure that sound, e.g. music, does not contain human emotions. Music is not a sentient being.


and I am talking about the fact, that various sounds (sound vibrations of various frequencies) affect the brain and generate responses in it, and these responses are not wholly culturally conditioned, but have an objective biological component. Psychoacoustics studies these responses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics

Some sounds are objectively pleasing to a majority of humans across cultures, while other sounds are objectively unpleasant (shovel scratching across concrete floor etc)


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

SanAntone said:


> I am talking about music, not gender, not biology. I am 100% sure that sound, e.g. music, does not contain human emotions. Music is not a sentient being.


Music is, in part, a medium for communicating human experience.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Jacck said:


> I disagree with you. You position reminds of the gender ideologues who claim that there are no biologically grounded differences between the behavior/psychology of men and women, and they believe that all the behavior is culturally conditioned, despite innumerable evidence to the contratry. Yes, music is just a sound, but our brains have some structure and various patterns of sound affect the brain in various manners. For example ultrasound is known to generate anxiety in a lot of people. This is objectively measurable, since the people do not need to be even aware of the sound
> https://www.strangerdimensions.com/2013/06/21/infrasound-the-fear-frequency/
> 
> I definitely do believe that the reason that consonant music is perceived as harmonious is rooted in biology, and the reason why dissonant music sounds unpleasant is likewise rooted in biology. It has something to do with how our brains process various sound frequencies and their combinations


I agree with most of this, but if we perceive certain music to be beautiful and other music to be sad because of our biology, that doesn't mean that those sounds are objectively beautiful or sad does it?


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> I don't identify with anything said in the posts about sadness being embodied within music. When I hear a work, e.g. _Adagio for Strings_ by Samuel Barber, I do not feel sad. In fact, the artistry of the composition brings me joy and is ennobling.
> 
> I absolutely do not believe that there is any emotional content within any piece of music. To the extent we are moved by a performance of music, the emotions are triggered by our own associations we bring to the experience.


Yes. You are a well-educated empiricist / statistical methodist, who has learned about 15 well-developed non-western classical music traditions and yet knows more than a thing or two about western classical music. I think I've seen that book, btw. Very nice. The Harvard Dictionary of Music also has some brief but nice summaries. My classical music radio station when I was a kid endlessly played Palestrina, to the point I would make jokes about it. But thank goodness.


----------



## Jacck

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> I agree with most of this, but if we perceive certain music to be beautiful and other music to be sad because of our biology, that doesn't mean that those sounds are objectively beautiful or sad does it?


there are almost 90 pages of discussion here without anyone giving any definition of the word "objective". Is the color red objective or is it not? It does not exist in nature. The only thing that objectively exists are the various electromagnetic waves. These EM waves impact our retina, where they excite specialized cells that transmit those excitation through nerve impulses further up into the brain, where various specialized centers generate the sensetion of redness. Other centers in our brain then name this sensation red. And because most people have these centers in their brains, we can talk about the color red as if it were objectively existing. But how do we even know, that my perception of redness is the same as your perception of redness? The only thing we have in common is the word "red". What if I perceive my red as you perceive your green, and vice versa? We will never know. There are even people who are color blind. And it is likewise with music. The experience of music is generated through specialized centers in our brains, and we can share those experiences because we have similar brains. But does the music exists objectively? Does the color red exist objectively?


----------



## Strange Magic

Tchaikovsky's PC #1 begins with 4 descending notes, and then sweeps into one of the grand melodies of music to which I ascribe exultation, joy, grandeur. Classic flamenco _siguiriyas_ also have four descending notes as an integral part of their musical structure, and offer the most uncompromising and bleak expressions of human misery and suffering. The area of the biological bases for emotion in music will find, as I suspect, plenty of room for both shared and individual reactions to sounds and the sequencing of notes so that esthetic subjectivism will remain robust.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

SanAntone said:


> Whatever visuals you imagine when you hear music is entirely your doing. Listening to a piece of music may trigger these visuals or emotions, but as you admit, different people will experience different visuals or emotions. It is obvious to me that the music is empty of specific visuals or emotional content. These are supplied entirely by the listener.
> 
> I don't want to debate this with you, if you wish to believe that visuals or emotions are a part of the music, that is your thing.


A piece of music is more than just its notes. The notes (in a piece of music composed by humans, for humans) are the means by which musical ideas are communicated, and musical ideas are inextricably linked with the human experience of reality.

When I listen to music, therefore, a series of notes - E-G-A-E-F-A-D- is quite literally not what I'm hearing. I am hearing tonalities, I am hearing agitation, or respite...All of these higher-order properties of the arrangement of the musical notes are also part of the music, part of the musical idea.


----------



## Eclectic Al

SanAntone said:


> I am talking about music, not gender, not biology. I am 100% sure that sound, e.g. music, does not contain human emotions. Music is not a sentient being.


Absolutely. However, we are consciousnesses hosted by biological machines. Everyone who has found their mood changed by (for example) alcohol knows that our conscious feelings are dictated in part at least by influences on the operation of the machine.

I find it difficult to discount, out of hand, the possibility that sounds might have predictable influences on people's feelings because of impacts on the biological machine, and that musical traditions might have developed in a way which exploits these mechanistic effects. If these effects are fairly consistent across individuals (as they could be) then there is the possibility of particular sounds generating sadness, anger, whatever.

I don't know, but equally I cannot just state that this is not the case. This would be a matter to explore empirically, not to reject a priori.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> Whatever visuals you imagine when you hear music is entirely your doing. Listening to a piece of music may trigger these visuals or emotions, but as you admit, different people will experience different visuals or emotions. It is obvious to me that the music is empty of specific visuals or emotional content. These are supplied entirely by the listener.
> 
> I don't want to debate this with you, if you wish to believe that visuals or emotions are a part of the music, that is your thing.


Yes, it isn't worth debating, one point I've tried to make. Nearly all humans associate darkness with fear, at least to some extent, as in darkness, you can't see what's happening around you, and that potentially is dangerous. Is that innate? Instinctive? What about blind people? And, more relevant to this thread, what exactly does that mean about the presence of black or dark colors in a painting? We don't know. But it's a safe bet that one's individual environment and experiences play a role in one's emotional and intellectual reactions to darkness, and to seeing dark colors in a painting.


----------



## Strange Magic

Isaac Blackburn said:


> A piece of music is more than just its notes. The notes (in a piece of music composed by humans, for humans) are the means by which musical ideas are communicated, and musical ideas are inextricably linked with the human experience of reality.
> 
> When I listen to music, therefore, a series of notes - E-G-A-E-F-A-D- is quite literally not what I'm hearing. I am hearing tonalities, I am hearing agitation, or respite...All of these higher-order properties of the arrangement of the musical notes are also part of the music, part of the musical idea.


Your position is that everyone--not just you--is, or ought to be--experiencing agitation, or respite, I take it. Or is it just you? Or is it a cluster of those with similar tastes or wiring? My preference is to grant to the individual in all cases full agency over their experiences of art, and to declare those experiences valid and authentic.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Jacck said:


> there are almost 90 pages of discussion here without anyone giving any definition of the word "objective". Is the color red objective or is it not? It does not exist in nature. The only thing that objectively exists are the various electromagnetic waves. These EM waves impact our retina, where they excite specialized cells that transmit those excitation through nerve impulses further up into the brain, where various specialized centers generate the sensetion of redness. Other centers in our brain then name this sensation red. And because most people have these centers in their brains, we can talk about the color red as if it were objectively existing. But how do we even know, that my perception of redness is the same as your perception of redness? The only thing we have in common is the word "red". What if I perceive my red as you perceive your green, and vice versa? We will never know. There are even people who are color blind. And it is likewise with music. The experience of music is generated through specialized centers in our brains, and we can share those experiences because we have similar brains. But does the music exists objectively? Does the color red exist objectively?


I understand what your saying. You said "Some sounds are objectively pleasing to a majority of humans across cultures, while other sounds are objectively unpleasant (shovel scratching across concrete floor etc)", But for something to be objectively true its basis cannot be in human experience. You can only say "some sounds are pleasing to the majority of people", not objectively pleasing.


----------



## fluteman

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> I understand what your saying. You said "Some sounds are objectively pleasing to a majority of humans across cultures, while other sounds are objectively unpleasant (shovel scratching across concrete floor etc)", But for something to be objectively true its basis cannot be in human experience. You can only say "some sounds are pleasing to the majority of people", not objectively pleasing.


You have to accept empiricism to find objective truth in this sense. Human experiences objectively can be observed empirically and measured statistically. If you don't accept that concept of objectivity, you are another authority method guy.


----------



## BachIsBest

Jacck said:


> there are almost 90 pages of discussion here without anyone giving any definition of the word "objective". Is the color red objective or is it not? It does not exist in nature. The only thing that objectively exists are the various electromagnetic waves. These EM waves impact our retina, where they excite specialized cells that transmit those excitation through nerve impulses further up into the brain, where various specialized centers generate the sensetion of redness. Other centers in our brain then name this sensation red. And because most people have these centers in their brains, we can talk about the color red as if it were objectively existing. But how do we even know, that my perception of redness is the same as your perception of redness? The only thing we have in common is the word "red". What if I perceive my red as you perceive your green, and vice versa? We will never know. There are even people who are color blind. And it is likewise with music. The experience of music is generated through specialized centers in our brains, and we can share those experiences because we have similar brains. But does the music exists objectively? Does the color red exist objectively?


I defined objectivity multiple times on this thread to be "independent of personal biases and opinions" which is (roughly, of course) the definition found in most dictionaries. Some of the subjectivists seem to use a much stronger definition of objectivity in that they feel it refers to things only that are completely independent of human perception; how they use human perception to determine things totally independent of human perception, I know not.

Given the definition I'm using, I would say it is silly to say some music isn't sad as, you have rightly pointed out, there are innate biological reasons that humans find certain music sad that is independent of their personal biases and opinions on the matter. Of course, their personal biases and opinions might make them experience the music as more or less sad, but this is fine; no one is claiming we can make exact objective sadness measurements only that there is a reasonable basis to call some music sad and to have that not just be personal opinion.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Strange Magic said:


> Your position is that everyone--not just you--is, or ought to be--experiencing agitation, or respite, I take it. Or is it just you? Or is it a cluster of those with similar tastes or wiring? My preference is to grant to the individual in all cases full agency over their experiences of art, and to declare those experiences valid and authentic.


Given such a piece, many people will begin by only _recognizing_ the music as having an agitated or restful character. To recognize an agitated character within a certain section only requires the cool observation of logical similarities between the behavior of the music and agitation; it does not require one to accept a certain "wiring" or don a certain pair of ears.
As people become more acquainted with the music, though, they will accept it more as an _experience_ of being, and feel its character more empathetically and less intellectually.



Strange Magic said:


> It seems to me that the exact opposite is the case: _Music is far too simple and limited to describe the human emotional vocabulary._ Human emotion is or can be meticulously expressed by language, however, and people craft whole novels, biographies, autobiographies, plays to express same.
> 
> But perhaps I just don't understand the nuances of your position.


Several bars or so of music can instantly communicate a sensation so precise it will be impossible to communicate it in words. We can stand around it and talk about it _with_ words, but no word or series of words will ever be able to capture the precise state of being embodied in the harmonic and motivic structure of the segment.


----------



## fluteman

BachIsBest said:


> no one is claiming we can make exact objective sadness measurements


Ah, but we can make _approximate_, but still objective, sadness measurements by empirical observation and statistical measurement. Come on, BachIsBest! Embrace empiricism and the statistical approach! Isn't that is the TC way? Give Strange Magic the beating he deserves! He's getting too smug.


----------



## Jacck

BachIsBest said:


> I defined objectivity multiple times on this thread to be "independent of personal biases and opinions" which is (roughly, of course) the definition found in most dictionaries. Some of the subjectivists seem to use a much stronger definition of objectivity in that they feel it refers to things only that are completely independent of human perception; how they use human perception to determine things totally independent of human perception, I know not. Given the definition I'm using, I would say it is silly to say some music isn't sad as, you have rightly pointed out, there are innate biological reasons that humans find certain music sad that is independent of their personal biases and opinions on the matter. Of course, their personal biases and opinions might make them experience the music as more or less sad, but this is fine; no one is claiming we can make exact objective sadness measurements only that there is a reasonable basis to call some music sad and to have that not just be personal opinion.


I am not sure if that definition is sufficient. There are also collective biases and opinions, and just because something is collective does not make it true or objective. So I subscribe to the stronger definition of objectivity as something existing independently of human consciousness. Since all music belongs into the category of qualia, none of it is really objective. 
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/


----------



## Zhdanov

SanAntone said:


> I absolutely do not believe that there is any emotional content within any piece of music.


start listening to opera, for that is where music language comes from, with lyrics follow the music, and it is narrative first which then produces images, symbols, and this very information operates emotions.


----------



## fluteman

Zhdanov said:


> start listening to opera, for that is where music language comes from, with lyrics follow the music, and it is narrative first which then produces images, symbols, and this very information operates emotions.


I love that song, and performed it all the time with my chamber music group (on the flute, not singing, alas). Our opera hits set was the second favorite of audiences, but their favorite was instrumental classical pieces, including, I'm afraid to say, modern ones.


----------



## Strange Magic

Isaac Blackburn said:


> Several bars or so of music can instantly communicate a sensation so precise it will be impossible to communicate it in words. We can stand around it and talk about it _with_ words, but no word or series of words will ever be able to capture the precise state of being embodied in the harmonic and motivic structure of the segment.


Interesting ideas. It would appear that you are a total objectivist in ascribing to innate properties embedded within the music the production of certain reactions in essentially any perceiver. If no words or series of words will ever be able to capture the precise state of being that is embodied in the music, this again is a position on your part as extreme as mine, implying strongly a very rigid cause/effect mechanism at work whereby all perceivers who are not deformed or mentally ill will have triggered in their heads very precise "states of being". Yet my system allows for and explains the vast spectrum of reaction to art stimuli while yours places iron fetters upon possibility. People who say very different things about the music now can be explained as just failing to come up with a correct and identical series of words to describe it--they all actually experience the same thing but just can't express it well.


----------



## Ethereality

Jacck said:


> Some sounds are objectively pleasing to a majority of humans across cultures, while other sounds are objectively unpleasant (shovel scratching across concrete floor etc)


This has been said repeatedly. In the abstract sense of a whole composition it may be said more harmonious facets are pleasant to many, with dissonance diminished. Or that dissonance causes a pleasant response once released.

Now let's go back to the topic.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> I know that, dear Woodduck, and said as much. But even jokes can be revealing. *How silly, even absurd, it is to suggest that a conservatory would teach its students why Bach fugues are great in the sense of proving it with empirical evidence or deductive reasoning.* One must accept on their authority they are great, or already believe it going in. Either way, the whole institution is built on accepting the premise that Bach's fugues are great. So, you are an authority method guy.
> 
> FWIW, *I think your version of the authority method, i.e., looking to the authority of the conservatory,* is better than that of ArtMusic or Zhdanov, who look to the authority of the "learned masters" themselves. As we saw from Zhdanov's response to Strange Magic's question about Bartok, his authorities are less broad minded and open to diversity than is the typical modern conservatory.


Since I don't believe, and never suggested, that a conservatory would teach its students _why_ Bach fugues are great in the sense of proving it with empirical evidence or deductive reasoning, it's clear that you're still missing the joke and that it isn't as "revealing" to you as you think it is.

The fetish for "proof" isn't my contribution to this discussion and isn't interesting to me. What _should _be revealing is my actual perspective on musical meaning and its sources in human nature and life, which is at least adumbrated in post #1284 and several previous ones. But apparently people would rather argue about "objectivity," "subjectivity," mathematics, and tastes in ice cream. Pity.


----------



## DaveM

Ethereality said:


> This has been said repeatedly. Thank you.
> 
> Now let's go back to the topic.


What's the topic?


----------



## BachIsBest

fluteman said:


> Ah, but we can make _approximate_, but still objective, sadness measurements by empirical observation and statistical measurement. Come on, BachIsBest! Embrace empiricism and the statistical approach! Isn't that is the TC way? Give Strange Magic the beating he deserves! He's getting too smug.


I'm not sure measurements is the correct word, but yes. I can objectively say that the first movement of _Eine Kleine Nachtmusik_ is not sad.


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> What's the topic?


My sentiments exactly.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Since I don't believe, and never suggested, that a conservatory would teach its students _why_ Bach fugues are great in the sense of proving it with empirical evidence or deductive reasoning, it's clear that you're still missing the joke.
> 
> The fetish for "proof" isn't my contribution to this discussion and isn't interesting to me.


I agree, except, respectfully, I do not think I'm missing the joke (it was a clever one), obviously you don't believe that, and I wouldn't use the word "fetish". That's just using a derogatory term for beliefs or values you don't happen to share.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Strange Magic said:


> Interesting ideas. It would appear that you are a total objectivist in ascribing to innate properties embedded within the music the production of certain reactions in essentially any perceiver...


Your belief that the nature of the music is determined by the reactions of the perceivers is, I think, a wrong one. A piece of music might go from A major to D major and back to A major- what is the corresponding "reaction" for that structural property? Nonetheless, that tonal structure is an important component of the (emotional, narrative) nature of the music.

We can talk about properties - often emotional and narrative properties - of the music being "objectively there" without having to call upon some universality in reactions.


----------



## Zhdanov

fluteman said:


> ArtMusic or Zhdanov, who look to the authority of the "learned masters" themselves.


i personally look to no other authority but the body of works created during the era of music masterpieces.



fluteman said:


> As we saw from Zhdanov's response to Strange Magic's question about Bartok, his authorities are less broad minded and open to diversity than is the typical modern conservatory.


i did not reject Bartok works, but said i haven't listened enough to his and, therefore, cannot pass judgement.


----------



## Ethereality

DaveM said:


> What's the topic?


The topic is 'is there such thing as objective greatness?' not 'some people subjectively think certain aspects are great,' or the more inappropriate 'certain sounds are instinctually pleasant to people' which now detaches from the topic of greatness _and_ objectivity. Given, I don't mind people giving their own definition of greatness; but seeing it's not related to the topic, I should steer you back onto it.


----------



## Strange Magic

Zhdanov said:


> i personally look to no other authority but the body of works created during the era of music masterpieces.
> 
> i did not reject Bartok works, but said i haven't listened enough to his and, therefore, cannot pass judgement.





> *Zhdanov:*. "i do no go beyond Offenbach, Lehar & Kalman."


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


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> .......................


what do you mean?


----------



## ArtMusic

fluteman said:


> That's a very good illustration of the use of what I've called the authority method to evaluate art. Indeed, who am I to pull down what we've inherited from the best of western art masters, i.e., challenge their authority? Well said.


It's not authority. It's the work, their ethics, the inherited tradition and the avoidance of that today which negates all of that. But I guess it doesn't really matter because they have and will continue to survive posterity anyway. It's the current state of things that is a concern. Our polite attitudes today will continue to be a dishonest pathway for mediocre art.


----------



## SanAntone

ArtMusic said:


> It's not authority. It's the work, their ethics, the inherited tradition and the avoidance of that today which negates all of that. But I guess it doesn't really matter because they have and will continue to survive posterity anyway. It's the current state of things that is a concern. *Our polite attitudes today will continue to be a dishonest pathway for mediocre art*.


That is your subjective response to the new classical music being written today. I have the opposite opinions, finding much about what is being written today exciting and very enjoyable to listen to. The world, and classical music, has moved beyond the common practice period.

Lucky for you the music you love is still available in recordings and performances. Live and let live.


----------



## ArtMusic

SanAntone said:


> That is your subjective response to the new classical music being written today. I have the opposite opinions, finding much about what is being written today exciting and very enjoyable to listen to. The world, and classical music, has moved beyond the common practice period.
> 
> Lucky for you the music you love is still available in recordings and performances. Live and let live.


Good for you.

But when galleries spend millions of tax payers subsidies on arbitrary art, it is a misallocation of resources and disgrace on those sitting in offices to approve it. On new music, commissioned works often receive standing ovations. Most of it is a show. Much of these newly commission works rarely return to concert halls after that.


----------



## Strange Magic

Isaac Blackburn said:


> Your belief that the nature of the music is determined by the reactions of the perceivers is, I think, a wrong one. A piece of music might go from A major to D major and back to A major- what is the corresponding "reaction" for that structural property? Nonetheless, that tonal structure is an important component of the (emotional, narrative) nature of the music.
> 
> We can talk about properties - often emotional and narrative properties - of the music being "objectively there" without having to call upon some universality in reactions.


I think we need to explain why there is no need to call upon or understand some universality in reactions to music. You have it both ways: A) inherent properties "objectively there" within the music, baked into the loaf by geniuses creating perfect works by placing each note exactly where it should be--Beethoven's 5th, but his 9th "deeper" and more perfect. These are said to arouse--or ought to arouse--reactions in the perceivers which, by your system, should be identical. But B) I am sure you have a mechanism to explain then why different people have a spectrum of reactions to these fixed cause/effect stimuli--you have to have such, otherwise the idea of an individual's autonomy in perceiving and judging and valuing music is fitted into an Iron Maiden of Destiny.

Both you and Woodduck argue earnestly for the joys and wonders of music in the abstract as an overarching crystal dome of beauty, genius, and wonder, yet the role of the individual perceiver is so reduced as to be lost from view. As I've preached, our experience of art is at the individual level and that is important certainly to me. But we each appear to be content with our own positions, though I feel mine is more in tune with actual lived art experience, observed human behavior (right here on TC), and, to DaveM's annoyance, thousands of years of highly variable human experience and reaction to art.


----------



## fluteman

BachIsBest said:


> I'm not sure measurements is the correct word, but yes. I can objectively say that the first movement of _Eine Kleine Nachtmusik_ is not sad.


I'd say for me it's nauseating. I've heard it so often I immediately turn the radio off when it comes on, as it did a couple of days ago while I was driving home.


----------



## Strange Magic

Zhdanov said:


> what do you mean?


The string of dots was only in response to the demand that I have at least 15 characters. Means nothing beyond that. Try Bartók's _Divertimento_. I think you'll like it!


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> Means nothing beyond that.


the quote, why the wrong quote?


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> But we each appear to be content with our own positions, though I feel mine is more in tune with actual lived art experience, observed human behavior (right here on TC), and, to DaveM's annoyance, thousands of years of highly variable human experience and reaction to art.


"[M]ine is more in tune with actual lived art experience, observed human behavior " -- So at least a touch of the empirical / statistical / cluster approach, eh, Strange Magic? No need to respond to me, you've already won, as I've already said here repeatedly. Plus, like you, I may have manipulated this discussion a bit to get some people to respond the way I wanted, and expected, and even egged you on into making that comment.

Endless threads like this one change nobody's mind about anything, but getting people to clearly reveal what lies behind their arguments is highly instructive, and I think that's worthwhile.


----------



## Strange Magic

Zhdanov said:


> the quote, why the wrong quote?


What quote? Now you've lost me. Were you misquoted? What about Offenbach, Lehar, etc.?


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> Were you misquoted?


yes.



Strange Magic said:


> What about Offenbach, Lehar, etc.?


wrong quote.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> "[M]ine is more in tune with actual lived art experience, observed human behavior " -- So at least a touch of the empirical / statistical / cluster approach, eh, Strange Magic? No need to respond to me, you've already won, as I've already said here repeatedly. Plus, like you, I may have manipulated this discussion a bit to get some people to respond the way I wanted, and expected, and even egged you on into making that comment.
> 
> Endless threads like this one change nobody's mind about anything, but getting people to clearly reveal what lies behind their arguments is highly instructive, and I think that's worthwhile.


Put me down as an empiricist! And a pragmatist, too.  I'll be in great company.


----------



## Strange Magic

Zhdanov said:


> i do no go beyond Offenbach, Lehar & Kalman.


Your Post #1183. Wrong quote? A forgery? Not your quote?


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> Your Post #1183. Wrong quote?


wrong quote, here is the right one -



Zhdanov said:


> as if i listened to a lot of these... no idea, so far.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> Put me down as an empiricist! And a pragmatist, too.  I'll be in great company.


Fabulous. Now I have to read the books of Leonard B. Meyer.


----------



## Strange Magic

Zhdanov said:


> wrong quote, here is the right one -


I invite all who are interested (who might those be, we ask?) to examine Post #1183. My question; Zhdanov's reply. QED.


----------



## SanAntone

ArtMusic said:


> But when galleries spend millions of tax payers subsidies on arbitrary art, it is a misallocation of resources and disgrace on those sitting in offices to approve it.


Art galleries are not public entities, you might be thinking of museums which have a variety of revenue streams, including some NEA funds. Obviously the curators and boards of these museums disagree with you. It is their task to advance the mission of their institution, which is to preserve and show the best art they can acquire for the viewing public, based on their integrity, scholarship, and taste.

So don't go to their exhibitions.



> On new music, commissioned works often receive standing ovations. Most of it is a show. Much of these newly commission works rarely return to concert halls after that.


You have your opinion. My opinion is the opposite.


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> I invite all who are interested (who might those be, we ask?) to examine Post #1183. My question; Zhdanov's reply. QED.


your inquiry -



Strange Magic said:


> what are your views on Bela Bartok, Hovhaness, Martinu, Rautavaara, for example?


my reply -



Zhdanov said:


> as if i listened to a lot of these... no idea, so far.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> Art galleries are not public entities, you might be thinking of museums which have a variety of revenue streams, including some NEA funds. Obviously the curators and boards of these museums disagree with you. It is their task to advance the mission of their institution, which is to preserve and show the best art they can acquire for the viewing public, based on their integrity, scholarship, and taste.
> 
> So don't go to their exhibitions.
> 
> You have your opinion. My opinion is the opposite.


But apparently, SanAntone, this isn't a question of opinion. Your tastes in music are "arbitrary", and it is a misallocation for society to devote public resources to that music. (I'm not sure exactly what that refers to. Do you watch Wynton Marsalis on PBS? You did mention Duke Ellington.) You are hurting all of us. You need to raise your standards, up your game, as it were.


----------



## Strange Magic

Zhdanov said:


> your inquiry -
> my reply -


Fun and games with Zhdanov. Again, all who are interested in reality are invited to examine Zhadnov's Post #1183. It is clear beyond dispute what was the question which appears in the quote, and Z's answer to that question. Strange mind games at play, it seems.


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> all who are interested in reality


in denial are you?

my reply to Bartok question was this -



Zhdanov said:


> as if i listened to a lot of these... no idea, so far.


and why did you quote unrelated post ?


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> examine Zhadnov's Post #1183.


it was in reply to this post of yours -



Strange Magic said:


> Where/what are your outer limits?


that i said as follows -



Zhdanov said:


> i do no go beyond Offenbach, Lehar & Kalman.


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> I defined objectivity multiple times on this thread to be "independent of personal biases and opinions" which is (roughly, of course) the definition found in most dictionaries. Some of the subjectivists seem to use a much stronger definition of objectivity in that they feel it refers to things only that are completely independent of human perception


I have in past posts defended the idea that there are objectively 'great' composers, due entirely to their inclusion in the canon (one definition of 'great' being esteemed, and esteem being a sociological question: just go out and determine which composers are most widely esteemed).

No one seemed to care about this, but were more interested in the other understanding of 'great': as denoting those properties of music that make it good (and which would explain _why_ certain composers are in the canon).

This then brings us back to the 'objective vs subjective' question. Are the judgements that a composer is good objective or subjective?

To start with, Google has a 'philosophical' definition of objective, next to it's basic definition, as:

"not dependent on the mind for existence; actual"

Is Bach objectively good in this sense? Definitively not, as my thought experiment in the OP sought to demonstrate.

More relevant to your post I quoted above, Dictionary.com defines objective as:

"not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; *based on facts*; unbiased"

Cambridge dictionary defines objective as:

"*based on real facts* and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings"

Merriam-Webster defines objective as:

"of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and *perceptible by all observers* : having *reality independent of the mind*"

So actually, you are not quite right when you define objective merely as "independent of *personal *biases and opinions". All those definitions above, to different degrees, involve the notion of a _fact_. We can argue about the definition of 'fact' until the cows come home, but it is in no way idiosyncratic to interpret 'fact' as something mind-independent - something third-person and, as the Merriam-Webster definition states, perceptible by all observers, in the sense the existence of the temporal lobe is observable to all who gather around the operating table in an anatomy lecture (to use a simple example).

Is it a fact, in this sense, that Bach is good? No. That's not just my value judgement. I love Bach. It's a reflection that Bach is _not_ good in a mind-independent sense, perceptible by all observers.

In short, I don't believe you are being fair (objective in _your_ sense of the term!) in interpreting the dictionary definition of 'objective' in the way you do.


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> To be frank, your argument here is begging the question; if you assume art adheres to no objective standards, then of course my argument is wrong. Mine is to (in that it appeals to a sense of artistic quality, but at least I admitted this in saying that it relies on your opponent finding said conclusion absurd), but it is useful to know what lengths everyone will take this whole relativism thing to.


Why am I begging the question? I pointed out that the following argument is not a good reductio:

_Judgements of musical greatness cannot be subjective, for then avant-garde would proliferate _

Why is it not a good reductio? Because the 'absurd' conclusion is not absurd at all. It's only absurd if you don't like avant-grade music. A reductio argument has to point to a conclusion which is bad in a sense which goes above and beyond how I would _like_ the world to be, surely?! If not, then following reductio would be a good one"

_The earth cannot be flat, for then theists would feel good_



BachIsBest said:


> How about this for reductio ad absurdum instead. You claim you are a positivist; positivists believe that nothing is objectively true save for that which can be empirically observed and rational deductions made from those observations. Thus, according to the positivist position, the statement "nothing is objectively true save for that which can be empirically observed and rational deductions made from those observations" is not objectively true for it can not be empirically observed nor derived from rational deductions of empirical observations.


I think there is an important sense in which my position _is_ born out empirically.

Look at the massively increased power human beings have with the mind-independent world since the adoption of the epistemology that "nothing is true save for that which can be empirically observed or rationally deduced from those observations" and the associated banishment of metaphysical speculation and theistic ejaculations.

We have not cured diseases, moved away from burning 'witches, saved women in childbirth, sent man to the moon and back, created computing devices beyond our wildest dreams, cars, planes, lasers, &c. by accident.

If you please, what notion of objectivity would _you_ have us live by, if you are so bold as to deny the one which has (to put it crudely) produced the computer you are writing on?

Does it rest, as you seem to want, merely on consensus ('lack of personal bias')? Well then, it would have been objectively true, in the middle-ages, that some women were witches or that mental illness is caused be demonic possession.


----------



## fluteman

RogerWaters said:


> I have in past posts defended the idea that there are objectively 'great' composers, due entirely to their inclusion in the canon (one definition of 'great' being esteemed, and esteem being a sociological question: just go out and determine which composers are most widely esteemed).
> 
> No one seemed to care about this, but were more interested in the other understanding of 'great': as denoting those properties of music that make it good (and which would explain _why_ certain composers are in the canon).


I, for one, did care about your position, and did acknowledge that inclusion in a 'canon', or being widely esteemed, it is a perfectly valid and objective way to evaluate greatness. In my opinion, it is the most useful and worthwhile way to do so, for those who care about establishing greatness in music, and the only objective way in any sense of that word.

Outside of the TC bubble and a few similar places on the internet, this method of establishing greatness, dependent as it is on a broad consensus in the subjective tastes and perceptions of listeners, is accepted without question. Nobody engages in the philosophical debate of empiricism versus rationalism, here oddly renamed subjectivity versus objectivity. Nobody argues there is something inherently great in music even if nobody perceives it.

Of course, there are listeners like Strange Magic, who don't care if the music they like is included in a canon or considered great, so long as it is available to them. But the empirical question of what the audience wants rules the music world, including the classical music world. Yes, classical music composers sometimes are subsidized and commissioned, and not every new piece is successful, in fact most likely are not, as in all genres. But that has always been the case. It is very expensive to produce traditional classical music, especially music for a traditional symphony orchestra or opera company, and if we want any more of it, we have to accept the unsuccessful new works to get the successful ones. And more importantly, only those composers who are successful with the audience get any significant money or recognition in the long run.

So, the music industry, including the classical music segment, gets by as best it can, on this basis. Those only interested in 18th and 19th music still represent a significant segment of the classical music audience, and their tastes are taken into account, but they are not the entire audience by a long shot.

That's the way it really is, folks. You can keep arguing about these philosophical issues, but the horse left the barn a very long time ago.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

I've written a long comment here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRbwhqbiQbmlufm1uDygVa_Z9qBpXEb28GXLCRDbjU-w4ayeKhN1kZsFsebNdoKfFf9IJQl2IWHw39h/pub

I would be glad if other posters read through it, as it is likely my last post.


----------



## EdwardBast

fluteman said:


> I, for one, did care about your position, and did acknowledge that inclusion in a 'canon', or being widely esteemed, *it is a perfectly valid and objective way to evaluate greatness.* In my opinion, it is the most useful and worthwhile way to do so, for those who care about establishing greatness in music, and *the only objective way in any sense of that word*.


Except objective is the wrong concept and doesn't apply. For like the tenth time: You are talking about intersubjective agreement, not objective evaluation.


----------



## SanAntone

EdwardBast said:


> Except objective is the wrong concept and doesn't apply. For like the tenth time: You are talking about intersubjective agreement, not objective evaluation.


Thank you for this post.


----------



## Luchesi

RogerWaters said:


> Imagine an alien race visits earth.
> 
> Luckily, this alien race has something very like human ears - human ears being one kind of sensor that responds with fine-grained causal specificity to _acoustic waves_ (a type of energy propagation through a medium by means of adiabatic compression and decompression), passing this fine-grained sensory information to auditory centres in the brain which process it, in concert with a range of emotional and cognitive centres, delivering us an 'experience' that may be pleasant or unpleasant.
> 
> _Imagine that these aliens happen to experience Bach as it would sound to us played underwater_, due to the unique nature of their neural wiring between ears and brain centres (which is in turn due to adaptation to their own unique terrestrial atmosphere). The result is a complex canvass of stimulation, but one that leaves them emotionally unmoved.
> 
> Are these creatures _wrong_ to not find Bach 'Great' to listen to?
> 
> Upshot: If they are not wrong, then the greatness of Bach cannot be objective, at least to subjectivists on this forum.
> 
> If you think the aliens are not wrong, but that the greatness of Bach is still objective, you have a different *concept *of objectivity from the subjectivists: perhaps you limit objectivity to a specific species of animal.
> 
> But would you do the same with objectivity in other domains? Do you think a mathematical or scientific proposition (1+1=2; the earth is more round than it is flat) can be true for one intelligence species and false for another (taking into considering these propositions would be expressed in different languages)?
> 
> If not (and you shouldn't), then why are you using a concept one way when it comes to art, and another way when it comes to other domains? Is this not a strange way to use language?


Aliens would look at the score and derive the information content. We do that as musicians, Written music is in a language. They would know it was a product of intelligence.


----------



## Luchesi

Isaac Blackburn said:


> I've written a long comment here:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/...DbjU-w4ayeKhN1kZsFsebNdoKfFf9IJQl2IWHw39h/pub
> 
> I would be glad if other posters read through it, as it is likely my last post.


Google Docs

You need permission to access this published document.

You are signed in as jjjj.com, but you don't have permission to access this published document.


----------



## RogerWaters

Luchesi said:


> Aliens would look at the score and derive the information content. We do that as musicians, Written music is in a language. They would know it was a product of intelligence.


But, of course, this is very different from finding it _good music_.


----------



## fluteman

EdwardBast said:


> Except objective is the wrong concept and doesn't apply. For like the tenth time: You are talking about intersubjective agreement, not objective evaluation.


OK. As I've repeatedly said, the debate here really is one between empiricism and rationalism. Empiricism is concerned with objective _observations_, and objectively measurable _data_. _Evaluation_ of that data is never entirely objective. You may have noticed me refer to empirical results that are "significant", or a significant degree of agreement or consensus. But exactly what level of statistical agreement is significant must be arbitrarily assumed. And what "agreement" among a group of individuals consists of also must be arbitrarily assumed. Do we simply ask each individual if they like Beethoven's 5th Symphony or not, or do we ask them to rate it on a scale of 1 to 10? Either way, it's likely that no two people perceive or evaluate the symphony exactly the same way, even if they give it exactly the same score.

I didn't mean to overstate the "objectivity" of the results of empirical _evaluation_, and I don't think I did. A similarity in subjective tastes among individuals is an objective fact only once you make some arbitrary and simplifying assumptions as to what 'similarity' means and how to measure it. And empirical data says nothing about the inherent quality of Beethoven's 5th symphony apart from how it is perceived by the observed subjects. [Edit: My understanding of the term intersubjectivity is that it would apply more to a sharing of or agreement in underlying values that might give rise to the sort of statistical patterns I've discussed here. It would take yet another leap to infer such intersubjective relationships from the statistical relationships I refer to. Ultimately, such conclusions may be suggested by the objective data, but again, arbitrary assumptions and simplifications are inevitably involved.]


----------



## SanAntone

RogerWaters said:


> But, of course, this is very different from finding it _good music_.


I made a similar point several pages back, i.e. science can tell us a lot about physical phenomenon, but cannot make ethical or moral judgments about what we find out. E.g., cloning: Science can tell us how it is done, but not if it is ethical.


----------



## ArtMusic

fluteman said:


> OK. As I've repeatedly said, the debate here really is one between empiricism and rationalism. Empiricism is concerned with objective _observations_, and objectively measurable _data_. _Evaluation_ of that data is never entirely objective. You may have noticed me refer to empirical results that are "significant", or a significant degree of agreement or consensus. But exactly what level of statistical agreement is significant must be arbitrarily assumed. And what "agreement" among a group of individuals consists of also must be arbitrarily assumed. Do we simply ask each individual if they like Beethoven's 5th Symphony or not, or do we ask them to rate it on a scale of 1 to 10? Either way, it's likely that no two people perceive or evaluate the symphony exactly the same way, even if they give it exactly the same score.
> 
> I didn't mean to overstate the "objectivity" of the results of empirical _evaluation_, and I don't think I did. A similarity in subjective tastes among individuals is an objective fact only once you make some arbitrary and simplifying assumptions as to what 'similarity' means and how to measure it. And empirical data says nothing about the inherent quality of Beethoven's 5th symphony apart from how it is perceived by the observed subjects. [Edit: My understanding of the term intersubjectivity is that it would apply more to a sharing of or agreement in underlying values that might give rise to the sort of statistical patterns I've discussed here. It would take yet another leap to infer such intersubjective relationships from the statistical relationships I refer to. Ultimately, such conclusions may be suggested by the objective data, but again, arbitrary assumptions and simplifications are inevitably involved.]


Your reasoning assumes a 20th century approach to viewing art. If you care to read books written by great artists from the past, who founded institutions and art schools, letters by great artists in the past on art, then you will see that their artistic reasoning is actually more profound, based on artistic values speaking first hand as masters of art, both visual arts and in music. The approach here in this internet is based on simplistic reductivism. We have talked about "empirical data", "vanilla ice-cream", "burden of proof", "4 x 7 = 28" .... which was what I did when I was at school.


----------



## Luchesi

RogerWaters said:


> But, of course, this is very different from finding it _good music_.


It has value.

They probably wouldn't be tapping their tentacles to it. We can assume that from the findings of evolutionary psychology.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> It has value.
> 
> They probably wouldn't tapping their tenacles to it. We can assume that from the findings of evolutionary psychology.


I suppose there has never been mediocre or bad music notated in a score.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> I suppose there has never been mediocre or bad music notated in a score.


Yes, even by JsB.


----------



## fluteman

ArtMusic said:


> Your reasoning assumes a 20th century approach to viewing art. If you care to read books written by great artists from the past, who founded institutions and art schools, letters by great artists in the past on art, then you will see that their artistic reasoning is actually more profound, based on artistic values speaking first hand as masters of art, both visual arts and in music. The approach here in this internet is based on simplistic reductivism. We have talked about "empirical data", "vanilla ice-cream", "burden of proof", "4 x 7 = 28" .... which was what I did when I was at school.


That's fine, I've already acknowledged your approach to these questions differs from mine, and that there are reasons people use your approach. I've already explained why I don't accept that approach. I've also explained that establishing to others or to society generally that the music I prefer is "great" is not a task I attach great importance to, except that I'd like to see that the music I personally consider great is easily available to anyone who is interested, and that children have a good music education in our schools. In my opinion, that alone will insure the survival of the music I consider great, which, you'll be happy to know, very much includes the music of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms.

People here seem to be acutely interested in questions of empiricism and rationalism, so I've given my views on that, derived in part from my experience as a social scientist myself.

What disturbs me about threads like these is the streak of ethnocentrism, and white cultural supremacy, that lies not to far under the surface of too many posts. Many are using rationalism as an excuse to justify their ethnocentrism. One poster even suggested there is no such thing as classical music other than western classical music. Well, that just ain't so.


----------



## RogerWaters

ArtMusic said:


> Your reasoning assumes a 20th century approach to viewing art. If you care to read books written by great artists from the past, who founded institutions and art schools, letters by great artists in the past on art, then you will see that their artistic reasoning is actually more profound, based on artistic values speaking first hand as masters of art, both visual arts and in music. The approach here in this internet is based on *simplistic reductivism*. We have talked about "empirical data", "vanilla ice-cream", "burden of proof", "4 x 7 = 28" .... which was what I did when I was at school.


It's not based on reductivism. It's based on logic and clear thinking.

It's based on the quite simple observation that you cannot derive the valid conclusion "X is good music" based on any of the following kind of premises:

- X is complicated
- X does Y with harmony
- X does X with melody

You can only validly derive said conclusion from the above premises with the addition of the following kinds of _subjective preferences_ as accompanying premises:

-X is complicated
-_Complicated music is good music_

-X does Y with harmony
-_Music that does Y with harmony is good music_

&c.

This is all perfectly compatible with reading books written by great artists of the past, and thinking about their artistic reasoning. If you accept their basic assumptions about art, you can build their views into your own and develop them into rich webs of belief.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Luchesi said:


> Google Docs
> 
> You need permission to access this published document.
> 
> You are signed in as jjjj.com, but you don't have permission to access this published document.


Thanks. I've changed the settings and made it available:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSKfQ7KmHhHatOSCd-SmBoYGdZz6Wsl3JA0W3sv4KfFCuYO96kQ-Z8BPRZxafC09cF9Js5QScA068eh/pub

As I said, this is my final comment, and I would be glad if it was read by all.


----------



## Strange Magic

ArtMusic said:


> Your reasoning assumes a 20th century approach to viewing art. If you care to read books written by great artists from the past, who founded institutions and art schools, letters by great artists in the past on art, then you will see that their artistic reasoning is actually more profound, based on artistic values speaking first hand as masters of art, both visual arts and in music. The approach here in this internet is based on simplistic reductivism. We have talked about "empirical data", "vanilla ice-cream", "burden of proof", "4 x 7 = 28" .... which was what I did when I was at school.


Could you state clearly whether you hold that excellence, "greatness", is an integral, innate, inseparable quality inherent in great music? Can you tell us if everyone could or should react positively to that perceived excellence or greatness? Or is it thus available only to a select group? Can you explain why, if that is the case, and it is, that not everyone senses that excellence or greatness and thus there is a variance among even sophisticated auditors over what music is good, better, best, perfect? To what extent do you believe group dynamics, pressure, influence, psychology bear upon who prefers what in music? Do you believe that individual variation in history, neurology, psychology, experience color or should color what auditors bear to the musical experience? Is it important to have an experience of music that is approved of by one's peers, or can one be a lone wolf in thinking some music is great but find others uninterested or disliking your choices? Do you believe that skill and/or complexity are either necessary or sufficient conditions to establish the presence of excellence?

These are not rhetorical questions. They are real questions directed specifically at you in the hope and expectation of direct answers, without recourse to Joshua Reynolds, an admirable man and quite good artist, but no William Blake in his choice of subjects; also loathed by Blake (for reasons mostly of spite and envy, Blake being a passionate hater). No letters from artists, please; no glowing testimonials.

I both can and have answered these questions _ad nauseum_ to the irritation of many. Now it's your turn.


----------



## fluteman

Isaac Blackburn said:


> Thanks. I've changed the settings and made it available:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSKfQ7KmHhHatOSCd-SmBoYGdZz6Wsl3JA0W3sv4KfFCuYO96kQ-Z8BPRZxafC09cF9Js5QScA068eh/pub
> 
> As I said, this is my final comment, and I would be glad if it was read by all.


Thanks for that and for your participation. As I've said, I tried several times in this thread to convince people to stop misusing the words objective and subjective when they really were talking about empiricism and rationalism. There is a basic divide between those two ways of viewing the world, and in many ways empiricism has dominated since the 18th century, in my opinion, understandably so. In no way am I a "subjectivist". That is a ridiculous, meaningless word. I hope I have shown I have a good grasp of the difference between what is objective and what is subjective. That difference is not what we were discussing here.


----------



## Luchesi

RogerWaters said:


> It's not based on reductivism. It's based on logic and clear thinking.
> 
> It's based on the quite simple observation that you cannot derive the valid conclusion "X is good music" based on any of the following kind of premises:
> 
> - X is complicated
> - X does Y with harmony
> - X does X with melody
> 
> You can only validly derive said conclusion from the above premises with the addition of the following kinds of _subjective preferences_ as accompanying premises:
> 
> -X is complicated
> -_Complicated music is good music_
> 
> -X does Y with harmony
> -_Music that does Y with harmony is good music_
> 
> &c.
> 
> This is all perfectly compatible with reading books written by great artists of the past, and thinking about their artistic reasoning. If you accept their basic assumptions about art, you can build their views into your own and develop them into rich webs of belief.


The value is in the score. Where else would it be?


----------



## RogerWaters

Luchesi said:


> The value is in the score. Where else would it be?


Inside it? Around the edges? Where?


----------



## science

Isaac Blackburn said:


> Thanks. I've changed the settings and made it available:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSKfQ7KmHhHatOSCd-SmBoYGdZz6Wsl3JA0W3sv4KfFCuYO96kQ-Z8BPRZxafC09cF9Js5QScA068eh/pub
> 
> As I said, this is my final comment, and I would be glad if it was read by all.


I simply cannot understand the statement, "I objectively like cake."


----------



## ArtMusic

Strange Magic said:


> Could you state clearly whether you hold that excellence, "greatness", is an integral, innate, inseparable quality inherent in great music? Can you tell us if everyone could or should react positively to that perceived excellence or greatness? Or is it thus available only to a select group? Can you explain why, if that is the case, and it is, that not everyone senses that excellence or greatness and thus there is a variance among even sophisticated auditors over what music is good, better, best, perfect? To what extent do you believe group dynamics, pressure, influence, psychology bear upon who prefers what in music? Do you believe that individual variation in history, neurology, psychology, experience color or should color what auditors bear to the musical experience? Is it important to have an experience of music that is approved of by one's peers, or can one be a lone wolf in thinking some music is great but find others uninterested or disliking your choices? Do you believe that skill and/or complexity are either necessary or sufficient conditions to establish the presence of excellence?
> 
> These are not rhetorical questions. They are real questions directed specifically at you in the hope and expectation of direct answers, without recourse to Joshua Reynolds, an admirable man and quite good artist, but no William Blake in his choice of subjects; also loathed by Blake (for reasons mostly of spite and envy, Blake being a passionate hater). No letters from artists, please; no glowing testimonials.
> 
> I both can and have answered these questions _ad nauseum_ to the irritation of many. Now it's your turn.


No, it is in fact your task to read up on how art was studied, created and appreciated in earlier times to have a broader awareness, not just a 20th century one, which is what this whole thread has been about. I have done so and it's part of my education. Pure and simple.


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> I have in past posts defended the idea that there are objectively 'great' composers, due entirely to their inclusion in the canon (one definition of 'great' being esteemed, and esteem being a sociological question: just go out and determine which composers are most widely esteemed).
> 
> No one seemed to care about this, but were more interested in the other understanding of 'great': as denoting those properties of music that make it good (and which would explain _why_ certain composers are in the canon).
> 
> This then brings us back to the 'objective vs subjective' question. Are the judgements that a composer is good objective or subjective?
> 
> To start with, Google has a 'philosophical' definition of objective, next to it's basic definition, as:
> 
> "not dependent on the mind for existence; actual"
> 
> Is Bach objectively good in this sense? Definitively not, as my thought experiment in the OP sought to demonstrate.
> 
> More relevant to your post I quoted above, Dictionary.com defines objective as:
> 
> "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; *based on facts*; unbiased"
> 
> Cambridge dictionary defines objective as:
> 
> "*based on real facts* and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings"
> 
> Merriam-Webster defines objective as:
> 
> "of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and *perceptible by all observers* : having *reality independent of the mind*"
> 
> So actually, you are not quite right when you define objective merely as "independent of *personal *biases and opinions". All those definitions above, to different degrees, involve the notion of a _fact_. We can argue about the definition of 'fact' until the cows come home, but it is in no way idiosyncratic to interpret 'fact' as something mind-independent - something third-person and, as the Merriam-Webster definition states, perceptible by all observers, in the sense the existence of the temporal lobe is observable to all who gather around the operating table in an anatomy lecture (to use a simple example).
> 
> Is it a fact, in this sense, that Bach is good? No. That's not just my value judgement. I love Bach. It's a reflection that Bach is _not_ good in a mind-independent sense, perceptible by all observers.
> 
> In short, I don't believe you are being fair (objective in _your_ sense of the term!) in interpreting the dictionary definition of 'objective' in the way you do.


Of course, you didn't post the first definition on Merriam-Webster, because it agrees more with me and instead chose to list the definition Merriam-Webster listed as less common and that agrees more with you. Nor did you list the non-philosophical definition on google. I did say roughly, and I stand by my rough definition. The fact that objective can be used, in some philosophical contexts, to refer to things that must be totally independent of the mind does not preclude it often being used as a really strong version of "impartial" (again, roughly). Regardless a fact is, according to google dictionary, "a thing that is known or proved to be true" and I see no contradiction with my original definition if I claim it is a fact that Bach wrote good music.

I have never claimed that musical greatness exists independently of humanity. If you are confused by the sense in which I use objective (even though this is a common usage) you can use the term non-subjective instead.


----------



## RogerWaters

ArtMusic said:


> No, it is in fact your task to read up on how art was studied, created and appreciated in earlier times to have a broader awareness, not just a 20th century one, which is what this whole thread has been about. I have done so and it's part of my education. Pure and simple.


I'm surprised this post didn't begin with "I am the LORD thy God".


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> Why am I begging the question? I pointed out that the following argument is not a good reductio:
> 
> _Judgements of musical greatness cannot be subjective, for then avant-garde would proliferate _
> 
> Why is it not a good reductio? Because the 'absurd' conclusion is not absurd at all. It's only absurd if you don't like avant-grade music. A reductio argument has to point to a conclusion which is bad in a sense which goes above and beyond how I would _like_ the world to be, surely?! If not, then following reductio would be a good one"
> 
> _The earth cannot be flat, for then theists would feel good_


You are begging the question because the conclusion is absurd if you take my position and not if you take your position. Thus, you already need to hold the position you already hold to conclude the statement isn't absurd



RogerWaters said:


> I think there is an important sense in which my position _is_ born out empirically.
> 
> Look at the massively increased power human beings have with the mind-independent world since the adoption of the epistemology that "nothing is true save for that which can be empirically observed or rationally deduced from those observations" and the associated banishment of metaphysical speculation and theistic ejaculations.
> 
> We have not cured diseases, moved away from burning 'witches, saved women in childbirth, sent man to the moon and back, created computing devices beyond our wildest dreams, cars, planes, lasers, &c. by accident.
> 
> If you please, what notion of objectivity would _you_ have us live by, if you are so bold as to deny the one which has (to put it crudely) produced the computer you are writing on?
> 
> Does it rest, as you seem to want, merely on consensus ('lack of personal bias')? Well then, it would have been objectively true, in the middle-ages, that some women were witches or that mental illness is caused be demonic possession.


I'm not sure how any of this is relevant to the claim that nothing is true save what can be born out empirically and from rational deductions based on empiricism. We all agree that empiricism delivers truths; there is no need to argue this point, my issue is with the exclusionary part of the statement.

Also, I am not denying the scientific method which has given us computers and never have, so please don't accuse me of this.

I also have never argued for basing objective truth on "mere consensus". Knowing when people are influenced by subjective factors and when they aren't is in general very difficult and I claim no general complete solution.


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> Of course, you didn't post the first definition on Merriam-Webster, because it agrees more with me and instead chose to list the definition Merriam-Webster listed as less common and that agrees more with you. Nor did you list the non-philosophical definition on google. I did say roughly, and I stand by my rough definition.


I didn't even cognise the first definition on Merriam-Webster. I went straight to the third because it caught my eye. Where do you get off on representing my intentions as though they are perfectly clear to you? And I attempted to be clear, in my post, that the Google definition was the 'philosophical' one.

Anyway, the first on Merriam-Webster is:

_expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations_

Again, it mentions _facts_. It does _not_ mention simply impartiality.



BachIsBest said:


> The fact that objective can be used, in some philosophical contexts, to refer to things that must be totally independent of the mind does not preclude it often being used as a really strong version of "impartial" (again, roughly).


You can use the concept how you use it. However, there is a conventional usage, and I provided multiple data points suggesting this conventional usage includes more than mere 'impartiality'. They all, actually, reference _fact_. even the conventional Google one:

_(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts._

At any rate, what do you think 'impartiality' amounts to? Is it simply falling in line with group consensus?! Why is someone who likes Boulez over Bach being 'partial'? Impartial means not subject to 'bias'. 'Bias' is defined my Merriam-Webster as making _unreasonable judgements_. Why is the judgement that Bach is boring objectively unreasonable?! Simply because most people who like Classical music like Bach? What about the people who don't like classical music?! If I have given Bach a chance, found him boring, and reverted to Hip Hop/Rock/my native tribe's folk/ritual music/etc., why am I being un*reasonable*?!



BachIsBest said:


> Regardless a fact is, according to google dictionary, "a thing that is known or proved to be true" and I see no contradiction with my original definition if I claim it is a fact that Bach wrote good music.


How to do you figure? You seem to be saying it is _proven_ that Bach wrote good music.

Where is your proof?


----------



## science

BachIsBest said:


> Of course, you didn't post the first definition on Merriam-Webster, because it agrees more with me and instead chose to list the definition Merriam-Webster listed as less common and that agrees more with you. Nor did you list the non-philosophical definition on google. I did say roughly, and I stand by my rough definition. The fact that objective can be used, in some philosophical contexts, to refer to things that must be totally independent of the mind does not preclude it often being used as a really strong version of "impartial" (again, roughly). Regardless a fact is, according to google dictionary, "a thing that is known or proved to be true" and I see no contradiction with my original definition if I claim it is a fact that Bach wrote good music.
> 
> I have never claimed that musical greatness exists independently of humanity. If you are confused by the sense in which I use objective (even though this is a common usage) you can use the term non-subjective instead.


This is by nature a philosophical and academic discussion, and it both demands and rewards some degree of intellectual precision, which requires a bit more semantic precision than a friendly chat over tea would.

_Political content deleted_.


----------



## BachIsBest

fluteman said:


> That's fine, I've already acknowledged your approach to these questions differs from mine, and that there are reasons people use your approach. I've already explained why I don't accept that approach. I've also explained that establishing to others or to society generally that the music I prefer is "great" is not a task I attach great importance to, except that I'd like to see that the music I personally consider great is easily available to anyone who is interested, and that children have a good music education in our schools. In my opinion, that alone will insure the survival of the music I consider great, which, you'll be happy to know, very much includes the music of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms.
> 
> People here seem to be acutely interested in questions of empiricism and rationalism, so I've given my views on that, derived in part from my experience as a social scientist myself.
> 
> What disturbs me about threads like these is the streak of ethnocentrism, and white cultural supremacy, that lies not to far under the surface of too many posts. Many are using rationalism as an excuse to justify their ethnocentrism. One poster even suggested there is no such thing as classical music other than western classical music. Well, that just ain't so.


I am a bit dismayed to see an unnamed poster, whom I can only presume to be myself (or one other poster; I apologise if is not myself), accused of a sort of white supremacy. I wish to clarify that my position was the Western classical music tradition was extraordinarily unique in the history of world music, and the traditional music of other cultures has more in common with some of the rich folk music traditions in Europe than Western classical music.

On the encouragement of another poster, I even read a chapter from a book about the history of Iranian music. I am not sure why I would do this if I didn't believe their music to be of value.

If you wish to call all these traditions "classical" as they are now all very old, you may do so.


----------



## BachIsBest

science said:


> This is by nature a philosophical and academic discussion, and it both demands and rewards some degree of intellectual precision, which requires a bit more semantic precision than a friendly chat over tea would.
> 
> Also, if we're being honest, it's a very hostile discussion, with at least some (if not most) spokespeople for one side seeing themselves as something like the last defenders of Western civilization's claim to global supremacy and/or (some version of) an old aristocracy's (such as the WASP elite in North America) claim to authority within it, and apparently those claims depend on a mystical/Platonic notion of beauty that would beyond question affirm the supremacy of CPP art music; to disagree, they insist, one must deny that any kind of order or rationality can possibly exist. With so much at stake, it seems like some degree of precision might be worthwhile.


The only person who thinks that much is at stake in this discussion is you; I can confidently assure you of that.


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> I didn't even cognise the first definition on Merriam-Webster. I went straight to the third because it caught my eye. Where do you get off on representing my intentions as though they are perfectly clear to you? And I attempted to be clear, in my post, that the Google definition was the 'philosophical' one.
> 
> Anyway, the first on Merriam-Webster is:
> 
> _expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations_
> 
> Again, it mentions _facts_. It does _not_ mention simply impartiality.


Do I need to google the word or? "facts *or* conditions". I'm sorry if your intentions were pure, but it seemed a little suspect that you would choose the definition you had to scroll down in the page to get to.



RogerWaters said:


> You can use the concept how you use it. However, there is a conventional usage, and I provided multiple data points suggesting this conventional usage includes more than mere 'impartiality'. They all, actually, reference _fact_. even the conventional Google one:
> 
> _(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts._
> 
> At any rate, what do you think 'impartiality' amounts to? Is it simply falling in line with group consensus?! Why is someone who likes Boulez over Bach being 'partial'? Impartial means not subject to 'bias'. 'Bias' is defined my Merriam-Webster as making _unreasonable judgements_. Why is the judgement that Bach is boring objectively unreasonable?! Simply because most people who like Classical music like Bach? What about the people who don't like classical music?!


For the umpteenth time, you can like who you want to like. This is about recognising the obvious skill and - dare I say - greatness, in some music. And again, I don't think the word "fact" is truly problematic for my viewpoint. I see no reason why "facts" are to be entirely independent of human existence as long as they are true.



RogerWaters said:


> How to do you figure? You seem to be saying it is _proven_ that Bach wrote good music.
> 
> Where is your proof?


Again, the statement used the word "or".

Edit: I'm going to retire from this thread for a bit except in regards to the question of white supremacy, where I feel I am obliged to explain myself. My personal life is getting busy, and this one thread is taking up too much time :lol:.


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> You are begging the question because the conclusion is absurd if you take my position and not if you take your position. Thus, you already need to hold the position you already hold to conclude the statement isn't absurd.


How on earth is "...because then there would be more avant-garde music" an absurd conclusion?!!!!!!


----------



## DaveM

science said:


> This is by nature a philosophical and academic discussion, and it both demands and rewards some degree of intellectual precision, which requires a bit more semantic precision than a friendly chat over tea would.
> 
> Also, if we're being honest, it's a very hostile discussion, with at least some (if not most) spokespeople for one side seeing themselves as something like the last defenders of Western civilization's claim to global supremacy and/or (some version of) an old aristocracy's (such as the WASP elite in North America) claim to authority within it, and apparently those claims depend on a mystical/Platonic notion of beauty that would beyond question affirm the supremacy of CPP art music; to disagree, they insist, one must deny that any kind of order or rationality can possibly exist. With so much at stake, it seems like some degree of precision might be worthwhile.


Oh c'mon, you've got to know what a bunch of hyperbolic hooey that is. The '_if we're being honest' _ gives the lie to what follows. Almost nobody on either side of this issue is in fixed unison with anybody else so the painting with such a broad brush of one side is just wrong from the get-go.

Btw, somewhere along the line somebody decided that the word 'Platonic' adds some kind of relevant 'gravitas'. Well, it doesn't.


----------



## janxharris

As it says on the wikipedia entry of Argumentum ad populum:

_One who commits this fallacy may assume that individuals commonly analyze and edit their beliefs and behaviours based on majority opinion. This is often not the case._

I am not sure what is left to be said after accepting this.


----------



## science

DaveM said:


> Oh c'mon, you've got to know what a bunch of hyperbolic hooey that is. The '_if we're being honest' _ gives the lie to what follows. Almost nobody on either side of this issue is in fixed unison with anybody else so the painting with such a broad brush of one side is just wrong from the get-go.
> 
> Btw, somewhere along the line somebody decided that the word 'Platonic' adds some kind of relevant 'gravitas'. Well, it doesn't.


Even if you are right about all that, which I do not concede, what makes music or other art more or less "good" is still something like human values and experiences and not much like neutral empirical observation or mathematical logic (the way those are ordinarily understood).

My suspicion is that this is something we all know in our deepest hearts, and the reasons for not admitting it could be interesting, and I bet you can see that for quite a few people there is something social at stake.


----------



## Art Rock

*This thread is already giving rise to enough belligerence without introducing politically tinted side subjects. Some posts have been deleted.*


----------



## janxharris

Stephen Hough:
_"I'm quite embarrassed about this, but I don't like Bach . . . there's clearly some important screw missing in my musical mechanism."_

Whilst recognising that many do value Bach's music, Hough nevertheless reveals it doesn't work for him...so I wonder what those that are at the more extreme end of objectivism might say in reply?


----------



## Eclectic Al

I'm not very belligerent. :angel:

It seems clear that some bouts in this collection of sparring competitions are about objective versus subjective. I must confess that the philosophical challenges of making good sense of the distinction are too much for me. I don't understand how my subjective experiences can be anything other than the outcome of brain states, and therefore physically dictated to me, with any choices or decisions I think that "I" am making being illusory. I don't understand consciousness, so if someone could explain then that would be great. Perhaps then I could understand subjective versus objective.

As some critics of Descartes would have it: cogito ergo sum makes an unwarranted assumption, that of the "I" doing the thinking: ie the existence of a subject, and I think that is a good criticism. It would be less controversial to note that "thinking occurs". Even by assuming an "I" I also recall that Descartes could only exit his solipsistic state by positing that the existence of a God who wouldn't trick him was somehow obvious. The relationship between the thinking subject (if we accept that there are multiple subjects) and whatever else is going on seems to me to be a mystery, and that is as true about gravity or cake as it is about music.

Fluteman was on the money with reference to illusion, and I think again with his reference to empiricism versus rationalism. I would go further and pit "humble empiricism" against "arrogance" (where the arrogance may be of an empirical or a rationalist flavour). Is that belligerent enough? It's as far as I can go.

Anyway, speaking as the voice of a biological machine, only able to reason within the constraints of what a bit of mushy stuff evolved to help me boost the chances of survival and continuation of my relatives can manage, I might inject a bit of humility.

Rationalists have no reason beyond blind faith to believe that what their bit of mush finds to be "rational" is something that the universe (whatever that is) has any obligation to respect. Empiricists have no reason beyond blind faith to think that their experiments give them any indications of persistent characteristics of whatever is out there. All they get is things which seem at the moment to help us build aeroplanes, with no guarantee that the supposed rules of the game won't change tomorrow.

I apologise for boring people with little digressions into maths, but the intention of those has been to demonstrate that what goes on there (as the prime example of a supposedly logical world of rational argumentation) is not all that straightforward. The point is that asking people to prove stuff about music is unreasonable: even maths is not so well-behaved that you can prove or disprove assertions in that world. The Godel incompleteness theorem is the most celebrated example, perhaps. In loose terms it states "This statement is not provable." Assume that this is false. That implies that it is provable, and thus that it is (provably) true. That is a contradiction because you assumed it was false: ie assuming it was false meant that it must be true. To avoid the contradiction, you therefore conclude that the statement itself must be true. This means that you have a statement which can be seen to be true but is not provable (because that is the content of the statement that we have seen must be true) - unless the whole system is inconsistent. And of course "not provable" means that it is in principle not provable, as distinct from things that we just haven't managed to find a proof for yet. Godel's achievement was to express that sort of argument in mathematical form.

All perceptions we have as subjects are tautologically subjective, but the "subject" is a mysterious manifestation of an objective world. (Maybe. ) And stop asking people to prove something like objective qualities in music: we can't prove anything. That's my guess anyway.


----------



## janxharris

Worth remembering that Descartes's 'I think therefore I am' was in the context of doubts about reality (I think he cited lucid dreams as an example), so he was grasping for some kind of reality - thus his famous statement.


----------



## Eclectic Al

janxharris said:


> Worth remembering that Descartes's 'I think therefore I am' was in the context of doubts about reality (I think he cited lucid dreams as an example), so he was grasping for some kind of reality - thus his famous statement.


Yep. I think what is frustrating me about this thread is the false dichotomies: one being that the qualities of music are in doubt, but that somehow the qualities of "reality" are not. Hmmm?

My aim is to argue that demanding that the "objectivists" prove their position is unreasonable, and they should really respond to their "subjectivist" opponents by saying "prove X" where X could be pretty well anything.


----------



## janxharris

Eclectic Al said:


> Yep. I think what is frustrating me about this thread is the false dichotomies: one being that the qualities of music are in doubt, but that somehow the qualities of "reality" are not. Hmmm?


Not entirely following you EA. Perhaps the Stephen Hough quote addresses 'quality'.


----------



## Eclectic Al

janxharris said:


> Not entirely following you EA. Perhaps the Stephen Hough quote addresses 'quality'.


I suppose I might ask the question "What is Stephen Hough?" rather than "Who is Stephen Hough?".

Stephen Hough is (I think) a bunch of stuff pottering around and sounds comes out of his mouth, or sometimes he hits keys on a word processor with his fingers. Also, sometimes his fingers tickle the ivories and sounds come out of a piano. We can assume the existence of a subject (a "who", if you like) if we wish but all we really have is a bunch of atoms and stuff doing what they do. Everything about that is potentially just a matter of objective facts in the physical universe. The sounds which come out of his mouth when he is asked whether he likes Bach are physical things.

You might say that this is an extreme position and irrelevant philosophising, but people go to exactly the same place when they argue that music is just the sounds without any other content.

Interestingly, I think it is often the "subjectivists" who say that the music has no content except the sounds who are the same people who argue that what matters is how they feel about it as "subjects". That is they just assume that talking about subjects as being other than simply manifestations of an objective physical universe is well founded, whereas arguing that there is objectively no more to music than just the sounds is unfounded. They want to attach no objective meaning to Bach's keyboard music when Stephen Hough's fingers hit the keys, but they want to attach objective meaning (I think) to sounds emerging from Stephen Hough's mouth when he "speaks" (as the normal usage is).

As I said earlier, I don't really want to get into all this as being something to take too seriously. I just want people to consider a bit more whether their own positions are so straightforward as they seem to assume.


----------



## janxharris

Eclectic Al said:


> I suppose I might ask the question "What is Stephen Hough?" rather than "Who is Stephen Hough?".
> 
> Stephen Hough is (I think) a bunch of stuff pottering around and sounds comes out of his mouth, or sometimes he hits keys on a word processor with his fingers. Also, sometimes his fingers tickle the ivories and sounds come out of a piano. We can assume the existence of a subject (a "who", if you like) if we wish but all we really have is a bunch of atoms and stuff doing what they do. Everything about that is potentially just a matter of objective facts in the physical universe. The sounds which come out of his mouth when he is asked whether he likes Bach are physical things.
> 
> You might say that this is an extreme position and irrelevant philosophising, but people go to exactly the same place when they argue that music is just the sounds without any other content.
> 
> Interestingly, I think it is often the "subjectivists" who say that the music has no content except the sounds who are the same people who argue that what matters is how they feel about it as "subjects". That is they just assume that talking about subjects as being other than simply manifestations of an objective physical universe is well founded, whereas arguing that there is objectively more to music than just sounds is unfounded. They want to attach no objective meaning to Bach's keyboard music when Stephen Hough's fingers hit the keys, but they want to attach objective meaning (I think) to sounds emerging from Stephen Hough's mouth when he "speaks" (as the normal usage is).
> 
> As I said earlier, I don't really want to get into all this as being something to take too seriously. I just want people to consider a bit more whether their own positions are so straightforward as they seem to assume.


I assume that the composer attempts to imbue mere sound, through careful crafting of his/her life experiences, with something meaningful; some will find themselves resonating with the composer's attempt, others won't. Nobody is 'wrong' or 'right' (though some degree of listening experience and maturity is probably necessary).

Regarding your main point - music is almost never actual (onomatopoeia aside), rather, it is abstract - so ascribing meaning to it perhaps is not the same (not as simple) as when we do so for the example you gave.

I hope I understood your point correctly.


----------



## Eclectic Al

janxharris said:


> I assume that the composer attempts to imbue mere sound, through careful crafting of his/her life experiences, with something meaningful; some will find themselves resonating with the composer's attempt, others won't. Nobody is 'wrong' or 'right' (though some degree of listening experience and maturity is probably necessary).
> 
> Regarding your main point - music is almost never actual (onomatopoeia aside), rather, it is abstract - so ascribing meaning to it perhaps is not the same (not as simple) as when we do so for the example you gave.
> 
> I hope I understood your point correctly.


Yes. I'm trying to draw parallels, not equalities.

Suppose that when they write music composers are seeking to communicate something, and when performers perform they are also seeking to communicate something. They are doing so using a "language" which is imperfect so they cannot make their meaning precise to the listener, and equally how precise it is will depend on the extent to which the listener the composer and the performer share the same language. The parallel to language here is a musical tradition.

Now suppose that I write to you, and in doing so I am seeking to communicate something. I use a language which is imperfect so I cannot make my meaning precise to you. How precise it is will depend on the extent to which we share the same language. (It's never going to be absolutely precise though, and certainly not "provably" so.)

We're now many, many pages into this thread, and happily communicating using words (imperfectly!) but one of the points at issue seems to be that we can demand that musical communication should be perfect (interpreted identically by all), or otherwise it has no objective content at all. Well that is an absurd position. Words do not have complete clarity, and using them to explore a demand for complete clarity about how we perceive music is (to put is politely) problematic.


----------



## janxharris

Eclectic Al said:


> Yes. I'm trying to draw parallels, not equalities.
> 
> Suppose that when they write music composers are seeking to communicate something, and when performers perform they are also seeking to communicate something. They are doing so using a "language" which is imperfect so they cannot make their meaning precise to the listener, and equally how precise it is will depend on the extent to which the listener the composer and the performer share the same language. The parallel to language here is a musical tradition.
> 
> Now suppose that I write to you, and in doing so I am seeking to communicate something. I use a language which is imperfect so I cannot make my meaning precise to you. How precise it is will depend on the extent to which we share the same language. (It's never going to be absolutely precise though, and certainly not "provably" so.)
> 
> We're now many, many pages into this thread, and happily communicating using words (imperfectly!) but one of the points at issue seems to be that we can demand that musical communication should be perfect (interpreted identically by all), or otherwise it has no objective content at all. Well that is an absurd position. Words do not have complete clarity, and using them to explore a demand for complete clarity about how we perceive music is (to put is politely) problematic.


Perhaps your analogy breaks down since what is really at issue here is whether a work is 'great' or 'superior' rather than just the precision of it's meaning. So the appreciation of poetry might be appropriate, but then we'd be getting into the same knotty issue...I guess.

I don't see a problem if we deem music to be without objective content. It's just an acknowledgement of the degree to which music is abstract. If we acknowledge that Bach has meaningful aesthetic content for those that do enjoy his music then I don't see any issue.


----------



## Jacck

Eclectic Al said:


> We're now many, many pages into this thread, and happily communicating using words (imperfectly!) but one of the points at issue seems to be that we can demand that musical communication should be perfect (interpreted identically by all), or otherwise it has no objective content at all. Well that is an absurd position. Words do not have complete clarity, and using them to explore a demand for complete clarity about how we perceive music is (to put is politely) problematic.


many pages ago I remarked that we are traped in language, and even our thought processes are based on language, we cannot think outside of language. But language is very limited and is the product of our limited brains. There is nothing objective about language, yet our whole culture including this whole discussion thread is the product of language. Many people do not realize that there is a huge difference between the word tree and the actual tree. The very act of perception is based on separating objects from their background or context, and labeling them with words. This is also the reason why philosophy has contributed nothing of value to our civilization. It is endless arguing about words and their definitions.

I personally feel that many people suffer from I call a platonist delusion in that they ascribe objective existence to objects which are merely the products of human thought and language. For example many mathematicians suffer from this platonist delusion. And obviously, they have their counterparts in arts.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> many pages ago I remarked that we are traped in language, and even our thought processes are based on language, we cannot think outside of language. But language is very limited and is the product of our limited brains. There is nothing objective about language, yet our whole culture including this whole discussion thread is the product of language. Many people do not realize that there is a huge difference between the word tree and the actual tree. The very act of perception is based on separating objects from their background or context, and labeling them with words. This is also the reason why philosophy has contributed nothing of value to our civilization. It is endless arguing about words and their definitions.
> 
> I personally feel that many people suffer from I call a platonist delusion in that they ascribe objective existence to objects which are merely the products of human thought and language. For example many mathematicians suffer from this platonist delusion. And obviously, they have their counterparts in arts.


But you'd concede that it's a noble pursuit, this thing called philosophy, wouldn't you? We can't help but attempt to flounder for an explanation of the metaphysical.....


----------



## Eclectic Al

janxharris said:


> Perhaps your analogy breaks down since what is really at issue here is whether a work is 'great' or 'superior' rather than just the precision of it's meaning. So the appreciation of poetry might be appropriate, but then we'd be getting into the same knotty issue...I guess.
> 
> I don't see a problem if we deem music to be without objective content. It's just an acknowledgement of the degree to which music is abstract. If we acknowledge that Bach has meaningful aesthetic content for those that do enjoy his music then I don't see any issue.


To reveal my secret plan: my feeling is that Step 1 is to get people to agree that either (i) there is something objective that can be appreciated in music or (ii) there is nothing objective about appreciating meaning in any communication at all. I genuinely think that it is absurd to argue that verbal communication conveys objective content, but that musical communication conveys none at all. We get confused because we start talking about this stuff in words, but it is trivial that we are going to get further in using words to discuss the content of verbal communications than we are likely to get in using words to discuss the content of musical communication. The inability to express the content of music using words takes us back to effing the ineffable. You can't, and that is not a meaningful criticism of things which are not capable of being effed. Why would everything with objective meaning be capable of being expressed in words? Are words really that all-powerful? 

If (ii) is accepted we may as well terminate the thread.

Hence, assuming that (ii) is rejected, we are left with (i) and Step 1 is achieved.

Having accepted that there is something objective in the appreciation of a piece of music, you can then discuss it. This is Step 2. This is likely to end up with metaphors, etc, as we are in ineffable territory.

I think some here want to avoid Step 1 because they know that if it is accepted that there is anything at all which is objective about musical appreciation, then we are on the road to identifying it, which might lead to an ability to rank and so to talk about relative quality and even greatness. They want to preclude that discussion by denying any objective content at all.

Personally I think there is something objective about musical appreciation, so I take Step 1.

Regarding Step 2, I also think that within a tightly defined realm it might be possible to rank things (for example, Bach's Prelude 1 in C major ending as it does being better than changing the final note, and nothing else, to be F sharp). Hence I agree with Woodduck's stuff about solving a problem that the composer has set up, and there being better and worse solutions. One piece is better than the other because it can be judged within a framework with "rules". To compose music without any framework of rules at all seems to me to be fatuous and juvenile.

However, I don't think that one can say that classical music is better than hip-hop, because they don't have similar rules. We are in apples and oranges territory.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Jacck said:


> many pages ago I remarked that we are traped in language, and even our thought processes are based on language, we cannot think outside of language. But language is very limited and is the product of our limited brains. There is nothing objective about language, yet our whole culture including this whole discussion thread is the product of language. Many people do not realize that there is a huge difference between the word tree and the actual tree. The very act of perception is based on separating objects from their background or context, and labeling them with words. This is also the reason why philosophy has contributed nothing of value to our civilization. It is endless arguing about words and their definitions.
> 
> I personally feel that many people suffer from I call a platonist delusion in that they ascribe objective existence to objects which are merely the products of human thought and language. For example many mathematicians suffer from this platonist delusion. And obviously, they have their counterparts in arts.
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/


I agree entirely with all of that (- except maybe that I think that some philosophy has perhaps contributed some value, while probably thinking that more philosophy has done a lot more harm).

Plato, in particular: it's a shame anyone paid any attention.


----------



## Strange Magic

ArtMusic said:


> No, it is in fact your task to read up on how art was studied, created and appreciated in earlier times to have a broader awareness, not just a 20th century one, which is what this whole thread has been about. I have done so and it's part of my education. Pure and simple.


Exactly the answer I think all expected. Were I forced to defend your position, I would have replied the same way. There really was no alternative.


----------



## SanAntone

Eclectic Al said:


> Yes. I'm trying to draw parallels, not equalities.
> 
> Suppose that when they write music composers are seeking to communicate something, and when performers perform they are also seeking to communicate something. They are doing so using a "language" which is imperfect so they cannot make their meaning precise to the listener, and equally how precise it is will depend on the extent to which the listener the composer and the performer share the same language. The parallel to language here is a musical tradition.
> 
> Now suppose that I write to you, and in doing so I am seeking to communicate something. I use a language which is imperfect so I cannot make my meaning precise to you. How precise it is will depend on the extent to which we share the same language. (It's never going to be absolutely precise though, and certainly not "provably" so.)
> 
> We're now many, many pages into this thread, and happily communicating using words (imperfectly!) but one of the points at issue seems to be that we can demand that musical communication should be perfect (interpreted identically by all), or otherwise it has no objective content at all. Well that is an absurd position. Words do not have complete clarity, and using them to explore a demand for complete clarity about how we perceive music is (to put is politely) problematic.


So stop using the word Objective, when what you really mean is that the receiver, the listener, will always be subjectively responding to the subjective interpretation by the performer of the composer's subjective creation.

There is nothing more subjective than what composer does when he writes music: using his internal ear and mind to conceive of the music he wishes to hear aloud. Using his intuition to place one idea after another in order to create a larger form - all done according to his aesthetic taste.


----------



## SanAntone

John Cage: "There’s a beautiful statement by Wittgenstein, the philosopher, who said that the word “beauty” has no meaning. It simply means that something “clicks” for us. Then he said that people should put a clicker in their pocket so that when something doesn’t appear to be beautiful to them, they can just take it out and click it.If you develop an ear for sounds that are musical, it is like developing an ego. You begin to refuse sounds that are not musical and that way cut yourself off from a good deal of experience."


----------



## Eclectic Al

SanAntone said:


> So stop using the word Objective, when what you really mean is that the receiver, the listener, will always be subjectively responding to the subjective interpretation by the performer of the composer's subjective creation.
> 
> There is nothing more subjective than what composer does when he writes music: using his internal ear and mind to conceive of the music he wishes to hear aloud. Using his intuition to place one idea after another in order to create a larger form - all done according to his aesthetic taste.


I do indeed mean that the "subject" reacts "subjectively". That would appear to be self-evident.

However, I take it as an illusion that that is separate from an objective fact about brain states. There is no separate subject to react subjectively in a way which is disconnected or in addition to how the brains states making up that subjective impression are objectively what they are, and are altered objectively by the music being sensed via the relevant physical sensing mechanisms.

Hence, I may as well say stop using the word subjective, as it vanishes into meaninglessness when you look at the physical reality. I won't do that, though, because I find that the use of the imperative is rude. I am not (often) that confrontational, and I do wish people would be a bit more willing to engage calmly.

My feeling is that the physical (objective, if you like) and mental (subjective, if you like) experiences are different levels of explanation of events. I don't accept that subjective experience can be isolated as separate from its objective physical aspects, and equally I don't believe that a purely physical explanation is adequate as any sort of explanation of what it feels like to be a thinking subject.

What I find vanishingly unlikely is that there is no sense in which music has evolved in the ways it has because it has certain objective effects on thinking subjects. The fact that we may react differently as individuals or members of cultures, does not in any way invalidate that.

As I said in a previous post, I think people are seeking not to accept that because they are wary that it might lead to positions they are opposed to.


----------



## Strange Magic

In looking at the various posts and posters, I conclude that some here are overthinking the issue and making more of the alleged philosophical roots of the issue than it will bear. Eclectic Al sometimes comes perilously close to solipsism in his wondering at his ability to process information about the world and to communicate with others. Being myself a fervent follower of philosophical Naturalism, which asserts that the world about us is more or less as it seems, I post in the expectation that I and others are real, are capable of decisions and thought, and of communication. Some (fluteman) see things as between empiricism and rationalism. I and others have framed it as a choice between subjectivism and objectivism with each poster perhaps having their own definition of these terms. And all fall somewhere along some sort of spectrum or even spectrums, so that each likely has a tailored position as they post.

So perhaps I will rename my perspective as Individualism vs. Groupism, and my evidence for supporting my position flows mostly from observation of both my own reaction to art and the behavior and utterances of others I see around me. IF we assert at the beginning that the experience of art is--or should be--a tribal or group activity, and that in the case of the perceiving and the absorbing of art, it is the group that should at all times guide and direct one's focus, then a certain form of Objectivism rules: one is instructed which works are the elect, and that they all display great and focused care in their creation, great skill, and very often great complexity. Ones's individual reaction to art is subsidiary to the consensus of the group, and is strongly colored by it, and that is good and right.

But IF one, over many years of immersion in all sorts of art, finds oneself powerfully moved by a vast spectrum of art and arts, some of which are beloved only by a handful of devotees, one gains a different perspective, both on what can be regarded as "great" art and on the nature of the experience of art--whether it is or must be a group experience, or if it can be legitimately what it actually is, an individual experience. And then we find (here's a group experience for you!) that we are Not Alone in the idiosyncrasy of our individual choices and our self-approval of them--we encounter phrases such as _de gustibus_, etc., indications that the concept of an individual reaction to art is both real and valid, and that the concept is both old and universal.

It boils down to our notions of what art is for. If it to serve group solidarity, then all chant together the names of the pieces and their creators that so move the group. Even if it is not intended to promote group solidarity, it still serves that function and thus reinforces the bonding, and people like to find things to bond over. Art is a good one, and I am for it myself.

But if art does, or is found to, nourish an individual's life, and if one has not been persuaded or is not convinced that it is more pleasing to adhere to a group's preferences than one's own, then one adopts a "Subjectivist" view, and evaluates art for how it, through all sorts of essentially "accidental" circumstances of history, biology, etc. enriches our individual lives. As far as the issue of inherent excellence baked into art from the get-go by its creators, it's there if you think it's there, and not if not. There is no actual Academy of Greatness Deciders in the esthetic world of the individualist. In Groupworld, there is consensus, there are Experts, there are Authorities to whom the Group can defer and appeal to restore a sense of order.

The question, as I have posted before, is, in matters of art/esthetics: Who is to be Master? Art is important to me and to many others--not the most important thing--but important enough and with room enough for indiivdual opinion to flourish, so that it is a perfect place to assert the authenticity and validity of one's tastes


----------



## Eclectic Al

SanAntone said:


> John Cage: "There's a beautiful statement by Wittgenstein, the philosopher, who said that the word "beauty" has no meaning. It simply means that something "clicks" for us. Then he said that people should put a clicker in their pocket so that when something doesn't appear to be beautiful to them, they can just take it out and click it.If you develop an ear for sounds that are musical, it is like developing an ego. You begin to refuse sounds that are not musical and that way cut yourself off from a good deal of experience."


Isn't this like his "beetle in a box"? Wittgenstein made a reasonable point that if no one else can look in our box and see our beetle but we are all using the word beetle for what is in the box then we cannot know that it has the same meaning for each of us, or indeed what it means for anyone else. I think the point is that talking about "beauty" as a purely subjective thing is meaningless, in the sense that it can have no meaning to anyone else. It's just a label you are using for whatever is in your box.

The only way you can hope to make sense of it is via social contact. I like the clicker idea. If you get out the clicker and others observe when you click then they can try and understand what you are seeing as beautiful. Until you make public your concept of beauty (ie objectify it in some way) then the concept is meaningless to anyone else.

I think Wittgenstein's beetle indicates that a purely subjective experience of beauty is, in important ways, meaningless.


----------



## Art Rock

Now I'm lost. Are you saying that if I hear/see beauty in a piece of music/art, and do not talk about it with anyone, it is a meaningless experience?


----------



## SanAntone

Eclectic Al said:


> I do indeed mean that the "subject" reacts "subjectively". That would appear to be self-evident.
> 
> However, I take it as an illusion that that is separate from an objective fact about brain states. There is no separate subject to react subjectively in a way which is disconnected or in addition to how the brains states making up that subjective impression are objectively what they are, and are altered objectively by the music being sensed via the relevant physical sensing mechanisms.
> 
> Hence, I may as well say stop using the word subjective, as it vanishes into meaninglessness when you look at the physical reality. I won't do that, though, because I find that the use of the imperative is rude. I am not (often) that confrontational, and I do wish people would be a bit more willing to engage calmly.
> 
> My feeling is that the physical (objective, if you like) and mental (subjective, if you like) experiences are different levels of explanation of events. I don't accept that subjective experience can be isolated as separate from its objective physical aspects, and equally I don't believe that a purely physical explanation is adequate as any sort of explanation of what it feels like to be a thinking subject.
> 
> What I find vanishingly unlikely is that there is no sense in which music has evolved in the ways it has because it has certain objective effects on thinking subjects. The fact that we may react differently as individuals or members of cultures, does not in any way invalidate that.
> 
> As I said in a previous post, I think people are seeking not to accept that because they are wary that it might lead to positions they are opposed to.


What about the composer? He is a subject as well - creating the music HE hears in HIS head. There is nothing objective about HIS process. It is HIS taste, HIS aesthetics, HIS intuition, HIS vision. HIS work.

All subjective.

How can a subjective composition become objective when it is listened to by someone else?


----------



## Eclectic Al

In reference to Strange Magic in post #1427 I would (as he would expect) reject the solipsism point.  That is my main problem with the subjectivist position.

I have a partly subjective view (- I like what I like because I like it) and a partly objective view (- I suspect that I like what I like because of some objective characteristics that it has, and the connection between those characteristics and my liking is essentially mechanistic).

I imagine that a very small change in a piece of music, or a very small difference in individuals, could give rise to a very sharp difference in likes and dislikes. That does not mean that there is nothing objective going on. I might be only marginally different from someone else in many respects, but really dislike music that they love. We may have no shared liking for any piece at all. That does not imply that there is no objective content in music which is driving why I like one piece and the other person dislikes it and likes another. I found the reference earlier to clustering of people in terms of likes and dislikes to be interesting, and quite consistent with the idea that there are objective aspects in music which cause particular groups to be drawn to similar music because they share certain characteristics. 
Hence, I found that to point towards an objective element in musical appreciation.

On the question of pieces being "great" objectively: I can't really get worked up about that one way or the other.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Art Rock said:


> Now I'm lost. Are you saying that if I hear/see beauty in a piece of music/art, and do not talk about it with anyone, it is a meaningless experience?


Pretty much. Or at least that if you use the word, but I have no way to reference it against things which I can observe, then you haven't really conveyed any information. I don't know what is in your box.

You need to give me instances of what for you is beautiful, and I can then try and understand what they have in common. If you give me no instances then how can I have any idea of what the word "beauty" as used by you is about.


----------



## Art Rock

OK, I thought your sentence meant for the listener as well. I misunderstood your meaning.


----------



## Eclectic Al

SanAntone said:


> All subjective.


Things experienced by the subject are indeed all subjective, but his subjective experience is that of a blob of stuff which does what it does. And my reactions if his creation is played to me are those of a blob of stuff.

I just find it unlikely that the way his blob of stuff generates the piece and the way my blob of stuff reacts to the performance, considered in a purely objective physical way, have no consequences in terms of how he (as a subject) decides what to compose and I (as a subject) react to it.

I don't accept the disconnect.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Art Rock said:


> OK, I thought your sentence meant for the listener as well. I misunderstood your meaning.


I liked the clicker, as I say. I thought that was a perfect example of how an observer could seek to understand what beauty might mean to someone else.

I'm a bit of an opinion poll person in all this, too. I think if loads of people had clickers, and many of us clicked at the same things then that would tell us something interesting.


----------



## Jacck

SanAntone said:


> What about the composer? He is a subject as well - creating the music HE hears in HIS head. There is nothing objective about HIS process. It is HIS taste, HIS aesthetics, HIS intuition, HIS vision. HIS work.
> 
> All subjective.
> 
> How can a subjective composition become objective when it is listened to by someone else?


by a subjective process of artistic inspiration, he gives rise to something objective, which is a piece of art. This piece of art is then recreated by musicians in the outer world, and is heard by the listener. The listener recreates this piece of art in his consciousness and reacts to it in his own subjective way. He then labels his own reactions to the recreation of the piece of art in his counsciousness with words like great, amazing, beautiful, boring, "atonal noise". And he then makes the mistake of attributing these adjectives as being part of the objective piece of art itself, instead of realizing that those are just his own subjective reactions. Any piece of art is neither ugly nor beautiful, it is our subjective reactions to that piece of art that we label with those words.


----------



## fluteman

I'm glad you've understood my posts. I understand this one of yours. All I would add is, the scientific method has a very practical, real world flavor to it. The theory that does the best job predicting or explaining the available empirical data, wins. Science is neutral when it comes to moral values or religious or political beliefs, or value judgments of any kind. If you want to press a nail into a piece of wood, a hammer will help you do that. A chocolate soufflé won't. That doesn't mean a hammer is better than a soufflé, or building a tool shed is a better activity than eating French food.

This implies what I see as a major advantage to empiricism as compared with rationalism in this debate, that others might see as a disadvantage. It comes free from the baggage of value judgments. Notice I don't say empirical analysis establishes that a certain style of music is great, or better than another style. I say it can establish that a certain style of music is successful. If a large number of people prefer a certain style of music, or maybe a smaller number people but a consistent number over a long period, say more than a century, I'll define that as "successful", a somewhat arbitrary definition, but not totally arbitrary.

People like ArtMusic who use the authority method, i.e., who accept that music composed by certain "learned masters" of the 18th and 19th century Europe, and not music composed by others, is great, they are also using a definition of 'great' that is somewhat arbitrary, but not totally arbitrary.

The crucial difference is, ArtMusic has to choose who is a learned master and who is not. Or, he has to choose which music critics to follow and which to ignore on that issue. As an empiricist, I'm not making any choices about who to pay attention to. I'm looking at the opinions of everyone everywhere, including people who lived in the past, to the extent I can get that information. If I can't look at everyone, I try to get a representative sample of the most diverse group of people possible.

When ArtMusic makes his choices, he inevitably is making value judgments, or adopting the value judgments of the particular people he decides are learned masters or wise critics. He doesn't allow for the possibility that I might choose different learned masters, say, Stockhausen and Boulez, or Eric Dolphy and Frank Zappa. He simply would say, there are in inherent qualities in the music of Beethoven and Brahms that make them learned masters, and these qualities are lacking in the music of Dolphy and Zappa, so they are not.

I could similarly say, there are inherent qualities in the music of Dolphy and Zappa that make them learned masters, and these qualities are lacking in the music of Beethoven and Brahms, so they are not. But ArtMusic doesn't think this logic runs equally well in both directions. Like all rationalists, they expect people generally to accept *their* source of authority, not look to anyone else. That's why ArtMusic can tell SanAntone that his tastes in music are "arbitrary", and public funds should not be wasted on catering to or promoting those tastes.

The rationalists advocate cultural imperialism and uniformity, the empiricists, cultural democracy and diversity. Take your pick.


----------



## Jacck

fluteman said:


> The rationalists advocate cultural imperialism and uniformity, the empiricists, cultural democracy and diversity. Take your pick.


what ? :lol:


----------



## fluteman

Jacck said:


> what ? :lol:


You expect me to write all that again? :lol:


----------



## Strange Magic

Eclectic Al said:


> In reference to Strange Magic in post #1427 I would (as he would expect) reject the solipsism point.  That is my main problem with the subjectivist position.
> 
> I have a partly subjective view (- I like what I like because I like it) and a partly objective view (- I suspect that I like what I like because of some objective characteristics that it has, and the connection between those characteristics and my liking is essentially mechanistic).
> 
> I imagine that a very small change in a piece of music, or a very small difference in individuals, could give rise to a very sharp difference in likes and dislikes. That does not mean that there is nothing objective going on. I might be only marginally different from someone else in many respects, but really dislike music that they love. We may have no shared liking for any piece at all. That does not imply that there is no objective content in music which is driving why I like one piece and the other person dislikes it and likes another. I found the reference earlier to clustering of people in terms of likes and dislikes to be interesting, and quite consistent with the idea that there are objective aspects in music which cause particular groups to be drawn to similar music because they share certain characteristics.
> Hence, I found that to point towards an objective element in musical appreciation.
> 
> On the question of pieces being "great" objectively: I can't really get worked up about that one way or the other.


To my knowledge, no one denies that music or an art object is packed with "objective" measurable, describable attributes. No one.

The question remains: is there some inherent property within a piece of music or art which can be called "excellence" or "greatness" outside of the opinion of an individual or the consensus opinion of a group? Like the boiling point of water at STP, such inherent properties should be manifest to all observers who are not deranged. It is those objectively measurable attributes, quantities, qualities that have or can have an effect upon an individual perceiver, but "excellence" and "greatness" are strictly products of the mind of the perceiver. This is a key issue, in that one group senses or claims to sense that inherent property of excellence, and by implication, all other well perceivers should, nay, must sense it also. No can do, to quote Hall & Oates.


----------



## Eclectic Al

I feel tennis players coming round again.


----------



## Eclectic Al

I must admit that I think that the boiling point of water at STP being what it is is excellent. That's truly a great boiling point. The boiling point of gold is just way too high, and that of oxygen is way too low, but water, wow, that's a great boiling point.


----------



## Jacck

fluteman said:


> You expect me to write all that again? :lol:


No, thanks, I had enough Marxist indoctrination about opressors (imperialists) and opressed (workers) in my youth. The language sounds surprisingly similar


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Eclectic Al:* "On the question of pieces being "great" objectively: I can't really get worked up about that one way or the other."


Probably a wise decision, and I probably shouldn't get worked up about it either. But it is one of those things that "objectivists" trot forth repeatedly to bolster their assertion of the singular nature of their path toward Truth and Beauty in art. Their argument is that semi-divine geniuses labored along fixed paths that they alone fathered to produce perfect and even more perfect (if that is possible) works. And these works embody "excellence" and "greatness" as an integral part of the very atoms that comprise them, perhaps as a fluid filling the void within each atom. But while all should perceive the excellence, only an Elect few actually do.

So I get worked up at the hubris. :angel:


----------



## Strange Magic

Eclectic Al said:


> I must admit that I think that the boiling point of water at STP being what it is is excellent. That's truly a great boiling point. The boiling point of gold is just way too high, and that of oxygen is way too low, but water, wow, that's a great boiling point.


But you agree that all observers equipped with proper thermometers will agree on observing the same phenomena, be it the boiling point of water, gold, or the Ichor of the Gods.


----------



## Eclectic Al

What is a great cup of tea?

To some extent this is a subjective matter. Some people like it stronger or weaker, with more or less (or no) milk, etc.

However, to be a cup of tea at all it has to fulfil some criteria. The presence of tea, is one. This is largely objective, although defining what is tea is partly subjective. The presence of water, is another.

I think it is also objectively true that a cup of tea which is at near boiling point is not a great cup of tea. (That would be a perverse view, I think.) However, it may become a great cup of tea in due course, as it cools down. I think it is a meaningful statement to say that a cup of tea which is not going to burn your mouth badly is objectively a better cup of tea than one which will land you in Accident & Emergency.

I also think it is a meaningful thing to say that a particular cup of tea is a great one because that would convey meaning to a fellow tea drinker. Is it entirely subjective? No. Is it entirely objective? No.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Strange Magic said:


> But you agree that all observers equipped with proper thermometers will agree on observing the same phenomena, be it the boiling point of water, gold, or the Ichor of the Gods.


I live my life on that assumption, although I have no grounds to demand of the universe that it won't change tomorrow. It is an empirical observation which I live with as a rule of thumb, not a truth of any logical sort.

There's also a lot of conceptualisation going on to define temperature, and much craft to make a thermometer. I can well imagine that RogerWaters' aliens might not recognise any concept of temperature. As I understand it it is some sort of average property of the kinetic energy of the molecules, and so a bit of statistical matter in itself, rather than anything more concrete.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Strange Magic said:


> Probably a wise decision, and I probably shouldn't get worked up about it either. But it is one of those things that "objectivists" trot forth repeatedly to bolster their assertion of the singular nature of their path toward Truth and Beauty in art. Their argument is that semi-divine geniuses labored along fixed paths that they alone fathered to produce perfect and even more perfect (if that is possible) works. And these works embody "excellence" and "greatness" as an integral part of very atoms that comprise them, perhaps as a fluid filling the void within each atom. But while all should perceive the excellence, only an Elect few actually do.
> 
> So I get worked up at the hubris. :angel:


Yeah. I certainly don't recognise "progress" in arts. I see trends and change, but whether that change is an improvement?? I'm coming over all subjectivist.


----------



## Strange Magic

Eclectic Al said:


> I live my life on that assumption, although I have no grounds to demand of the universe that it won't change tomorrow. It is an empirical observation which I live with as a rule of thumb, not a truth of any logical sort.
> 
> There's also a lot of conceptualisation going on to define temperature, and much craft to make a thermometer. I can well imagine that RogerWaters' aliens might not recognise any concept of temperature. As I understand it it is some sort of average property of the kinetic energy of the molecules, and so a bit of statistical matter in itself, rather than anything more concrete.


We may be overthinking this issue again. To wander farther and farther afield from the quotidian and human issues we are dealing with when it comes to music and art is a temptation, but, unlike Wilde, I can resist it.


----------



## SanAntone

Jacck said:


> by a subjective process of artistic inspiration, he gives rise to something objective, which is a piece of art. This piece of art is then recreated by musicians in the outer world, and is heard by the listener. The listener recreates this piece of art in his consciousness and reacts to it in his own subjective way. He then labels his own reactions to the recreation of the piece of art in his counsciousness with words like great, amazing, beautiful, boring, "atonal noise". And he then makes the mistake of attributing these adjectives as being part of the objective piece of art itself, instead of realizing that those are just his own subjective reactions. Any piece of art is neither ugly nor beautiful, it is our subjective reactions to that piece of art that we label with those words.


That's what I've been saying all along, in response to those who continue to claim that there is some objective quality in the music itself, almost as if the music emerged ex nihilo.

But the music is the product of a completely subjective process by a composer, performer and audience.

The Composer writes the music subjectively.

The Performer recreates the work subjectively.

The listener responds to the performance subjectively.

There is nothing objective about this process. Whether it happens once or millions of times over a long period of time, it will never be anything but a subjective process.

Art is not objective.

However, members of a culture share certain taste in music and large numbers of people will have a similar subjective response to the same music, creating the illusion of an objective "canon."


----------



## Eclectic Al

SanAntone said:


> That's what I've been saying all along, in response to those who continue to claim that there is some objective quality in the music itself, almost as if the music emerged ex nihilo.
> 
> But the music is the product of a completely subjective process by a composer, performer and audience.
> 
> The Composer writes the music subjectively.
> 
> The Performer recreates the work subjectively.
> 
> The listener responds to the performance subjectively.
> 
> There is nothing objective about this process. Whether it happens once or millions of times over a long period of time, it will never be anything but a subjective process.
> 
> Art is not objective.
> 
> However, members of a culture share certain taste in music and large numbers of people will have a similar subjective response to the same music, creating the illusion of an objective "canon."


Yeah. I don't particularly disagree with any of that. I just question whether one can be sure that the subjective reactions are not objectively formed - at least in part.

Take the example of alcohol. I know that if I drink some alcohol it will change how I perceive things. It will change what I like. It will make me like talking to people more than if I don't drink any alcohol. Not just my behaviour but also my feelings and preferences will be affected. I might be more likely to dance, or respond positively to certain types of music that I would otherwise not want to listen to.

This is because of physiological affects on brain function, but it is also because my mood changes and I then prefer different things.

I don't see how it is possible to be sure that the same is not true of organised sounds impacting on the brain.

The fact that the same impacts might not be observed for all would not prove or disprove the hypothesis, in just the same way that different people react to alcohol in different ways.

Also, music gives some people the impulse to dance; me not! Is that culturally determined or driven by physiological effects? I don't know. It could be either. I do suspect, though, that whether people like some types of music is connected to whether they like to dance to them. A "great" waltz may be one that makes dancing types irresistibly want to dance, and others want to leave the room. That may be partly an objective physiological reaction or not. I don't know, but it's not a bad use of the word "great" in the context of a waltz.


----------



## Jacck

SanAntone said:


> However, members of a culture share certain taste in music and large numbers of people will have a similar subjective response to the same music, creating the illusion of an objective "canon."


yes, statistics on a large number of people is the only way to objectively quantify the "greatness" of music, but I am hesitant to call it objective. This kind of measurement would produce results such as that Rihanna is greater than Bach. And we all feel that this is not really so. We feel that Bach is greater but we struggle to define objective criteria why Bach is greater than Rihanna. Is it the complexity of the music? Ferneyhough is probably more complex but we feel he is not greater than Bach. So what makes up great music?


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> That's what I've been saying all along, in response to those who continue to claim that there is some objective quality in the music itself, almost as if the music emerged ex nihilo.
> 
> But the music is the product of a completely subjective process by a composer, performer and audience.
> 
> The Composer writes the music subjectively.
> 
> The Performer recreates the work subjectively.
> 
> The listener responds to the performance subjectively.
> 
> There is nothing objective about this process. Whether it happens once or millions of times over a long period of time, it will never be anything but a subjective process.
> 
> Art is not objective.
> 
> However, members of a culture share certain taste in music and large numbers of people will have a similar subjective response to the same music, creating the illusion of an objective "canon."


Why is this so hard for some to understand? The whole idea of art is that it is an appeal to our imaginations, to our need for dreams and fantasies, to our need to be emotionally moved, to our need to be intellectually interested and engaged, to our need for something wonderful. We may come across things like that in nature, but we've decided to draw a distinction between things created by nature and things created by humans.

You can try to capture a dream in a bottle and figure out what makes it work, but to say one person's dream 'ought to' be exactly the same as another's? No. Each of us gets his or her own. That's what makes it a dream.



Jacck said:


> yes, statistics on a large number of people is the only way to objectively quantify the "greatness" of music, but I am hesitant to call it objective. This kind of measurement would produce results such as that Rihanna is greater than Bach. And we all feel that this is not really so. We feel that Bach is greater but we struggle to define objective criteria why Bach is greater than Rihanna. Is it the complexity of the music? Ferneyhough is probably more complex but we feel he is not greater than Bach. So what makes up great music?


Exactly. We'll never know. I do not overstate the power of statistics, but only argue that they are useful to a certain extent.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Oh, here's another thought.

People don't seem to find it surprising that if I am amused then my mouth may form a smile. The idea seems to be that my mood of amusement causes nervous impulses to fire which cause my mouth to form the smile. It may be that there is a social benefit to this behaviour.

Equally, I can decide to smile. By which I mean that I consciously form the thought that I want my mouth to smile, and it obediently does so. How that works, I haven't a clue. I get the fact that nervous impulses fire off, but why they do that in response to my thought I don't know.

Anyway, that's not the main point. The main point is that (as I read somewhere) if I consciously form a smile then that is likely to improve my mood. There is a feedback: it works both ways.

The point should be clear: my subjective thoughts and feelings are not separate from the objective physical situation of my body. They are manifestations of objective realities.

It does seem dogmatic simply to assert that organised sounds impacting on the ears and the auditory system (which are a key part of the process whereby we manage language) cannot have a direct objective impact on my subjective thoughts and feelings. I don't know the extent to which this may or may not happen, but I do think it more likely than not that organised sounds impacting on the same system as is used for language will have objective effects on thoughts and feelings.


----------



## SanAntone

Eclectic Al said:


> Yeah. I don't particularly disagree with any of that. I just question whether one can be sure that the subjective reactions are not objectively formed - at least in part.
> 
> Take the example of alcohol. I know that if I drink some alcohol it will change how I perceive things. It will change what I like. It will make me like talking to people more than if I don't drink any alcohol. Not just my behaviour but also my feelings and preferences will be affected. I might be more likely to dance, or respond positively to certain types of music that I would otherwise not want to listen to.
> 
> This is because of physiological affects on brain function, but it is also because my mood changes and I then prefer different things.
> 
> I don't see how it is possible to be sure that the same is not true of organised sounds impacting on the brain.
> 
> The fact that the same impacts might not be observed for all would not prove or disprove the hypothesis, in just the same way that different people react to alcohol in different ways.
> 
> Also, music gives some people the impulse to dance; me not! Is that culturally determined or driven by physiological effects? I don't know. It could be either. I do suspect, though, that whether people like some types of music is connected to whether they like to dance to them. A "great" waltz may be one that makes dancing types irresistibly want to dance, and others want to leave the room. That may be partly an objective physiological reaction or not. I don't know, but it's not a bad use of the word "great" in the context of a waltz.


Music, and art, are unique phenomenon; I see your comparisons as false analogies.


----------



## Jacck

Eclectic Al said:


> The point should be clear: my subjective thoughts and feelings are not separate from the objective physical situation of my body. They are manifestations of objective realities.


not really and not always. Schizophrenia patients can have various hallucinations such as hearing voices in their head that they believe are objectively existing etc. Or when we are dreaming during sleep, we experience ourselves in a completely surreal dreamscape that has no direct connection to the outward reality. I could go on and on with more examples.


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> Who is to be Master?


the best are the masters.


----------



## Eclectic Al

SanAntone said:


> Music, and art, are unique phenomenon; I see your comparisons as false analogies.


Yeah, well you see, I don't. That doesn't get us far though, does it?

I am attempting to come up with analogies because I am seeking to engage in a discussion. I could simply reject the positions of others as false, but I don't really see the point of that.

If the analogies are false then the question would be what is the nature of their inadequacies. They are bound to be there, as analogies are just that, not identities, but I am trying to use them to home in on issues. That would seem to be the point of having a discussion.


----------



## fluteman

Eclectic Al said:


> Oh, here's another thought.
> 
> People don't seem to find it surprising that if I am amused then my mouth may form a smile. The idea seems to be that my mood of amusement causes nervous impulses to fire which cause my mouth to form the smile. It may be that there is a social benefit to this behaviour.
> 
> Equally, I can decide to smile. By which I mean that I consciously form the thought that I want my mouth to smile, and it obediently does so. How that works, I haven't a clue. I get the fact that nervous impulses fire off, but why they do that in response to my thought I don't know.
> 
> Anyway, that's not the main point. The main point is that (as I read somewhere) if I consciously form a smile then that is likely to improve my mood. There is a feedback: it works both ways.
> 
> The point should be clear: my subjective thoughts and feelings are not separate from the objective physical situation of my body. They are manifestations of objective realities.
> 
> It does seem dogmatic simply to assert that organised sounds impacting on the ears and the auditory system (which are a key part of the process whereby we manage language) cannot have a direct objective impact on my subjective thoughts and feelings. I don't know the extent to which this may or may not happen, but I do think it more likely than not that organised sounds impacting on the same system as is used for language will have objective effects on thoughts and feelings.


It's a matter of definition. Man-made creations that address "subjective thoughts and feelings" is what we define as art. That which is incapable of objective quantification is what we define as art. The fact that subjective thoughts and feelings are related to objective phenomena doesn't change that, as the relationship differs from one person to the next.



Zhdanov said:


> the best are the masters.


And who decides who is best? Your only possible answer is, no one needs to decide, as it is clear to all who look or listen carefully enough. That is rationalism.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Jacck said:


> not really and not always. Schizophrenia patients can have various hallucinations such as hearing voices in their head that they believe are objectively existing etc. Or when we are dreaming during sleep, we experience ourselves in a completely surreal dreamscape that has no direct connection to the outward reality. I could go on and on with more examples.


Yeah, I get that.
Probably, I am more in the position that I am not sure we are that different from those who are hallucinating.
I guess the difference is that pathological "hallucinations" do not help us with our lives, whereas more valid "perceptions" are illusions that work in helping us get on with our lives. Both are creations of the brain: just some are more functionally useful than others (and probably map better to whatever is actually out there).


----------



## Zhdanov

fluteman said:


> The rationalists advocate cultural imperialism and uniformity, the empiricists, cultural democracy and diversity.


that is not true and there is no corellation with political views, it is not about uniformity vs diversity either, but seeks high quality in things, no matter what religion they are.


----------



## Zhdanov

fluteman said:


> And who decides who is best?


experts, specialists, who else.


----------



## science

Eclectic Al said:


> A "great" waltz may be one that makes dancing types irresistibly want to dance, and others want to leave the room. That may be partly an objective physiological reaction or not.


What does "objective" mean in this context?

Is this like the sentence from the Google doc about "objectively liking" a piece of cake?

I don't understand what this word "objective" seems to mean!


----------



## Jacck

Eclectic Al said:


> Yeah, I get that.
> Probably, I am more in the position that I am not sure we are that different from those who are hallucinating.
> I guess the difference is that pathological "hallucinations" do not help us with our lives, whereas more valid "perceptions" are illusions that work in helping us get on with our lives. Both are creations of the brain: just some are more functionally useful than others (and probably map better to whatever is actually out there).


yes. As a brain researcher, I am in essense a constructivist. Everything that our brain produces is in essence an illusion, a complex artificial reality. Of course there needs to be some correspondence between this inner reality produced by the brain and the outer world, because without some form of correspondence we would not be able to survive. But this connection is far more complex and indirect than people realize. We can speculate and philosophize about what is really out there (metaphysics), but because we are traped in language we will never know. Philosophically I am close to Maturana and other constructivists
http://www.enolagaia.com/M70-80BoC.html


----------



## science

fluteman said:


> I'm glad you've understood my posts. I understand this one of yours. All I would add is, the scientific method has a very practical, real world flavor to it. The theory that does the best job predicting or explaining the available empirical data, wins. Science is neutral when it comes to moral values or religious or political beliefs, or value judgments of any kind. If you want to press a nail into a piece of wood, a hammer will help you do that. A chocolate soufflé won't. That doesn't mean a hammer is better than a soufflé, or building a tool shed is a better activity than eating French food.
> 
> This implies what I see as a major advantage to empiricism as compared with rationalism in this debate, that others might see as a disadvantage. It comes free from the baggage of value judgments. Notice I don't say empirical analysis establishes that a certain style of music is great, or better than another style. I say it can establish that a certain style of music is successful. If a large number of people prefer a certain style of music, or maybe a smaller number people but a consistent number over a long period, say more than a century, I'll define that as "successful", a somewhat arbitrary definition, but not totally arbitrary.
> 
> People like ArtMusic who use the authority method, i.e., who accept that music composed by certain "learned masters" of the 18th and 19th century Europe, and not music composed by others, is great, they are also using a definition of 'great' that is somewhat arbitrary, but not totally arbitrary.
> 
> The crucial difference is, ArtMusic has to choose who is a learned master and who is not. Or, he has to choose which music critics to follow and which to ignore on that issue. As an empiricist, I'm not making any choices about who to pay attention to. I'm looking at the opinions of everyone everywhere, including people who lived in the past, to the extent I can get that information. If I can't look at everyone, I try to get a representative sample of the most diverse group of people possible.
> 
> When ArtMusic makes his choices, he inevitably is making value judgments, or adopting the value judgments of the particular people he decides are learned masters or wise critics. He doesn't allow for the possibility that I might choose different learned masters, say, Stockhausen and Boulez, or Eric Dolphy and Frank Zappa. He simply would say, there are in inherent qualities in the music of Beethoven and Brahms that make them learned masters, and these qualities are lacking in the music of Dolphy and Zappa, so they are not.
> 
> I could similarly say, there are inherent qualities in the music of Dolphy and Zappa that make them learned masters, and these qualities are lacking in the music of Beethoven and Brahms, so they are not. But ArtMusic doesn't think this logic runs equally well in both directions. Like all rationalists, they expect people generally to accept *their* source of authority, not look to anyone else. That's why ArtMusic can tell SanAntone that his tastes in music are "arbitrary", and public funds should not be wasted on catering to or promoting those tastes.
> 
> The rationalists advocate cultural imperialism and uniformity, the empiricists, cultural democracy and diversity. Take your pick.


Very nice expressed! You're on a roll.


----------



## science

Eclectic Al said:


> Yeah, I get that.
> Probably, I am more in the position that I am not sure we are that different from those who are hallucinating.
> I guess the difference is that pathological "hallucinations" do not help us with our lives, whereas more valid "perceptions" are illusions that work in helping us get on with our lives. Both are creations of the brain: just some are more functionally useful than others (and probably map better to whatever is actually out there).


Pragmatism FTW.

It's not exactly a solution to the problem of radical doubt, but it seems to be the best solution we can get.


----------



## fluteman

Zhdanov said:


> experts, specialists, who else.


Who is more expert, me or you? I'll save you some time and trouble. I am more expert than you. I have years of experience playing in orchestras, bands and chamber music groups and singing in choruses. I have years of education in the music of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. I am so thoroughly familiar with many of their works, I could play or sing them for you right now, from memory. You must accept what I say is great music, and I say that Frank Zappa, not Bach, not Mozart, and not Beethoven, created the greatest music.

I'm glad that has finally been resolved.


----------



## Zhdanov

fluteman said:


> Who is more expert, me or you?


i think i am, for i listen to music more attentively then you do.


----------



## Zhdanov

fluteman said:


> I say that Frank Zappa, not Bach, not Mozart, and not Beethoven, created the greatest music.


you're disqualified.


----------



## Luchesi

RogerWaters said:


> Inside it? Around the edges? Where?


If we can't tell that the score of a great symphonic achievement has more value than a pop song sheet then what should we conclude from that? Musicologists study scores for what's in them, but maybe they're wasting their lives.


----------



## fluteman

Zhdanov said:


> you're disqualified.


No, you are disqualified. No, I listen to music more attentively than you. I can play or sing entire pieces of western classical music, including the works of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, and others, from memory, some of which I have never even seen the scores for. I have learned them by ear, by listening attentively, and repeatedly. You can't play these, at least not all of them, as you haven't listened attentively enough. Maybe you are familiar with Una Furtiva Lagrima. Well, so am I. And I've had a lot of training and practice with it. And I've performed it in public many times. Have you?

Ergo, I am more qualified to be an expert than you. I am also better qualified to determine which other people are experts.


----------



## SanAntone

Eclectic Al said:


> Yeah, well you see, I don't. That doesn't get us far though, does it?
> 
> I am attempting to come up with analogies because I am seeking to engage in a discussion. I could simply reject the positions of others as false, but I don't really see the point of that.
> 
> If the analogies are false then the question would be what is the nature of their inadequacies. They are bound to be there, as analogies are just that, not identities, but I am trying to use them to home in on issues. That would seem to be the point of having a discussion.


Frankly, I think this discussion has run its course, and don't see this question being resolved.

And the fact is, I do consider your comparisons false analogies.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

science said:


> What does "objective" mean in this context?
> 
> Is this like the sentence from the Google doc about "objectively liking" a piece of cake?
> 
> I don't understand what this word "objective" seems to mean!


If the statement "I like cake" is true, then the following statements are also true:

Objectively, I like cake.

I, objectively, like cake.

Repost: https://docs.google.com/document/u/...v4KfFCuYO96kQ-Z8BPRZxafC09cF9Js5QScA068eh/pub


----------



## Eclectic Al

science said:


> What does "objective" mean in this context?
> 
> Is this like the sentence from the Google doc about "objectively liking" a piece of cake?
> 
> I don't understand what this word "objective" seems to mean!


Apologies if it's not clear, or if I am using the word in a non-standard fashion.

The distinction I am trying to get across is between: (i) the physical universe, and (ii) the experience of a conscious thinking entity within that universe. I am primarily using objective to mean matters which relate to (i), and using subjective to relate to (ii).

I do believe that there is an objective physical universe. I also believe that at one level of explanation the objective physical universe is all that there is. You might be able to explain everything by reference to how that works, with no reference to choices, preferences, decisions, etc of conscious thinking entities. It is perhaps not Newton's clockwork universe, because it seems to have a statistical character, but I don't think that means we get to choose about anything: it just happens.

However, I also note that the experiences of conscious thinking entities (or at least any that are like me) is that they do make choices, have preferences, decide to do things (and indeed they may decide that something is "great"), and indeed that it what they might see as being "important" in their lives.

I have no explanation whatsoever for how consciousness comes about, and would love it if someone could help with that. However, I don't see that our choices are anything more than illusions, which perhaps provide some sort of focus for actions that conveys an evolutionary advantage.

At one level, therefore, I think you like some music because you are objectively bound to: the universe is just made that way. At another level, it feels that you like it because of something about it that affects your feelings, makes you happy or interested or whatever, and that is also true.

Regarding cakes, saying that you like a cake is inherently subjective. But that does not mean that the reasons for the subject liking it (or not liking it) might not be explicable objectively in quite demonstrable ways. Thirsty people like water. Subjectively they might experience the desire for water and the pleasure of drinking. Objectively you may be able to determine how the water changes some physiological feature in a thirsty body and you might hypothesise (quite reasonably) that this gives rise to the liking for the water. You might then, not unreasonably, say that the thirsty person objectively likes water (although I accept it is a stretch, because "like" is inherently a subjective sort of a word).

I suppose I am only trying to suggest, in this whole long thread, that there is a sense in which both subjective and objective explanations may explain why we like music.

In terms of the "objective greatness" question, I think the problem is in the word "great" not in the relationship to music. To say that anything was great you would first have to determine what it is for, and then you would need to see if you could determine how well it fulfilled that function. Doing that is largely going to feel quite subjective, but I think that's true of virtually anything, not just music. And we're back to tennis players.


----------



## Zhdanov

fluteman said:


> Maybe you are familiar with Una Furtiva Lagrima.


'familiar' eh? Donizetti _L'Elisir d'Amore_ i have listened through and through, as well as the rest of main repertoire operas, especially those of Verdi, Wagner & Puccini, and i suggest you should listen to _Der Ring Des Nibelungen_ to learn music language and what is music as such.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Isaac Blackburn said:


> If the statement "I like cake" is true, then the following statements are also true:
> 
> Objectively, I like cake.
> 
> I, objectively, like cake.
> 
> Repost: https://docs.google.com/document/u/...v4KfFCuYO96kQ-Z8BPRZxafC09cF9Js5QScA068eh/pub


So If you grew sick of cake and later in life you said "I don't like cake", would that be objectively true too? It was my understanding that objective truth is objectively true because it doesn't or cannot change. It is not based on human opinion (if you like cake or not).


----------



## Eclectic Al

SanAntone said:


> Frankly, I think this discussion has run its course, and don't see this question being resolved.
> 
> And the fact is, I do consider your comparisons false analogies.


That fact may well be a fact of your subjective experience, but it is therefore not one anyone else can really make any sense of in itself. Wittgenstein's beetle is well and truly in his box.

I think we can do better than just state facts about our internal states. Liberate the beetle.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Isaac Blackburn said:


> If the statement "I like cake" is true, then the following statements are also true:
> 
> Objectively, I like cake.
> 
> I, objectively, like cake.
> 
> Repost: https://docs.google.com/document/u/...v4KfFCuYO96kQ-Z8BPRZxafC09cF9Js5QScA068eh/pub


Well if you say it, we obviously can't deny it. :lol: So I agree, objectively it is true.

Unless of course you are lying. In which case all the statements would be false.

The problem is that unless we have a good chat I have no hope of trying to work out which is which. So what are we going to talk about. Qualities of cake, qualities of you, the meaning of like, why you might therefore like cake, or not like cake.

If there is nothing more than the subjective liking then we can't really talk about anything. I prefer to talk, so I assert that there is more to it than just subjective liking, because that gives us something to talk about.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> So If you grew sick of cake and later in life you said "I don't like cake", would that be objectively true too? It was my understanding that objective truth is objectively true because it doesn't or cannot change. It is not based on human opinion (if you like cake or not).


Look at a green wall.
Objectively the wall is green.
Paint it red.
Objectively it is now red.


----------



## Zhdanov

as far as cakes concern, the cake is still a cake, whether one likes it or not.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Zhdanov said:


> as far as cakes concern, the cake is still a cake, whether one likes it or not.


Yep, a Jaffa Cake is definitely a cake, and not a biscuit.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Eclectic Al said:


> Look at a green wall.
> Objectively the wall is green.
> Paint it red.
> Objectively it is now red.


so neither statements are objectively true. Only that which cannot/doesn't change, that which is fixed, is and objective truth.

The wall is green...for now


----------



## Luchesi

I think we're learning enough from both sides in this thread to make it worthwhile to follow (and contribute), and I think that's what a thread should be.

It's always been curious to me that scores don't matter to most people.


----------



## SanAntone

Eclectic Al said:


> That fact may well be a fact of your subjective experience, but it is therefore not one anyone else can really make any sense of in itself. Wittgenstein's beetle is well and truly in his box.
> 
> I think we can do better than just state facts about our internal states. Liberate the beetle.


I have done a lot more than that. This thread has gone on for 99 pages, in fact, it's the second thread that ha gone on for 100+ pages. On these threads I have outlined exhaustively my own view of why I consider the appreciation and assessment of art/music to be completely subjective. I have explained that while there may be objective data within a musical work, the act of appraising that data by a listener or analyst is subjective.

I have also dealt with the idea of consensus forming a canon or standard repertory, as a collection of subjective responses over time by a self-selected audience of classical music lovers, who share a similar taste in music, and look for and value a set of attributes native to 18th and 19th century classical music.

These arguments have been received with less than what I consider intellectual honesty but with blanket reductive statements, false analogies, condescending judgments about the quality of non-western music and deflection as well as dismissive and disrespectful comments.

So, pardon me if I think the discussion has run its course.


----------



## Jacck

SanAntone said:


> I have done a lot more than that. This thread has gone on for 99 pages, in fact, it's the second thread that ha gone on for 100+ pages. On these threads I have outlined exhaustively my own view of why I consider the appreciation and assessment of art/music to be completely subjective. I have explained that while there may be objective data within a musical work, the act of appraising that data by a listener or analyst is subjective.
> 
> I have also dealt with the idea of consensus forming a canon or standard repertory, as a collection of subjective responses over time by a self-selected audience of classical music lovers, who share a similar taste in music, and look for and value a set of attributes native to 18th and 19th century classical music.
> 
> These arguments have been received with less than what I consider intellectual honesty but with blanket reductive statements, false analogies, condescending judgments about the quality of non-western music and deflection as well as dismissive and disrespectful comments.
> 
> So, pardon me if I think the discussion has run its course.


I don't really understand what you and EA argue about, since when I read the comments from both of you, I largely agree with both of you and you both seem to lean more towards the subjectivist side. You seam to be a little more extreme in the sense that it is absolutely subjective, while EA has admited that there might be biological underpinnings of music appreciation


----------



## Eclectic Al

Jacck said:


> I don't really understand what you and EA argue about, since when I read the comments from both of you, I largely agree with both of you and you both seem to lean more towards the subjectivist side. You seam to be a little more extreme in the sense that it is absolutely subjective, while EA has admited that there might be biological underpinnings of music appreciation


Yeah. I'm not a million miles away from either side here - I think. I guess I'm one of the ones in the middle, and that makes me unpopular on both sides from time to time.

In terms of objectivism, I question whether you can dismiss the possibility that there are no objective drivers of subjective preferences (whether of music or other things) without throwing a lot of babies out with the bath water.

In terms of rankings and greatness, I just don't think that music (or art generally) is that different from other things, in that to assess "greatness" you need to decide on a lot of matters "subjectively", even in other areas.

I suppose I just don't accept the subjective/objective distinction as being clear.


----------



## fluteman

Zhdanov said:


> 'familiar' eh? Donizetti _L'Elisir d'Amore_ i have listened through and through, as well as the rest of main repertoire operas, especially those of Verdi, Wagner & Puccini, and i suggest you should listen to _Der Ring Des Nibelungen_ to learn music language and what is music as such.


Still keeping this up? Forest Murmurs from Wagner's Siegfried is one of my favorite pieces of music. I have listened to it hundreds of times. (Do you see how Ravel adopted it in his Sunrise from Daphnis et Chloe?)

Also, do you see how Poulenc adopted the first theme of the third movement Scherzo of Beethoven's Eroica Symphony in his Trio for oboe, bassoon and piano? Or how he used the first movement theme of Mozart's C-major piano sonata, K. 330, in his Sextet for piano and winds?

Or how Stravinsky adopted the work of various Italian baroque composers in Pulcinella?

The answer to all is no, as you haven't gone past Offenbach, Lehar and Kalman.

Sorry, Zhdanov, you haven't listened attentively enough. You have much to learn. Again, you are not as expert as I am, and you are disqualified. As you are disqualified, there is no point in you telling me what music to learn about, whether it is Wagner or something else.


----------



## Jacck

Eclectic Al said:


> Yeah. I'm not a million miles away from either side here - I think. I guess I'm one of the ones in the middle, and that makes me unpopular on both sides from time to time.


I am like that on most issues as well, including politics. For the leftists, I am right-wing, and vice versa. Maybe it has something to do with the ability to take both perspectives and then attempting to make some synthesis. So like you, I am also not completely clear on the subjective/objective distinction.


----------



## Zhdanov

fluteman said:


> Forest Murmurs from Wagner's Siegfried is one of my favorite pieces of music. I have listened to it hundreds of times.


i am laughing out loud.

listen to the entire opera and the cycle, not just some piece from there.

you don't get music because are unable to grasp its programme nature.

in other words, you are yet to learn what is music.


----------



## Zhdanov

fluteman said:


> you haven't gone past Offenbach, Lehar and Kalman.


what do you mean by that?.. not to say these are bad composers, but they can't be representative of what's best in music, however if that's your countdown point, then it is no wonder your dabbling in the subject.


----------



## science

Isaac Blackburn said:


> If the statement "I like cake" is true, then the following statements are also true:
> 
> Objectively, I like cake.
> 
> I, objectively, like cake.
> 
> Repost: https://docs.google.com/document/u/...v4KfFCuYO96kQ-Z8BPRZxafC09cF9Js5QScA068eh/pub


The experience of the pleasure the cake brings you is the paradigmatic archetype of subjectivity.

That you apparently have that experience is an objective claim that we could try to verify or falsify, but _the experience itself is subjective_.

No need to muddy deep waters.


----------



## Zhdanov

case sorted, the subjectivists and subverters never listen to music in its entirety, but only to bits and pieces from it, hence their lack of understanding as to what art means.


----------



## science

Zhdanov said:


> case sorted, the subjectivists and subverters never listen to music in its entirety, but only to bits and pieces from it, hence their lack of understanding as to what art means.


Sounds to me like fluteman has more expertise than you. Is there an expert you can cite to overrule fluteman?


----------



## DaveM

Eclectic Al said:


> Yeah. I'm not a million miles away from either side here - I think. I guess I'm one of the ones in the middle, and that makes me unpopular on both sides from time to time.
> 
> In terms of objectivism, I question whether you can dismiss the possibility that there are no objective drivers of subjective preferences (whether of music or other things) without throwing a lot of babies out with the bath water.
> 
> In terms of rankings and greatness, I just don't think that music (or art generally) is that different from other things, in that to assess "greatness" you need to decide on a lot of matters "subjectively", even in other areas.
> 
> I suppose I just don't accept the subjective/objective distinction as being clear.


I would put my position in the middle as well. My biggest disagreement is with those taking the extreme subjectivist position. I also have an issue where the position of a few posters is almost impossible to decipher and where the form of communication is more in the realm of obfuscation.

In the case of music of the CPT era, IMO an area where there can be elements of objectivity is inherent in the concept that composing the music is the result of a craft and, like any craft, some composers will have variable combinations of more education, more inherent talent and more skill which will be reflected in the results. There are also objective elements in the amount of influence some composers will have on other composers that follow and the degree to which these composers impact the music-listening population over time.

Your final sentence is probably closer to the truth of this discussion than almost anything else that has been stated. It reminds me of a segment of an essay by an unnamed author on the subject of objectivity and subjectivity in music:

_'The truth is that objectivity and subjectivity are interrelated and possibly exist on a spectrum. The category of "objective" -- the things we decide to call "objective" -- includes only those propositions for which there is a great deal of intersubjectivity (i.e. shared experiences), propositions which are reliable, and propositions which can be experienced or measured in numerous different ways (such as the different senses, or measuring with scientific instruments). Therefore objectivity is a function of intersubjectivity, reliability, and measureability. There is no clear line between subjectivity and objectivity; only by rough heuristics do we decide to categorize things into one box or the other. Grey areas wind up becoming the subject of fervent debate.

A less cut-and-dry example is the enjoyment of music. There is some intersubjectivity (most would agree that Beethoven is better than Rebecca Black), some reliability (Beethoven has been enjoyed across countless cultures for two centuries now) and only limited methods of measuring (certain sounds can empirically relax, or agitate, or activate pleasure centers of the brain in a consistent, predictable way). As such, only very broad statements on musical quality ought to be allowed to cross the threshold into things we call "objective". In practice, there is much disagreement.

Some set that threshold arbitrarily low and call themselves objectivists; others set that threshold arbitrarily high and call themselves subjectivists. Join me in the middle, won't you!-- where we neither claim moral authority on which Rolling Stones album is the best, nor dismiss the notion that J.S. Bach was a better artist than Kevin Federline because "it's all opinion".'_


----------



## Zhdanov

science said:


> Sounds to me like fluteman has more expertise than you.


your being delusional.



science said:


> Is there an expert you can cite to overrule fluteman?


i am the expert.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Zhdanov said:


> your being delusional.
> 
> i am the expert.


This is one of those irregular verbs:

I am the expert
You are being delusional
He has completely lost touch with reality.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Listened to Ravel's Piano Concerto in G today. That's a great piece of music.


----------



## Luchesi

science said:


> The experience of the pleasure the cake brings you is the paradigmatic archetype of subjectivity.
> 
> That you apparently have that experience is an objective claim that we could try to verify or falsify, but _the experience itself is subjective_.
> 
> No need to muddy deep waters.


To me, subjectivity is a dead end and the growing relativism which results is harmful. I'm surprised that this isn't the prevailing opinion in a CM forum. Now I know.


----------



## Bulldog

Zhdanov said:


> i am the expert.


And I'm the walrus.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Eclectic Al:* "In terms of objectivism, I question whether you can dismiss the possibility that there are no objective drivers of subjective preferences (whether of music or other things) without throwing a lot of babies out with the bath water."


Didn't we clear this up for you hundreds of posts ago? No One asserts that there are no objective drivers of subjective preferences (whether in music or other things). How could that even be possible? Answer--it is not possible. All art objects are chockablock-full--bursting--with objective qualities, attributes, quantities, parameters. Otherwise we would not know they exist. The one set of "objective drivers'' that do not exist are the ones labeled "excellence", "greatness'', "masterpiece" and similar value-establishers offered as _ipse dixit_ pure assertion by consensus explainers, Experts, and similar Authorities, real or self-assumed.


----------



## Strange Magic

Bulldog said:


> And I'm the walrus.


Bulldog, you are clearly not the only bulldog. :lol:


----------



## Zhdanov

Bulldog said:


> And I'm the walrus.


maybe, and i'm the expert.


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> I would put my position in the middle as well. My biggest disagreement is with those taking the extreme subjectivist position. I also have an issue where the position of a few posters is almost impossible to decipher and where the form of communication is more in the realm of obfuscation.
> 
> In the case of music of the CPT era, IMO an area where there can be elements of objectivity is inherent in the concept that composing the music is the result of a craft and, like any craft, some composers will have variable combinations of more education, more inherent talent and more skill which will be reflected in the results. There are also objective elements in the amount of influence some composers will have on other composers that follow and the degree to which these composers impact the music-listening population over time.
> 
> Your final sentence is probably closer to the truth of this discussion than almost anything else that has been stated. It reminds me of a segment of an essay by an unnamed author on the subject of objectivity and subjectivity in music:
> 
> _'The truth is that objectivity and subjectivity are interrelated and possibly exist on a spectrum. The category of "objective" -- the things we decide to call "objective" -- includes only those propositions for which there is a great deal of intersubjectivity (i.e. shared experiences), propositions which are reliable, and propositions which can be experienced or measured in numerous different ways (such as the different senses, or measuring with scientific instruments). Therefore objectivity is a function of intersubjectivity, reliability, and measureability. There is no clear line between subjectivity and objectivity; only by rough heuristics do we decide to categorize things into one box or the other. Grey areas wind up becoming the subject of fervent debate.
> 
> A less cut-and-dry example is the enjoyment of music. There is some intersubjectivity (most would agree that Beethoven is better than Rebecca Black), some reliability (Beethoven has been enjoyed across countless cultures for two centuries now) and only limited methods of measuring (certain sounds can empirically relax, or agitate, or activate pleasure centers of the brain in a consistent, predictable way). As such, only very broad statements on musical quality ought to be allowed to cross the threshold into things we call "objective". In practice, there is much disagreement.
> 
> Some set that threshold arbitrarily low and call themselves objectivists; others set that threshold arbitrarily high and call themselves subjectivists. Join me in the middle, won't you!-- where we neither claim moral authority on which Rolling Stones album is the best, nor dismiss the notion that J.S. Bach was a better artist than Kevin Federline because "it's all opinion".'_


A good post, but I don't see why anyone's preferences would matter to anyone else. They're specific to the individual, they're capricious, mercurial, fluctuating, erratic. They develop through the decades. Nursery songs, then peer group adolescent music, then mostly the classical warhorses, then the exploring, then those of the completist, ..on into maturity.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Strange Magic said:


> Didn't we clear this up for you hundreds of posts ago? No One asserts that there are no objective drivers of subjective preferences (whether in music or other things). How could that even be possible? Answer--it is not possible. All art objects are chockablock-full--bursting--with objective qualities, attributes, quantities, parameters. Otherwise we would not know they exist. The one set of "objective drivers'' that do not exist are the ones labeled "excellence", "greatness'', "masterpiece" and similar value-establishers offered as _ipse dixit_ pure assertion by consensus explainers, Experts, and similar Authorities, real or self-assumed.


Maybe not. But then I doubt that you can say anything is great. I think it is clear that when people say great it needs to carry with it all sorts of other baggage. I am reasonably happy that we can say that no music is great, but then I think we cannot say than any tennis player is great, or any cup of tea is great, etc.

Similarly, we can only rank things (A is better than B), once we have decided on a mechanism for ordering. I think that is a reasonable thing to do, but I think that to the extent that it is difficult for music it is also difficult for other things.

Is Football Team A better than Football Team B? Current league position, size of fan base, profitability as a business, etc, etc, etc? You choose.

The problem is the words great, better, etc. Those words might give rise to difficulties with music, but they give rise to difficulties wherever they are used. It is that we need to agree how to rank things in order to use these words, and that requires discussion and the achievement of some sort of consensus, wherever we use those words. It also requires a definition of "we". 
What is the community in question?

Saying that these judgements are purely subjective is just a cop out, and causes them to be meaningless (probably objectively, and certainly to anyone else). Words like "great" are inherently words that demand a community of those with opinions.


----------



## fluteman

Zhdanov said:


> i am laughing out loud.
> 
> listen to the entire opera and the cycle, not just some piece from there.
> 
> you don't get music because are unable to grasp its programme nature.
> 
> in other words, you are yet to learn what is music.


Donizetti wrote some beautiful arias but is a minor composer. The Elixir of Love is an entertaining and sentimental drama, with well-crafted and sentimental but not very profound music to match. Offenbach is an even more minor composer of light entertainments. Lehar and Kalman are even more minor composers still. I am laughing even louder, because you understand so little. You are disqualified. Go learn more about Beethoven, and you may come to understand.


----------



## Zhdanov

fluteman said:


> Donizetti wrote some beautiful arias but is a minor composer.


you don't even understand that i speak of Wagner and his opera cycle Der Ring Des Nibelungen with Siegfried part in it, which you never listened to, save for Forest Murmurs; what minor composers?


----------



## Conrad2

Zhdanov said:


> maybe, and i'm the expert.


What qualifications did you give yourself to be an "expert"? Do you have a degree in music, composed works that are performed by world class institutions, are a paid musician of a famous orchestra, published papers in academia, or a member of a music school facility?

There's a difference between being an educated, knowledgeable audience and an expert.

Here's the definition of an expert from the Oxford dictionary: person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area.

A Harvard Business Review article written by professors from different fields that identified three points as key indicators for someone being an expert, across all fields including music.
1) First, his/her performance that is consistently superior to that of the expert's peers.
2) Second, real expertise produces concrete results. 
3) Finally, true expertise can be replicated and measured.

Do you fit any of these points?

So my question to you is, what authority or what skill you possessed to be considered as an expert for Classical Music?

I myself, am not an expert, as there is much I don't know about classical music, but I'm seriously done with people calling themselves experts when they don't have any or show their qualifications.


----------



## fluteman

Eclectic Al said:


> Saying that these judgements are purely subjective is just a cop out, and causes them to be meaningless (probably objectively, and certainly to anyone else). Words like "great" are inherently words that demand a community of those with opinions.


Not a cop out if you are willing to accept empiricism. I've acknowledged its flaws in some detail, but it still works decently enough, and derives much that is useful and worthwhile from communities of those with opinions. The alternative is -- Zhdanov. Are you enjoying our ongoing debate? How useful do you think it is?



Conrad2 said:


> I'm seriously done with people calling themselves experts when they don't show their or have any qualifications.


Amen. I think I've shown I'm at least as much of an expert in classical music as Zhdanov, as I have training and experience as a classical musician. But -- who cares what my qualifications are? I have friends and family members who are full time professional classical musicians. Why should you care? Do you need to hear from them before you decide what music you like? Do you need to see their resumes? Isn't this getting ridiculous?


----------



## Strange Magic

Eclectic Al said:


> Maybe not. But then I doubt that you can say anything is great. I think it is clear that when people say great it needs to carry with it all sorts of other baggage. I am reasonably happy that we can say that no music is great, but then I think we cannot say than any tennis player is great, or any cup of tea is great, etc.
> 
> Similarly, we can only rank things (A is better than B), once we have decided on a mechanism for ordering. I think that is a reasonable thing to do, but I think that to the extent that it is difficult for music it is also difficult for other things.
> 
> Is Football Team A better than Football Team B? Current league position, size of fan base, profitability as a business, etc, etc, etc? You choose.
> 
> The problem is the words great, better, etc. Those words might give rise to difficulties with music, but they give rise to difficulties wherever they are used. It is that we need to agree how to rank things in order to use these words, and that requires discussion and the achievement of some sort of consensus, wherever we use those words. It also requires a definition of "we".
> What is the community in question?
> 
> Saying that these judgements are purely subjective is just a cop out, and causes them to be meaningless (probably objectively, and certainly to anyone else). Words like "great" are inherently words that demand a community of those with opinions.


Not really a problem for areas where agreement comes easily. Tennis players: most Grand Slams--rank them that way. Longest period of time of powerful play as determined by interval between first and final Grand Slam. Etc. Just state what the measuring ruler is measuring. Music is a horse of another color entirely. So much music, so many listeners with so many separate enthusiasms. But I would like to see some proposal put forward quantifying parameters of evaluation for the establishing of "greatness" in music that are free of the opinions of experts, the results of a poll, or the testimonials of enthusiasts. Which is standard fare on TC and pretty much everywhere when it come to music and art. Best Yardbirds guitarist?: Poll!


----------



## Zhdanov

fluteman said:


> The alternative is -- Zhdanov.


hold on there, what alternative?.. talk classical don't we?.. suppose you show some class and describe the following leitmotiv from Der Ring, a very crucial one, Wotan Spear that is, here you go -


----------



## Conrad2

fluteman said:


> Amen. I think I've shown I'm at least as much of an expert in classical music as Zhdanov, as I have training and experience as a classical musician. But -- who cares what my qualifications are? I have friends and family members who are full time professional classical musicians. Why should you care? Do you need to hear from them before you decide what music you like? Do you need to see their resumes? Isn't this getting ridiculous?


Ordinarily, I don't care if someone is an expert if I appreciate or like their insight and conversations in trivial setting and manner. When I'm asking people about music they like, I don't ask to see their resume, as it's a fun and harmless dialogue. However, when the term of "expert" being tossed around casually, it kind of tick me as it devalues those who work hard to be one, and in the worst case scenario, misinformed or skewed someone perception. I dislike the usage of that term in that context even more if they used that term to devalue someone else idea or opinion.


----------



## SanAntone

Eclectic Al said:


> In terms of objectivism, I question whether you can dismiss the possibility that there are no objective drivers of subjective preferences (whether of music or other things) without throwing a lot of babies out with the bath water.r.


Did you read my post? Because I clearly wrote that while there are objective data in a piece of music how they are valued and weighed against other objective attributes is a subjective response.


----------



## fluteman

Zhdanov said:


> hold on there, what alternative?.. talk classical don't we?.. suppose you show some class and describe the following leitmotiv from Der Ring, a very crucial one, Wotan Spear that is, here you go -


I don't need to show you any class. I am an expert. You are not. You failed to answer my questions, and you keep naming random composers until you happen upon a major one. Your choice of Wagner was nothing more than a lucky guess. You are disqualified. One last time: Go learn more about Beethoven. My answer to any further posts you make here at TC is the same: You are disqualified.


----------



## SanAntone

*DaveM*

Did you ever post your top tier composers? I haven't seen it if you did.

You also insist on limiting this discussion to CPT. Why is that? Is it because it becomes harder to identify shared objective data in music across several different periods and styles rendering any comparison meaningless?

I've also asked you to give the dates or composers that bookend CPT so I can know just exactly what you are talking about.

Another request you've ignored.


----------



## Zhdanov

fluteman said:


> Your choice of Wagner was nothing more than a lucky guess.


don't you pretend not knowing that Wagner is my specialisation, as seen from the discussions in this forum, let alone his was my introduction to classical music, i can go on for hours about his works.


----------



## Zhdanov

fluteman said:


> Beethoven.


ok, let's talk Beethoven, which symphony?


----------



## fluteman

Conrad2 said:


> Ordinarily, I don't care if someone is an expert if I appreciate or like their insight and conversations in trivial setting and manner. When I'm asking people about music they like, I don't ask to see their resume, as it's a fun and harmless dialogue. However, when the term of "expert" being tossed around casually, it kind of tick me as it devalues those who work hard to be one, and in the worst case scenario, misinformed or skewed someone perception. I dislike the usage of that term in that context even more if they used that term to devalue someone else idea or opinion.


The most prominent of my professional musician friends and family is a conductor who has conducted orchestras all over the world and won major awards. If he met you, he would want to know your opinions about classical music, and he would listen carefully and respectfully to what you had to say. Then he would answer any questions you had about classical music or his approach to it as clearly and thoroughly as he could. He advocates for the music he believes is important and 'great', and gives numerous concerts and makes numerous commercially available recordings of that music, all in the hope that you will be convinced it's great, too. But he would never suggest that you should accept the music he likes because he is an expert, or that if you don't like that music you are ignorant. Not because he is too polite, but because he knows that is not the case.

That is what actual, legitimate experts do.


----------



## janxharris

fluteman said:


> But he would never suggest that you should accept the music he likes because he is an expert, or that if you don't like that music you are ignorant. Not because he is too polite, but because he knows that is not the case.
> 
> That is what actual, legitimate experts do.


Yes to this. .


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> DaveM
> 
> Did you ever post your top tier composers? I haven't seen it if you did.
> 
> You also insist on limiting this discussion to CPT. Why is that? Is it because it becomes harder to identify shared objective data in music across several different periods and styles rendering any comparison meaningless?
> 
> I've also asked you to give the dates or composers that bookend CPT so I can know just exactly what you are talking about.
> 
> Another request you've ignored.


Why are your posts always so confrontational and accusatory as if you're looking for an argument on every subject rather than a conversation? I must have missed the request regarding the CPT period. I didn't ignore it.

I am using the definition and time period of the CPT as described in Wikipedia and elsewhere:

In the history of European art music, the common practice period is the era of the tonal system. Though it has no exact dates, most features of the common-practice period persisted from the mid- to late baroque period, through the Classical, Romantic and Impressionist periods, from around 1650 to 1900. The period saw considerable stylistic evolution, with some patterns and conventions flourishing and then declining, for example the sonata form. Thus, the dates 1650-1900 are necessarily nebulous and arbitrary borders that depend on context. The most important unifying feature throughout the period is a harmonic language to which modern music theorists can apply Roman numeral chord analysis.

Western classical music
periods and eras
Early period	c. 500-1600
* Medieval era	c. 500-1400
* Renaissance era	c. 1400-1600
*Common practice period	c. 1600-1910*
* Baroque era	c. 1580-1750
* Galant music	c. 1720-1780
* Classical era	c. 1750-1820
* Class. → Rom. trans.	c. 1800-1820
* Romantic era	c. 1800-1910
20th- and 21st-centuries	c. 1890-present
* Modernist era	c. 1890-1975
* Postmodern era	c. 1960-present

I have not forgotten about my list of top tier composers emphasizing that it will be a list of what I consider to be top tier composers, not 'the' top tier composers. Since it will require some thought and time, I'm not sure when I will post it since it's in the middle of tax time and I do my own taxes. I will be sure to let you know.


----------



## Zhdanov

fluteman said:


> But he would never suggest that you should accept the music he likes because he is an expert, or that if you don't like that music you are ignorant.


not a Toscanini, is he?.. so no wonder there are so many ignorant folks going by the name of subjectivists...


----------



## Strange Magic

Zhdanov said:


> don't you pretend not knowing that Wagner is my specialisation, as seen from the discussions in this forum, let alone his was my introduction to classical music, i can go on for hours about his works.


Be afraid. Be very afraid.


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> Be afraid. Be very afraid.


no, he was not a nazi, and the policy behind his persecution these days is that he wasn't nationalist enough and, in spite of romanticist demands of the day to glorify the people, he instead glorified every thing noble.


----------



## SanAntone

Common practice period c. 1600-1910

I'm having difficulty with finding common objective attributes between Monteverdi madrigals and a work like _Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune_ (1891-94). Unless you consider the chromatic scale an example of the objective data they share.

How can an assessment based on objective data be possible between these two styles?

I am sorry my post came across as "confrontational and accusatory" it was not my intention.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> To me, subjectivity is a dead end and the growing relativism which results is harmful. I'm surprised that this isn't the prevailing opinion in a CM forum. Now I know.


It is interesting that the subject of the roots of the esthetics of art has very strong moral overtones for some of the posters. There are repeatedly expressed fears of what harm may be being done to the Young and to music students if their ability/freedom to enjoy what they choose is not discouraged and their tastes are not firmly guided. I may be an example of the failure to be well-disciplined: I enjoy a wide variety of music and art, and my tastes have been unsupervised since early childhood. And I have fallen into Error by believing that I can impose upon myself my own standards, yet still feel myself a good person--not perfect, but acceptably good. As I am fond of saying pridefully, no one in our family has been successfully prosecuted for any crime. :angel:


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> Be afraid. Be very afraid.


What's needed is a game of Jeopardy. Categories are: Donizetti -- Listening through and through. Beethoven -- Which symphony? Wagner -- Lietmotifs. Bonus round: Offenbach, Lehar and Kalman -- The Outer Limits?


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> I may be an example of the failure to be well-disciplined:


how old are you?


----------



## Bulldog

DaveM said:


> I have not forgotten about my list of top tier composers emphasizing that it will be a list of what I consider to be top tier composers, not 'the' top tier composers. Since it will require some thought and time, I'm not sure when I will post it since it's in the middle of tax time and I do my own taxes. I will be sure to let you know.


My wife and I have a lot of investments and quarterly submittals so we hire a specialist firm to do our taxes. We end up saving more money than the firm charges us. Do something similar and you'll have plenty of time to come up with that top tier list.

Anyways, a traditional top-tier list based on my perception of general consensus:

Bach
Beethoven
Brahms
Chopin
Haydn
Mahler
Mozart
Schubert
Tchaikovsky
Wagner

As for an up-to-date list, I have no idea what it might look it.


----------



## Zhdanov

fluteman said:


> Beethoven -- Which symphony?


i listen to all of them and you to none.


----------



## Strange Magic

Zhdanov said:


> no, he was not a nazi, and the policy behind his persecution these days is that he wasn't nationalist enough and, in spite of romanticist demands of the day to glorify the people, he instead glorified every thing noble.


I was not referring to a fear of a discussion of Wagner (I never participate in such as a mere matter of choice). No, my fear is of the Tasmanian Devil unleashed......


----------



## Strange Magic

Zhdanov said:


> how old are you?


Eighty. Geezer. You?


----------



## Bulldog

Zhdanov said:


> how old are you?


How come you don't want to know how old *I* am? I'm feeling neglected.


----------



## Bulldog

Strange Magic said:


> Eighty. Geezer. You?


Wow! You've got plenty of energy left in the tank.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Strange Magic said:


> Not really a problem for areas where agreement comes easily. Tennis players: most Grand Slams--rank them that way. Longest period of time of powerful play as determined by interval between first and final Grand Slam. Etc. Just state what the measuring ruler is measuring. Music is a horse of another color entirely. So much music, so many listeners with so many separate enthusiasms. But I would like to see some proposal put forward quantifying parameters of evaluation for the establishing of "greatness" in music that are free of the opinions of experts, the results of a poll, or the testimonials of enthusiasts. Which is standard fare on TC and pretty much everywhere when it come to music and art. Best Yardbirds guitarist?: Poll!


Best Rock band? Led Zeppelin. That's just objectively true.


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> Eighty.


but you sound like eighteen...


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> To me, subjectivity is a dead end and the growing relativism which results is harmful. I'm surprised that this isn't the prevailing opinion in a CM forum. Now I know.


I have seen many of your posts refer to something like you write in this one. Are you a music teacher? I think you've mentioned "your students." You may have a specialized perspective that gives you a stake in relying on objective criteria to identify great works.

But you seem think subjectivism is harmful beyond that.

However, there is no need for you to be afraid of subjectivism expressed by some of us on TC. The classical music canon is secure, it is not going anywhere, and you can continue teaching it to your students.

What I might be concerned about is if in the process you teach your students to not trust their instincts about music and to have an exaggerated reliance on authority.


----------



## Strange Magic

Eclectic Al said:


> Best Rock band? Led Zeppelin. That's just objectively true.


*Total* agreement!!!


----------



## Bulldog

Zhdanov said:


> but you sound like eighteen...


I just knew you were going to use a sentence like the above; I'm sure Strange Magic was also aware. You're quite transparent.


----------



## Strange Magic

Zhdanov said:


> but you sound like eighteen...


Thank you!


----------



## SanAntone

Bulldog said:


> My wife and I have a lot of investments and quarterly submittals so we hire a specialist firm to do our taxes. We end up saving more money than the firm charges us. Do something similar and you'll have plenty of time to come up with that top tier list.
> 
> Anyways, a traditional top-tier list based on my perception of general consensus:
> 
> Bach
> Beethoven
> Brahms
> Chopin
> Haydn
> Mahler
> Mozart
> Schubert
> Tchaikovsky
> Wagner
> 
> As for an up-to-date list, I have no idea what it might look it.


I can understand where this list came from, but still some surprises. Missing are Liszt, Schumann, Verdi, Debussy, not to mention any 20th century composers.

Why is Chopin great and Liszt not? An argument could be made that Liszt was more innovative, and wrote in a wider variety of forms beyond solo piano music. During their lifetimes I believe they were both considered great, and Liszt may have been more famous.

Speaking of which, Wagner's output was almost exclusively in music drama. Is greatness based on a few great works? What if a composer wrote great works in a variety of forms: chamber, solo instrumental, concertos, opera, symphonic?


----------



## Eclectic Al

SanAntone said:


> I can understand where this list came from, but still some surprises. Missing are Liszt, Schumann, Verdi, Debussy, not to mention any 20th century composers.
> 
> Why is Chopin great and Liszt not? An argument could be made that Liszt was more innovative, and wrote in a wider variety of forms beyond solo piano music. During their lifetimes I believe they were both considered great, and Liszt may have been more famous.
> 
> Speaking of which, Wagner's output was almost exclusively in music drama. Is greatness based on a few great works? What if a composer wrote great works in a variety of forms: chamber, solo instrumental, concertos, opera, symphonic?


Great. Now this is a conversation. More of this and we can try and tease out what great means for different people. And I don't mind if it means different things. I was quite happy with the clustering concept from pages ago.


----------



## Bulldog

SanAntone said:


> I can understand where this list came from, but still some surprises. Missing are Liszt, Schumann, Verdi, Debussy, not to mention any 20th century composers.
> 
> Why is Chopin great and Liszt not? An argument could be made that Liszt was more innovative, and wrote in a wider variety of forms beyond solo piano music. During their lifetimes I believe they were both considered great, and Liszt may have been more famous.
> 
> Speaking of which, Wagner's output was almost exclusively in music drama. Is greatness based on a few great works? What if a composer wrote great works in a variety of forms: chamber, solo instrumental, concertos, opera, symphonic?


Hey, it's just an impromptu list based mainly on my perception of popularity - has nothing to do with greatness, but I'll go there for a moment. Greatness is in the mind of the individual. Both of us consider Liszt a great composer. You find Satie much more rewarding than I do. Both Art Rock and I find Mahler and Bach great composers, but he has a strong affection for Takemitsu's music that I don't share. haziz loves Tchaikovsky's music, while I would be fine with never hearing any of it again. It goes on and on. I have my preferences and respect the preferences of others. What I never respect is people dumping on particular composers or works to buttress their own preferences; it's dishonest and obnoxious.


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> Thank you!


you will thank me when i taught you music. Beethoven, since he was mentioned by someone here, to start with for a student like you, as usual, it is his so-called 'Moonlight Sonata' 1st mvt, which although might sound proto-walz to some, but this is in fact a funeral march on a death that came after a painful disease as a bitter and somber relief -


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bulldog said:


> How come you don't want to know how old *I* am? I'm feeling neglected.


Probably 18, which is quite old for a dog


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> Probably 18, which is quite old for a dog


I might be old, but I can still take a good bite out of your leg. :lol:


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> It is interesting that the subject of the roots of the esthetics of art has very strong moral overtones for some of the posters. There are repeatedly expressed fears of what harm may be being done to the Young and to music students if their ability/freedom to enjoy what they choose is not discouraged and their tastes are not firmly guided. I may be an example of the failure to be well-disciplined: I enjoy a wide variety of music and art, and my tastes have been unsupervised since early childhood. And I have fallen into Error by believing that I can impose upon myself my own standards, yet still feel myself a good person--not perfect, but acceptably good. As I am fond of saying pridefully, no one in our family has been successfully prosecuted for any crime. :angel:


OK, you've been lucky. You have CM for your mature years. Do you know of others like you, since schools have paraded relativism as a fairness doctrine?


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> I can understand where this list came from, but still some surprises. Missing are Liszt, Schumann, Verdi, Debussy, not to mention any 20th century composers.
> 
> Why is Chopin great and Liszt not? An argument could be made that Liszt was more innovative, and wrote in a wider variety of forms beyond solo piano music. During their lifetimes I believe they were both considered great, and Liszt may have been more famous.
> 
> Speaking of which, Wagner's output was almost exclusively in music drama. Is greatness based on a few great works? What if a composer wrote great works in a variety of forms: chamber, solo instrumental, concertos, opera, symphonic?


Yes. Moreover, as great and revolutionary as Wagner's innovations were with musical drama, few are willing to sit through one of his 4+ hour operas today (I've done it, but it's exhausting), and even fewer can afford the ticket prices necessitated by the high cost of producing them. But Wagner's music remains well-liked in excerpt and highlight form, and his influence on western drama continues to be seen in numerous large-scale heroic movies based on ancient myths. And of course, nowadays one can get a DVD and watch the classic operas at one's own pace in the comfort of one's home. Maybe that would outrage some purists. But I for one am able both to acknowledge Wagner's greatness and that our culture has moved on.

Chopin is an interesting case. He was hailed as a genius right from the start, including by Schumann, and has been ever since. He didn't want to adopt the charismatic, theatrical style of the young Liszt, either artistically or personally. His music is often much more subtle and delicate, though his crashing dramatic climaxes are every bit as brilliant, and generally his music is more harmonically sophisticated than that of Liszt, allowing him to do more with fewer notes. Your pick. I love Chopin, he is high in my top ten, and higher than Liszt.

Also high in my top ten is the towering genius of the 20th century, Igor Stravinsky. He was able to take conventional western harmony and add numerous innovations in dissonance, rhythm, and timbre, as well as the creative use of silence and minimal textures that had become somewhat lost in the thick textures of late romanticism, and though he didn't invent neoclassical modernism by himself, he brought it to astonishing heights. His influence on 20th century music was greater than that of any of his classical composer contemporaries, including Arnold Schoenberg, to the latter's disgust and dismay.

For me, Debussy absolutely belongs in the top ten as well.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Bulldog said:


> My wife and I have a lot of investments and quarterly submittals so we hire a specialist firm to do our taxes. We end up saving more money than the firm charges us. Do something similar and you'll have plenty of time to come up with that top tier list.
> 
> Anyways, a traditional top-tier list based on my perception of general consensus:
> 
> Bach
> Beethoven
> Brahms
> Chopin
> Haydn
> Mahler
> Mozart
> Schubert
> Tchaikovsky
> Wagner
> 
> As for an up-to-date list, I have no idea what it might look it.


Most miraculously, HKlavier has now posted, but not yet clarified that Haydn should be specified as Haydn M, not Haydn J.


----------



## Strange Magic

Zhdanov said:


> you will thank me when i taught you music. Beethoven, since he was mentioned by someone here, to start with for a student like you, as usual, it is his so-called 'Moonlight Sonata' 1st mvt, which although might sound proto-walz to some, but this is in fact a funeral march on a death that came after a painful disease as a bitter and somber relief


Yes, but is the Moonlight Sonata any good? My dear Zhdanov, you are literally a wonder of TC! The place would not be the same without you. Now, will you tell us your age? Please?


----------



## Zhdanov

fluteman said:


> in my top ten is the towering genius of the 20th century, Igor Stravinsky.


you must have never heard of Rimsky-Korsakov, this is where Stravinsky comes from, have a listen to The Snow Maiden:


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> Yes, but is the Moonlight Sonata any good?


good or not, learn to listen, only then decide.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> OK, you've been lucky. You have CM for your mature years. Do you know of others like you, since schools have paraded relativism as a fairness doctrine?


To be candid, I do not know whether schools (I refer to public schools through 12th grade) teach any sort of music appreciation these days. We had such in my high school, and we sang and picked up odds and ends of CM from the music teacher. But I received my initial impetus from hearing CM and many other musics at home as a small child. Musical interest seems to be transmitted within families almost like a cultural gene, though an inspiring teacher or sympathetic friend can be a big help.


----------



## SanAntone

Bulldog said:


> Hey, it's just an impromptu list based mainly on my perception of popularity - has nothing to do with greatness, but I'll go there for a moment. Greatness is in the mind of the individual. Both of us consider Liszt a great composer. You find Satie much more rewarding than I do. Both Art Rock and I find Mahler and Bach great composers, but he has a strong affection for Takemitsu's music that I don't share. haziz loves Tchaikovsky's music, while I would be fine with never hearing any of it again. It goes on and on. I have my preferences and respect the preferences of others. What I never respect is people dumping on particular composers or works to buttress their own preferences; it's dishonest and obnoxious.


No, I agree with you, I was just asking what was your basis, and you said popularity - which makes sense.

My overall point, which you also included in your reply, is that we each can come up with a list of top tier composers which is valid. Which for my money is evidence that the idea of greatness is basically a subjective appraisal.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> Yes. Moreover, as great and revolutionary as Wagner's innovations were with musical drama, few are willing to sit through one of his 4+ hour operas today (I've done it, but it's exhausting), and even fewer can afford the ticket prices necessitated by the high cost of producing them. But Wagner's music remains well-liked in excerpt and highlight form, and his influence on western drama continues to be seen in numerous large-scale heroic movies based on ancient myths. And of course, nowadays one can get a DVD and watch the classic operas at one's own pace in the comfort of one's home. Maybe that would outrage some purists. But I for one am able both to acknowledge Wagner's greatness and that our culture has moved on.
> 
> Chopin is an interesting case. He was hailed as a genius right from the start, including by Schumann, and has been ever since. He didn't want to adopt the charismatic, theatrical style of the young Liszt, either artistically or personally. His music is often much more subtle and delicate, though his crashing dramatic climaxes are every bit as brilliant, and generally his music is more harmonically sophisticated than that of Liszt, allowing him to do more with fewer notes. Your pick. I love Chopin, he is high in my top ten, and higher than Liszt.
> 
> Also high in my top ten is the towering genius of the 20th century, Igor Stravinsky. He was able to take conventional western harmony and add numerous innovations in dissonance, rhythm, and timbre, as well as the creative use of silence and minimal textures that had become somewhat lost in the thick textures of late romanticism, and though he didn't invent neoclassical modernism by himself, he brought it to astonishing heights. His influence on 20th century music was greater than that of any of his classical composer contemporaries, including Arnold Schoenberg, to the latter's disgust and dismay.
> 
> For me, Debussy absolutely belongs in the top ten as well.


I don't know if you saw my list where I also described why I put the composers on it.

*Guillaume de Machaut*. Very influential poet/composer of the 14th century, credited with composing the first example of a complete setting of the mass text by a single composer. His complete works have survived in five manuscript collections easiiy making him the composer with the most music to have survived.

*Josquin*. Also very influential composer of the Renaissance period, his works appear in many collections usually interpreted as a composer widely admired. His name appears in treatises both during and after his lifetime, and a number of composers cite him as their "master."

*Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina*. His works are widely seen as the apogee of 16th century counterpoint. His 104 mass settings have a uniform excellence, so much so, that his practice was considered "perfect" and the basic rules of counterpoint were developed from a analysis of his works. When one speaks of the High Renaissance, Palestrina's name is usually the first to be mentioned.

*J.S. Bach*. Who I consider the greatest composer of the Baroque period, his contrapuntal methodology has been codified into treatises used as pedagogical studies and taught in most music conservatories. His keyboard, organ, and sacred choral music has entered the standard repertory like no other composer, and often cited as a candidate for the greatest composer of all.

*Joseph Haydn*. Credited with single-handedly setting the standard for the Classical Period symphony, string quartet and piano trio. He was admired by both Mozart and Beethoven. Beethoven wished to study with him, and may have had a few lessons, but Haydn suggested he find someone more dedicated to teaching him, which Beethoven did. Mozart dedicated a group of string quartets to Haydn as a form of homage. Haydn lived a long life, mostly in the service of a single aristocratic employer, and was distant from the main centers of musical activity. However, he still managed to be widely known and respected all across Europe and England, where he was repeatedly invited for concert tours.

*Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart*. Master of most of the standard forms of composition for the Classical Period, he especially excelled in the concerto and opera. If you asked almost anyone to name a great classical composer, many if not most would name Mozart. He has entered the popular consciousness like no other composer, and is the epitome of the genius prodigy.

*Ludwig van Beethoven*. Need I say why?

*Johannes Brahms*. Often said to be the true descendant of Beethoven. Brahms was so critical of his work that he is reported to have burned more works than he left behind. His solo piano music, symphonies, and his late chamber music are some of the finest examples of those forms. He carried on a style of composition somewhat conservative for the Romantic period; he steadfastly held to the formal structures perfected by Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. But he also was deceptively innovative.

*Arnold Schoenberg*. Some call him the last Romantic, others the first Modern composer. He certainly straddled those two major periods of musical composition as a giant. His 12-tone method was a major innovation for the 20th century and influenced countless later composers.

*Igor Stravinsky*. Another major 20th century composer, whose music is some of the most creative and innovative for several different "schools." His three early ballets were extremely impactful; during his mid-career Neoclassicism, and then his late career version of Serialism, he produced masterpieces in every style he worked.


----------



## Strange Magic

Zhdanov said:


> good or not, learn to listen, only then decide.


Yes. You lead. I will follow. Have you gotten around to my Bartók suggestion for you? Try Martinů's First Symphony while you're exploring the edge of the world. And Rautavaara's First Piano Concerto. Get back to us after you do.


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> Have you gotten around to my Bartók suggestion for you?


tell me about that music piece, what does it narrate and show?


----------



## Strange Magic

Zhdanov said:


> tell me about that music piece, what does it narrate and show?


If you are uneasy about hearing it "cold" (why would that be, one wonders?), you could read Authorities on the subject. I heard it first "cold", and fell in love with it. It's true! It can happen! Even at eighty years old.


----------



## DaveM

Bulldog said:


> My wife and I have a lot of investments and quarterly submittals so we hire a specialist firm to do our taxes. We end up saving more money than the firm charges us. Do something similar and you'll have plenty of time to come up with that top tier list.


I never would have known!  
I have had to file 3 sets of taxes returns: professional corporation, corporate pension plan and personal. I have filed the personal taxes myself for 3 decades. The others have been through an accounting firm. There are some benefits filing personally not having to do with saving money. For me, the time factor required is more about collecting and documenting all the information. Entering it to the computer not so much.

Edit: Actually there are 'saving money' benefits to doing your own taxes. You can make changes at the last minute. You can forecast changes in and make changes to quarterly withholding when income changes occur such as during the pandemic etc. Professional firms have a way of dinging you whenever possible.


----------



## SanAntone

> *fluteman*: Chopin is an interesting case. He was hailed as a genius right from the start, including by Schumann, and has been ever since. He didn't want to adopt the charismatic, theatrical style of the young Liszt, either artistically or personally. His music is often much more subtle and delicate, though his crashing dramatic climaxes are every bit as brilliant, and *generally his music is more harmonically sophisticated than that of Liszt,* allowing him to do more with fewer notes. Your pick. I love Chopin, he is high in my top ten, and higher than Liszt.


I'm not sure if I would agree that Chopin was more harmonically sophisticated than Liszt. Liszt used a twelve-tone row in the opening of his "Faust" Symphony, and in many of his late works he predated Debussy's harmonic blurring. In fact, I can't see how Chopin's practice comes close to Liszt's experimental use of harmony.


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> If you are uneasy about hearing it "cold"


i'm uneasy that you offer something without even knowing why.

go ahead, post a vid, tell a story...


----------



## fluteman

Zhdanov said:


> you must have never heard of Rimsky-Korsakov, this is where Stravinsky comes from, have a listen to The Snow Maiden:


Yes! I have heard of Rimsky-Korsakov, I am a big fan, of course. Yes, he had a very important influence on Stravinsky. We agree on much when it comes to music. First Donizetti's most delightful and beautiful opera (though Lucia di Lammermoor also features some great music), then Wagner's formidable Ring Cycle, and now Rimsky-Korsakov. One of the first concerts I ever attended as a child featured the suite from The Golden Cockerel conducted in a glittering performance by Leopold Stokowski, whom I was able to meet afterwards, as he loved meeting young children. Unforgettable.

You have excellent taste in music, Zhdanov. But you are still disqualified.


----------



## Strange Magic

Zhdanov said:


> i'm uneasy that you offer something without even knowing why.
> 
> go ahead, post a vid, tell a story...


Why are you both so confrontational and simultaneously so frightened? It's been fun so far, but I'm not sure what you have in your cellar.


----------



## Strange Magic

A few more influential composers (and others):

Here's a lineage: *Glinka to Balakirev to Rimsky-Korsakov (and the rest of the Handful) to Stravinsky and Respighi*. Not all "great"(?) composers in everyone's opinion, yet each powerfully influencing the next in the chain.

An allied chain: *Diaghilev to Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel, and Prokofiev *. Diaghilev as catalyst, spark plug. Mister Excitement.

More suggestions?


----------



## science

Luchesi said:


> To me, subjectivity is a dead end and the growing relativism which results is harmful. I'm surprised that this isn't the prevailing opinion in a CM forum. Now I know.


What does subjectivity have to do with relativism?


----------



## science

Luchesi said:


> A good post, but I don't see why anyone's preferences would matter to anyone else. They're specific to the individual, they're capricious, mercurial, fluctuating, erratic. They develop through the decades. Nursery songs, then peer group adolescent music, then mostly the classical warhorses, then the exploring, then those of the completist, ..on into maturity.


Of course!

But why do they matter to anyone else?

Because we're social animals. We like to do things together. We like to find out that we have things in common. We like to learn from each other and show off. It's human nature.

If polar bears like certain music, they don't care what other polar bears think.


----------



## DaveM

science said:


> If polar bears like certain music, they don't care what other polar bears think.


How can we be sure?


----------



## Luchesi

science said:


> Of course!
> 
> But why do they matter to anyone else?
> 
> Because we're social animals. We like to do things together. We like to find out that we have things in common. We like to learn from each other and show off. It's human nature.
> 
> If polar bears like certain music, they don't care what other polar bears think.


Other peoples' preferences will guide you to a deep appreciation of CM? I can't see it. This is what's worked for you?


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> Other peoples' preferences will guide you to a deep appreciation of CM? I can't see it. This is what's worked for you?


Why are we here on TC? I have found works that please me from the recommendations of others right here on TC. Plus it's fun to have these discussions.


----------



## science

Luchesi said:


> Other peoples' preferences will guide you to a deep appreciation of CM? I can't see it. This is what's worked for you?


I mean what else is there? If no one else liked Bach or Wagner, I'd never even have heard of them.


----------



## science

DaveM said:


> How can we be sure?


They're solitary animals. They don't groom each other, care for each other's children, or form coalitions to go into battle. They would be the kind of radically solipsistic subjectivists that are so much feared here.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> I'm not sure if I would agree that Chopin was more harmonically sophisticated than Liszt. Liszt used a twelve-tone row in the opening of his "Faust" Symphony, and in many of his late works he predated Debussy's harmonic blurring. In fact, I can't see how Chopin's practice comes close to Liszt's experimental use of harmony.


Yes, that's a reaction I often get when I discuss Chopin and Liszt. But take a look at Rosen's book The Romantic Generation at 342-344. I'll quote a bit from that where he's talking about the F-minor Ballade: This is a basic principle for the way Chopin conceives many of his large forms: he does not oppose tonalities by the Classical technique of modulation but uses related tonalities for coloristic purposes as if they were modes of the same tonality -- the same tonal region would be a better term. .... It is only recently that critics have begun to realize that Classical tonal theory needs to be considerably overhauled if it is to deal with Chopin's innovations. 
Above all, it was this harmonic originality that enabled him to create narrative-like forms that were continuously lyrical in feeling: substituting shifts of major and minor modes for the more hard-edged dominant/tonic oppositions and redefining the mediants as changes of modes allowed him to appear to stay within the same tonal area (this too, redefined with greater breadth) and yet to achieve a rich and complex sense of movement that was consistently expressive and delicately nuanced.

Whew. IMO that's a fancy way of saying that Chopin originated a much more extensive use of tonal and harmonic ambiguity than had been the norm, way before Wagner and Debussy.


----------



## DaveM

science said:


> They're solitary animals. They don't groom each other, care for each other's children, or form coalitions to go into battle. They would be the kind of radically solipsistic subjectivists that are so much feared here.


At any kind of close quarters, they would be feared here regardless.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> Chopin is an interesting case. He was hailed as a genius right from the start, including by Schumann, and has been ever since. He didn't want to adopt the charismatic, theatrical style of the young Liszt, either artistically or personally. His music is often much more subtle and delicate, though his crashing dramatic climaxes are every bit as brilliant, and generally his music is more harmonically sophisticated than that of Liszt, allowing him to do more with fewer notes. Your pick. I love Chopin, he is high in my top ten, and higher than Liszt.


Well, to be honest, I too think Liszt sometimes comes off slightly "artificial" in comparison due to his personality as a "showman", -huge virtuosic blocks of chords immediately come into my mind when I think of his music in general.
I don't think the fact that the Faust symphony contains tone-rows is really that significant; the work seems a bit over-long. Tone-rows have been around since the 18th century and Schoenberg hailed the German masters as his teachers, not Liszt.
That is not to say Liszt doesn't have some merits in his harmonic style.









There's a natural spontaneity in Chopin that leads me to consider him an "artist on opium", the "Berlioz of the piano" (he did take opium to combat the symptoms of his tuberculosis).




 (the 4/2 chord at 4:21 )




 (5:30 )
Schumann became critical about Chopin later in life, btw.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=OYo7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA34


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eclectic Al said:


> Most miraculously, HKlavier has now posted, but not yet clarified that Haydn should be specified as Haydn M, not Haydn J.


























Face it.  Michael was the better melodist/harmonist/contrapuntist

"Michael's influence on Romanticism is also reflected in the writings of E. T. A. Hoffmann, who praised Michael's sacred music above that of older brother Joseph's. Franz Schubert is known to have visited the grave of Michael Haydn in order to gain inspiration for writing sacred music. After one of these visits, Schubert wrote in a letter to his brother the following epitaph:
"I thought to myself, 'May thy pure and peaceful spirit hover around me, dear Haydn! If I can ever become like thee, peaceful and guileless, in all matters none on earth has such deep reverence for thee as I have.' (Sad tears fell from my eyes. . . .)""
Schubert wrote the Deutschemesse as an homage to Michael, the pioneer of the Deutsche hochamt (German high mass).


----------



## fluteman

Apparently Chopin pretty consistently dissed Schumann's music, so it isn't surprising to hear Schumann eventually lost his enthusiasm for Chopin. But Chopin saved one of the all time best snaps for Liszt. But it's too late, and I'm too tired, to look for it tonight.


----------



## SanAntone

I will have to listen to some Chopin, but until now, I've vastly preferred Liszt.

Sonata in B Minor
Via Crucis
The Années de pèlerinage
Christus
Consolations 
Harmonies poétiques et religieuses 

These and other late works, IMO, overshadow anything by Chopin.

But I will listen to some Chopin this week.


----------



## ArtMusic

science said:


> Of course!
> 
> But why do they matter to anyone else?
> 
> Because we're social animals. We like to do things together. We like to find out that we have things in common. We like to learn from each other and show off. It's human nature.
> 
> If polar bears like certain music, they don't care what other polar bears think.


Your are presenting instinctive responses.

One ideally needs be more enlightened by artistic sensibilities. It's what separates humans from other primates and early man. The earliest intelligent man started to draw on cave walls and made music with stones, sticks and what other materials they could bang together to make beats and sounds. Western art have progressed far from that stage. We should recognize that.


----------



## ArtMusic

Luchesi said:


> To me, subjectivity is a dead end and the growing relativism which results is harmful. I'm surprised that this isn't the prevailing opinion in a CM forum. Now I know.


It is totally a dead end: modern art is what *arbitrary is to art*, it explains why there hasn't been another golden age with art for over a century. Anything on sheet music or on cavass is politely as good as anything. There is no sensibility beyond individualism that came out of mass commercialization from the 1950's in media, merchandizing, monetization and people don't even realize it.


----------



## science

ArtMusic said:


> Your are presenting instinctive responses.


Yes, I was. That was the answer to the question of "why anyone's preferences would matter to anyone else." Which was the topic of that post.



ArtMusic said:


> One ideally needs be more enlightened by artistic sensibilities. It's what separates humans from other primates and early man. The earliest intelligent man started to draw on cave walls and made music with stones, sticks and what other materials they could bang together to make beats and sounds. *Western* art have progressed far from that stage. We should recognize that.


Even were this all true, it has nothing to do with that topic, but among the things "we should recognize" is your implication that non-Western art has not progressed.


----------



## Strange Magic

ArtMusic said:


> It is totally a dead end: modern art is what *arbitrary is to art*, it explains why there hasn't been another golden age with art for over a century. Anything on sheet music or on cavass is politely as good as anything. There is no sensibility beyond individualism that came out of mass commercialization from the 1950's in media, merchandizing, monetization and people don't even realize it.


To return again to my hobby horse of the New Stasis in the arts, every kind of art, old and new, is available to everyone (almost), almost instantaneously. Every niche is filled, every need is met. A lot of terrible art and music is out there (always has been a lot of terrible stuff). But when the New Order is imposed by some great unifying entity, I don't think most of us will like it. Better to suffer with our infinitude of choices than to yearn too much for some Golden Yesterday.


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> Why are you both so confrontational and simultaneously so frightened?


it is you are scared... do never offer anything without at least a short description to it, be polite.


----------



## ArtMusic

Strange Magic said:


> To return again to my hobby horse of the New Stasis in the arts, every kind of art, old and new, is available to everyone (almost), almost instantaneously. Every niche is filled, every need is met. A lot of terrible art and music is out there (always has been a lot of terrible stuff). But when the New Order is imposed by some great unifying entity, I don't think most of us will like it. Better to suffer with our infinitude of choices than to yearn too much for some Golden Yesterday.


I don't want to "suffer" as you put it with perverted choices. I came across this at a Youtube devoted to such, masquerading as a learned score reader:


----------



## Zhdanov

science said:


> We like to find out that we have things in common.


speak for yourself.



science said:


> We like to learn from each other and show off.


to learn - yes its of man, but show off is of daemons.


----------



## Zhdanov

subjectivism and subversion come from daemonic practices of crowd sex, where everone is anyone's equal and no matter who is what, since the orgy is conducted in darkness; it all has reappeared on the www these days where many only seek conversation, instead of establishing the truth.


----------



## science

ArtMusic said:


> ... perverted choices...





Zhdanov said:


> subjectivism and subversion come from daemonic practices ... where everone is anyone's equal and no matter who is what, since [it] is conducted in darkness; it all has reappeared on the www these days where many only seek conversation, instead of establishing the truth.


Oh. I get it now.

My bad y'all.

These arguments have persuaded me. I now see that aesthetics is a realm of absolute, objective, and unquestionable truths -- a realm equivalent to and best understood as the mind of God -- which is perceived more clearly by the elite among us, to whom the masses must submit, lest in our democratic rebelliousness we fall prey to demons and perversions.

I really should have understood this sooner, but I was distracted by our (for I speak from here now) inability to demonstrate that realm's existence to the skeptically inclined and the lack of agreement among the elite about its actual contents.

Now I have to figure out which religion and to which royal family I owe obedience.


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> Better to suffer with our infinitude of choices than to yearn too much for some Golden Yesterday.


that is a false dichotomy, and one does not hinder the other.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Zhdanov said:


> subjectivism and subversion come from daemonic practices of crowd sex, where everone is anyone's equal and no matter who is what, since the orgy is conducted in darkness; it all has reappeared on the www these days where many only seek conversation, instead of establishing the truth.


Dude I'd love to meet you IRL.


----------



## science

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Dude I'd love to meet you IRL.


You can probably find someone fairly like him not far from where you live.


----------



## janxharris

Zhdanov said:


> subjectivism and subversion come from daemonic practices of crowd sex, where everone is anyone's equal and no matter who is what, since the orgy is conducted in darkness; it all has reappeared on the www these days where many only seek conversation, instead of establishing the truth.


? .


----------



## Art Rock

This is a thread that just keeps on giving. Today I learned details on polar bears, and that subjectivists are produced in blacked out orgies. Who knew?


----------



## SanAntone

ArtMusic said:


> It is totally a dead end: modern art is what *arbitrary is to art*, it explains why there hasn't been another golden age with art for over a century. Anything on sheet music or on cavass is politely as good as anything. There is no sensibility beyond individualism that came out of mass commercialization from the 1950's in media, merchandizing, monetization and people don't even realize it.


Actually, I think we are currently living in a golden age. There is so much exciting new music being written in a wide variety of styles. If you cannot appreciate it, that is on you. However, you did unintentionally post a fine example with Charmaine Lee 's _Smoke, Airs_.


----------



## ArtMusic

SanAntone said:


> Actually, I think we are currently living in a golden age. There is so much exciting new music being written in a wide variety of styles. If you cannot appreciate it, that is on you. However, you did unintentionally post a fine example with Charmaine Lee 's _Smoke, Airs_.


I doubt it, most people don't. The purpose today is new for new's sake, which is totally different to being new and of merit.


----------



## Barbebleu

ArtMusic said:


> I don't want to "suffer" as you put it with perverted choices. I came across this at a Youtube devoted to such, masquerading as a learned score reader:


Hilarious. Btw, I think airs has been misspelled and the words 'blowing', 'up' and 'your' are missing.


----------



## Akr Caar

What is the adress for the satanic orgy? Asking for a friend.


----------



## Jacck

Akr Caar said:


> What is the adress for the satanic orgy? Asking for a friend.


you have to come to Germany on Walpurgisnacht (April 30, in two weeks). There are Witches' Sabbaths there. Fantastic orgies.


----------



## science

Akr Caar said:


> What is the adress for the satanic orgy? Asking for a friend.


Two posts and already struck pure gold.


----------



## janxharris




----------



## Strange Magic

Zhdanov said:


> subjectivism and subversion come from daemonic practices of crowd sex, where everone is anyone's equal and no matter who is what, since the orgy is conducted in darkness; it all has reappeared on the www these days where many only seek conversation, instead of establishing the truth.


I think we're getting a clearer picture now........


----------



## Art Rock

Was it you who switched on the light?


----------



## Strange Magic

> *DaveM Quoting an Anonymous Source:* "Some set that threshold arbitrarily low and call themselves objectivists; others set that threshold arbitrarily high and call themselves subjectivists. Join me in the middle, won't you!-- where we neither claim moral authority on which Rolling Stones album is the best, nor dismiss the notion that J.S. Bach was a better artist than Kevin Federline because "it's all opinion".


I return to this post to assert that I am a chef who eats his own philosophical cooking. My position on the authenticity and validity of each individual"s esthetic decisions requires me to assert that the Federline enthusiast has as much right to her evaluation of Federline's art as do I, and we all to our own opinions. I cannot judge of the intensity or the type or the value of the benefit she derives from perceiving Federline's work. I dearly love J.S. Bach' s music and even Bach himself,and myself consider him a better artist than our latest example of the B in our A/B comparison mini-triumph, poor Federline. But that's just me. I may be even within the consensus here on TC that polls Bach's work better. Yet the crux of my position exalting the unique worth to each person of their singular esthetic vision compels me to avoid deciding _for others_ what their tastes _should be_. I can hope others see the light and like what I do and both grant me my autonomy yet share my enthusiasms, but if not, then not.

All esthetics is personal, idiosyncratic, individual, and subjective. And anyone is free to disagree, but I'd like to see evidence beyond consensus, appeals to experts, or testimonials.


----------



## janxharris

Zhdanov said:


> subjectivism and subversion come from daemonic practices of crowd sex, where everone is anyone's equal and no matter who is what, since the orgy is conducted in darkness; it all has reappeared on the www these days where many only seek conversation, instead of establishing the truth.


An ad hominem against the subjectivists. When you are unable to argue for your stance.......


----------



## Nereffid

ArtMusic said:


> I don't want to "suffer" as you put it with perverted choices. I came across this at a Youtube devoted to such, masquerading as a learned score reader:


For someone who claims to dislike "perversions" you're quite keen on seeking out examples, aren't you?


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> I will have to listen to some Chopin, but until now, I've vastly preferred Liszt.
> 
> Sonata in B Minor
> Via Crucis
> The Années de pèlerinage
> Christus
> Consolations
> Harmonies poétiques et religieuses
> 
> These and other late works, IMO, overshadow anything by Chopin.
> 
> But I will listen to some Chopin this week.


I think in his late music, by far my favorite of his, Liszt showed a strong influence of Chopin. I grew up with a great LP of selections from Années de pèlerinage, still have it. The B minor sonata with Arrau, too. It's easy to forget they were almost exact contemporaries, as Liszt, who played for Beethoven when he was ten, lived so much longer. But this is a common disagreement I have with Liszt fans.

Funny, I cite the Rosen books frequently in disagreements like this. I used to wonder why others didn't seem to agree with me, or hear things the way I did, with a lot of classical music. His books were a revelation, as he not only expresses, but specifically illustrates, a lot things concerning harmony, counterpoint and thematic development, etc. that are significant to me and what I listen for. Unfortunately, he has a writing style that includes making up his own terminology and continuously bringing up related concepts from all directions, making them fascinating but heavy going to read. It's as if all footnotes are brought up and put in the main text.


----------



## Jacck

Strange Magic said:


> I return to this post to assert that I am a chef who eats his own philosophical cooking. My position on the authenticity and validity of each individual"s esthetic decisions requires me to assert that the Federline enthusiast has as much right to her evaluation of Federline's art as do I, and we all to our own opinions. I cannot judge of the intensity or the type or the value of the benefit she derives from perceiving Federline's work. I dearly love J.S. Bach' s music and even Bach himself,and myself consider him a better artist than our latest example of the B in our A/B comparison mini-triumph, poor Federline. But that's just me. I may be even within the consensus here on TC that polls Bach's work better. Yet the crux of my position exalting the unique worth to each person of their singular esthetic vision compels me to avoid deciding _for others_ what their tastes _should be_. I can hope others see the light and like what I do and both grant me my autonomy yet share my enthusiasms, but if not, then not. All esthetics is personal, idiosyncratic, individual, and subjective. And anyone is free to disagree, but I'd like to see evidence beyond consensus, appeals to experts, or testimonials.


are the esthetic judgements of trained professsional more valuable than those of common people? In mathematics (or any skill based discipline) there is a vast difference between professionals who have had years of training and amateurs. We trust the opinion of the experts much more than the amateurs. We also know that esthetic tastes can change and can get refined through time and practice and education. So what about all those film critics, music critics, art critics. Have their opinions more weight than the opinions of teenagers listening to the latest hip hop fad? Or are all people really equal in their opinions? I know that we have a democracy and there is a strong ideological tendency to pretend that all people are equal, their opinions have all equal values. Joe Sixpack's vote has the same strenght as the vote of a Nobel prize winner etc. But it that really so?


----------



## Strange Magic

Jacck said:


> are the esthetic judgements of trained professsional more valuable than those of common people? In mathematics (or any skill based discipline) there is a vast difference between professionals who have had years of training and amateurs. We trust the opinion of the experts much more than the amateurs. We also know that esthetic tastes can change and can get refined through time and practice and education. So what about all those film critics, music critics, art critics. Have their opinions more weight than the opinions of teenagers listening to the latest hip hop fad? Or are all people really equal in their opinions? I know that we have a democracy and there is a strong ideological tendency to pretend that all people are equal, their opinions have all equal values. Joe Sixpack's vote has the same strenght as the vote of a Nobel prize winner etc. But it that really so?


Excellent points! Yet we must remember that art exists in a world of subjective experiences of emotions--pleasure, disgust, delight, awe, yet no serious consequences flow from our decisions compared to the decisions of an engineer designing a structure upon which lives or health depend. In another sense, engineering evolves as does our command of materials and our understanding of forces. Yet art, while it too evolves in a certain sense, still can cling tightly and wisely to old things--the art of Tutankhamen"s tomb or the cave paintings of Cro-Magnon France, etc. remain as vital and valid today as when they were created. The cost-effectiveness equation also reads out differently in art versus engineering.

And we must recall that much of the usefulness of at critics and critiques is that we can blame them for misleading us if we find we hate what they told us we should love. 

Politics is yet another story and best discussed elsewhere.


----------



## fluteman

Art Rock said:


> This is a thread that just keeps on giving. Today I learned details on polar bears, and that subjectivists are produced in blacked out orgies. Who knew?


And I had posted that "subjectivist" was a meaningless word. I think I was better off not knowing the meaning.


----------



## SanAntone

ArtMusic said:


> I doubt it, most people don't. The purpose today is new for new's sake, which is totally different to being new and of merit.


What makes you think you speak for "most people?" And I doubt your knowledge of new music and its creators would offer any insights in to what motivates them.

I get it that you don't like new music, but your personal taste is not objective fact.


----------



## Jacck

Strange Magic said:


> Excellent points! Yet we must remember that art exists in a world of subjective experiences of emotions--pleasure, disgust, delight, awe, yet no serious consequences flow from our decisions compared to the decisions of an engineer designing a structure upon which lives or health depend. In another sense, engineering evolves as does our command of materials and our understanding of forces. Yet art, while it too evolves in a certain sense, still can cling tightly and wisely to old things--the art of Tutankhamen"s tomb or the cave paintings of Cro-Magnon France, etc. remain as vital and valid today as when they were created. The cost-effectiveness equation also reads out differently in art versus engineering.


there is likely also a cognitive aspect of art appreciation that is not so easily separated from the emotional aspect. We can derive intellectual pleasure and sense of beauty from an elegant mathematical expression, or from an intellectually stimulating piece of art. There is likely going to be some correlation between intelligence and the ability to appreciate the works of Dostoyevsky. We cannot appreciate some pieces of art while we are young, because we are not mature enough to grasp them. What I want to say, that art is certainly not just emotional response, but there is a strong cognitive component as well.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> I think in his late music, by far my favorite of his, Liszt showed a strong influence of Chopin. I grew up with a great LP of selections from Années de pèlerinage, still have it. The B minor sonata with Arrau, too. It's easy to forget they were almost exact contemporaries, as Liszt, who played for Beethoven when he was ten, lived so much longer. But this is a common disagreement I have with Liszt fans.
> 
> Funny, I cite the Rosen books frequently in disagreements like this. I used to wonder why others didn't seem to agree with me, or hear things the way I did, with a lot of classical music. His books were a revelation, as he not only expresses, but specifically illustrates, a lot things concerning harmony, counterpoint and thematic development, etc. that are significant to me and what I listen for. Unfortunately, he has a writing style that includes making up his own terminology and continuously bringing up related concepts from all directions, making them fascinating but heavy going to read. It's as if all footnotes are brought up and put in the main text.


I am aware that Chopin was just one year older than Liszt, but since I don't listen much to Chopin I can't acknowledge any possible debt Liszt would have. My impression from what I have read about Liszt is that he was a strong personality, not very susceptible to dominating influences from anyone. Aside from his solo piano music my favorite works of his are his late choral works such as _Via Crucis _and _Christus_. Overall, I find Liszt the more interesting personality and composer, but that's just me.

I have Alan Walker's biographies of both Liszt and Chopin; I've read the Liszt but not the Chopin. Maybe I should dig it out.

I also have Rosen's book and have brought it out for some re-reading - but he only discusses music from a relatively short period, 1827-1850. While I respect Rosen and what he has to say, his range is so narrow I am not sure how far reaching you can apply his conclusions.


----------



## SanAntone

Here's a quote from the "Introduction" (by Robert Giroux) to the 50th anniversary edition (1998) of the autobiography of *Thomas Merton*, _The Seven Story Mountain_. I think it is relevant to this thread which has focused on the idea of artistic canon.

"Thomas Merton died in 1968 while attending a conference of eastern and western monks in Bangkok. Today, on the fiftieth anniversary of Mountain, I think again of Mark Van Doren's words, which Tom and I as students heard in his classroom: *"A classic is a book that remains in print.""*

This might be a good guide for classical music as well, it would include scores from John Cage to Bach and before.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> I am aware that Chopin was just one year older than Liszt, but since I don't listen much to Chopin I can't acknowledge any possible debt Liszt would have.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> Yes, Michael Haydn wrote some excellent music, in my opinion. And yes, Charles Rosen limited the discussion in his book The Classical Style to Beethoven, Mozart and Joseph Haydn at least partly because he felt the book was long enough as it was without discussing more composers from that period, but also partly because he felt he could make the points he wanted to make even if he limited the discussion to those three composers.
> So you are right, and Mr. Rosen is right. Life is good.


I'm curious; in my evaluation of the Haydns; which parts do you think are "objective"?:



hammeredklavier said:


> One thing about Joseph is that even in the compositions he wrote at 40, such as the excessively-praised Op.20 set of string quartets, you find "banalities", which are quite surprising for a composer of his renown, -the sort you wouldn't find in the 40-year old Michael.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (13:24 and 14:34)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (5:32 and 7:15)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what puts me off about Joseph a little. Maybe something went wrong in his development and growth as a composer. Maybe to some extent, it hampered him all his life, -maybe it's why he sounds the way I described in [post #291] all his life. Or maybe it's just his musical temperament, I don't know for sure. Try going through their works from their 30s up to 40. (Such as Joseph's stabat mater, Michael's requiem, etc). I don't really feel "chill" in Joseph's use of harmony - he just can't express "passion" with as much fluidity and dynamism as Michael.





hammeredklavier said:


> It seems that for J. Haydn, things didn't come "naturally". I occasionally get an impression that he's trying way too hard. Look this, for example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ( 6:32 ~ 7:45 )
> This is way too much. The guy apparently has found something good for a melody. He clings to it with all his might, trying to arouse emotion in the listener with it. Way too artificial (almost sickening, imv).
> 
> 
> 
> And the awkward transition to the concluding fugue, which is in itself "generic" (compare it with the dissonant strettos of the one from Mozart's K.262) - In my view, these passages from the J. Haydn are "fillers". Honestly, I can't believe a composer of his renown (and at his level of maturity at the time) wrote this stuff. A sad excuse by his own brother's standards. It's no wonder to me why Joseph himself admitted he wasn't as good as his own brother in this area, and we now know Schubert admired Michael far more for this.
> Frankly, if the Nelson mass was written by F.X. Brixi, nobody today would have known it.
Click to expand...


----------



## Strange Magic

Jacck said:


> there is likely also a cognitive aspect of art appreciation that is not so easily separated from the emotional aspect. We can derive intellectual pleasure and sense of beauty from an elegant mathematical expression, or from an intellectually stimulating piece of art. There is likely going to be some correlation between intelligence and the ability to appreciate the works of Dostoyevsky. We cannot appreciate some pieces of art while we are young, because we are not mature enough to grasp them. What I want to say, that art is certainly not just emotional response, but there is a strong cognitive component as well.


What you are proposing is a hierarchy of ascending intelligence and maturity that will validate a hierarchy of validity of ascending increasingly correct or authentic experiences of and reaction to art. I wholeheartedly agree that I share in this thinking, in this sense: I hold that the more someones's tastes parallel my own, the more they share with me my rung on the ladder, which is at the very summit of it. Looked at another way, any given individual's appreciation for and experience of art--the pleasure, the solace, the joy it gives them--is, for them, as valid as it can be. Who am I to judge whether your love of Bach, Brahms, Bartok, or Babbitt is proper and appropriate to the "worth" of the music? If I find Bob Dylan to be the premier composer of _lieder_ of the last 100 years, is there evidence to indict me for Error? We each have our own opinions of these things and our right to them; that is the essence, or one of the essences of my position.


----------



## SanAntone

*hammeredklavier* I don't want to get into a lengthy debate about who influenced whom, but I think it fair to say that it was a two way street.


----------



## Strange Magic

SanAntone said:


> Here's a quote from the "Introduction" (by Robert Giroux) to the 50th anniversary edition (1998) of the autobiography of *Thomas Merton*, _The Seven Story Mountain_. I think it is relevant to this thread which has focused on the idea of artistic canon.
> 
> "Thomas Merton died in 1968 while attending a conference of eastern and western monks in Bangkok. Today, on the fiftieth anniversary of Mountain, I think again of Mark Van Doren's words, which Tom and I as students heard in his classroom: *"A classic is a book that remains in print.""*
> 
> This might be a good guide for classical music as well, it would include scores from John Cage to Bach and before.


Darwin would agree. Survival is the ultimate test in every area of art. But we can still love our unrecognized and thus likely doomed enthusiasms, though in an age where everything appears to be both preserved and available, old Darwin's maxims may prove obsolete.


----------



## janxharris

Strange Magic said:


> Darwin would agree. Survival is the ultimate test in every area of art. But we can still love our unrecognized and thus likely doomed enthusiasms, though in an age where everything appears to be both preserved and available, old Darwin's maxims may prove obsolete.


Not forgetting it was Herbert Spencer who coined the phrase 'survival of the fittest'.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Strange Magic said:


> Darwin would agree. Survival is the ultimate test in every area of art. But we can still love our unrecognized and thus likely doomed enthusiasms, though in an age where everything appears to be both preserved and available, old Darwin's maxims may prove obsolete.


Humans evolved to make art because art helps us survive..... probably, I don't really know, its a guess, but its probably what happened. I mean there's no evidence for it, it doesn't make any sense, but it gets rid of God, lets just go with that.


----------



## SanAntone

Strange Magic said:


> Darwin would agree. Survival is the ultimate test in every area of art. But we can still love our unrecognized and thus likely doomed enthusiasms, though in an age where everything appears to be both preserved and available, old Darwin's maxims may prove obsolete.


Oh, I agree, and many of my favorite composers are probably not included in the mainstream canon. I seem to gravitate to composers whose style is an amalgam of various strains: classical, jazz, world, and other influences.

I was just adding that quote to the general discussion on the source or definition of a artistic canon.

I think for other popular styles recordings that remain in print might be a benchmark as well.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Humans evolved to make art because art helps us survive..... probably, I don't really know, its a guess, but its probably what happened. I mean there's no evidence for it, it doesn't make any sense, but it gets rid of God, lets just go with that.


Indeed. However, there can be side-effects of evolutionary developments.
For example, if our auditory systems started as a way of identifying threats in the environment (as well as prey), and then doubled up as a means of communication between members of a group, then our brains might consequently become very sensitive to organised sounds. (I think I read somewhere about the impressive ability we have to distinguish between very subtle rhythmic differences in speech patterns, in which case one might speculate that being stimulated by rhythm per se derives from there having been a functional benefit in having the capability to do so when analysing communication.)

One hypothesis which has long struck me as highly plausible is that the use of the auditory system for linguistic communication created the side-effect of our brains being stimulated to look for meaning in anything was was perceived as organised sound, while something which was more random, disordered or "background" in nature would not stimulate the brain in the same way, and would be perceived as less rich in content. The subjective experience would as a result be less rich, and lacking in the impression of meaningful content.

Where this could take you, for example, is that organising sounds into recognisable patterns (as occurs with linguistic communication) might well objectively stimulate the brain and generate meaningful-seeming subjective experiences, in a way which random sounds (such as background street noise when listening to Cage's 4'33" would not). Finding that a pattern of sounds returns to a particular tonal position via regular excursions, or exhibits a discernible rhythmic structure, etc, will thus objectively stimulate normally functioning brains to generate a rich subjective experience in the consciousness which they host, whereas more random sounds will generate a less rich subjective experience as the underlying brain stimulation will not arise because the content-seeking mechanisms will not be triggered to the same extent.

If you take it that the purpose of music is to create a rich subjective experience, then this might suggest that music which possesses recognisably structured tones, rhythms, timbres, etc is better than music which is essentially random or where patterns cannot be identified by auditory systems which are exposed to it.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> *hammeredklavier* I don't want to get into a lengthy debate about who influenced whom, but I think it fair to say that it was a two way street.


True. The point I was trying to make about Chopin and tonal ambiguity, in my own non-expert, simple terms was (you are still disqualified, Zhdanov): Chopin's innovation is to extensively exploit tonal ambiguity in two main ways: progression/modulation and modal. For the first: Is a shift from C to F a progression (dominant to tonic or tonic to subdominant) or a modulation from C to F? In addition to listening for whether C or F is the tonal 'center of gravity', we listen for evidence of harmonic progression, or for a shift from B natural to B-flat, which likely means that a modulation to F has occurred. But B natural and B flat can be avoided, and the tonal center not established by harmonic progression. Late Wagner is full of this kind of tonal ambiguity, often through the use of suspensions and gradual chord changes. Not so much early Wagner.

Second is modal ambiguity. A flat major and F minor have all the same notes. Have we changed modes or not? If neither A flat nor F are established as the tonal center, as by repetition or harmonic progression, we don't know. Debussy's music and that of numerous modern successors is full of modal ambiguity. This kind of tonal ambiguity can give music an "eastern" or Asian vibe, which a lot of Debussy's music has. I think that's because use of modal harmony evokes the non-western scales of traditional Asian music. Non-diatonic scales, like whole tone or pentatonic scales, can have the same effect.

And both these types of tonal ambiguity can be used at the same time, which Chopin also does extensively.

Of course, both Wagner and Debussy in their own ways took tonal ambiguity even further than Chopin. And Chopin didn't invent it, obviously, just as Bach didn't invent counterpoint. But for me, Chopin was the first major composer to make tonal ambiguity such a central and continuous feature of his music. That is basically what I think Rosen means, too.

A now banned member would endlessly argue that the only logical conclusion of the trend of increasing tonal ambiguity is the abandonment of tonality altogether. Well, that is a possible conclusion, but not the logical conclusion, or not the only logical conclusion, anyway. He was a rationalist, and the yin to Zhdanov's yang.


----------



## SanAntone

Eclectic Al said:


> If you take it that the purpose of music is to create a rich subjective experience, then this might suggest that music which possesses recognisably structured tones, rhythms, timbres, etc is better than music which is essentially random or where patterns cannot be identified by auditory systems which are exposed to it.


However it is also true that humans will create order on their own even when listening to random sounds: seeing animals in clouds?


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^Al, I agree with your excellent Post just previous, #1619. As a coarse first approximation, I prefer more "organized" or repetitive sounds (musics) than less so. Yet, having said this, I cannot pass judgment on the authenticity of the experiences of others to different sorts of musics (actually, I can but it is as a private matter, as the Pope would say, held _in pectore_ as he taps his chest over his heart.)


----------



## ArtMusic

SanAntone said:


> What makes you think you speak for "most people?" And I doubt your knowledge of new music and its creators would offer any insights in to what motivates them.
> 
> I get it that you don't like new music, but your personal taste is not objective fact.


I know that one's preference is entirely subjective. I also know that one's preference has nothing to do with the inherent quality of any art. I have said this many times, just to spell it out again here. I often listen to and enjoy classical music that have very little merit and of little historical significance. There are great works and works that are just ordinary but this does not stop me or anyone else from enjoying it.


----------



## Strange Magic

SanAntone said:


> However it is also true that humans will create order on their own even when listening to random sounds: seeing animals in clouds?


Some of the sense of order in music is hearing a note pattern, however bizarre, over and over enough times to remember at least parts of it. This way, even Milton Babbitt's most totally serial works, or works extremely aleatory will become familiar enough to form a "pattern", if one can endure the experience enough times.


----------



## janxharris

fluteman said:


> ...........


I am confused by your use of the term modal. Are you using the standard definition of it?


----------



## Eclectic Al

SanAntone said:


> However it is also true that humans will create order on their own even when listening to random sounds: seeing animals in clouds?


Yes. I'd also buy that you can train yourself to be more aware of different types of patterns. Exposure to different traditions of music could no doubt render you sensitive to "patterns" which would not be recognised by people without the exposure.

All speculation, of course.


----------



## Nereffid

ArtMusic said:


> I often listen to and enjoy classical music that have very little merit and of little historical significance.


How would you define "merit" here? What's an example of music with very little merit that you enjoy?

If _I_ enjoy a piece of music, then by definition I would say it has merit.

(Edited to add, for clarity: I mean simply that it has merit _for me_.)


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> Some of the sense of order in music is hearing a note pattern, however bizarre, over and over enough times to remember at least parts of it. This way, even Milton Babbitt's most totally serial works, or works extremely aleatory will become familiar enough to form a "pattern", if one can endure the experience enough times.


Is this a shocking new revelation here? That structure, order and meaning can be established in music other than through harmony and tonality, as with symmetrical patterns (a popular idea in architecture)? Well, here is another revelation: Structure, order and meaning in music can also be established with rhythm. And even dynamics and timbre. This is what I was taught at the age of seven in my first formal music theory class and in my first piano lesson.


----------



## fluteman

janxharris said:


> I am confused by your use of the term modal. Are you using the standard definition of it?


Yes. The major mode, the minor mode. There are other modes too, of course.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> Is this a shocking new revelation here? That structure, order and meaning can be established in music other than through harmony and tonality, as with symmetrical patterns (a popular idea in architecture)? Well, here is another revelation: Structure, order and meaning in music can also be established with rhythm. And even dynamics and timbre. This is what I was taught at the age of seven in my first formal music theory class and in my first piano lesson.


It is my role to bring revelation to millions. :tiphat:


----------



## SanAntone

ArtMusic said:


> I know that one's preference is entirely subjective. I also know that one's preference has nothing to do with the inherent quality of any art. I have said this many times, just to spell it out again here. I often listen to and enjoy classical music that have very little merit and of little historical significance. There are great works and works that are just ordinary but this does not stop me or anyone else from enjoying it.


And you consider yourself the arbiter of the inherent quality of music? It's not just your preference, you actually believe you speak with authority as to what music is inherently good and that which is not.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> And you consider yourself the arbiter of the inherent quality of music? It's not just your preference, you actually believe you speak with authority as to what music is inherently good and that which is not.


What else can he mean, SanAntone? That you speak with authority? That I speak with authority? That Beethoven and Wagner spoke with authority? That God speaks with authority?


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> What else can he mean, SanAntone? That you speak with authority? That I speak with authority? That Beethoven and Wagner spoke with authority? That God speaks with authority?


I don't ever say more than what music I like, I don't make pronouncements from on high about what music is inherently good or bad.

But maybe you were not entirely serious ...


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> I don't ever say more than what music I like, I don't make pronouncements from on high about what music is inherently good or bad.
> 
> But maybe you were not entirely serious ...


OK, my ranking of English language "experts", my opinion only:
1. Aaron Copland: Great composer, great and insightful writer, makes a genuine, all-out effort to keep his personal preferences and biases out of what he says, and is successful as one can have any right to expect.
2. Virgil Thomson: Lesser but still formidable composer, even greater and more insightful writer, but only makes a token, symbolic effort to keep his own preferences and biases out of it.
3. Leonard Bernstein: Also lesser but still formidable composer, well ahead of Thomson as a composer in my opinion but not in Thomson's opinion, great conductor and pianist, even greater and more insightful writer than Thomson, but an unabashed enthusiast and advocate for the music he likes, with no attempt to be unbiased. 
4. Any number of good non-musician critics: Not composers or professional performers, often with immense historical knowledge and listening experience, often great writing that lacks some of the insight of the great musicians but has the benefit of being free of the profound, unshakable bias of musicians who are in the game.


----------



## EdwardBast

SanAntone said:


> However it is also true that humans will create order on their own even when listening to random sounds: seeing animals in clouds?


I think your point reinforces exactly the argument Eclectic Al was making. Just as the mental hardware for processing speech has been refined over eons to recognize meaningful patterns of rhythm, pitch, and timbre, resulting in follow-on effects for musical thought and comprehension, so human visual perception has been honed by evolutionary processes to find and process stimuli with special salience for survival. We see animals and faces in clouds because an enormous amount of our perceptual hardware has been engineered to parse subtle differences in the facial structure and subtle changes in the muscular responses of other sentient beings.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> OK, my ranking of English language "experts", my opinion only:
> 1. Aaron Copland: Great composer, great and insightful writer, makes a genuine, all-out effort to keep his personal preferences and biases out of what he says, and is successful as one can have any right to expect.
> 2. Virgil Thomson: Lesser but still formidable composer, even greater and more insightful writer, but only makes a token, symbolic effort to keep his own preferences and biases out of it.
> 3. Leonard Bernstein: Also lesser but still formidable composer, well ahead of Thomson as a composer in my opinion but not in Thomson's opinion, great conductor and pianist, even greater and more insightful writer than Thomson, but an unabashed enthusiast and advocate for the music he likes, with no attempt to be unbiased.
> 4. Any number of good non-musician critics: Not composers or professional performers, often with immense historical knowledge and listening experience, often great writing that lacks some of the insight of the great musicians but has the benefit of being free of the profound, unshakable bias of musicians who are in the game.


Many pages back probably in this thread as well as the earlier one in the polling section, I made a long post about how I perceive the process of consensus culminating into a canon (actually in several posts). I used a phrase "informed subjectivity."

Your post is an example of how professionals in the classical music community bring more training, skill, and overall knowledge to their assessment of a work or composer's entire output. But I still consider it a subjective response, just one that is more informed than the average Joe's in the balcony.


----------



## Luchesi

janxharris said:


> An ad hominem against the subjectivists. When you are unable to argue for your stance.......


 Have you tried asking a musician friend about what the objectivists in here are talking about?

Can it be taught in here? Possibly, but we can't talk in generalities like we have been, we would have to get specific -- and that is difficult without the respect for analysis and reduction, AND I think we would need visual and aural examples. And of course, all the relevant explanations, filling many posts. A large project.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> All esthetics is personal, idiosyncratic, individual, and subjective. And anyone is free to disagree, but I'd like to see evidence beyond consensus, appeals to experts, or testimonials.


Please read the above closely. We are discussing a subject that has become highly polarized. When we are talking about high achievement the arts in particular, the discussion can be complicated by misuse or misunderstanding of the semantics and the introduction of irrelevant information.

Since we can't measure or judge the creations of artists and the artists themselves the way we often can in the sciences, we have to look elsewhere for information. Above we have one of the subjective extremists attempting to support the extreme position by demanding the elimination of some of that information: consensus and opinions of experts. This is comparable to one party in a debate setting rules for the debate that benefit that party and that party alone.

In general, the typical artist, composer and author are hoping that their art will be accepted by some kind of target audience. There may be exceptions, but, in general, the living (employment or income) of the artist, composer or author in the past several centuries in the Western world depended on the success of their art with either the public, a benefactor or both. When that success occurs, especially when the accomplishment is on a grand scale that, at some point, goes beyond the original cultural audience, then something objectively above average has been accomplished.

The word consensus can be used in more than one way. In the above case, consensus of the audience for whatever the art is, has significance. It is not unusual that members of the audience may have difficulty explaining why they found the works of that artist 'great'. Experts can be helpful in that regard as we see in lectures and essays.

Let's take Charles Dickens for a moment. The way a good book becomes successful and widely read is not unlike the way some major classical music works are successful. For some reason or reasons, the author or composer succeeded where others didn't. There has to be some objective information lying in those reasons.

The following is from the Charles Dickens Wiki. Is anybody here going to disagree with the terminology used? Is anyone here going to dismiss the accomplishment of Charles Dickens as not having anything to do with some level of objectively above average skill in having attracted such a large audience as opposed to his books not being of interest to anyone then or now? And the answer to that question should have nothing to do with personal preference.

_He created some of the world's best-known fictional characters and is regarded by many as the greatest novelist of the Victorian era.[1] His works enjoyed unprecedented popularity during his lifetime and, by the 20th century, critics and scholars had recognised him as a literary genius. His novels and short stories are still widely read today.[2][3]_


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Eclectic Al said:


> Indeed. However, there can be side-effects of evolutionary developments.
> For example, if our auditory systems started as a way of identifying threats in the environment (as well as prey), and then doubled up as a means of communication between members of a group, then our brains might consequently become very sensitive to organised sounds. (I think I read somewhere about the impressive ability we have to distinguish between very subtle rhythmic differences in speech patterns, in which case one might speculate that being stimulated by rhythm per se derives from there having been a functional benefit in having the capability to do so when analysing communication.)
> 
> One hypothesis which has long struck me as highly plausible is that the use of the auditory system for linguistic communication created the side-effect of our brains being stimulated to look for meaning in anything was was perceived as organised sound, while something which was more random, disordered or "background" in nature would not stimulate the brain in the same way, and would be perceived as less rich in content. The subjective experience would as a result be less rich, and lacking in the impression of meaningful content.
> 
> Where this could take you, for example, is that organising sounds into recognisable patterns (as occurs with linguistic communication) might well objectively stimulate the brain and generate meaningful-seeming subjective experiences, in a way which random sounds (such as background street noise when listening to Cage's 4'33" would not). Finding that a pattern of sounds returns to a particular tonal position via regular excursions, or exhibits a discernible rhythmic structure, etc, will thus objectively stimulate normally functioning brains to generate a rich subjective experience in the consciousness which they host, whereas more random sounds will generate a less rich subjective experience as the underlying brain stimulation will not arise because the content-seeking mechanisms will not be triggered to the same extent.
> 
> If you take it that the purpose of music is to create a rich subjective experience, then this might suggest that music which possesses recognisably structured tones, rhythms, timbres, etc is better than music which is essentially random or where patterns cannot be identified by auditory systems which are exposed to it.


What a vivid imagination you have.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> True. The point I was trying to make about Chopin and tonal ambiguity, in my own non-expert, simple terms was (you are still disqualified, Zhdanov): Chopin's innovation is to extensively exploit tonal ambiguity in two main ways: progression/modulation and modal. For the first: Is a shift from C to F a progression (dominant to tonic or tonic to subdominant) or a modulation from C to F? In addition to listening for whether C or F is the tonal 'center of gravity', we listen for a shift from B natural to B-flat, which means that a modulation to F has occurred. But B natural and B flat can be avoided, and the tonal center not established. Late Wagner is full of this kind of tonal ambiguity, often through the use of suspensions and gradual chord changes. Not so much early Wagner.
> 
> Second is modal ambiguity. A flat major and F minor have all the same notes. Have we changed modes or not? Debussy's music and that of numerous modern successors is full of modal ambiguity. This kind of tonal ambiguity can give music an "eastern" or Asian vibe, which a lot of Debussy's music has. I think that's because use of modal harmony evokes the non-western scales of traditional Asian music.
> 
> And both these types of tonal ambiguity can be used at the same time, which Chopin also does extensively.
> 
> Of course, both Wagner and Debussy in their own ways took tonal ambiguity even further than Chopin. And Chopin didn't invent it, obviously, just as Bach didn't invent counterpoint. But for me, Chopin was the first major composer to make tonal ambiguity such a central and continuous feature of his music. That is basically what I think Rosen means, too.
> 
> A now banned member would endlessly argue that the only logical conclusion of the trend of increasing tonal ambiguity is the abandonment of tonality altogether. Well, that is a possible conclusion, but not the logical conclusion, or not the only logical conclusion, anyway. He was a rationalist, and the yin to Zhdanov's yang.


 "A flat major and F minor have all the same notes."

That's odd.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> Many pages back probably in this thread as well as the earlier one in the polling section, I made a long post about how I perceive the process of consensus culminating into a canon (actually in several posts). I used a phrase "informed subjectivity."
> 
> Your post is an example of how professionals in the classical music community bring more training, skill, and overall knowledge to their assessment of a work or composer's entire output. But I still consider it a subjective response, just one that is more informed than the average Joe's in the balcony.


That's right. And no matter how many more books I read, and no matter how many more hours I study or play music, that will still be right. I am not "the authority", nor are any of the "experts" I mentioned. These are just people with fancy resumes, who themselves are considered by many great composers and/or performers, and who have written extensively about what they consider to be great classical music, in addition to Charles Rosen, who was a prominent pianist, and whom I mentioned earlier. None of that gives them any authority to pronounce what is great for anyone else. As they all knew.



Luchesi said:


> "A flat major and F minor have all the same notes."
> 
> That's odd.


I know, right? F minor is called the "relative minor" of A flat major. Same "key signature", i.e. same number of sharps or flats.


----------



## janxharris

Luchesi said:


> Have you tried asking a musician friend about what the objectivists in here are talking about?
> 
> Can it be taught in here? Possibly, but we can't talk in generalities like we have been, we would have to get specific -- and that is difficult without the respect for analysis and reduction, AND I think we would need visual and aural examples. And of course, all the relevant explanations, filling many posts. A large project.


I think my issue is with the more extreme objectivists here...so those asserting great work a is better than great work b.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> Have you tried asking a musician friend about what the objectivists in here are talking about?


I don't need to ask a musician; I am a musician. I don't agree with you and others arguing the objectivist side of the question. And you haven't written anything to convince me otherwise.



> Can it be taught in here? Possibly, but we can't talk in generalities like we have been, we would have to get specific -- and that is difficult without the respect for analysis and reduction, AND I think we would need visual and aural examples. And of course, all the relevant explanations, filling many posts. A large project.


Even with citing specific attributes in a work and drawing comparisons with another work, you will still be analyzing these attributes in a subjective manner. Another analyst, me for example, might place more weight on different attributes and come to a different conclusion.

You cannot ever remove subjectivity in any process that involves human beings making judgments of music.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> What a vivid imagination you have.


I hope so. It's more fun that way.


----------



## Eclectic Al

DaveM said:


> Please read the above closely. We are discussing a subject that has become highly polarized. When we are talking about high achievement the arts in particular, the discussion can be complicated by misuse or misunderstanding of the semantics and the introduction of irrelevant information.
> 
> Since we can't measure or judge the creations of artists and the artists themselves the way we often can in the sciences, we have to look elsewhere for information. Above we have one of the subjective extremists attempting to support the extreme position by demanding the elimination of some of that information: consensus and opinions of experts. This is comparable to one party in a debate setting rules for the debate that benefit that party and that party alone.
> 
> In general, the typical artist, composer and author are hoping that their art will be accepted by some kind of target audience. There may be exceptions, but, in general, the living (employment or income) of the artist, composer or author in the past several centuries in the Western world depended on the success of their art with either the public, a benefactor or both. When that success occurs, especially when the accomplishment is on a grand scale that, at some point, goes beyond the original cultural audience, then something objectively above average has been accomplished.
> 
> The word consensus can be used in more than one way. In the above case, consensus of the audience for whatever the art is, has significance. It is not unusual that members of the audience may have difficulty explaining why they found the works of that artist 'great'. Experts can be helpful in that regard as we see in lectures and essays.
> 
> Let's take Charles Dickens for a moment. The way a good book becomes successful and widely read is not unlike the way some major classical music works are successful. For some reason or reasons, the author or composer succeeded where others didn't. There has to be some objective information lying in those reasons.
> 
> The following is from the Charles Dickens Wiki. Is anybody here going to disagree with the terminology used? Is anyone here going to dismiss the accomplishment of Charles Dickens as not having anything to do with some level of objectively above average skill in having attracted such a large audience as opposed to his books not being of interest to anyone then or now? And the answer to that question should have nothing to do with personal preference.
> 
> _He created some of the world's best-known fictional characters and is regarded by many as the greatest novelist of the Victorian era.[1] His works enjoyed unprecedented popularity during his lifetime and, by the 20th century, critics and scholars had recognised him as a literary genius. His novels and short stories are still widely read today.[2][3]_


Love Dickens.

Can't we talk about Dickens instead? Just Martin Chuzzlewit to go, and I'll have completed the canon, including a lot of the short stories.

Greatest novel in English: maybe Bleak House, although my favourite is probably Great Expectations. Tale of Two Cities as well, the least Dickensian of the great Dickensian novels. Price & Prejudice runs them close though. Damn that Austen woman.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^DaveM's post above is a perfectly articulated defense (if that is the correct noun) of the only mechanisms that remain to those evaluators of music and art who are not assessing same in terms of cash value but rather, shall we say, in moral or spiritual terms. I would use it myself. It is appropriate also for judging fine wines, an exact parallel situation though one clothed in far less austere dignity (oenophiles might disagree). I understand the problem: One wants to be assured that one's esthetic choices are not in vain, in the sense that one might be alone. We want to feel that either we have peers who feel as we do, to reinforce our sense of a bond, or we share the views of those removed from us in space and time. 

But the basic situation remains unchanged. Either one accepts the consensus view of a cluster of perceivers, or the opinions of experts, or the heartfelt testimonials of particular enthusiasts for certain musics or art objects, or one is left in the position of deciding for oneself whether certain musics or art objects are worthy of our attention and even our love and admiration; whether the pleasure, joy, self-discovery we gain or think we gain from them is valid. Are we good enough to properly experience the art in the Right Way? Or is the art good enough for us? The question remains: Who is to be Master? Who decides?


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Eclectic Al said:


> I hope so. It's more fun that way.


Making stuff up is soooo fun!


----------



## Strange Magic

Eclectic Al said:


> Yes. I'd also buy that you can train yourself to be more aware of different types of patterns. Exposure to different traditions of music could no doubt render you sensitive to "patterns" which would not be recognised by people without the exposure.
> 
> All speculation, of course.


Totally true. The case of flamenco and its many dozens of song styles, _palos_, is a good example. After enough hearings, the repeated patterns emerge and become committed to memory.


----------



## janxharris

Eclectic Al said:


> Love Dickens.
> 
> Can't we talk about Dickens instead? Just Martin Chuzzlewit to go, and I'll have completed the canon, including a lot of the short stories.
> 
> Greatest novel in English: maybe Bleak House, although my favourite is probably Great Expectations. Tale of Two Cities as well, the least Dickensian of the great Dickensian novels. Price & Prejudice runs them close though. Damn that Austen woman.


You can't have read Thomas Hardy.

Seriously though 'Our Mutual Friend'....could not get past the 2nd chapter....tried twice. Did I miss much?


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^DaveM's post above is a perfectly articulated defense (if that is the correct noun) of the only mechanisms that remain to those evaluators of music and art who are not assessing same in terms of cash value but rather, shall we say, in moral or spiritual terms. I would use it myself. It is appropriate also for judging fine wines, an exact parallel situation though one clothed in far less austere dignity (oenophiles might disagree). I understand the problem: One wants to be assured that one's esthetic choices are not in vain, in the sense that one might be alone. We want to feel that either we have peers who feel as we do, to reinforce our sense of a bond, or we share the views of those removed from us in space and time.
> 
> But the basic situation remains unchanged. Either one accepts the consensus view of a cluster of perceivers, or the opinions of experts, or the heartfelt testimonials of particular enthusiasts for certain musics or art objects, or one is left in the position of deciding for oneself whether certain musics or art objects are worthy of our attention and even our love and admiration; whether the pleasure, joy, self-discovery we gain or think we gain from them is valid. Are we good enough to properly experience the art in the Right Way? Or is the art good enough for us? The question remains: Who is to be Master? Who decides?


More than halfway to the second thousand posts, still no intelligible answer to your question. I've created a slate of candidates: (1) ArtMusic; (2) Me (If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve); (3) SanAntone (He seems unwilling to run or serve as well, and who knows if we can resolve this Liszt v. Chopin question); (3) Bach and Wagner (Not bad -- but what about Mozart and Beethoven? Or Debussy and Ravel? Or Monteverdi and Palestrina? Or --); and (4) God (A popular choice in past eras).

Frankly, I'm getting a little frightened of Zhdanov, but I'll accept other write-in proposals.



janxharris said:


> You can't have read Thomas Hardy.
> 
> Seriously though 'Our Mutual Friend'....could not get past the 2nd chapter....tried twice. Did I miss much?


I have read Thomas Hardy, and I liked Our Mutual Friend very much. Go figure.


----------



## Strange Magic

Eclectic Al said:


> Love Dickens.
> 
> Can't we talk about Dickens instead? Just Martin Chuzzlewit to go, and I'll have completed the canon, including a lot of the short stories.
> 
> Greatest novel in English: maybe Bleak House, although my favourite is probably Great Expectations. Tale of Two Cities as well, the least Dickensian of the great Dickensian novels. Price & Prejudice runs them close though. Damn that Austen woman.


I much prefer to visit Johnsonian or Regency or Victorian England/Great Britain via film adaptations of the fictions noted above. The invariably UK miniseries, films, do a superb job in recreating those worlds, and I, like many Americans, am hooked on them. For pure literary grandeur, nothing compares for me to _Moby Dick_. I generally, though, read little fiction but do prefer the 19th century and early 20th century Russians--the sometimes exotic locales and bizarre characters one so often encounters.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> I don't need to ask a musician; I am a musician. I don't agree with you and others arguing the objectivist side of the question. And you haven't written anything to convince me otherwise.
> 
> Even with citing specific attributes in a work and drawing comparisons with another work, you will still be analyzing these attributes in a subjective manner. Another analyst, me for example, might place more weight on different attributes and come to a different conclusion.
> 
> You cannot ever remove subjectivity in any process that involves human beings making judgments of music.


It can't be done? How do I objectively compare the quartets of Haydn with those of Beethoven? The piano concertos of JC Bach with those of Mozart? I expect you've done this.


----------



## Luchesi

Eclectic Al said:


> I hope so. It's more fun that way.


You made it up?


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> The question remains: Who is to be Master?


i am, so, i talk, you listen. Beethoven 4th symphony 4th mvt depicts a textile manufacture, where the looms spin the shuttles that weave threads into a fabric, and the managers with a fist to workers face demand more production; at some point a loom breaks and kills or maims a worker, but nevertheless the process resumes and the factory carries on as usual:











https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textile_manufacture_during_the_British_Industrial_ Revolution


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> It can't be done? How do I objectively compare the quartets of Haydn with those of Beethoven? The piano concertos of JC Bach with those of Mozart? I expect you've done this.


You tell me. You're the one saying that's how one can objectively demonstrate which work is greater.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> That's right. And no matter how many more books I read, and no matter how many more hours I study or play music, that will still be right. I am not "the authority", nor are any of the "experts" I mentioned. These are just people with fancy resumes, who themselves are considered by many great composers and/or performers, and who have written extensively about what they consider to be great classical music, in addition to Charles Rosen, who was a prominent pianist, and whom I mentioned earlier. None of that gives them any authority to pronounce what is great for anyone else. As they all knew.
> 
> I know, right? F minor is called the "relative minor" of A flat major. Same "key signature", i.e. same number of sharps or flats.


"I know, right? F minor is called the "relative minor" of A flat major. Same "key signature", i.e. same number of sharps or flats."

Heh heh, Gsharp major and Esharp minor

It's an interesting thought about every note - in every key.

But, no, I was going to finish that post and then some VIPs walked into the building here. I rushed to press enter and close the page but it was a mistake. Now they've left.

It just struck me that I had asked an adult student of mine to transpose the song "My Eyes Adored You" so that it would end in Aflat instead of C. There's 4 key changes in the song. He thought that was so helpful!

I didn't realize it would be so helpful for him. I don't enjoy transposing and then writing it all out, but he seems to enjoy it. A dream student!


----------



## ArtMusic

Luchesi said:


> It can't be done? How do I objectively compare the quartets of Haydn with those of Beethoven? The piano concertos of JC Bach with those of Mozart? I expect you've done this.


It is a defense card on new "classical" music, which allows subjectivism and reductivism to be hear although in terms of posterity, that will surely be the real test.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> You tell me. You're the one saying that's how one can objectively demonstrate which work is greater.


You can just take a peek at the scores, side by side.


----------



## ArtMusic

Nereffid said:


> How would you define "merit" here? What's an example of music with very little merit that you enjoy?
> 
> If _I_ enjoy a piece of music, then by definition I would say it has merit.
> 
> (Edited to add, for clarity: I mean simply that it has merit _for me_.)


As I wrote above, individualism is a 20th century school of thought from the 1950's and the result of which has propagated a school whereby art is encouraged to be arbitrary down at the level of the individual. This is in contrary to the great schools of centuries past that have produced golden ages in art development. Your appreciation is important to you, which you deserve. It is entirely independent to the quality of the work, great work has and will survive over time irrespective of whether I enjoy it or not. The foundation that underpins aesthetics that we have inherited in the 20th century to this day will remain but transient individualism after WWII as a result of mass commercialization will probably be thought of as a period where that has been no new golden age in the arts for over half a century.


----------



## Barbebleu

ArtMusic said:


> I often listen to and enjoy classical music that have very little merit and of little historical significance.


Can you give an example please?


----------



## fluteman

ArtMusic said:


> As I wrote above, individualism is a 20th century school of thought from the 1950's and the result of which has propagated a school whereby art is encouraged to be arbitrary down at the level of the individual. This is in contrary to the great schools of centuries past that have produced golden ages in art development.


But who figured out those past ages were golden and the current age isn't golden? I didn't get the memo. I thought the current age is golden. I need to know who knows the answers to these things so I won't make the same mistake again.


----------



## Luchesi

ArtMusic said:


> It is a defense card on new "classical" music, which allows subjectivism and reductivism to be hear although in terms of posterity, that will surely be the real test.


Some listener might enjoy the charm and the simplicity in the JC Bach, but the Mozart concertos are so much better to study and reference and perform.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^DaveM's post above is a perfectly articulated defense (if that is the correct noun) of the only mechanisms that remain to those evaluators of music and art who are not assessing same in terms of cash value but rather, shall we say, in moral or spiritual terms. I would use it myself. It is appropriate also for judging fine wines, an exact parallel situation though one clothed in far less austere dignity (oenophiles might disagree). I understand the problem: One wants to be assured that one's esthetic choices are not in vain, in the sense that one might be alone. We want to feel that either we have peers who feel as we do, to reinforce our sense of a bond, or we share the views of those removed from us in space and time.
> 
> But the basic situation remains unchanged. Either one accepts the consensus view of a cluster of perceivers, or the opinions of experts, or the heartfelt testimonials of particular enthusiasts for certain musics or art objects, or one is left in the position of deciding for oneself whether certain musics or art objects are worthy of our attention and even our love and admiration; whether the pleasure, joy, self-discovery we gain or think we gain from them is valid. Are we good enough to properly experience the art in the Right Way? Or is the art good enough for us? The question remains: Who is to be Master? Who decides?


I gave a specific set of arguments that you did not address directly or at all. In fact, your first paragraph is obscure, irrelevant references that have nothing to do with the premise I present. The reference to judging fine wines as 'an exact parallel situation', not something having to do with the creative arts, is just short of bizarre.

What is worse is the constant repetition of this trope as if it is sufficient response to my argument: _ We want to feel that either we have peers who feel as we do, to reinforce our sense of a bond, or we share the views of those removed from us in space and time._ The fact that Dickens' books and writings were all the rage in those years and continue to be some of the most popular novels ever has nothing to do with 'reinforcing bonds' or 'having peers that feel as we do'. You are no longer addressing a specific post. You are just repeating random stuff from your playbook.

The fact of the matter is that the success of an artist, whether a painter, a composer or an author does have something, maybe not everything, but something, to do with having their works accepted, preferably in a major way by viewers, listeners or readers. When they accomplish that significantly more than others, then there is something objectively better in the skill of the artist. A consensus about an artist has significance even though it is in your interest to dismiss it. To write those last two things off as having no significance as you do with broad generalities about aesthetic taste is an example of simple-think ie. please don't confuse me with too much detail that might indicate where I'm wrong.


----------



## ArtMusic

Barbebleu said:


> Can you give an example please?


----------



## ArtMusic

Luchesi said:


> Some listener might enjoy the charm and the simplicity in the JC Bach, but the Mozart concertos are so much better to study and and reference and perform.


Exactly. Mozart's symphonic piano concertos were unrivalled until Beethoven, who was indebted to Mozart for the first two of Beethoven's anyway. I love JC Bach's piano concertos every bit but are they as of merit as Mozart's? No they are not. I would enjoy performing JC's concertos but I am equally aware of its place in history. This makes me a balanced person when it comes to classical music. It is a blend of subjective personal preference and a more objective stance on evaluating the work. I don't see what is wrong with that at all.


----------



## Luchesi

janxharris said:


> I think my issue is with the more extreme objectivists here...so those asserting great work a is better than great work b.


 Are they far apart in history?

The later ones are usually more resourceful. But you have to look at them.

Are they from the same composer?

Beethoven was continually trying to offer better and better works.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> You can just take a peek at the scores, side by side.


Yeah, and I can come up with my own determination. Or I could just listen to them like I usually do and come up with the same determination. You, on the other hand, could look at the same two scores and there's no guarantee we'd come to the same conclusions.

You are missing the point.

There is no magic formula in the score: two different people will look at the same score and find what they each think is important data to compare and decide one work is better than the other. They won't have to agree. Different people value different things in the same score and come to two different conclusions.


----------



## SanAntone

ArtMusic said:


> As I wrote above, individualism is a 20th century school of thought from the 1950's


I guess you haven't heard of Henry David Thoreau or Walt Whitman.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> Yeah, and I can come up with my own determination. Or I could just listen to them like I usually do and come up with the same determination. You, on the other hand, could look at the same two scores and there's no guarantee we'd come to the same conclusions.
> 
> You are missing the point.
> 
> There is no magic formula in the score: two different people will look at the same score and find what they each think is important data to compare and decide one work is better than the other. They won't have to agree. Different people value different things in the same score and come to two different conclusions.


But ask a ten year old to guess which score is which. How do they do it?


----------



## fluteman

ArtMusic said:


> Exactly. Mozart's symphonic piano concertos were unrivalled until Beethoven, who was indebted to Mozart for the first two of Beethoven's anyway. I love JC Bach's piano concertos every bit but are they as of merit as Mozart's? No they are not. I would enjoy performing JC's concertos but I am equally aware of its place in history. This makes me a balanced person when it comes to classical music. It is a blend of subjective personal preference and a more objective stance on evaluating the work. I don't see what is wrong with that at all.


Well, I pretty well know the place of Georg Frederic Handel in music history. He strongly influenced, and was greatly respected by, Ludwig van Beethoven. That line of respect and influence continues from Beethoven to Richard Wagner, from Richard Wagner to Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, from Rimsky-Korsakov to Igor Stravinsky, from Stravinsky to Charlie Parker, from Parker to Eric Dolphy, and from Dolphy to Frank Zappa. All famous and celebrated musicians. Even the final one, Zappa, had his music recorded and played by the London Symphony Orchestra and other prestigious traditional western classical musicians. And yet, somewhere along the line, the golden ages ended. Was it 1950? So, Handel through Parker are golden, but Dolphy and Zappa, not golden? Or 1909, so Handel through Rimsky-Korsakov are golden, but Stravinsky through Zappa, not golden?

Each one of those steps represents an enormous change in musical style in many ways. Yet, if the basic principles of traditional western music, the diatonic scale, the circle of fifths, and harmonic progressions around a tonal center, are all necessary elements of the best music, something I also don't understand but will accept for purposes of the discussion, they are all still there, even when we get to Zappa.

I sincerely don't understand what you see as objective fact in this history of western music that I am missing.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> But ask a ten year old to guess which score is which. How do they do it?


You know, I am tired of your questions. You don't ever address my posts with an argument, point by point. You just pose more questions.


----------



## ArtMusic

fluteman said:


> But who figured out those past ages were golden and the current age isn't golden? I didn't get the memo. I thought the current age is golden. I need to know who knows the answers to these things so I won't make the same mistake again.


Name the top artists of the last 70 years in visual arts and in music. Evaluate what they have done compared to the past.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *DaveM:* "The fact of the matter is that the success of an artist, whether a painter, a composer or an author does have something, maybe not everything, but something, to do with having their works accepted, preferably in a major way by viewers, listeners or readers. When they accomplish that significantly more than others, then there is something objectively better in the skill of the artist. A consensus about an artist has significance even though it is in your interest to dismiss it. To write those last two things off as having no significance as you do with broad generalities about aesthetic taste is an example of simple-think ie. please don't confuse me with too much detail that might indicate where I'm wrong."


I absolutely, positively acknowledge the role of wide acceptance, of consensus, in establishing hierarchies of excellence among clustering populations. We recall vividly TC poster Eva Yojimbo's impassioned advocacy, supported by millions and millions of fans and awards-grantors, of Taylor Swift as singer-songwriter _extraordinaire_, a veritable prodigy. She evidently is also a very smart and savvy businessperson/entrepreneur. How far down this path do you choose to go? EY had me listen to a series of Taylor Swift songs and I did, but she did not offer me my cup of tea. Are you convinced of the objective quality of her work? If not, why not?


----------



## Bulldog

ArtMusic said:


>


With all the repetition, Pachelbel's Canon is hard to take. However, I don't know if that means it's of little merit. Maybe it just needs some editing - reduce it down to about 2 minutes or less. Or take it off the map entirely. Just musing.


----------



## ArtMusic

fluteman said:


> Well, I pretty well know the place of Georg Frederic Handel in music history. He strongly influenced, and was greatly respected by, Ludwig van Beethoven. That line of respect and influence continues from Beethoven to Richard Wagner, from Richard Wagner to Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, from Rimsky-Korsakov to Igor Stravinsky, from Stravinsky to Charlie Parker, from Parker to Eric Dolphy, and from Dolphy to Frank Zappa. All famous and celebrated musicians. Even the final one, Zappa, had his music recorded and played by the London Symphony Orchestra and other prestigious traditional western classical musicians. And yet, somewhere along the line, the golden ages ended. Was it 1950? So, Handel through Parker are golden, but Dolphy and Zappa, not golden? Or 1909, so Handel through Rimsky-Korsakov are golden, but Stravinsky through Zappa, not golden?
> 
> Each one of those steps represents an enormous change in musical style in many ways. Yet, if the basic principles of traditional western music, the diatonic scale, the circle of fifths, and harmonic progressions around a tonal center, are all necessary elements of the best music, something I also don't understand but will accept for purposes of the discussion, they are all still there, even when we get to Zappa.
> 
> I sincerely don't understand what you see as objective fact in this history of western music that I am missing.


That's the usual approach of such discussions, that it implies more or less egalitarianism in one sentence covering Handel to Zappa; three hundred years distilled in one.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> You know, I am tired of your questions. You don't ever address my posts with an argument, point by point. You just pose more questions.


Unless I'm not remembering, your points are, subjectivity serves me fine. And nobody can find objective values to agree upon anyway.

...What do we study? A bucket of preferences?


----------



## Eclectic Al

janxharris said:


> You can't have read Thomas Hardy.
> 
> Seriously though 'Our Mutual Friend'....could not get past the 2nd chapter....tried twice. Did I miss much?


Thomas Hardy. Greatest writer in English - because of the poems as well as the novels. Love Hardy.


----------



## Eclectic Al

janxharris said:


> You can't have read Thomas Hardy.
> 
> Seriously though 'Our Mutual Friend'....could not get past the 2nd chapter....tried twice. Did I miss much?


Not the best. (Left little lasting impression.)


----------



## Eclectic Al

Luchesi said:


> You made it up?


Can't quite recall what this is referring to. 

However, what I said about the linkage between language and brain sensitivity to rhythm was based on a memory of having read an article on the topic. I'm sure I couldn't find it again, though. So only made up in the sense that all our memories are made up by our brains!


----------



## Strange Magic

ArtMusic said:


> Name the top artists of the last 70 years in visual arts and in music. Evaluate what they have done compared to the past.


This is a task you should task yourself with. Perhaps a long, detailed post on the collapse of today's _ancien régime_ and The Academy. Actually, what has occurred has been the explosion of myriad other musics and arts triggered by the forces at play of increasing communication and democratization of taste: the New Stasis. The Academy is still alive and well, but it is now buried in the far greater mass, so it must be teased out by those searching for its comforting verities.

I forget who said the French aristocracy learned nothing and forgot nothing.


----------



## Bulldog

Luchesi said:


> Unless I'm not remembering, your points are, subjectivity serves me fine. And nobody can find objective values to agree upon anyway.
> 
> ...What do we study? A bucket of preferences?


I'm laughing. SanAntone tells you he's tired of your questions, and you come right back with two more. :lol:


----------



## fluteman

ArtMusic said:


> Name the top artists of the last 70 years in visual arts and in music.


No, don't give me a long assignment. I want to know from YOU how to figure out who these artist are. I traced out an historic line of respect, admiration and musical influence from Handel (1685-1789) to Zappa (1940-1993). I think every one is a top artist. I could do the same for other arts. I sincerely do not see the sudden end of a centuries-long golden age in or around 1950. I sincerely think that Dolphy and Zappa are truly great musicians.

And I am not blind to such things. You may have noticed I play the flute. In my opinion, there was a 70-year long period, from Schubert's Introduction and Variations on Trockne Blumen from his song cycle Die Schöne Müllerin of 1824, to Debussy's Prelude to the afternoon of a faun, from 1894, where there was no truly great solo music composed for the western flute. So that was a leaden age for me. Bad luck, really. Tchaikovsky spoke of writing a flute concerto, but never got around to it. He and Brahms wrote some nice but rather brief solos in their orchestral music, as did Berlioz, who played the flute himself. Then there is some good, but in my opinion not great, music for solo flute. After 1894, a new golden age began. Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, many of the neoclassical modernists, right up to Boulez and beyond.

But I don't expect anyone else to agree with me. In fact, I can't imagine anyone who doesn't play the flute thinking that 1824-1894 was one long, disastrous slump. So obviously there isn't anything objective about that. But according to you there is something objective about music after 1950 being worse, and J.C. Bach's concertos being worse than Mozart's.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> I absolutely, positively acknowledge the role of wide acceptance, of consensus, in establishing hierarchies of excellence among clustering populations.


Does the wide acceptance, consensus and establishment of an artist in the upper hierarchy of excellence in such clustering populations suggest something significant about what that artist has accomplished compared to artists that failed to gather wide acceptance, consensus or be anywhere in the hierarchy of excellence?


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> Unless I'm not remembering, your points are, subjectivity serves me fine. And nobody can find objective values to agree upon anyway.


No, you must not be reading my posts very carefully because I have said that people can find objective values in scores. However how they assess those values is a subjective process. Unless you think everyone will agree on each attribute in a score, which contains many variables, then you must acknowledge that you and I can look at the same two scores and come to different conclusions.



> ...What do we study? A bucket of preferences?


You can study the score, and analyze the score, and even teach the score compared to a second score, say one by Mozart and one by Beethoven. You as the teacher will guide the discussion according to how you assess these scores. But one of your students may ask you why one composer's counterpoint is better than the other's, or why one melody is better than the other, or why one modulation is handled better than the other.

How will you answer? Is it conclusive 100% of the time that these questions can be answered objectively, i.e. everyone who looks at these two scores will always agree with your assessment?

Or is there a subjective aspect to how these attributes can be judged?


----------



## DaveM

*SanAntone:*

I was going to post some of my top tier composers with some detail, but it's just not going to work right now, so here is a simple list. These are not _the_ top tier, but are IMO among the top tier.

J.S. Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Mahler

As a frame of reference, my view of those composers that are excellent to the point of skirting the top tier with some of their works might be Berlioz, Dvorak, Verdi, Bruckner, Rachmaninov and then there are those I consider excellent within limits, but not top tier, such as Hummel, Weber, Bruch, Lalo, Grieg, Elgar just off the top of my head.

The above are not meant to be complete lists.


----------



## ArtMusic

fluteman said:


> No, don't give me a long assignment. I want to know from YOU how to figure out who these artist are. I traced out an historic line of respect, admiration and musical influence from Handel (1685-1789) to Zappa (1940-1993). I think every one is a top artist. I could do the same for other arts. I sincerely do not see the sudden end of a centuries-long golden age in or around 1950. I sincerely think that Dolphy and Zappa are truly great musicians.
> 
> And I am not blind to such things. You may have noticed I play the flute. In my opinion, there was a 70-year long period, from Schubert's Introduction and Variations on Trockne Blumen from his song cycle Die Schöne Müllerin of 1824, to Debussy's Prelude to the afternoon of a faun, from 1894, where there was no truly great solo music composed for the western flute. So that was a leaden age for me. Bad luck, really. Tchaikovsky spoke of writing a flute concerto, but never got around to it. He and Brahms wrote some nice but rather brief solos in their orchestral music, as did Berlioz, who played the flute himself. Then there is some good, but in my opinion not great, music for solo flute. After 1894, a new golden age began. Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, many of the neoclassical modernists, right up to Boulez and beyond.
> 
> But I don't expect anyone else to agree with me. In fact, I can't imagine anyone who doesn't play the flute thinking that 1824-1894 was one long, disastrous slump. So obviously there isn't anything objective about that. But according to you there is something objective about music after 1950 being worse, and J.C. Bach's concertos being worse than Mozart's.


I'm not giving you a long assessment (and please, no need for accentuated punctuation). I am merely writing down hisotry. Yes, I don't struggle at all in stating JC Bach's concertos are weaker than Mozart's even though I enjoy JC's concertos nearly as much as I do with Mozart's. I think this is the fundamental ingredient that is missing in many posts above - one's preference is independent of the work's merit. I love Pachelbel's _Canon in D_ but it is weaker than his other works. What's hard to swallow with that?


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Does the wide acceptance, consensus and establishment of an artist in the upper hierarchy of excellence in such clustering populations suggest something significant about what that artist has accomplished compared to artists that failed to gather wide acceptance, consensus or be anywhere in the hierarchy of excellence?


Yes. It suggests that some artists acquire a larger cluster of enthusiasts than others. This is a commonplace. Here is an interesting list:

Here are the top 50 of the Wikipedia listing of artists and groups (several years old now) by their measurements of popularity, offered here as fodder for speculation and cogitation. I am not suggesting that units moved be the only criterion. But we should decide what criteria should be used. I think Taylor Swift may be more successful than J.S. Bach, and that's sad, but that's the way it is. Feel free to supply refutation.

The Beatles
Elvis Presley
Michael Jackson
Madonna
Elton John
Led Zeppelin
Pink Floyd
Eminem
Mariah Carey
The Eagles
Taylor Swift
Queen
Whitney Houston
Céline Dion
AC/DC
The Rolling Stones
Garth Brooks
Drake
Ed Sheeran
Billy Joel
U2
Phil Collins
Aerosmith
ABBA 
Frank Sinatra
Barbra Streisand
Katy Perry
Justin Bieber
Kanye West
Bruce Springsteen 
Bruno Mars
Jay-Z
Metallica
Lady Gaga
Adele
Fleetwood Mac
Bee Gees
Lil Wayne
Maroon 5
Chris Brown
Beyoncé
Coldplay
Linkin Park
B'z
Bon Jovi
Britney Spears
Rod Stewart
Guns N' Roses
Backstreet Boys


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> No, you must not be reading my posts very carefully because I have said that people can find objective values in scores. However how they assess those values is a subjective process. Unless you think everyone will agree on each attribute in a score, which contains many variables, then you must acknowledge that you and I can look at the same two scores and come to different conclusions.
> 
> You can study the score, and analyze the score, and even teach the score compared to a second score, say one by Mozart and one by Beethoven. You as the teacher will guide the discussion according to how you assess these scores. But one of your students may ask you why one composer's counterpoint is better than the other's, or why one melody is better than the other, or why one modulation is handled better than the other.
> 
> How will you answer? Is it conclusive 100% of the time that these questions can be answered objectively, i.e. everyone who looks at these two scores will always agree with your assessment?
> 
> Or is there a subjective aspect to how these attributes can be judged?


Beethoven's counterpoint is better than Mozart's. It's more powerful, more interesting to perform, more to it, more complex and more to study. It's used in a new and sophisticated way in his long development.

Whether one great work is a little better than another doesn't help with the problem of our culture no longer elevating the great works above entertainment music.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> Yes. It suggests that some artists acquire a larger cluster of enthusiasts than others. This is a commonplace. Here is an interesting list:
> 
> Here are the top 50 of the Wikipedia listing of artists and groups (several years old now) by their measurements of popularity, offered here as fodder for speculation and cogitation. I am not suggesting that units moved be the only criterion. But we should decide what criteria should be used. I think Taylor Swift may be more successful than J.S. Bach, and that's sad, but that's the way it is. Feel free to supply refutation.
> 
> The Beatles
> Elvis Presley
> Michael Jackson
> Madonna
> Elton John
> Led Zeppelin
> Pink Floyd
> Eminem
> Mariah Carey
> The Eagles
> Taylor Swift
> Queen
> Whitney Houston
> Céline Dion
> AC/DC
> The Rolling Stones
> Garth Brooks
> Drake
> Ed Sheeran
> Billy Joel
> U2
> Phil Collins
> Aerosmith
> ABBA
> Frank Sinatra
> Barbra Streisand
> Katy Perry
> Justin Bieber
> Kanye West
> Bruce Springsteen
> Bruno Mars
> Jay-Z
> Metallica
> Lady Gaga
> Adele
> Fleetwood Mac
> Bee Gees
> Lil Wayne
> Maroon 5
> Chris Brown
> Beyoncé
> Coldplay
> Linkin Park
> B'z
> Bon Jovi
> Britney Spears
> Rod Stewart
> Guns N' Roses
> Backstreet Boys


My favorite active artist among those probably is Ed Sheeran. Here's a list of some great composers of the last 70 years, in my opinion:

Pierre Boulez
George Crumb
Philip Glass
David Del Tredici
John Corigliano
Miles Davis
Eric Dolphy 
Frank Zappa
Toru Takemitsu
Tan Dun
Osvaldo Golijov
Peteris Vasks



ArtMusic said:


> I'm not giving you a long assessment (and please, no need for accentuated punctuation). I am merely writing down hisotry.


A long history of prizes and fame, and even some money(!) for most of those above. Pulitzer Prizes and Grammys galore. As I said earlier, Chinese composer Tan Dun won an Oscar and a Grammy for his music for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, which he adapted into an orchestral concerto. I, too, am merely writing down history. These composers have had successful careers. As others have mentioned, John Williams has received enormous acclaim over the past 50 years. While I personally don't rank him as high as those I've listed, he also is a fine composer, in my opinion. I fail to see why any of that matters to our discussion here.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Yes. It suggests that some artists acquire a larger cluster of enthusiasts than others. This is a commonplace. Here is an interesting list:
> 
> Here are the top 50 of the Wikipedia listing of artists and groups (several years old now) by their measurements of popularity, offered here as fodder for speculation and cogitation. I am not suggesting that units moved be the only criterion. But we should decide what criteria should be used. I think Taylor Swift may be more successful than J.S. Bach, and that's sad, but that's the way it is. Feel free to supply refutation.


So, after all this discussion, you're back to the fact that not only is this nothing more than a popularity contest, but it is a popularity comparison across all genres of music to the ridiculous extreme of the popularity of J.S. Bach vs. Taylor Swift. No keeping within the genre the artist excels in. No acknowledgement of skill and perhaps some objective elements of a given skill that are more likely to result in special creations.

All my years in various classical music communities and I've never come across anything like this: The presence of some people who claim to love classical music, but can't decipher special attributes that suggest at least some objective evidence of excellence that results in great works of the masters. This has become one of the most disagreeable threads I've ever taken part in and has become a colossal waste of time. I'm out.


----------



## RogerWaters

DaveM said:


> So, after all this discussion, you're back to the fact that not only is this *nothing more than a popularity contest*, but it is a popularity comparison across all genres of music to the ridiculous extreme of the popularity of J.S. Bach vs. Taylor Swift.


And in the same breath you appeal to popularity to settle the debate of the thread (whether musical taste is objective or subjective):



DaveM said:


> All my years in various classical music communities and I've never come across anything like this: The presence of some people who claim to love classical music, but can't decipher special attributes that suggest at least some objective evidence of excellence that results in great works of the masters. This has become one of the most disagreeable threads I've ever taken part in and has become a colossal waste of time. I'm out.


Classical music cannot be objectively more excellent that pop music. It is only more excellent if you *value* the kind of musical devices that constitute classical music - and values are subjective. If I don't value music with counterpoint, continually evolving music that isn't 'riff-based', etc, then what basis does some internet forum user like you have to label me as somehow misguided or in error?

I am, of course, re-stating a position that has been put forward over and over again in this thread, which a handful of objectivists simply ignore, repeating mantra that seems to ultimately evince that, for such posters, tradition is the ultimate authority as opposed to reason.

I only hope this thread has been more productive for silent readers than participants.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> So, after all this discussion, you're back to the fact that not only is this nothing more than a popularity contest, but it is a popularity comparison across all genres of music to the ridiculous extreme of the popularity of J.S. Bach vs. Taylor Swift. No keeping within the genre the artist excels in. No acknowledgement of skill and perhaps some objective elements of a given skill that are more likely to result in special creations.
> 
> All my years in various classical music communities and I've never come across anything like this: The presence of some people who claim to love classical music, but can't decipher special attributes that suggest at least some objective evidence of excellence that results in great works of the masters. This has become one of the most disagreeable threads I've ever taken part in and has become a colossal waste of time. I'm out.


Dave, it is not a matter of me being "back to" anything. I never have deviated from my almost absurdly simple--I have taken to calling it Euclidian--thesis. The thesis, if you have been following it at all closely, has only two, or is it three moving parts, really--that all hold valid opinions on what they regard as worthwhile art; that it is pure opinion that is expressed in people's choices; and that there is no inherent excellence baked into art objects. I'm being very brief here because attentive posters have by now over thousands of posts grown familiar with my whippoorwill-like repeated utterances on the same themes. I could exhaust myself by going back and again picking out several (hundred?) posts where I have made my position clear, but I won't. Your replies fall into the "Do you really believe that??" category. And the answer is always Yes, I really believe that: that's what the evidence tells me.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Dave, it is not a matter of me being "back to" anything. I never have deviated from my almost absurdly simple--I have taken to calling it Euclidian--thesis. The thesis, if you have been following it at all closely, has only two, or is it three moving parts, really--*that all hold valid opinions on what they regard as worthwhile art; that it is pure opinion that is expressed in people's choices; and that there is no inherent excellence baked into art objects.* I'm being very brief here because attentive posters have by now over thousands of posts grown familiar with my whippoorwill-like repeated utterances on the same themes. I could exhaust myself by going back and again picking out several (hundred?) posts where I have made my position clear, but I won't. Your replies fall into the "Do you really believe that??" category. And the answer is always Yes, I really believe that: that's what the evidence tells me.


Yes, you don't study music. Opinions and peoples' choices are what matter to you. I don't know why.

No inherent excellence, I would think that musicologists and musicians would therefore be wasting their time. That might be the scientific truth, but we tell children what might help them, like "Bach and Beethoven were the greatest composers". We hope that they will be guided and sparked enough to learn enough to argue for or against that common assertion.


----------



## hammeredklavier

ArtMusic said:


> Yes, I don't struggle at all in stating JC Bach's concertos are weaker than Mozart's even though I enjoy JC's concertos nearly as much as I do with Mozart's.


Also try the harpsichord concertos, which Christian wrote after being taught by Emanuel in Berlin:


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> All my years in various classical music communities and I've never come across anything like this: The presence of some people who claim to love classical music, but can't decipher special attributes that suggest at least some objective evidence of excellence that results in great works of the masters.


And in all my years of studying, playing and listening to classical music, I never came across people who claimed there were "special attributes that suggest at least some objective evidence of excellence that results in great works of the masters" until I started participating in online classical music discussion groups in 2004. This internet phenomenon always mystified me, and I've finally concluded its cause is the need of many people who participate in these little online 'communities' for validation from each other for their preferences for classical music, preferences that are not validated or shared by the vast majority of people outside these communities.

I truly think this is a shame. There are still enough people out there who want this music that it remains available. If we reverse the disastrous trend of failing to teach our children about our cultural heritage and traditions, including but not limited to western classical music, it always will be available. Moreover, trying to bully people into conceding there is somehow something inherently superior about European music of the 18th and 19th century 'masters', however one defines that term, will at best accomplish nothing, and at worst make those you are trying to convince hostile and even less interested in that music, a point that SanAntone, for one, has politely and patiently made here.

After 16 years of observing this odd need for validation, I decided to stick with this thread for as long as it took to see if I could figure out if there was something more behind it. Strange Magic used a "I don't need anyone's validation, come and get me!" approach, backed by some fairly sophisticated cultural anthropology with an emphasis on psychology, which I went along with. Portamento used more cultural anthropology, with an emphasis on historical social dynamics, which I went along with. Science, in keeping with his moniker, used an empirical argument, which I went along with. SanAntone, like all performing musicians (I know nothing about him, but a performing musician is easy to spot), was careful not to attack or scorn the audience, and politely tried to convince you that there was no need to try to validate your preferences in that way, knowing that the audience rules anyway, as no audience means no performing musicians. I went along with that, too.

Finally, I introduced a history of philosophy perspective, noting that once the control of the Catholic Church over western value systems faded away, one of the movements that arose to fill the vacuum was Cartesian rationalism, that stood for the concept that the nature of things can be deduced from their innate qualities. I noted that the opposing concept of empiricism, that our knowledge of the world is derived solely from our perceptions of things and not from any innate qualities, has carried society along for nearly 300 years, and departures from it along rationalist lines often have been disastrous. See Hitler, Stalin and Mao, whose ideologies included some harsh and intolerant rules when it came to art, including music.

For many here, none of that made a dent. Apparently the need for validation is strong within this little internet bubble. I wonder how much comfort it provides in the end.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> Whether one great work is a little better than another doesn't help with the problem of our culture no longer elevating the great works above entertainment music.


I think you are kidding yourself if you think that "great works" have any impact on our culture. Since classical music has such a small audience, about 1% (same as jazz), popular entertainment is already, far and away, the preferred form of music that the vast majority of people listen to.

These 100+ page threads are much ado about nothing.


----------



## ArtMusic

There is no need for validation, it was already validated and previously discovered with relentless pursuit by earlier artists and their schools for centuries. The so called empirical approach sounds rather scientific, which has always been the incorrect starting premise for such discussions on inherent greatness of art and music.


----------



## Woodduck

> Originally Posted by *DaveM*:
> Does the wide acceptance, consensus and establishment of an artist in the upper hierarchy of excellence in such clustering populations suggest something significant about what that artist has accomplished compared to artists that failed to gather wide acceptance, consensus or be anywhere in the hierarchy of excellence?





Strange Magic said:


> Yes. It suggests that some artists acquire a larger cluster of enthusiasts than others. This is a commonplace.


It may be a commonplace among those who think a bare restatement of something is a proper explanation of it. To anyone else it's a real howler.

I guess I shouldn't be too hard on you here, since a theory of artistic judgment as gourmandism is helpless to say anything meaningful in the face of the ACTUALLY commonplace question raised by DaveM. Let me restate it with a simple example: why, among hundreds of operas written during the Classical period by many accomplished composers - roughly the second half of the 18th century - have almost none except those of Mozart and Gluck held the boards until today, or garnered high critical and popular acclaim? Why, when most works of music don't survive their own eras, or even achieve great or lasting success in their own time, do a relative handful of works seem never to lose their appeal?

The commonplace, and commonsense, explanation is that some works possess traits which enable them to both engage our mental faculties and touch our essential humanity, as opposed to appealing merely to cruder sense pleasures and sensibilities which come and go with cultural fashion. Some of the traits of these richer, deeper works can be described in general terms, and some fairly specifically; others are more intangible. It may take some time for a work's distinguished qualities to become widely appreciated, but in most cases they're recognized very quickly; even the famous "failures" among works now considered exceptional were generally not long in making their mark. Artistic excellence will out, and far from being a mere _expression of_ "taste," it expands the minds of those exposed to it; it _changes_ taste, and gives us tastes we didn't know we had.

Your purely "subjective" view of artistic quality - art is neither good nor bad, but merely liked by an individual or group of individuals - leads only to such tautologies as the one you offer above: in other words, it leads nowhere, except perhaps to the psychiatrist's couch, where we can regress to primal scenes in childhood to explain why we love Mozart and _Sachertorte_ but hate Elgar and shepherd's pie. On the path toward understanding anything at all about art - the power of the human response to it, the extraordinary value humans place upon it, and its ability to cross boundaries of class and culture and enlarge our sense of reality -"total subjectivism" takes not even the first step.

Why do musicians revere Bach? Well, you say, because lots of people happen to like Bach. Lots of people like roast beef too. But there's nothing inherently great about roast beef. There's just a consensus among a self-selected group of diners, plus the subjective opinion of self-styled meat experts...


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> It may be a commonplace among those who think a bare restatement of something is a proper explanation of it. To anyone else it's a real howler.
> 
> I guess I shouldn't be too hard on you here, since a theory of artistic judgment as gourmandism is helpless to say anything meaningful in the face of the ACTUALLY commonplace question raised by DaveM. Let me restate it with a simple example: why, among hundreds of operas written during the Classical period by many accomplished composers - roughly the second half of the 18th century - have almost none except those of Mozart and Gluck held the boards until today, or garnered high critical and popular acclaim? Why, when most works of music don't survive their own eras, or even achieve great or lasting success in their own time, do a relative handful of works seem never to lose their appeal?
> 
> The commonplace, and commonsense, explanation is that some works possess traits which enable them to both engage our mental faculties and touch our essential humanity, as opposed to appealing merely to cruder sense pleasures and sensibilities which come and go with cultural fashion. Some of the traits of these richer, deeper works can be described in general terms, and some fairly specifically; others are more intangible. It may take some time for a work's distinguished qualities to become widely appreciated, but in most cases they're recognized very quickly; even the famous "failures" among works now considered exceptional were generally not long in making their mark. Artistic excellence will out, and far from being a mere _expression of_ "taste," it expands the minds of those exposed to it; it _changes_ taste, and gives us tastes we didn't know we had.
> 
> Your purely "subjective" view of artistic quality - art is neither good nor bad, but merely liked by an individual or group of individuals - leads only to such tautologies as the one you offer above: in other words, it leads nowhere, except perhaps to the psychiatrist's couch, where we can regress to primal scenes in childhood to explain why we love Mozart and _Sachertorte_ but hate Elgar and shepherd's pie. On the path toward understanding anything at all about art - the power of the human response to it, the extraordinary value humans place upon it, and its ability to cross boundaries of class and culture and enlarge our sense of reality -"total subjectivism" takes not even the first step.
> 
> Why do musicians revere Bach? Well, because lots of people happen to like Bach. Lots of people like roast beef too. But there's nothing inherently great about roast beef. There's just a consensus among a self-selected group of diners, plus the subjective opinion of self-styled meat experts...


You seem to insist that, in order to inquire into what makes a composer great, you need to think he is objectively great .

But there is nothing incompatible with inquiring into how much power Bach had as composer of fugues, for example, while ultimately acknowledging that fugues don't interest most people - and that they _need not_ interest most people, in the sense that such people are not making some error in not being interested in fugues as music.


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> Here are the top 50 of the Wikipedia listing of artists and groups (several years old now) by their measurements of popularity, offered here as fodder for speculation and cogitation.


same as things like popcorn is not food, so mass culture is not art.


----------



## Zhdanov

Strange Magic said:


> there is no inherent excellence baked into art objects.


depends on what you bake, popcorn flakes or a gourmet cuisine item, so is whether you record a track or compose a symphony; the former is no art-object whereas the latter is.


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> You seem to insist that, in order to inquire into what makes a composer great, you need to think he is objectively great .


In the application of the term "great" to music, there are only two options: it's warranted by something superior in the content of the music, or it isn't and it means nothing more than someone's expression of taste. The first option leads to an examination of what the music may contain to warrant the distinction. The second leads to threads like this.



> But there is nothing incompatible with inquiring into how much power Bach had as composer of fugues, for example, while ultimately acknowledging that fugues don't interest most people - and that they _need not_ interest most people, in the sense that such people are not making some error in not being interested in fugues as music.


Whether Bach was a great composer and composed superb fugues has nothing to do with whether you or I enjoy Bach or fugues, except for the rather significant fact that if he were less good at writing fugues (and other things) he would be liked by far fewer people. Why do you think we listen to Bach's music and not that of a host of other obscure Baroque organists? The basements of German libraries must be full of manuscripts of dutifully polyphonic preludes and fugues that would bore the daylights out of practically everyone. Why would they, d'ya think?


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> In the application of the term "great" to music, there are only two options: it's warranted by something superior in the content of the music, or it isn't and it means nothing more than someone's expression of taste. The first option leads to an examination of what the music may contain to warrant the distinction. The second leads to threads like this.


There are dozens and dozens of threads about all the great composers. This is one thread, on a very specific, philosophical question.

I see nothing wrong with that myself.



Woodduck said:


> Whether Bach was a great composer and composed superb fugues has nothing to do with whether you or I enjoy Bach or fugues


Depends what you mean by 'great'. If you mean, much-esteemed, high in the canon etc, then I agree.

If you mean great in the sense of excellent music, then whether Bach makes great music depends on what I value. If I don't value complexity, counterpoint, constantly evolving music with no beat, then I've no objective reason to value Bach (unless, for instance, I happen to value, say, traditional cultural mores or something, despite not enjoying Bach)


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> There are dozens and dozens of threads about all the great composers. This is one thread, on a very specific, philosophical question.
> 
> I see nothing wrong with that myself.
> 
> Depends what you mean by 'great'. If you mean, much-esteemed, high in the canon etc, then I agree.
> 
> If you mean great in the sense of excellent music, then *whether Bach makes great music depends on what I value.* If I don't value complexity, counterpoint, constantly evolving music with no beat, then I've no objective reason to value Bach.


You don't have to value Bach's music personally to see how he surpassed his contemporaries, or to see his extraordinary command of the resources of his art. Of course it's very likely that if we can see these things, we _will_ value Bach, even if he isn't a favorite composer.


----------



## Art Rock

*Once more discussions have in part become too heated. We have deleted a number of posts. Please keep in mind from the Terms of Service:




Guidelines for General Behavior

Be polite to your fellow members. If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a »civil« and respectful manner. This applies to all communication taking place on talkclassical.com, whether by means of posts, private messages, visitor messages, blogs and social groups.

Click to expand...

If anyone thinks that other participants are out of line in this respect, report the post, do not respond in kind, and let the moderators/admin team handle it.*


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> You don't have to value Bach's music personally to see how he surpassed his contemporaries, or to see his extraordinary command of the resources of his art.


Are there such people: who don't like Bach but think Bach was better than composers they do like?

I agree that someone who doesn't like Bach could see why Bach was good at what he did. Just like someone who doesn't like Mao could see why Mao was good at what _he_ did.


----------



## Zhdanov

RogerWaters said:


> Are there such people: who don't like Bach but think Bach was better than composers they do like?


here i am, no getting Bach, still thinking his better than Mussorgsky i liking.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Regarding the question of a whether a piece of music can be "great objectively", let us first consider the question of whether a piece of music can be "great".

I'm going to ignore the question (knotty in itself) of "what is music", and assume we have an art object which we all agree is music. Let's say Beethoven's 5th symphony. Is this piece of music great?

The problem, I think, is in the word great? To have a meaningful discussion we need to agree some ground rules about what "great" means.

The extreme subjective position here is arguing that "great" means that "I", the subject, think that it is "great", and there is nothing more to it than that. By using the word to mean this then they have set the question "can a piece of music be great objectively" to have the answer no, precisely because they have defined "great" to be a term whose truth or falsity is to be determined without reference to any "objective" quality outside the subjective consciousness. I think they are thus correct in their answer to the question as they have posed it. However, it a meaningless finding.

You don't have to be a genius to see the circularity. You might have to be Wittgenstein to regard it as a beetle. As he indicated, if a word is purely about a thing each individual experiences that no one else can observe then it conveys no meaning as part of a public language. By using "great" in this way it is absolutely meaningless, except as a personal label for a personal experience, and no one else can have a clue what the content of the experience that the word applies to is.

The subjectivist position in this thread seems to think that the word "great" is clear in other contexts (and it uses this assumption to make it seem that the question is about music or art more generally). They want to argue that some things can be great "objectively" but music is different and cannot be great "objectively".

Take anything else, let's say a knife. Is this a great knife? Search me. It is not remotely clear what that means. We first need to agree what we are going to use "great" to mean in this context.
For one purpose a great knife might mean one which can be made really sharp. For another purpose that might not matter so much, and it might be more important that it holds its edge for a long time. For another purpose it might be that it is good for stabbing. For another purpose (say in a kitchen with children) it might be important that it is not good for stabbing. A safety razor is great for shaving because it can be made really sharp, but cannot cut deeply. That was a great invention. Serrated knives are good for cutting bread, and not so good for carving meat. A ceramic knife might be great if you are a terrorist who wants to smuggle it through a metal detector. I could go on.

The point is that in English usage people might say "That is a great knife" and mean any of the above things. Often it would be obvious by context what they meant. In other cases I guess the response might be for someone to ask "In what way?". An unhelpful (perhaps meaningless) answer to that question is "It's great because it seems great to me". You would expect them to respond by describing how it satisfies some valuation framework well.

The word "great" only has meaning in the context of some such framework. To use the word people need to come together and agree the framework. Until a framework has been agreed you cannot determine whether the word great applies. Having determined a framework you could then go on to assess greatness, and you might expect to refer to objective elements to do so.

I think we therefore have two positions in this thread:
- Great is great because I say it is, purely subjective, but pretty much meaningless as part of public language. It is just a grandiose way of saying "I like it a lot".
- Great is great within a valuation framework, and might be objectively assessed.

My conclusion, therefore, is that to be able to say a piece of music is great and for that to have any significant public meaning you must be using "great" in such a way that it is meaningful to say that the piece of music is great objectively. The addition of objectively is not problematic, and is pretty much automatic unless you are using great to mean a beetle in a box. However, you need to agree a valuation framework with other people first.

Alternatively, if you want to use great to mean I like it a lot (ie as a beetle) then that's fine too, but it then does not carry any meaning beyond being a statement that the piece belongs in the same category as other things that you "like a lot" (such as, perhaps, fine wine, winning a game of snooker, or being very wealthy). There's a minimal piece of information about the beetle being revealed (ie by reference to other things that are also "great"), and in that sense it is like the "clicker" which was mentioned earlier in this thread. This really, though, makes the word "great" primarily a solipsistic term relating more to me than to the objects.

The reason this thread has gone on so long is because there is no agreement on a valuation framework.


----------



## Ethereality

Excellent post. Myself and others have agreed on objectivists' framework that they pose, "Great at moving more people throughout time." This framework was never argued. But I disagree with your first point, "Great to oneself is a meaningless definition." It is perhaps the only thing with any actual meaning. If something is great to others, then good for them! I wish them long health and enjoyment, but it doesn't appear to brainwash me into complying with hearsay as it does others, as I know that greatness requires much more thought. Only some seem indoctrinated by these popular concepts. What it does not make music is, objectively great, because objective greatness could very well be any music or sound we could perspectivize. What it makes it is "great according to more people." People who, from my experience, probably don't know as much about music. That is not greatness; that is great with an added definition.


----------



## Woodduck

I agree completely with Eclectic Al. Any judgment of artistic quality requires some premise(s) or supposition(s) serving as a framework or context. "Greatness" is not some absolute quantity of something floating in the aether; it implies such questions as "In what way?" or "Of what kind?" or "Compared to what?" 

Logically, a fully subjective view of aesthetic value should banish terms such as "great" completely, and anyone subscribing to such a view should not pretend to judge a work of art but should merely express degrees of liking for whatever he happens to observe about it. The moment we say that an artist has done something well, as opposed to merely pleasing us, we have allowed an element of objectivity into our judgment, and our aesthetics is no longer fully subjectivist. I find it hard to believe that anyone has a totally subjectivist view of art, but some do claim to, or sound as if they claim to.


----------



## Eclectic Al

RogerWaters said:


> Are there such people: who don't like Bach but think Bach was better than composers they do like?
> 
> I agree that someone who doesn't like Bach could see why Bach was good at what he did. Just like someone who doesn't like Mao could see why Mao was good at what _he_ did.


Well I like Haydn, J a lot, but I am informed that Haydn, M is better. By one authority at least. :tiphat:

I don't really use the word great in these context, but I am comfortable with better and worse.

I prefer Elgar to Mozart. I would accept, though, that Mozart is better than Elgar. This is partly because I have respect for the opinions of others. It is also because I sense that Mozart produced music which was more successful in Mozartean terms than was Elgar's music in Elgarian terms.

I find it easier to think about this in terms of literature. I would accept that Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky are better authors than James Ellroy or Evelyn Waugh, although I would like them more. If anyone was interested in why that is then we could have a discussion, and we would end up exploring what I mean by better in this context. We could then consider whether, objectively, I am correct that Leo and Fyodor are better according to the meaning being used than are James and Evelyn.

Incidentally, I have read a lot of Joseph Conrad. I don't enjoy doing so, but I have the sense that he is a "great" author. I get the feeling that he is exploring the human condition very deeply, more deeply than I can appreciate, and he often bores me (while I nevertheless sense that he is saying something important). I might be wrong, of course, but he is definitely an author I rate very highly but don't enjoy.


----------



## janxharris

RogerWaters said:


> Are there such people: who don't like Bach but think Bach was better than composers they do like?
> 
> I agree that someone who doesn't like Bach could see why Bach was good at what he did. Just like someone who doesn't like Mao could see why Mao was good at what _he_ did.


I'm confused by your post. You do not think it possible that anyone exists as you describe in the first sentence? Your second sentence distinguishes those merely acknowledging that he (Bach) was 'good', but not 'better'?

Stephen Hough, as I mentioned earlier, conceded that though he does not like Bach, he was a better composer than Mompou whom he does like.

_"I recognize with crystal-clear clarity that Bach is a greater composer than Mompou, in the way that Rembrandt is a better painter than Rockwell. To put the two composers on the same level would be risible, and the Spaniard would be the first to be nonplussed with embarrassed laughter. Yet, I don't get Bach, even whilst I understand his towering genius - but I do get Mompou. Perhaps it's like friendship, we just like certain people and not others; we resonate with certain composers; we are touched by the cracks between their notes; their music has a 'smell' with which seduces us, leading us willingly into submission beyond analysis or logic. A composer we love is one where we treasure even the dross, even as we recognize that it is dross. Tchaikovsky is one such composer for me. What about you?"_

Yet, one might legitimately ponder how genuine his concession is. It may be that he defines 'great' as 'degree of esteem held by others'; since he does get Mompou then he must have issues with the stuff of Bach's compositions.


----------



## Ethereality

janxharris said:


> Yet, one might legitimately ponder how genuine his concession is. It may be that he defines 'great' as 'degree of esteem held by others'; since he does get Mompou then he must have issues with the stuff of Bach's compositions.


Precisely. Some may want to use the term great as a position of mediation. But it is pointless and counterintuitive; that's not what the word means, and nobody will ever agree with that nonsense as long as we have true artists with great visions and backbones of their own. Have some respect for the individuals on this community board and use the term highly-esteemed.

People with personalities have been arguing this same pucky for 100 pages. Yes what is highly-esteemed has basis in our biological origins. Blah blah. It has nothing to do with the topic of greatness. Let it alone.

But that's not what the elitists want. They want to win! So these thread's will keep persisting without an inch of perceptive for others. It's gross, to me, and many who have to deal with it. "My favorite composers are better!" Shatup


----------



## janxharris

Ethereality said:


> Precisely. Some may want to use the term great as a position of mediation. But it is pointless and counterintuitive; that's not what the word means, and nobody will ever agree with that nonsense as long as we have true artists with great visions and backbones of their own. Have some respect for the individuals on this community board and use the term highly-esteemed.
> 
> People with personalities have been arguing this same pucky for 100 pages. Yes what is highly-esteemed has basis in our biological origins. Blah blah. It has nothing to do with the topic of greatness. Let it alone.
> 
> But that's not what the elitists want. They want to win! I know that because it's a blindspot. So these thread's will keep persisting without an inch of perceptive for others. It's just gross.


Probably my bad but I don't quite understand your first paragraph. Mediation?


----------



## Ethereality

Mediation, as in "I know this composer is more highly-esteemed" but using the word 'great' instead because its what they've heard elitists regurgitate among themselves. Especially originating from arguing (sometimes winning, because sorry to say, not everyone has backbones to carry their true opinions or even feel room to explore them healthily.) Great has been defined by a force of peer pressure. But this word only persistently acts as a huge unhealing insult to a majority of independent music fans, who have different perspectives on true greatness all objectively valid, including and especially Classical music fans. We don't need people to tell us what is highly-esteemed. We can see, and decide.

I would not be surprised if 50% of people here developed their tastes in common composers from a popularity bias. I readily admit, for the 90th time, quality tends to be correlated to our biological origins as humans, ie. tonal structures we can percieve more easily. How does that get us to greatness? Do objectivists care that they're not making an iota of sense? Do they even comprehend their _great_ hatred developing around them? I would like to help them; let's install a dislike button.


----------



## janxharris

Ethereality said:


> Mediation, as in "I know this composer is more highly-esteemed" but they're using the word 'great' because its what elitists regurgitate among themselves, especially originating from arguing (and sometimes winning, because sorry to say, not everyone has backbones to carry their true opinions or even feel room to explore them healthily.) Great has been defined by a force of peer pressure. But this word only persistently acts as a huge unhealing insult to the majority of music fans, who have different perspectives on true greatness all objectively valid, including and especially Classical music fans.
> 
> I would not be surprised if 50% of people here developed their taste in common composers from a popularity bias.


Still somewhat confused:

'who have different perspectives on true greatness *all objectively valid*'

?


----------



## Ethereality

janxharris said:


> Still somewhat confused:
> 
> 'who have different perspectives on true greatness *all objectively valid*'
> 
> ?


I will only say this once, because I'm done today. Choose the true objective statement, and then decide for yourself who are the _true_ objectivists in these threads:

(a) Avid Classical listeners' favorite composers are Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, among more names
(b) My own perspective of who are truly great composers objectively exists, in my framework of understanding

If you can't figure out which sentence is _not_ a fact, I really can't help you.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Here's a suggestion: before anyone seeks to post about whether a piece of music can be great objectively they have to start the post with a definition of what they mean by great. Only then can they proceed to argue whether that greatness can be considered to be objective.

Surely that's not a big ask.


----------



## janxharris

Ethereality said:


> I will only say this once, because I'm done today. Choose the true objective statement, and then decide for yourself who are the _true_ objectivists in these threads:
> 
> (a) Avid Classical listeners' favorite composers are Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, among more names
> (b) My own perspective of who are truly great composers objectively exists, in my framework of understanding
> 
> If you can't figure out which sentence is _not_ a fact, I really can't help you.


Sorry Ethereality - I'm confused by this. I have understood the gist of your meaning from your previous couple of posts.


----------



## janxharris

Eclectic Al said:


> Here's a suggestion: before anyone seeks to post about whether a piece of music can be great objectively they have to start the post with a definition of what they mean by great. Only then can they proceed to argue whether that greatness can be considered to be objective.
> 
> Surely that's not a big ask.


I suspect that 'great' in the context of the subject of this thread will remain undefined - a vague acknowledgement of popularity and longevity.


----------



## Eclectic Al

janxharris said:


> I suspect that 'great' in the context of the subject of this thread will remain undefined - a vague acknowledgement of popularity and longevity.


You're likely correct. In which case I think we must remain agnostic on whether this undefined term is objective or not. 

By the way, I'm entirely happy with vague terms. I think most things are vague, and it is the assumption that they can be pinned down or proved which creates the trouble. Werner Heisenberg might agree.


----------



## Zhdanov

janxharris said:


> 'great' in the context of the subject of this thread will remain undefined


its well defined, as with Great Britain - 'great' means a great achievement.


----------



## janxharris

Zhdanov said:


> its well defined, as with Great Britain - 'great' means a great achievement.


As with any country, it's mixed - we could talk about the slave trade.


----------



## Eclectic Al

janxharris said:


> As with any country, it's mixed - we could talk about the slave trade.


I think Great Britain relates to geography rather than anything else. Isn't it just something about distinguishing the island of Britain from Brittany (now in France)? I don't think it's got anything to do with Britain being marvellous.


----------



## janxharris

Eclectic Al said:


> You're likely correct. In which case I think we must remain agnostic on whether this undefined term is objective or not.
> 
> By the way, I'm entirely happy with vague terms. I think most things are vague, and it is the assumption that they can be pinned down or proved which creates the trouble. Werner Heisenberg might agree.


Why the uncertainty principle hasn't been cited before is surprising.


----------



## Zhdanov

janxharris said:


> As with any country, it's mixed - we could talk about the slave trade.


as with musicians, back in the heyday, they earned a pittance, while no trade unions around to help them out.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> The commonplace, and commonsense, explanation is that some works possess traits which enable them to both engage our mental faculties and touch our essential humanity,


All subjective.



Woodduck said:


> as opposed to appealing merely to cruder sense pleasures and sensibilities which come and go with cultural fashion.


Also subjective.

"Objective" is not a synonym for "deep" or "refined" or "engage our mental faculties" or "touch our essential humanity," and "subjective" does not mean "shallow" or "vulgar" or "boring" or whatever the opposite of touching "our essential humanity" would be.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> The moment we say that an artist has done something well, as opposed to merely pleasing us, we have allowed an element of objectivity into our judgment....


Again, _no_.

We cannot judge something as "well" or "not well" without having some kind of value.

The example of "skillful" has been used. Maybe we can objectively measure skill and determine how much skill a particular action requires. Great. Let's measure stuff. Make charts and tables. All objective.

But valuing that skill? That's subjective.


----------



## Enthusiast

But what _does _objective mean in our context? Can it exist? Or do we define it in ways that it cannot exist? Can it be measured? Probably only its impact on listeners (accessed through self-report). I don't think we can arrive at a definition or a measure of the objective in art that will create a consensus among those who participate in these arguments, can we? At the same time many of us feel we know which pieces actually are truly great. I do but the bar has to be set high. I am less sure that I can recognise (or create) knowledge about the relative value of most art - for that I only have my own taste to inform me.


----------



## science

Enthusiast said:


> But what _does _objective mean in our context?


Regardless of how anyone feels about it. Untainted by human emotion _of any kind_.


----------



## Zhdanov

science said:


> Untainted by human emotion _of any kind_.


that's the point because listening to music is to activate *intellectual* resources in man, so it results in a intellectual *response* that leads one to experience a *catharsis*.


----------



## DjPooChoo

RogerWaters said:


> Are there such people: who don't like Bach but think Bach was better than composers they do like?


Absolutely. There are also people who may like a composer or a piece of music and yet still not consider them great music.


----------



## Zhdanov

that is, liberation from emotions - a goal to attain.


----------



## Strange Magic

Other than the fact that there are more variables at play when judging music than in judging wine, there is only opinion and clusters of opinion that "decides" what is "great" wine, or music: consensus of the Group. Those with the most stentorian voices become arbiters of taste in wine-tasting and in any ranking and evaluation of the arts likewise: the birth of the Expert. We then ascribe _ex post facto_ "qualities" within the wine--body, aroma, hints of fruit, whatnot--to account for our decisions, all measurable and analyzable and detectable attributes, yet whether any of these qualities are "good" or "excellent" must be assumed, and if assumed, the goodness/greatness must be evident as innate properties within the wine and all but the malformed will sense them. Those who do not sense the inherent properties of excellence can then be ostracized.

My thanks to Eclectic Al, who appreciated my table analogy so much that he transformed it into a knife analogy. But what is art for beyond giving each individual involvement, pleasure, joy, even a reason for living? Unlike engineering or other useful trades, it has no other real function or even measure (besides being voted on in one sense or another). The question remains: Who is to be Master of one's own relationship with art? I vote always for the individual perceiver.

Use of the word "great": I am reminded of the statement by the triumvir Crassus when informed that Gaius Pompeius had affixed the cognomen "Magnus" (the Great) to his name, said "Great in relation to what?"


----------



## SanAntone

*Why is Bach considered greater than Mompou?*

Because over a long period of time there have been many more classical music listeners _subjectively_ consider Bach's music great, whereas this has not been the case with Mompou.

Just because there has been a large number of classical music listeners over a long period of time agree that Bach's music is great does not mean this is an objective statement. It is a collection of subjective judgments over a long period of time.


----------



## janxharris

DjPooChoo said:


> Absolutely. There are also people who may like a composer or a piece of music and yet still not consider them great music.


Isn't that simply a de facto diminution of the word 'like'? The listener who does not like Bach is, must be, finding fault with his work - so then saying JSB is nevertheless greater is a sop to Bach's great reputation and his followers. As Ethereality said earlier - it's mediation.


----------



## DjPooChoo

janxharris said:


> The listener who does not like Bach is, must be, finding fault with his work


Not necessarily. They are just saying the work is not to their taste.

I may recognize a horror movie as being well written with an excellent narrative, superior acting, great pacing, good direction, etc. and just not enjoy it because I don't personally enjoy horror movies.


----------



## janxharris

DjPooChoo said:


> Not necessarily. They are just saying the work is not to their taste.
> 
> I may recognize a horror movie as being well written with an excellent narrative, superior acting, great pacing, good direction, etc. and just not enjoy it because I don't personally enjoy horror movies.


Would such an impression equate to disliking it? Disliking a work is surely a consequence of finding an important element lacking?


----------



## Art Rock

Isn't that too black and white? Between like and dislike there's indifference. Actually, I would distinguish at least five levels (on a sliding scale): love - like - indifferent - dislike - hate.


----------



## SanAntone

*I think classical music lovers use the word "great" in two ways*: 
1) a strong indication of personal liking for a composer's work or 
2) in recognition that a composer has been considered among the greatest in the history of classical music.

#1 is a subjective statement

#2 is a statement attesting to an objective fact that a composer has been _considered_ great.

But that is different than saying that composer is objectively great.

*Why do large numbers of people (classical music lovers) consider some composers great?* 
Because classical music lovers share a certain taste in music, look for similar things, enjoy similar attributes in music. It should not be surprising that they would agree on the same composers as great.


----------



## Nereffid

janxharris said:


> Isn't that simply a de facto diminution of the word 'like'? The listener who does not like Bach is, must be, finding fault with his work - so then saying JSB is nevertheless greater is a sop to Bach's great reputation and his followers. As Ethereality said earlier - it's mediation.


The quote from Stephen Hough was:
"I'm quite embarrassed about this, but I don't like Bach . . . there's clearly some important screw missing in my musical mechanism."

This seems like Hough is finding fault with himself - that he believes he _should_ like Bach but isn't capable of it.


----------



## janxharris

Nereffid said:


> The quote from Stephen Hough was:
> "I'm quite embarrassed about this, but I don't like Bach . . . there's clearly some important screw missing in my musical mechanism."
> 
> This seems like Hough is finding fault with himself - that he believes he _should_ like Bach but isn't capable of it.


Indeed. It would be interesting to know what it is that he does not like about Bach.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Whether Bach was a great composer and composed superb fugues has nothing to do with whether you or I enjoy Bach or fugues


Million rainbows made exactly the same point, in excruciating detail, with respect to Arnold Schoenberg's ability to construct tone rows. He showed that a rationalist approach can be used to champion 20th century music as well as reject it. You lost your greatest ally here when he was banned.


----------



## janxharris

Nereffid said:


> The quote from Stephen Hough was:
> "I'm quite embarrassed about this, but I don't like Bach . . . there's clearly some important screw missing in my musical mechanism."
> 
> This seems like Hough is finding fault with himself - that he believes he _should_ like Bach but isn't capable of it.


He is emphasising a negative (the missing screw) whilst perhaps avoiding enthusing about a positive (a positive which others maybe don't have). It's polite language but he _is_ finding fault with Bach from the perspective of his mind.


----------



## Strange Magic

Nereffid said:


> The quote from Stephen Hough was:
> "I'm quite embarrassed about this, but I don't like Bach . . . there's clearly some important screw missing in my musical mechanism."
> 
> This seems like Hough is finding fault with himself - that he believes he _should_ like Bach but isn't capable of it.


Rather than waiting for the expressed revulsion of others, he wages a pre-emptive strike against himself.


----------



## SanAntone

Woodduck said:


> Whether Bach was a great composer and composed superb fugues has nothing to do with whether you or I enjoy Bach or fugues, except for the rather significant fact that if he were less good at writing fugues (and other things) he would be liked by far fewer people. Why do you think we listen to Bach's music and not that of a host of other obscure Baroque organists? The basements of German libraries must be full of manuscripts of dutifully polyphonic preludes and fugues that would bore the daylights out of practically everyone. Why would they, d'ya think?


Do you believe that a subjective response to Bach's music multiplied millions of times creates objective proof that Bach is a great composer? Or that he is considered a great composer by millions of classical music lovers?

Do you acknowledge a difference in these two statements.


----------



## Eclectic Al

OK, I finally did it. I went to a dictionary and looked up, not objective, not subjective, but great. 
There are loads of meanings, but the closest to what we seem to be talking about (in the Cambridge dictionary) was meaning B2:

_B2 approving
famous, powerful, or important as one of a particular type:
a great politician/leader/artist/man/woman
This is one of Rembrandt's greatest paintings.
Who do you think is the greatest modern novelist?_

A problem with this thread is that some people want to claim that there might be subjective greatness and objective greatness, and that to be objectively great means that there is a quality in a work of art that does not derive from human judgement and which qualifies the work as great.

The examples give under B2 are all usages which are going to demand human judgement. It seems to me that all the examples listed are begging the question of what qualities matter, how to assess them, how to set the boundary for greatness.

The definition of "objective greatness" which some seem to want to apply does not seem to me to fit with the concept of greatness in the first place. Greatness is inherently a matter of judgement.

However, if you just shift to having it mean that "I like it a lot", ie purely a subjective meaning, then that doesn't grasp the word great either. The dictionary is not talking about whether you like something as being the meaning of greatness. It demands a frame of reference.

Hence, I think the idea of subjective greatness misuses the word great, and the idea of objective greatness (as people are demanding) also misuses by eliminating the human element.

I think we know what concept we are getting at when we say "great", and it adds nothing to try and qualify it as objective or subjective. Great means that a fair number of interested people think it is of really high quality as an example of its type. To go further than that you would need to discuss the specifics, case by case. That is, after all, what communication is about. You would, I think, find objectivity in the specifics.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> I'm confused by your post. You do not think it possible that anyone exists as you describe in the first sentence? Your second sentence distinguishes those merely acknowledging that he (Bach) was 'good', but not 'better'?
> 
> Stephen Hough, as I mentioned earlier, conceded that though he does not like Bach, he was a better composer than Mompou whom he does like.
> 
> _"I recognize with crystal-clear clarity that Bach is a greater composer than Mompou, in the way that Rembrandt is a better painter than Rockwell. To put the two composers on the same level would be risible, and the Spaniard would be the first to be nonplussed with embarrassed laughter. Yet, I don't get Bach, even whilst I understand his towering genius - but I do get Mompou. Perhaps it's like friendship, we just like certain people and not others; we resonate with certain composers; we are touched by the cracks between their notes; their music has a 'smell' with which seduces us, leading us willingly into submission beyond analysis or logic. A composer we love is one where we treasure even the dross, even as we recognize that it is dross. Tchaikovsky is one such composer for me. What about you?"_
> 
> *Yet, one might legitimately ponder how genuine his concession is. It may be that he defines 'great' as 'degree of esteem held by others'; since he does get Mompou then he must have issues with the stuff of Bach's compositions.*


Hough's opinion of Bach is not a "concession," and he is undoubtedly too good a musician to define "great" as "degree of esteem held by others." As for the "stuff" of a composer's work and "issues" one might have with it, your meaning is unclear.

Why is it so difficult to understand that we might perceive virtues in a work of art yet not care much for it? There are days when I have absolutely no taste for Bach. Do his compositions lose their brilliance on those days? Does he suddenly become a less accomplished composer than Biber? How many violinists, hearing the chaconnes/passacaglias for unaccompanied violin by both composers side by side, fail to recognize the greater richness of inspiration and cumulative force - both qualities composers aim for in a work in that form - of the Bach? Indeed, how many fail to respond even to the difference in the more specific emotional qualities projected by the two works? If you understand the style and idiom which the two composers share, you know that Bach has made more of it, but I'll also venture to say that the difference will be perceivable to many with little knowledge of that sort. I'm sure that Hough's knowledge of music provides him with the necessary frame of reference, but also suspect - though I don't know him - that his musical instincts in general provide him with a good basis for judgment.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Woodduck:* "Why do musicians revere Bach? Well, you say, because lots of people happen to like Bach. Lots of people like roast beef too. But there's nothing inherently great about roast beef. There's just a consensus among a self-selected group of diners, plus the subjective opinion of self-styled meat experts..."


Exactly. Your lampoon of my position mirrors it perfectly. "Excellent" I Like It! You clearly understand my thesis and its universality, and that it requires for refutation references to psychiatry, lofty eyes-turned-to-the-heavens paeans, and renewed attempts to somehow elevate consensus clustering to universal indications of universally-recognized truths. As Doctor Johnson would say, "A glass of wine with you, Sir!"


----------



## Woodduck

SanAntone said:


> Do you believe that a subjective response to Bach's music multiplied millions of times creates objective proof that Bach is a great composer? Or that he is considered a great composer by millions of classical music lovers?
> 
> Do you acknowledge a difference in these two statements.


I asked: "Why do you think we listen to Bach's music and not that of a host of other obscure Baroque organists? The basements of German libraries must be full of manuscripts of dutifully polyphonic preludes and fugues that would bore the daylights out of practically everyone. Why would they, d'ya think?"

Before that, I cited the fact that few Classical period operas besides those of Mozart and Gluck have survived in the repertoire. I asked why a relative handful of works seem to transcend their period, a period whose sensibilities are far from our own. Why would someone born in 1990 identify with _The Marriage of Figaro,_ much less think it one of the greatest operas ever written? Why do numerous people today still have this opinion?

You've responded by asking _me_ questions. My questions stand. You go first.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Woodduck:* "Why is it so difficult to understand that we might perceive virtues in a work of art yet not care much for it? There are days when I have absolutely no taste for Bach. Do his compositions lose their brilliance on those days? Does he suddenly become a less accomplished composer than Biber?"


This is hyperbole. We--you and I--never intermittantly, quirkily, whimsically lose our taste for Bach or for any art we love, though our tastes can wander afield with time, even "evolve". But we do not suddenly find his compositions losing their brilliance nor does he "become" suddenly a different composer. But, being human with broad tastes and interests, we choose now and again not to listen exclusively to the music of Bach. This is not much of an indicator of anything relative to this discussion.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> This is hyperbole. We--you and I--never intermittantly, quirkily, whimsically lose our taste for Bach or for any art we love, though our tastes can wander afield with time, even "evolve". But we do not suddenly find his compositions losing their brilliance nor does he "become" suddenly a different composer. But, being human with broad tastes and interests, we choose now and again not to listen exclusively to the music of Bach. This is not much of an indicator of anything relative to this discussion.


To say that Bach doesn't become an inferior composer on days when we don't enjoy him is to abandon the premise that "all aesthetics is subjective."


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> I asked: "Why do you think we listen to Bach's music and not that of a host of other obscure Baroque organists? The basements of German libraries must be full of manuscripts of dutifully polyphonic preludes and fugues that would bore the daylights out of practically everyone. Why would they, d'ya think?" Before that I cited the fact that few Classical period operas besides those of Mozart and Gluck have survived in the repertoire. I asked why a relative handful of works seem to transcend their period, a period whose sensibilities are far from our own. Why would someone born in 1990 identify with _The Marriage of Figaro,_ much less think it one of the greatest operas ever written? Why do numerous people today still have this opinion?
> 
> You've responded by asking _me_ questions. My questions stand. You go first.


The answers are always unvarying, always the same. There is a cluster, a consensus around the music of Bach because it appeals to more people--often due to lack of exposure to competing composers' works, which is often due to the positive feedback loops established in art appreciation where the "success" of the popular drives the further success of same at the expense of other options. This accounts in part for many of the bubbles of reverence and enthusiasm we encounter so often in the arts. I'm not complaining about it; it's just the way things are. Go Bach! He is The Man!


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> To say that Bach doesn't become an inferior composer on days when we don't enjoy him is to abandon the premise that "all aesthetics is subjective."


There is no day I don't enjoy Bach when I choose to listen to his music. Small beer. (Or wine.)


----------



## SanAntone

Woodduck said:


> I asked: "Why do you think we listen to Bach's music and not that of a host of other obscure Baroque organists? The basements of German libraries must be full of manuscripts of dutifully polyphonic preludes and fugues that would bore the daylights out of practically everyone. Why would they, d'ya think?"
> 
> Before that, I cited the fact that few Classical period operas besides those of Mozart and Gluck have survived in the repertoire. I asked why a relative handful of works seem to transcend their period, a period whose sensibilities are far from our own. Why would someone born in 1990 identify with _The Marriage of Figaro,_ much less think it one of the greatest operas ever written? Why do numerous people today still have this opinion?
> 
> You've responded by asking _me_ questions. My questions stand. You go first.


My post offered you the answer to your question: millions of classical music lovers have had a similar subjective response to Bach's music, resulting in the opinion that he was a great composer - greater than his peers. The same process is true for all composers included in the classical music canon.

If you care to, now's the time for you to answer my question.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> The answers are always unvarying, always the same. There is a cluster, a consensus around the music of Bach because it appeals to more people--often due to lack of exposure to competing composers' works, which is often due to the positive feedback loops established in art appreciation where the "success" of the popular drives the further success of same at the expense of other options. This accounts in part for many of the bubbles of reverence and enthusiasm we encounter so often in the arts. I'm not complaining about it; it's just the way things are. Go Bach! He is The Man!


This is hopelessly weak and unproductive, not to mention basically tautological, and doesn't begin to account for the phenomenon in question. How many centuries have to pass before those "bubbles" of appreciation burst and people realize that humanity has been hoodwinked and that Salieri really _was_ the equal of Mozart? Don't hold your breath as you lie six feet under.


----------



## Woodduck

SanAntone said:


> My post offered you the answer to your question: millions of classical music lovers have had a similar subjective response to Bach's music, resulting in the opinion that he was a great composer - greater than his peers. The same process is true for all composers included in the classical music canon.
> 
> If you care to, now's the time for you to answer my question.


Sorry, but I asked _WHY _"millions of classical music lovers have had a similar subjective response to Bach's music, resulting in the opinion that he was a great composer - greater than his peers." Strange Magic just gave _his_ answer, which is equivalent to "because they have." Is that your answer too? What can we learn from such answers?


----------



## SanAntone

Woodduck said:


> Sorry, but I asked _WHY/I] "millions of classical music lovers have had a similar subjective response to Bach's music, resulting in the opinion that he was a great composer - greater than his peers." Strange Magic just gave his answer, which is equivalent to "because they have." Is that your answer too? What can we learn from such answers?_


_

No, my answer was contained in previous posts:

#1739
*Why do large numbers of people (classical music lovers) consider some composers great?*
Because classical music lovers share a certain taste in music, look for similar things, enjoy similar attributes in music. It should not be surprising that they would agree on the same composers as great.

#1734
*Why is Bach considered greater than Mompou?*
Because over a long period of time there have been many more classical music listeners subjectively consider Bach's music great, whereas this has not been the case with Mompou.

Just because there has been a large number of classical music listeners over a long period of time agree that Bach's music is great does not mean this is an objective statement. It is a collection of subjective judgments over a long period of time.

Before you assume I have ignored your questions, you might try to read my posts more carefully._


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> This is hopelessly weak and unproductive, not to mention basically tautological, and doesn't begin to account for the phenomenon in question. How many centuries have to pass before those "bubbles" of appreciation burst and people realize that humanity has been hoodwinked and that Salieri really _was_ the equal of Mozart? Don't hold your breath as you lie six feet under.


Actually, opinions about who or what is great in the arts evolve--they change, often slowly to be sure--you may have noticed this. The consensus changes; the opinions of the experts change. Kenneth Clark, who knew something about art, mentions this in the first chapter of _Civilization_, pointing out that the statue of the Apollo of the Belvedere was popular for 400 years yet today is "completely forgotten except by guides of coach parties". In the case of the Apollo, 400 years passed (you asked for a figure). In fact, the idea of the transience of the eternal greatness of art is quite a stable thing: _sic transit gloria_: you can pretty much count on it. Some art remains in vogue; much passes away, to become the province of the very few. It is futile (hopelessly weak and unproductive) to attempt to deny this.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> 2) in recognition that a composer has been considered among the greatest in the history of classical music.
> #2 is a statement attesting to an objective fact that a composer has been _considered_ great.


It's exactly what you've done with J.Haydn in this thread; stressing the "historical significance" rather than what you appreciate about his work.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> It's exactly what you've done with J.Haydn in this thread; stressing the "historical significance" rather than what you appreciate about his work.


You must have me confused with someone; I haven't posted anything about Haydn.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> Actually, opinions about who or what is great in the arts evolve--they change, often slowly to be sure--you may have noticed this. The consensus changes; the opinions of the experts change. Kenneth Clark, who knew something about art, mentions this in the first chapter of _Civilization_, pointing out that the statue of the Apollo of the Belvedere was popular for 400 years yet today is "completely forgotten except by guides of coach parties". In the case of the Apollo, 400 years passed (you asked for a figure). In fact, the idea of the transience of the eternal greatness of art is quite a stable thing: _sic transit gloria_: you can pretty much count on it. Some art remains in vogue; much passes away, to become the province of the very few. It is futile (hopelessly weak and unproductive) to attempt to deny this.


Yes, and that topic is frequently touched on at TC, including by me -- Reicha, Pleyel, Meyerbeer, Weber, Onslow, Thomas -- highly successful and respected in the 19th century, much less so, if not all but forgotten, today. Go back to the 18th century, and one could compile quite a long list.

That's why Bach or anyone else with a successful run of a century or more, even with a modest-sized audience, deserves a doff of the hat and a low bow for that alone. No need to claim any inherent, theoretical, unprovable source of greatness.

But we've covered all this ground before, Strange Magic. You demand proof of the existence of God. Your opponents demand you prove God does not exist, or say, God must exist! Look at all the churches! or, The most learned master theologians have determined that God exists!

We are supposed to put these debates behind us during our freshman year of college, so we can focus on more worthwhile pursuits, like drinking games. Enough. Let these poor souls out of their misery.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *fluteman:* "We are supposed to put these debates behind us during our freshman year of college, so we can focus on more worthwhile pursuits, like drinking games. Enough. Let these poor souls out of their misery."


i will, if they'll just stop posting their "refutations"! :lol:


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

The last section of my last comment has not been grasped:


' Version 1P statements, I believe, are the only legitimate, meaningful statements we can make of music using the word “better”.

To accept their legitimacy requires one to accept that qualities exist in music. This has been a point of contention, which is unfortunate.
To ask whether qualities “really exist” in the frequencies of the sound waves is to miss the point. A piece of music is not merely sound waves, or merely pitches, or chord progressions. It is the totality of the musical idea presented, which emerges from and is embedded within the human perception of reality. 
The properties of that idea can be debated, but to say that there are no such things as musical properties is something akin to saying that there is no such thing as characters or plot in a book, because they are created by the readers through contact with an arrangement of letters. There may be no characters in the physical pages of the book, but the book itself can only be understood as a narrative idea communicated through the arrangement of letters. Similarly the music is a musical idea which possesses properties, and is a valid grounds for 1P claims. '


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> Hough's opinion of Bach is not a "concession," and he is undoubtedly too good a musician to define "great" as "degree of esteem held by others." As for the "stuff" of a composer's work and "issues" one might have with it, your meaning is unclear.
> 
> Why is it so difficult to understand that we might perceive virtues in a work of art yet not care much for it? There are days when I have absolutely no taste for Bach. Do his compositions lose their brilliance on those days? Does he suddenly become a less accomplished composer than Biber? How many violinists, hearing the chaconnes/passacaglias for unaccompanied violin by both composers side by side, fail to recognize the greater richness of inspiration and cumulative force - both qualities composers aim for in a work in that form - of the Bach? Indeed, how many fail to respond even to the difference in the more specific emotional qualities projected by the two works? If you understand the style and idiom which the two composers share, you know that Bach has made more of it, but I'll also venture to say that the difference will be perceivable to many with little knowledge of that sort. I'm sure that Hough's knowledge of music provides him with the necessary frame of reference, but also suspect - though I don't know him - that his musical instincts in general provide him with a good basis for judgment.


I can't speak for anyone else and perhaps shouldn't have made any assumptions regarding Mr. Hough.

We know what Brahms thought:
_On one stave, for a small instrument, the man writes a whole world of the deepest thoughts and most powerful feelings. If I imagined that I could have created, even conceived the piece, I am quite certain that the excess of excitement and earth-shattering experience would have driven me out of my mind._

By way of contrast, here's Richard Bratby of The Spectator:
_Playing Bach, we're told, requires profound selflessness - though if you've ever witnessed a solo violinist hijacking an orchestral concert to saw through all 15 tortured minutes of the D minor Chaconne, you might call it something else entirely._


----------



## fluteman

Isaac Blackburn said:


> there is no such thing as characters or plot in a book, because they are created by the readers through contact with an arrangement of letters. '


Yes, very true. A book is nothing more but a bound stack of paper full of ink stains unless the author and reader have had a lot of common experiences and agreed to a whole lot of largely arbitrary conventions beforehand. Even then, it's a good bet that the reader won't see those characters and that plot exactly the way the author saw them, or they way any other reader sees them. Remember Somerset Maugham's comment: "The only important thing in a book is the meaning that it has for you."


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> You must have me confused with someone; I haven't posted anything about Haydn.


You have, twice actually:



SanAntone said:


> *Joseph Haydn*. Credited with single-handedly setting the standard for the Classical Period symphony, string quartet and piano trio. He was admired by both Mozart and Beethoven. Beethoven wished to study with him, and may have had a few lessons, but Haydn suggested he find someone more dedicated to teaching him, which Beethoven did. Mozart dedicated a group of string quartets to Haydn as a form of homage. Haydn lived a long life, mostly in the service of a single aristocratic employer, and was distant from the main centers of musical activity. However, he still managed to be widely known and respected all across Europe and England, where he was repeatedly invited for concert tours.


----------



## Woodduck

SanAntone said:


> No, my answer was contained in previous posts:
> 
> #1739
> *Why do large numbers of people (classical music lovers) consider some composers great?*
> Because classical music lovers share a certain taste in music, look for similar things, enjoy similar attributes in music. It should not be surprising that they would agree on the same composers as great.
> 
> #1734
> *Why is Bach considered greater than Mompou?*
> Because over a long period of time there have been many more classical music listeners subjectively consider Bach's music great, whereas this has not been the case with Mompou.
> 
> Just because there has been a large number of classical music listeners over a long period of time agree that Bach's music is great does not mean this is an objective statement. It is a collection of subjective judgments over a long period of time.
> 
> *Before you assume I have ignored your questions, you might try to read my posts more carefully.*


I'm reading your posts _very _carefully, and what I see is endless question-begging. The question stands: _WHY_ do "a large _[actually enormous]_ number of classical music listeners over a _[centuries-]_ long period of time agree that Bach's music is _[surpassingly]_ great"? Do you realize that three centuries is not merely a "long period of time" in the evolution of art? Art changes rapidly as times, cultures, sensibilities, fashions and tastes change. Music, popular and classical, sounds nothing at all like it did in 1721, it has gone through enormous changes which we all recognize, and even at a single moment in time it differs greatly from place to place. Yet some art persists through time and change, and people around the world - very different people of very different cultural origins - are still proclaiming J. S. Bach a composer of mind-boggling genius and are claiming to be powerfully moved and mesmerized by his music.

No explanations offered here explain anything at all. Unless we're willing to posit some kind of correspondence between the forms of art and basic functions and perceptions of human consciousness, we have no basis for understanding art, and all we can do is utter redundancies - certain people like or esteem Mozart because that particular group of people likes or esteems Mozart - and hope that no one notices that we haven't said anything.

I'm unwilling to dismiss or minimize experience in favor of theory. Any theory that fails to do justice to experience is at least suspect. The timeless, living enchantments of the beautifully rendered animals in the caves of prehistoric France, still amazing after 45,000 - _forty-five thousand_ - years, make all this chatter about "objectivity" and "subjectivity" sound like the dry rattling of prehistoric bones. So does the living experience of any artist who, in the process of creation, knows that excellence is a reality of which he tries to be worthy, and not someone's private acid trip.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> Yes, very true. A book is nothing more but a bound stack of paper full of ink stains unless the author and reader have had a lot of common experiences and agreed to a whole lot of largely arbitrary conventions beforehand. Even then, it's a good bet that the reader won't see those characters and that plot exactly the way the author saw them, or they way any other reader sees them. Remember Somerset Maugham's comment: "The only important thing in a book is the meaning that it has for you."


Here is a link to the 1851 reviews of _Moby-Dick_. A wide variety of reviews, only matched by those of readers responding to the book in Goodreads. My favorite novel ever, and its objective and singular greatness should have been and should continue to be obvious to all. 

https://bookmarks.reviews/the-original-1851-reviews-of-moby-dick/


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> Yes, very true. A book is nothing more but a bound stack of paper full of ink stains unless the author and reader have had a lot of common experiences and agreed to a whole lot of largely arbitrary conventions beforehand. Even then, it's a good bet that the reader won't see those characters and that plot exactly the way the author saw them, or they way any other reader sees them. Remember Somerset Maugham's comment: "The only important thing in a book is the meaning that it has for you."


Nothing, including art, has meaning or value outside a frame of reference or context. There appears to be an assumption that some people are claiming otherwise.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Woodduck:* "I'm unwilling to dismiss or minimize experience in favor of theory. Any theory that fails to do justice to experience is at least suspect. The timeless, living enchantments of the beautifully rendered animals in the caves of prehistoric France, still amazing after 45,000 - forty-five thousand - years, make all this chatter about "objectivity" and "subjectivity" sound like the dry rattling of prehistoric bones. So does the living experience of any artist who, in the process of creation, knows that excellence is a reality of which he tries to be worthy, and not someone's private acid trip.


Put me down as being in total agreement with the supremacy of personal experience over dry-as-dust and sterile esthetic theory. Experience is indeed the central reality of anyone's esthetic life and relationship to art. The notion of inherent excellence in art objects kills the idea of the individual's sense of agency and authenticity and validity in her/his interaction with art. The cave art of France and Spain, the objects in Tutankhamen's tomb, the novel _Moby Dick_ are wondrous things in the contemplation of those who find themselves the locks for whom those keys fit. Others literally say "meh". Not I, but some. Theory says they mustn't; practice says they can and do.


----------



## Ethereality

Woodduck said:


> Art changes rapidly as times, cultures, sensibilities, fashions and tastes change. Music, popular and classical, sounds nothing at all like it did in 1721, it has gone through enormous changes which we all recognize, and even at a single moment in time it differs greatly from place to place.


A lot of people who started listening to The Big 3 have done so because of (a) self-perpetuating popularity, where the big names just become more popular and the millions of uncommon names can't because they're not ingrained into how we culturally interpret music. This is from the beginning of our mental development. This is like arguing certain religions are better because they're more self-perpetuating and already popular. It has nothing to do with exploring truth. (b) It's also seen as cool or intelligent, for average minds, to read higher knowledge into part a and perpetuate it that way, you're not unique here in any regard, so I wouldn't be surprised if most people didn't like the Big 3 if they began somewhere else with a new set of criteria. There's so much bias in 300 years of this basic self-perpetuating tradition, it's practically stupid. Most people can read past this by claiming The Big 3 "not favorite," and the others, usually of very low estimation cognitively, are biased towards what they percieve as 'music', even though it's just 'pop Classical music.' I've missed the scientific paper that says 'this is advanced music.'


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Put me down as being in total agreement with the supremacy of personal experience over dry-as-dust and sterile esthetic theory.


"Total subjectivism," in art or anyting else, is as sterile a theory as any ever thought of. It can give birth to nothing at all. The recognition that subjectivity interacts with objective qualities is a necessary starting point for any understanding or productive discussion.



> Experience is indeed the central reality of anyone's esthetic life and relationship to art.


Of course. That says nothing about the nature or value of the experience.



> The notion of inherent excellence in art objects kills the idea of the individual's sense of agency and authenticity and validity in her/his interaction with art.


All it "kills" is egotism. Agency, authenticity, and the validity of one's feelings and perceptions remain intact and unassailable. Do you think that Maria Callas, who, working in an art form notoriously full of individuals infatuated with their own "agency," spoke consistently of the need to serve the composer, felt that her art or personal value was "killed" by her dedication to something larger than her "tastes"?



> The cave art of France and Spain, the objects in Tutankhamen's tomb, the novel _Moby Dick_ are wondrous things in the contemplation of those who find themselves the locks for whom those keys fit. Others literally say "meh". Not I, but some. Theory says they mustn't; practice says they can and do.


A misunderstanding you and others cling to. No theory says that anyone _must_ appreciate or like anything. Our differences are as real as the qualities of the art we differ about. Stephen Hough had it right when he admitted liking Mompou more than Bach, but affirmed that Bach was greater than Mompou. Wanna bet on Bach and Mompou agreeing?


----------



## ArtMusic

Ethereality said:


> A lot of people who started listening to The Big 3 have done so because of (a) self-perpetuating popularity, where the big names just become more popular and the millions of uncommon names can't because they're not ingrained into how we culturally interpret music. This is like arguing certain religions are better because they're more self-perpetuating and already popular. It has nothing to do with exploring truth. (b) It's also seen as cool or intelligent, for average minds, to read higher knowledge into part (a), you're not unique in any clear regard, so I wouldn't be surprised if most people didn't like the Big 3 if they began somewhere else with a new set of criteria. There's so much bias in 300 years of this basic self-perpetuating tradition, it's practically stupid. Most people can read past this by claiming The Big 3 "not favorite," and the others, practically of very low estimation cognitively, are maybe just biased.


Nobody forces themselves to listen to the "big 3". People don't listen to music they don't enjoy. The "big 3" are here to stay because they wrote good music that stood the test of times. I can understand why composers today might feel challenged by that but that's history and posterity. With the recording industry since the 1950's and professional musicians today that are trained and dedicated to only performance, competition with the past is here but new music today, albeit extremely diverse, is still being composed.


----------



## SanAntone

Woodduck said:


> I'm reading your posts _very _carefully, and what I see is endless question-begging. The question stands: _WHY_ do "a large _[actually enormous]_ number of classical music listeners over a _[centuries-]_ long period of time agree that Bach's music is _[surpassingly]_ great"? Do you realize that three centuries is not merely a "long period of time" in the evolution of art? Art changes rapidly as times, cultures, sensibilities, fashions and tastes change. Music, popular and classical, sounds nothing at all like it did in 1721, it has gone through enormous changes which we all recognize, and even at a single moment in time it differs greatly from place to place. Yet some art persists through time and change, and people around the world - very different people of very different cultural origins - are still proclaiming J. S. Bach a composer of mind-boggling genius and are claiming to be powerfully moved and mesmerized by his music.
> 
> No explanations offered here explain anything at all. Unless we're willing to posit some kind of correspondence between the forms of art and basic functions and perceptions of human consciousness, we have no basis for understanding art, and all we can do is utter redundancies - certain people like or esteem Mozart because that particular group of people likes or esteems Mozart - and hope that no one notices that we haven't said anything.
> 
> I'm unwilling to dismiss or minimize experience in favor of theory. Any theory that fails to do justice to experience is at least suspect. The timeless, living enchantments of the beautifully rendered animals in the caves of prehistoric France, still amazing after 45,000 - _forty-five thousand_ - years, make all this chatter about "objectivity" and "subjectivity" sound like the dry rattling of prehistoric bones. So does the living experience of any artist who, in the process of creation, knows that excellence is a reality of which he tries to be worthy, and not someone's private acid trip.


You are choosing to respond to my answer to you with a reductive non sequitur, "endless question-begging."

I provided a clear, and easy to understand, description of a process that occurred over a long period of time, i.e. 300 years, explaining why Bach's music has been admired throughout this time.

You have offered nothing to challenge what I wrote, at least not directly.



> people around the world - very different people of very different cultural origins - are still proclaiming J. S. Bach a composer of mind-boggling genius"


The vast majority of the people who fit this description are classical music lovers, about 1% of the music market. You refer to people from "very different cultural origins" - who are you describing? West Africans? They have their own music which they cherish, and I don't think many of them prefer Bach. How much West African griot music do you cherish?

There may be a few people in Africa or other non-western cultures who have been educated in the west and who have been exposed to Bach - but they are a minority.

The same is true for rap fans, or blues fans, or pop fans, or any of those who prefer music other than classical. Are you under the impression that 1% of the global music market is grossly underestimated? It's not, look it up.

99% of people who consume music are not consuming Bach.

It is my belief that the vast majority of the people who are "powerfully moved and mesmerized" by Bach's music are in the west and primarily listen to classical music, that 1%. The same people for 300 years.


----------



## Ethereality

ArtMusic said:


> Nobody forces themselves to listen to the "big 3". People don't listen to music they don't enjoy.


Not always true, the elitist mindsets (as they populate and multiply themselves) continue perpetuating it for others like religion, but otherwise this point entirely ignores what I said.


----------



## SanAntone

ArtMusic said:


> Nobody forces themselves to listen to the "big 3". People don't listen to music they don't enjoy.


That's right. And only a tiny fraction of people listen to the Big 3. Many, vastly many more people listen to rap, hip-hop, country, pop ...


----------



## Woodduck

SanAntone said:


> You are choosing to respond to my answer to you with a reductive non sequitur, "endless question-begging."
> 
> I provided a clear, and easy to understand, description of a process that occurred over a long period of time, i.e. 300 years, explaining why Bach's music has been admired throughout this time.
> 
> You have offered nothing to challenge what I wrote, at least not directly.
> 
> The vast majority of the people who fit this description are classical music lovers, about 1% of the music market. You refer to people from "very different cultural origins" - who are you describing? West Africans? They have their own music which they cherish, and I don't think many of them prefer Bach. How much West African griot music do you cherish?
> 
> There may be a few people in Africa or other non-western cultures who have been educated in the west and who have been exposed to Bach - but they are a minority.
> 
> The same is true for rap fans, or blues fans, or pop fans, or any of those who prefer music other than classical. Are you under the impression that 1% of the global music market is grossly underestimated? It's not, look it up.
> 
> 99% of people who consume music are not consuming Bach.
> 
> It is my belief that the vast majority of the people who are "powerfully moved and mesmerized" by Bach's music are in the west and primarily listen to classical music, that 1%. The same people for 300 years.


Your "explanation" of WHY - or HOW, if you prefer - art can continue to exert its fascination and power for centuries or millennia doesn't explain anything at all, but since you're convinced it does I'll have to let it go.

The vast majority of humanity doesn't know the music of Bach - or any other composer or artist - so why should their opinion of him be relevant? This is another question that's been asked before but has received no satisfactory answer. Things have meaning only with reference to a frame of reference or context. The fact that people with no context for appreciating Bach's achievement don't appreciate it tells us nothing about Bach's achievement.


----------



## Ethereality

The vast majority doesn't know anything about Krishna either. Illustrating it this way should indicate that the religion of music elitism should also be banned from discussion boards. We can all admit some music is more critically acclaimed. However these discussions of 'true greatness' have only ever been offensive and destructive.


----------



## superhorn

Actually, sound travels very well under water . The aliens would find human music baffling, but possibly interesting . They have no frame of reference, no context in listening to human music . It would be necessary to explain human music to them if it were possible for us to decode and translate their language, if they had a language comparable to human ones .


----------



## SanAntone

Woodduck said:


> Your "explanation" of WHY - or HOW, if you prefer - art can continue to exert its fascination and power for centuries or millennia doesn't explain anything at all, but since you're convinced it does I'll have to let it go.


I guess you expect me to accept your explanation instead. Well, I don't agree with you and you have presented no argument to my specific points.



> The vast majority of humanity doesn't know the music of Bach - or any other composer or artist - so why should their opinion of him be relevant? This is another question that's been asked before but has received no satisfactory answer. Things have meaning only with reference to a frame of reference or context. The fact that people with no context for appreciating Bach's achievement don't appreciate it tells us nothing about Bach's achievement.


I don't deny Bach's achievement. If I understand your opinion correctly, you think his achievement indicates objective data inherent in his music which listeners, any listener, cannot help but appreciate as greatness no matter their culture or affinity for classical music.

My view is that Bach's music appealed to those listeners with a natural affinity for classical music and whose taste preferred those attributes inherent in Bach's music, as well as other classical composers. Those people outside the west with little or no exposure to western classical music would most likely not appreciate Bach's music since it is foreign to their culture.

I base my view on the historical fact that during Bach's lifetime (and after) what we call classical music was only available to the aristocracy/nobility/church and which throughout successive periods has primarily been the music of the upper classes. (Various forms of vernacular music was what the lower classes had available to them.)

This classical music audience is a small, rarefied, group with a similar cultural orientation and taste, hence the music of Bach has been perpetuated by this self-selected audience across several centuries.

I deny the existence of objective appreciation of music and that the appreciation of music is entirely a subjective process, but which over time has created a consensus which takes on the appearance (an illusion) of objectivity.


----------



## SanAntone

For almost the entire history of classical music it was unknown outside of Europe. It has only been with the advent of global transcommunication that cultural cross-pollination has expanded exponentially. By the time the mid-20th century arrived Bach's reputation was solidified and codified in the canon and Bach as a great composer was grandfathered into the Chinese, Japanese, and other non-western cultures as a priori fact.

There was no independent process of evaluation, they accepted the greatness of Bach, Beethoven, and the rest whole cloth.


----------



## fluteman

Ethereality said:


> The vast majority doesn't know anything about Krishna either. Illustrating it this way should indicate that the religion of music elitism should also be banned from discussion boards. We can all admit some music is more critically acclaimed. However these discussions of 'true greatness' have only ever been offensive and destructive.


It's tough for the rationalists when it comes to both art and science. The latter, for obvious reasons. Cling to rationalism and deny empiricism, and one becomes a flat earther, having to invent increasingly implausible stories to explain phenomena that make it more and more apparent that the earth is not flat, rather (approximately) spherical. Art is even tougher, since by definition it is made to appeal to our subjective imagination and sensual perceptions that are unique to each of us.

The most foolish comments I've seen in this thread are along the lines of, Bach is the learned master, and we must learn from him. Bach himself was under no such arrogant misconception, and well knew the truth is exactly the opposite. We the audience are the masters, and Bach like all artists was a servant, having to sensitively gauge his audience and anticipate audiences of the future.

Of course, Bach had an already extensive musical tradition behind him, and illustrious contemporaries, and was thoroughly familiar with all of that, so he was starting with a large store of experience. Also, he and his audience had important shared sources of values, not least the Lutheran church. Still, every artist has to find his own path to the audience, and uncertainty is always a factor. Success with that audience never can be explained or guaranteed based on art's inherent attributes.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Nothing, including art, has meaning or value outside a frame of reference or context. There appears to be an assumption that some people are claiming otherwise.


It isn't just an assumption. You assume art has meaning outside a frame of reference, for example when you say:



Woodduck said:


> Whether Bach was a great composer and composed superb fugues has nothing to do with whether you or I enjoy Bach or fugues


----------



## science

It's hard to tell what some of the posts mean, but it looks like "radical subjectivism" is being assumed to be something like solipsistic and arbitrary. 

Of course it's neither. First of all, there is our common humanity: our brains aren't exactly the same, so there are differences, but however differently you and I experience a passage from Bach, our experiences are much more similar to each other than to a dog's experience of it. 

But besides, we know we are shaped by our environment and experiences. In a discussion where nearly everyone is intimately familiar with the historical development the western tradition, that should be obvious. Almost all of us know we don't hear the music of the 13th, 16th, or 19th centuries the way it was heard in its own time. Almost all of us are also familiar with a variety of non-western music, from Indian classical music to gamelan to African drumming, and we are almost certainly aware that we don't hear any of that the way someone from those cultures would. Everyone on this board, despite our differences, has been shaped by hearing a lot of the same music, from nursery rhymes and lullabies in our infancy onward. Of course we haven't heard exactly the same music, haven't learned exactly the same things about it, so we will be aware of different elements and feel differently about them, but we will also have quite a bit of overlap. 

These differences and overlappings will occur both at the superficial level of "liking" and at the deeper levels of appreciating elements like skill. 

There probably are some things that would impress any human being, regardless of their background, and there are other things that require a great deal of specific education and particular experience to appreciate. Probably all of us can sometimes identify something that, although we don't like or appreciate it, we know that many other people would, or that many people who we respect would, so that we can regard it as "excellent" no matter how we feel about it. 

And of course when the values are shared by many people, or even just by many people who we respect, they can feel objective, and no doubt if we don't know enough about human cultural diversity or psychology we can even regard them as such. When we're striving to create something that would be appreciated by other people, we must feel that we are striving to meet something like an objective standard in that it is a standard outside of our own preferences -- but again, even nine billion shared subjectivities does not equal objectivity. 

Radical subjectivity is just a matter of understanding what tastes and preferences and values actually are. It has some significant political ramifications in that supposedly objective canons of aesthetics have been used to assert the superiority of some people over others, and some posts even in this thread appear to be attempting to continue that tradition, but it has very little significance for the actual creation or appreciation of art. We all still find ourselves operating within specific cultural contexts where some things are valued more than others, no matter how we feel about them.


----------



## Ethereality

Excellent" or "great" still aren't the correct words to use. You must say they are "widely acclaimed" or "great at appealing to people." If you claim "Beethoven was great" I'm afraid you'll meet with much opposition by people who don't believe that, _moreover_, if you talk about your favorite composers and others say "sorry this composer was never great. I don't know where you're coming from" I think they'll be offending almost anyone who reads that who has even an inch of empathy. The term used like such, similar to religious ganging up, should be entirely banned from such discussion boards. It's never okay to say "but y composer is simply greater," when people always post music that actually matters deeply to them. You are being self-centered towards your mainstream group of tastes and are harming many people.

I know many have left here even though they're passionate about Classical music, that's why the forum is (a) less diverse than it was 10 years ago, and (b) still as argumentative, because these subjective arguments never go anywhere or decide anything.

We're not arguing anything. We're telling you you need to tone down disparaging people (who probably have stronger opinions than your light and self-perpetuating popularity sample. I can turn on my radio and hear The Big 3 right now. Why would I do that, and let popularity bias shape my understanding of the world.) Did famous composers have _stronger_ opinions on who they liked? We have no idea. People _here_ do. Treat their schools of learning with acceptance.


----------



## Luchesi

Isaac Blackburn said:


> The last section of my last comment has not been grasped:
> 
> ' Version 1P statements, I believe, are the only legitimate, meaningful statements we can make of music using the word "better".
> 
> To accept their legitimacy requires one to accept that qualities exist in music. This has been a point of contention, which is unfortunate.
> To ask whether qualities "really exist" in the frequencies of the sound waves is to miss the point. A piece of music is not merely sound waves, or merely pitches, or chord progressions. It is the totality of the musical idea presented, which emerges from and is embedded within the human perception of reality.
> The properties of that idea can be debated, but to say that there are no such things as musical properties is something akin to saying that there is no such thing as characters or plot in a book, because they are created by the readers through contact with an arrangement of letters. There may be no characters in the physical pages of the book, but the book itself can only be understood as a narrative idea communicated through the arrangement of letters. Similarly the music is a musical idea which possesses properties, and is a valid grounds for 1P claims. '


If I can compose something like it in a short time it's not great.

If I can't in a million years, it's great.


----------



## Strange Magic

My thesis of total subjectivity is not meant to give birth to anything. It is simply a description of reality, of how people actually relate to music and art. There is no "program", no goal toward which I advance. I merely say what is self-evident, with no recourse to any sort of philosophical idealism.



> *Woodduck:* "A misunderstanding you and others cling to. No theory says that anyone must appreciate or like anything. Our differences are as real as the qualities of the art we differ about. Stephen Hough had it right when he admitted liking Mompou more than Bach, but affirmed that Bach was greater than Mompou. Wanna bet on Bach and Mompou agreeing?


No theory put forward here on TC in this thread has stated explicitly that "anyone must appreciate or like anything". Yet the idealism of the notion of inherent excellence all but stipulates that all who are not diseased should sense the excellence and respond to it like iron filings drawn to a magnet. Consider: you and I may adore the Lascaux art and Bach and _Moby Dick_, thus demonstrating our exquisite taste. Mister X loves the art of Thomas Kinkade, the songs of Rihanna, and _Spiderman_. My notion is that we are all capable of having valid, authentic, even profound relationships with the art of our choosing, free of the suspicion--real or imagined--that we are not "good enough" for our preferences (aside from the almost universal impulse among some to almost reflexively look down our noses at the choices of others.) We're not talking about people ruining their lives with drugs or gambling; we are discussing people finding joy, pleasure, solace in the art they find fulfilling for themselves. They are good enough for it, and it for them.


----------



## Luchesi

superhorn said:


> Actually, sound travels very well under water . The aliens would find human music baffling, but possibly interesting . They have no frame of reference, no context in listening to human music . It would be necessary to explain human music to them if it were possible for us to decode and translate their language, if they had a language comparable to human ones .


The harmonic series is the same on other planets and moons..


----------



## Woodduck

SanAntone said:


> .I don't deny Bach's achievement.


I'm glad to hear it.



> If I understand your opinion correctly, you think his achievement indicates objective data inherent in his music *which listeners, any listener, cannot help but appreciate as greatness no matter their culture or affinity for classical music. *


I don't know where you got the idea that I believe that ANY listener should appreciate anything, especially since I just got done saying the opposite, and have done so before (posts 1769 and 1777). I've remarked a number of times that universal appreciation of anything is inconceivable, and that the absence of it is therefore not evidence for a totally subjectivist aesthetic theory.



> My view is that Bach's music appealed to those listeners with a natural affinity for classical music and whose taste preferred those attributes inherent in Bach's music, as well as other classical composers. Those people outside the west with little or no exposure to western classical music would most likely not appreciate Bach's music since it is foreign to their culture.


Do we know exactly how much people with little or no exposure to any art can appreciate its qualities? I'd say there are too many variables to test this effectively, and that it's obvious that some will have a greater appreciation than others. Consider the fact that at some point everyone, regardless of background, encounters any particular music for the first time, and that some people do seem to "get it" quickly and to a remarkable extent while others never do. I try neither to over- nor under-estimate the influence of personal experience in the perception or enjoyment of art's qualities.



> I base my view on the historical fact that during Bach's lifetime (and after) what we call classical music was only available to the aristocracy/nobility/church and which throughout successive periods has primarily been the music of the upper classes. (Various forms of vernacular music was what the lower classes had available to them.)
> 
> This classical music audience is a small, rarefied, group with a similar cultural orientation and taste, hence the music of Bach has been perpetuated by this self-selected audience across several centuries.


You're lumping an extraordinary number and variety of human beings under that small, rarefied, self-selected group. I'm quite certain that when I was first amazed by the Brandenburg Concertos and the Art of Fugue I didn't belong to a group like that. I was just a kid fascinated by music, mainly of Romantic vintage, and Bach's synthesis of counterpoint with rich harmony and control of overall structure was a revelation and an education. Maybe you'd say that my ability to hear and be amazed by that made me "rarefied"?



> I deny the existence of objective appreciation of music and that the appreciation of music is entirely a subjective process, but which over time has created a consensus which takes on the appearance (an illusion) of objectivity.


The appreciation of music is certainly a subjective process, in that it happens inside the subjective space of our minds. ALL perception is subjective in that strict sense. Whether what we perceive is intrinsically remarkable and worthy of praise is a different question, but the constant resort to the terms "subjective" and "objective" tends to obscure the difference and leave us with the absurd notion that Bach or Wagner are great artists only by virtue of being called that by people who enjoy them. The support for this idea, an idea contradicted constantly by the actual experience of people who know or sense what astonishing things those artists have achieved in the larger context of human achievement, rests ultimately on an inability or unwillingness to recognize the unique nature of aesthetic perception, and on the denial that anything can be known that can't be proved by scientific methods. The limitations of this epistemological view are too much for me to want to deal with here (and probably beyond my ability to deal with well at all), but suffice to say that as beings possessing life and consciousness who cannot explain how such beings even came to exist, we ought to be humble enough in what we consider our knowledge of reality to admit that there are, as Hamlet said to Horatio, "more things in heaven and earth...than are dreamt of in your philosophy."


----------



## Zhdanov

SanAntone said:


> only a tiny fraction of people listen to the Big 3. Many, vastly many more people listen to rap, hip-hop, country, pop ...


so what? does it mean what?

most people are stupid or have no talent for listening to music, right?


----------



## Zhdanov

SanAntone said:


> For almost the entire history of classical music it was unknown outside of Europe.


for almost entire world history, best things were reserved for aristocracy, now some of them are there for anyone to have, depends on if you have abilities to grasp these best things, or you remain what you are to thus prove they are wasted on you.


----------



## Zhdanov

fluteman said:


> Cling to rationalism and deny empiricism, and one becomes a flat earther,


i suggest we cling to *common sense*, which says that some are better than others, case closed.


----------



## Woodduck

Zhdanov said:


> for almost entire world history, best things were reserved for aristocracy, now some of them are there for anyone to have, depends on if you have abilities to grasp these best things, or you remain what you are to thus prove they are wasted on you.


Brutal, but to an uncomfortable degree true. Also very un-PC; nowadays we grade everyone and everything on a curve - or, as here, eliminate grades altogether - so that we can show that we are "democratic" and so that everyone can have lots of self-esteem. You want to learn to draw like the masters? Why? Don't you know that all you need to do is express yourself? No one truly postmodern will dare suggest that you don't deserve a show at the MOMA.


----------



## science

It's really humbling to find myself in the presence of so many counts and dukes.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> ... the actual experience of people who know or sense what astonishing things those artists have achieved in the larger context of human achievement, rests ultimately on an inability or unwillingness to recognize the unique nature of aesthetic perception, and on the denial that anything can be known that can't be proved by scientific methods. The limitations of this epistemological view are too much for me to want to deal with here (and probably beyond my ability to deal with well at all), but suffice to say that as beings possessing life and consciousness who cannot explain how such beings even came to exist, we ought to be humble enough in what we consider our knowledge of reality to admit that there are, as Hamlet said to Horatio, "more things in heaven and earth...than are dreamt of in your philosophy."


So aesthetic values are not subjective because some people's subjective experience [something something something].

But what is this "more" than we dream of in our philosophies? What's the nature of it?

I mean, before I'm actually going to concede that you and Zhdanov and ArtMusic are great masters before whom I and basically everyone else must grovel, I need to understand the reasons a little better.


----------



## Jacck

Woodduck said:


> Brutal, but to an uncomfortable degree true. Also very un-PC; nowadays we grade everyone and everything on a curve - or, as here, eliminate grades altogether - so that we can show that we are "democratic" and so that everyone can have lots of self-esteem. You want to learn to draw like the masters? Why? Don't you know that all you need to do is express yourself? No one truly postmodern will dare suggest that you don't deserve a show at the MOMA.


there is likely some truth to this. I know some people who studied in the USA (exchange programs for high school, or university) and they said that probably the biggest difference to the Czech education system was that in the US, they were constantly praised by the teachers for even totally average or subaverage performance. I don't know if this tendency to dismantle the performance based evaluation system stems from the identity politics and the very politically uncomfortable fact that some social groups perform much worse on the tests than some other groups, or some other misguided ideology. But I am sure that this ideology is detrimental to the education system and to the society as a whole. Some people so desperately want to pretend that all people are equal.


----------



## Woodduck

Jacck said:


> there is likely some truth to this. I know some people who studied in the USA (exchange programs for high school, or university) and they said that probably the biggest difference to the Czech education system was that in the US, they were constantly praised by the teachers for even totally average or subaverage performance. I don't know if this tendency to dismantle the performance based evaluation system stems from the identity politics and the very politically uncomfortable fact that some social groups perform much worse on the tests than some other groups, or some other misguided ideology. But I am sure that this ideology is detrimental to the education system and to the society as a whole. Some people so desperately want to pretend that all people are equal.


Of course there are those who want to pretend that people are unequal, for reasons that have nothing to do with either personal merit or basic humanity. Let's try to avoid both traps.


----------



## Ethereality

science said:


> I mean, before I'm actually going to concede that you and Zhdanov and ArtMusic are great masters before whom I and basically everyone else must grovel,* I need to understand the reasons a little better.*


You never will. Such reasons of one who can't achieve greatness themselves, are only meant to deceive, until they find their answer.


----------



## Jacck

Woodduck said:


> Of course there are those who want to pretend that people are unequal, for reasons that have nothing to do with either personal merit or basic humanity. Let's try to avoid both traps.


the word equal is like the word great or the word freedom, very vague. Of course people should be equal in their rights, and I am fully for equality of chances (and helping all people to achieve the same starting line), but I am absolutely against equality of outcome. (that is communism)


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> So aesthetic values are not subjective because some people's subjective experience [something something something].
> 
> But what is this "more" than we dream of in our philosophies? What's the nature of it?
> 
> *I mean, before I'm actually going to concede that you and Zhdanov and ArtMusic are great masters before whom I and basically everyone else must grovel, I need to understand the reasons a little better.*


You are not expected to concede, grovel, or understand. Since you seem to think that everything knowable is provable - whether by equations, syllogisms, or the presumption that when we all look at the same tree we're seeing exactly the same thing (never mind that that is an unprovable assumption), it's clear that any statement to the contrary must be false by definition and will elicit only more snark from you. I don't like being addressed snarkily, particularly by those who make a habit of it, so I'll simply state what I believe and you can do with it either something or nothing, as you prefer.


----------



## Woodduck

Jacck said:


> the word equal is like the word great or the word freedom, very vague. Of course people should be equal in their rights, and I am fully for equality of chances (and helping all people to achieve the same starting line), but I am absolutely against equality of outcome. (that is communism)


I want to avoid politics here.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> Since you seem to think that everything knowable is provable - whether by equations, syllogisms, or the presumption that when we all look at the same tree we're seeing exactly the same thing (never mind that that is an unprovable assumption), it's clear that any statement to the contrary must be false by definition and will elicit only more snark from you. I don't like being addressed snarkily, particularly by those who make a habit of it, so I'll simply state what I believe and you can do with it either something or nothing, as you prefer.


I don't actually think that _anything_ is provable if we're going to adopt radical doubt, but in the absence of any kind of evidence or reason, I'm not prepared to acknowledge the claims you make about how much better your clique's tastes are than the rest of humanity's.

I can't stop you from looking down on us, but I don't have to stop reminding you that we don't see it the same way you do.


----------



## Zhdanov

science said:


> in the presence of so many counts and dukes.


one may hate them all he wants, but why deny oneself some of their privileges; to reject available treasures just because of personal hatred for those who once owned them?


----------



## Eclectic Al

Some definitions from typing words into Google:

_a priori:_
relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience
_objective:_
(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts
_subjective:_
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions
_great:_
of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above average

I post the definition of a priori because some have being posting on the basis that objective means a priori. For example, when I stated that I looked at a red wall, painted it green, and then had a green wall, I was told in one post that the wall was not then a green wall "objectively". It appeared that the poster was using objective to mean something which had to be a quality of a wall by virtue of its "wallness"; ie some sort of a priori matter. Others posters seem to drift close to this on occasion.

*Well, objective does not mean a priori.*

We then turn to objective. You will see that the definition involves a person and it involves judgement.
The person must attempt to put their feelings and opinions to one side and apply judgement (as far as possible) aside from those.
Subjective, as defined, is not (I hope) too controversial.

Before looking at great, I would just note that if great is taken to relate to personal liking then the concept of objectively great becomes an oxymoron. Some here seem to believe that, but it is because they are linking greatness with liking. So does the word great have anything to do with liking.

The definition of great is pretty bland: "considerably above average". In the case of music we are probably thinking about quality, whereas with composers we might be talking about eminence. Let's stick with music, as we might agree  that a great composer is one who composed great works, so the music has to come first.

So to talk about objective greatness in music we must meaningfully look at its qualities and then apply our human judgement to those, removing our personal feelings (to the extent that we can) in order to determine if the particular piece of work is above average in quality. That does not (a priori ) sound impossible. It may become impossible if the "to the extent that we can" caveat is not permitted. However, I think that would be an absurd demand to place on any human judgement.

Now in looking at qualities we are going to have to consider what are the characteristics that the piece is seeking to achieve. Take a fugue. There are rules about fugues (as I understand it; not my field). So we look at a particular fugue and consider whether it deviates from, or fulfils, the requirements of being a fugue. One which is considerably above average in its fulfilment of the rules, and failure to deviate from them, is a great fugue. This can be an objective statement, as long as I (do my best to) eliminate my personal preferences. (Perhaps I could write a computer program to implement the rules, and just run that.) I think the above demonstrates (especially if I can write my program) that it may well be possible to assess whether a fugue is objectively great - as a fugue.

However, I think we are also looking for more. We want great music to mean something more than slavish adherence to rules. I think it is as this point that the two groups in this thread part company.

Group A think that it is acceptable to bring into the picture reference to group views, and Group B thinks that is not acceptable.

Group A would see no problem in looking at, say, whether a piece of music has been regarded for a long time by those who are interested in the field as a particularly high quality example of that type of music, and using that as an objective fact which they can allow for in forming their judgement of the quality of the piece, and so judging whether it is great. Indeed, they might then use this as a prompt to see if they can find what these pieces have in common. We are in empirical territory.

Group B would say that to accept the line above would be to take a load of subjective opinions and claim that they provide a basis for an objective assessment of the piece of music. They think that aggregating subjective impressions cannot be claimed to lead to objective conclusions.

My sympathies are with Group A. A quality of a piece of music is surely how it prompt reactions in humans exposed to it. This is just as the quality of a physical object might be weight, which can be assessed by how it prompts a reaction in a scale on which it is placed. Humans assess the quality of music (who or what else could?); scales assess weight. Observing the behaviour of humans in their responses to music can be done objectively. I see no problem whatsoever, therefore, with defining a quality of music by reference to observations of human behaviour, taking objective readings of that behaviour, and then judging whether they imply that the work is great, regardless of one's own feelings about that particular piece. I can then say that Piece A is great and Piece B is not great, as objective empirical statements about those pieces, but I owe it to you to state how I am defining great. You might subjectively disagree with my definition of great, but that's fine. The objectivity is in the assessment of greatness, not in the definition of great. This seems to me to be an entirely human endeavour. Indeed, it is laudable, because it involves a degree of humility. I accept input from others, because I am looking at things objectively.

The line of attack which Group B should pursue is not to deny that music can be considered great objectively by some sort of grammatical or logical argument. (It clearly can, according to the meaning of the words.) What they should be investigating is the qualities of "music". To say that a piece of music is great music (as opposed to being a great fugue as a fugue) means that you first need to define what is music, then determine what are (positive) qualities of it as music, and then judge the piece by reference to those qualities. This becomes a debate to agree terms, to agree the meanings of music and great. The objective/subjective point is a side issue. Group B needs to define what "great" means to them in a way which is not vulnerable to the private language problem with beetles in boxes.

Going back to Google we have:

_music_
vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion.

I would be happy with the above definition, and then would believe that you could reasonably take a piece of music and look for qualities in it which would indicate that it complies with the above definition. In that, I think it would be reasonable to ask people with an interest in the topic for opinions and use their responses as objective evidence.

Music is great because people judge that it is (- how else could it be great?). I don't think, though, that by that they mean just that they like it. I think that demeans people, and I believe that they are more discerning than that. I think they mean that it represents an exemplar of a particular type of artistic endeavour, exhibiting the achievement of that endeavour to a much greater than average extent. It has nothing to do with whether I like it, although I am more likely to be able to apply non-arbitrary judgements in relation to things that I have an interest in, and I am more likely (perhaps) to like those.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> I don't actually think that _anything_ is provable if we're going to adopt radical doubt, but in the absence of any kind of evidence or reason, I'm not prepared to acknowledge the claims you make about how much better your clique's tastes are than *the rest of humanity's.*
> 
> I can't stop you from looking down on *us,* but I don't have to stop reminding you that *we* don't see it the same way you do.


On _us?_ Who's included in "us"? Who is this "we"? Have the others agreed to have you speak for them? Are there many of them? Do they really include "the rest of humanity"? How have I managed to miss the fact that everyone but me agrees with you? I guess I need to get out more.

Look, we'd all be better off if you'd avoid addressing me at all, since you've proven that you can't do it without disparagement and mockery. There is no pleasant way of dealing with it, and unlike you I'm not attracted to unpleasantness. Have some manners please.


----------



## science

Zhdanov said:


> one may hate them all he wants, but why deny oneself some of their privileges; to reject available treasures just because of personal hatred for those who once owned them?


You might be surprised to learn that I too enjoy the arts of the past.


----------



## Art Rock

*Thread closed for now.*

There is too much one on one discussion going on in heated terms. Yesterday we already had to delete a complete set of posts to and fro, and it looks like soon we will head the same way.

See this as a cool down period, until we re-open the thread.


----------

