# Sitting in judgment



## Guest (Oct 10, 2011)

Metaphors can reveal a lot about how we think and behave, especially the unconscious ones. Two common ones in classical music discussions seem particularly revealing. One is judicial, one is academic. The judicial one (which could also be called the contest one) is more overt, often using the words "judge" and "judgment." The academic one is the one invoked with expressions like "test of time" or "what piece/performer/composer passes X or Y test?"

In the one, the music or musician is in the dock, awaiting the pronouncement of the judge. In the other, the music or musician is a student, awaiting the grade of the teacher. In both, the music has to prove itself, has to plead its case, has to demonstrate somehow to a skeptical audience that it's worthy of said audience's attention. And in both, the listener is in a rather peculiar position of superiority over the music, either professor or judge.

I'm not sure that's an altogether healthy state of affairs. I'm even pretty sure that it's backwards. I remember reading somewhere that we don't judge great works of art; great works of art judge us. And while I question the question-begging "great" in that saying, I do think it describes a better situation. 

If the listener assumes the superiority of judge or professor, then the likeliest result will be arrogance, and I think that that is exactly what we do see in post after post in online discussions (and in comment after comment in intermissions at symphony concerts as well). But even more than that, the assumed superiority inhibits exploration and openness. If our opinions about things are correct, then we never have to question them. And we are never able to understand the validity of opinions that differ from our own. Indeed, how could they be valid? They are simply wrong.

One thing is sure. Discussions will never get beyond a certain point, will circle endlessly around the same clusters of prejudices, until we question the way of thinking that has us in a superior position to the art we say we love. What's more, I don't think we will ever truly understand, enjoy, appreciate the arts until we get past that assumption of superiority. Until we do, the arts are merely our servants, there to do our bidding, to massage our egos, to satisfy our wants.

Probably I'm just expressing my own desires, but truly, I would rather be engaged than cossetted. I would rather feel that the arts are pulling me up to their level, not that I am already above them, dispensing accolades and opprobrium.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

So what do you think of professional art critiques? Folks who make a living by going to many art functions, maybe even all corners of the globe, attending exhibitions/concerts and writing reviews for a living? We have all read "nice" reviews and "not so nice" reviews.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Similarly, a perpetual inferiority complex and/or desire to be anything _but_ mainstream leads to this need to invert things that either aren't damaged to begin with; only require a slight change; or actually do not exist except in small minorities.

I don't know who you think honestly lives out that metaphor in the terms you've described it - you may _feel_ that certain descriptions on this forum come across as Judgemental, but, even in most of those cases where people can be admittedly arrogant (usually because they are zealous about their particular passions), it is not because they feel music _serves_ them.

And nor should we serve music. Nor should we put it on a pedestal to be worshipped and aspired to, dreamed of, and hoped that we might attain some intangible glory it has.

Music and any art is there to be engaged with; to be equal with. Any composition (even satirical or otherwise laughable ones) should be respected (or at least accepted) as genuine attempts to add to a wider cultural experience of music, but part of that experience is the audience taking it on, listening, appraising, and, in many cases, rejecting.

So, in opposition to the OP, I think some people ought to respect _the judgement of listeners_ a lot more. People should be able to say what they intuitively (or, if appropriate, intellectually) feel about a piece of music without fear of thinking that they _should_ like or admire it because all art is Hallowed.

Even the most uneducated people can have a valid opinion about John Cage because music doesn't exist in a vacuum. Its existence and evolution depends and thrives on our reaction to it.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

One of your best I've read, Polednice. Keep it up.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Well, the original post, "sitting in judgement" shaded by the contradictory input of Polednice has basically changed to sitting in either purely judgemental or non judgemental ideals. Not saying we should all be perfectly middle ground, its just that I like to waver from time to time, I'm not always going to have an open mind, nor a closed one, but I will reach those extremes from time to time for a varied perspective.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I want to steer clear of these debates, they always lead to the same type of things which inevitably get personal.

But here are some comments (I'm trying to restrain myself here from becoming too ranting) -



some guy said:


> ...
> If the listener assumes the superiority of judge or professor, then the likeliest result will be arrogance, and I think that that is exactly what we do see in post after post in online discussions (and in comment after comment in intermissions at symphony concerts as well). But even more than that, the assumed superiority inhibits exploration and openness...


It's good that you're not limiting the discussion to contemporary classical music here because the issues you raise are much wider. Many of you know how I've mentioned here the recent fiasco, this year, when a number of members in the audience walked out of a performance of Mahler's _Symphony #9_ here in Australia. It would probably be accurate for me to say that these people were indeed acting in a rude way, and I'd add that they were arrogant and negatively judging as well. Same on these online forums, you get these composers or musicians who are whipping boys and you get others that are sacred cows.



> ...
> If our opinions about things are correct, then we never have to question them. And we are never able to understand the validity of opinions that differ from our own. Indeed, how could they be valid? They are simply wrong...


I don't understand this, I am not being smart but it's rather convoluted. If you can explain what you are saying in simpler English that would be good, thanks.



Polednice said:


> ...
> And nor should we serve music. Nor should we put it on a pedestal to be worshipped and aspired to, dreamed of, and hoped that we might attain some intangible glory it has...


These are my thoughts, pretty much.



> ...
> Music and any art is there to be engaged with; to be equal with. Any composition (even satirical or otherwise laughable ones) should be respected (or at least accepted) as genuine attempts to add to a wider cultural experience of music, but part of that experience is the audience taking it on, listening, appraising, and, in many cases, rejecting...


Ditto. It's about engagement for me. If something doesn't engage me, I kind of tune out, I'm not there mentally. I don't "live" the music, it becomes boring and not exciting.



> ...
> So, in opposition to the OP, I think some people ought to respect _the judgement of listeners_ a lot more. People should be able to say what they intuitively (or, if appropriate, intellectually) feel about a piece of music without fear of thinking that they _should_ like or admire it because all art is Hallowed...


Yes but making statements claiming to be THE ONLY possible opinion (eg. Stockhausen is rubbish) and then making cynical or judgemental comments about people who enjoy his music (eg. these people must be sick or deficient in some way, etc.) is not particularly useful, imo. These people claim the objectivity of "the" canon but in reality they're just constructing their own personal canons and forcing them onto others.



> ...
> Even the most uneducated people can have a valid opinion about John Cage because music doesn't exist in a vacuum. Its existence and evolution depends and thrives on our reaction to it.


Yes, but "uneducated people" would just look at 4'33" and find it a joke. They wouldn't compare it to Bach or whoever, methinks. I went to an exhibition years back with a friend and a performance of 4'33" was being played on a tv screen. She laughed, she thought it was a joke, she knew nothing of John Cage. That's a more natural reaction than what you get on these forums eg. posting youtube clips of 4'33" and something like Beethoven's 5th and asking "which is greater?" I mean where does that lead? What does that really say? Is it really useful to do this?...


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2011)

Sid James said:


> If something doesn't engage me, I kind of tune out.


I think this is a consequence of what I was saying in the OP. And this is exactly how I used to react. But that's expecting the music to do everything, then energy only flows one direction, from the music to you. If it doesn't engage you, then it's curtains for the music. "Off with its head!"

If something doesn't engage me, then I find that I tune _in._ What is it about how I'm listening that isn't engaging with this music? I've found that that simple shift in perspective, which I got from John Cage, just by the way, means that I end up enjoying quite a lot more music, and more different kinds of music, than I was ever able to before, when it was me, magisterial, expecting the music to do things to me, to serve my needs.

That's it, really. If I expect music to serve my needs, then only that music that serves my _current_ needs will do the job. But if I take some of the responsibility for engagement, then I end up eventually enjoying even more. Which is, after all, the whole point.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

We've been here before in many different discussions, and here *some guy* has brought the focus onto the really crucial issues of what art is _for_; how we should approach it; and what significance we should attach to our response to it.

The best book I ever read on this subject (and I read it again every few years to remind myself of its principles) is C.S. Lewis's _An Experiment in Criticism_. (Its focus is on literature but the principles are applicable to any art.) There are a couple of key points that could be helpfully summarised here:

1. Perhaps the most important is what he says about the purpose of art. Art isn't made to provide fodder for the critic, but "to heal the wound, without undermining the privilege,of individuality". Through great art "I become a thousand men, and yet remain myself. ... I see with a myriad eyes, yet it is still I who see. Here, I transcend myself, and am never more myself than when I do." This is exactly why I value great music, literature, paintings, and poetry. It offers an extension of perception, of being. That's why the most appropriate response to a work of art is not "I like this" (or its outwardly projected equivalent "this is good"), but "Ah yes: I _see_." I value Mozart's piano concertos not because I like them (I do, though it's a statement so flaccid as to be hardly worth making), but because they open up whole realms of musical experience - new windows of perception - that I could never have discovered unaided.

2. A second key principle is that negative responses to art are inevitably far more uncertain than positive ones. If we approach a work of art openly and attentively, and respond positively, we can be pretty sure that the art does have _some_ merit, in order to elicit a positive response at all. A negative response is less useful, because we don't know whether the failure has arisen from deficiencies in the art, in the limited perceptiveness of the critic, or both. At the very least, we need a pretty thorough enquiry into what the critic's expectations were. It's a lot easier to be sure that there's a spider in the room (all we need to do is see one) than to be sure that there isn't.

None of this, of course, will dissuade people from saying "I don't like this", or "that music is rubbish", etc. We can't all be on the ball all the time, and I'm disappointed to have to confess that I myself slip into that narrow mode of expression a lot more than I'd like. The important thing is to recognise that statements of that sort arise from a (perhaps temporarily) reduced awareness of the purpose of art, which is not primarily to _please_ (though it's a delight when it does), but to _show_. And by analogy, our primary role is not to_ judge_, but to _receive_ and to _see_.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> We've been here before in many different discussions, and here *some guy* has brought the focus onto the really crucial issues of what art is _for_; how we should approach it; and what significance we should attach to our response to it.
> 
> The best book I ever read on this subject (and I read it again every few years to remind myself of its principles) is C.S. Lewis's _An Experiment in Criticism_. (Its focus is on literature but the principles are applicable to any art.) There are a couple of key points that could be helpfully summarised here:
> 
> ...


Elgarian, nice seeing you around. In your first point above, you have already immediately used those two words which I think folks with a vast inferiority complex (as eloquently described by Polednice in post #3) always appear to have the _hardest time_ fathoming, or at least it gathers much uncomfort for such folks: _*great art*._ This ties nicely with your Mozart piano concerto example, leading to your second point.

While I agree with you there that our _primary role is to receive and to see_, our secondary role - in response to what we receive and see (even those with a vast inferiority complex) - should not necessarily be one of a passive receiver nor a passive observer. Afterall, composers now have cleverly defined traffic noise and silence as music, so should the secondary response of listeners be a passive one to such concepts? If the artists are questioning "what is music" for example, should we passively and necessarily think they are right, always? Afterall, great art, as you have described, _cannot __be all art_. That makes the word "great" a debased one, just like describing all folks in this world as genius, which is absurd. Unless of course, one has a vast inferiority complex, in which all are great, and none are crap.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

I'm sitting in the judgment that you're overthinking, OP. Not to quell discussion, but sometimes it's all in your head.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> our secondary role - in response to what we receive and see ... should not necessarily be one of a passive receiver nor a passive observer.


I'm not advocating 'passive reception'. I'm advocating 'open reception' - which is not at all the same thing. To be an 'open receiver' is a very active thing, and not at all easy to achieve. It involves taking active steps to get myself and my preconceptions out of the way; giving (in the first instance) every possible benefit of the doubt to the work of art.

There are of course risks. Our efforts may be unrewarded (either because the art isn't sufficiently articulate or meaningful, or because we're insufficiently receptive), and when that happens we may feel (understandably) betrayed and angry. We made the effort, and the work 'let us down' (we may think). That's the risk we have to take - the price we may have to pay for those other times when the openness works; when the windows really do slam open, and we transcend the limitations of our own perceptions.



> If the artists are questioning "what is music" for example, should we passively and necessarily think they are right, always? Afterall, great art, as you have described, _cannot __be all art_. That makes the word "great" a debased one, just like describing all folks in this world as genius, which is absurd.


Well yes, but I don't think any of this is implied in what I said. I'm concerned not with the right or wrong use of the word 'great', but of maximising the prospect of making perceptive breakthroughs through the contemplation of art. I want to see more, and see further, if I can, and there's not much chance of that if I keep all my high fences intact.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

some guy said:


> I think this is a consequence of what I was saying in the OP. And this is exactly how I used to react. But that's expecting the music to do everything, then energy only flows one direction, from the music to you. If it doesn't engage you, then it's curtains for the music. "Off with its head!" ...


I used to react judgementally as well to some things that I considered cliche or whatever - mainly due to their popularity, which is common amongst classical listeners. Things like Saint-Saens' _Carnival of the Animals_ or Rodrigo's_ Guitar Concierto de Aranjuez_ to name two. I heard the former live last year and found it pretty amazing and fun, and have been getting into much guitar music lately and the _Aranjuez's_ slow movement has been one of the things to get me into that, I now hear it in a totally new light to before. I'm connecting with melody and emotion more now. I agree, I am changing the way I hear and experience these types of music.



> ...
> If something doesn't engage me, then I find that I tune _in._ What is it about how I'm listening that isn't engaging with this music? I've found that that simple shift in perspective, which I got from John Cage, just by the way, means that I end up enjoying quite a lot more music, and more different kinds of music, than I was ever able to before, when it was me, magisterial, expecting the music to do things to me, to serve my needs.


Well tuning in takes time. With many composers some of their pieces engage me, I'm really "tuned in" to them from the word go, but other works are hard nuts to crack even after years of listening to them. Some other works grow on me, they open up gradually. I am engaged by things like Boulez's piano sonatas but his _Sur Incises_ is just too complex for me, & I'd think that most average classical listeners would agree. So given that, I'm not going to rush out and buy _Repons_, which is a larger scale work than _Sur Incises_. I don't give a crap if _Repons_ is canonical or whatever, I listen for engagement and enjoyment. How far do I have to push myself to understand and tune in to things that are just very very hard? So there's a limit for these things with every individual listener, even the most flexible listener.



> ...
> That's it, really. If I expect music to serve my needs, then only that music that serves my _current_ needs will do the job. But if I take some of the responsibility for engagement, then I end up eventually enjoying even more. Which is, after all, the whole point.


I agree, when I am reviewing things on this site, I stress that what I'm saying is my opinion, my impression, my gut reaction, etc. I'm obsessed with putting "imo" after everything potentially controversial I say for this reason. I agree there must be a level of balance and commonsense with music as with life. I'm not a huge fan of certain composers, but I try hard not to trash them or their music, even though sometimes I do feel frustrated that they aren't delivering the goods for me.

In terms of music serving one's "current needs," some listeners are like that, and I am basically like that. I have a short attention span, I go through phases. Overall, my focus is chamber music, esp. since the Classical Era & mainly of c20th. Right now I'm sitting in a niche of that with focus on guitar & harp musics. The intimacy and warmth of this music is serving my current needs. I have no need for orchestral or vocal music at this point, generally speaking. Nor do I want heavy music, or dark music, or "atonal," I'm just into more traditional melodic music at the moment. I don't think this is a problem, it's just a focus serving my current needs. Of course, I'm open to change, I have shifted my focus quite a lot in classical over the past few years...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> I'm not advocating 'passive reception'. I'm advocating 'open reception' - which is not at all the same thing. To be an 'open receiver' is a very active thing, and not at all easy to achieve. It involves taking active steps to get myself and my preconceptions out of the way; giving (in the first instance) every possible benefit of the doubt to the work of art.
> 
> There are of course risks. Our efforts may be unrewarded (either because the art isn't sufficiently articulate or meaningful, or because we're insufficiently receptive), and when that happens we may feel (understandably) betrayed and angry. We made the effort, and the work 'let us down' (we may think). That's the risk we have to take - the price we may have to pay for those other times when the openness works; when the windows really do slam open, and we transcend the limitations of our own perceptions.
> 
> Well yes, but I don't think any of this is implied in what I said. I'm concerned not with the right or wrong use of the word 'great', but of maximising the prospect of making perceptive breakthroughs through the contemplation of art. I want to see more, and see further, if I can, and there's not much chance of that if I keep all my high fences intact.


Open reception? Even better, as that fosters critical reception. Well, as least it does for me.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> ...I value Mozart's piano concertos not because I like them (I do, though it's a statement so flaccid as to be hardly worth making), but because they open up whole realms of musical experience - new windows of perception - that I could never have discovered unaided...


I agree, our favourite pieces of music give us different things, music is about experience. Anyone can simply hear a piece of music, but not everyone can perceive it. Same goes with visual art and literature. Art is not just joining the dots or ticking off the boxes. On these online forums, I have found that some members say interesting, valuable, informative things, others don't & these others often focus on issues such as, taking in your Mozart piano concerto example -

- Which is the "best" recording? I really have "the kudos" as I own a dozen recordings of this concerto.
- The elevating Mozart and correspondingly rubbishing another composer "game." Eg. Mozart's concertos are better (etc.) than Beethoven's, etc.
- Mozart is the best composer of piano concertos because he's in "the canon," or "my canon," etc...



> ...
> The important thing is to recognise that statements of that sort arise from a (perhaps temporarily) reduced awareness of the purpose of art, which is not primarily to _please_ (though it's a delight when it does), but to _show_. And by analogy, our primary role is not to_ judge_, but to _receive_ and to _see_.


I agree with this 110 per cent, this is basically GOLD!...


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Sid James said:


> In terms of music serving one's "current needs," some listeners are like that, and I am basically like that. I have a short attention span, I go through phases. Overall, my focus is chamber music, esp. since the Classical Era & mainly of c20th. Right now I'm sitting in a niche of that with focus on guitar & harp musics. The intimacy and warmth of this music is serving my current needs. I have no need for orchestral or vocal music at this point, generally speaking. Nor do I want heavy music, or dark music, or "atonal," I'm just into more traditional melodic music at the moment. I don't think this is a problem, it's just a focus serving my current needs. Of course, I'm open to change, I have shifted my focus quite a lot in classical over the past few years...


Really good point this - I fit a similar pattern myself, and probably most of us do. One simply can't be open to all things all the time. We choose according to the moment, and if what I'm particularly wanting are insights of a Mozartian character today, then maybe now isn't the best time to give this new _Parsifal_ recording a spin.

It's really a matter of following one's nose, Sid, don't you think? The enjoyment of art is one of those areas where a _determination_ to 'get in' isn't helpful. It's not a matter of banging on the locked barn door, but rather of waiting for a time when it might seem to have opened just a crack - maybe enough for us to slip through ...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> Really good point this - I fit a similar pattern myself, and probably most of us do. One simply can't be open to all things all the time. We choose according to the moment, and if what I'm particularly wanting are insights of a Mozartian character today, then maybe now isn't the best time to give this new _Parsifal_ recording a spin...


I think you're right. Classical is like a vast universe and one cannot be in all parts of that universe at the same time (well, maybe some quantum physicists can prove that is possible in some way, but this is ONLY a metaphor!). I think classical isn't just one type of music but many, and naturally it kind of encourages many of us to concentrate on one thing or the other. I was a bit critical of this kind of "specialist" listener until I realised that to a great degree I am one myself!



> ...
> It's really a matter of following one's nose, Sid, don't you think? The enjoyment of art is one of those areas where a _determination_ to 'get in' isn't helpful. It's not a matter of banging on the locked barn door, but rather of waiting for a time when it might seem to have opened just a crack - maybe enough for us to slip in ...


I agree with this. It's okay to be specialised or focused on something, but at the same time it's always good to be flexible and open. How much you do that depends on your individual needs, wants, interests, etc. It's really up to you, it's your life. In a way, I'm sorry for those people who walked out on Mahler 9 here, and also those who often leave concerts during interval if what will be played isn't exactly to their taste or whatever. They are shutting the door as you suggest, they are stopping themselves from potentially enjoying something new to them, which can be exciting in some ways, a break from your usual focus, something kind of exotic, a new part of the classical universe...


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

It's true,...I can be one of the harshest ******** on this entire forum when it comes to individual performance bashing and I thank the heavens above for giving me the eyes and ears to know the difference.






*Yeah, who am I to judge? The above sounds just as good as the next...*





Or,...maybe not...come, come now...these are all highly wonderful qualities and aspirations if you want to have a philosophical discussion about life and how it could be, but it's not how it is. There are clearly 'good' and 'bad' things and never in history has there been more choice between the two. Honestly, without 'judgement' we wouldn't be here discussing anything because I'd be at my next door neighbor's enjoying his compositions as they are just as good as anyone else's.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

kv466 said:


> come, come now...these are all highly wonderful qualities and aspirations if you want to have a philosophical discussion about life and how it could be, but it's not how it is. There are clearly 'good' and 'bad' things and never in history has there been more choice between the two. Honestly, without 'judgement' we wouldn't be here discussing anything because I'd be at my next door neighbor's enjoying his compositions as they are just as good as anyone else's.


But this isn't what our discussion has been about. No one has been proposing that all compositions and performances are equally good (which would obviously be foolish); neither has anyone proposed the suspension of critical faculties. Unfortunately I don't think I can express my own contributions to the discussion more clearly (I already took quite a long time over them because it's a difficult topic), so if you think we _have_ been proposing what you say, then I don't know what to suggest (apart from reading the posts again).

I'd also disagree with you about the distinction here between life as it could be and life as it is. I've no idea what your personal experiences of art have been, but for me personally, the record of my adverse judgements about art, over time, has been poor. Through the years my prejudiced views, based on once-held adverse judgements on works of art, have often proved premature, unreliable, and arising from misunderstanding. I listen to a good deal of music today that 20 or 30 years ago I dismissed in my ignorance, for example. (Please don't take this to mean that I think_ all _adverse judgements are faulty. But enough have been faulty to make me mistrust them as a group.)

And even as I write this, I realise I'm being diverted from my main aim, which is to observe that while art can be used in many ways by different people (one can collect it, decorate chocolate boxes with it, fill supermarkets with the sound of it, base a living as a music critic on it, enjoy contributing to internet forums with opinions on it, and vent one's bad temper writing caustic judgements on it), the purpose _above all others_ for which I value it is _the enhancement of perception._ Everything else is secondary to that. And for me, that's real life - life as I live it - not some abstracted philosophical ideal.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2011)

Well, before we all get too far afield (and I know, Polenice and HC took us immediately far far away with their ad hominem cleverly disguised* as an ad populum), I'd like to point out that the OP was about perspective. Not about good and bad and just as good as (which is one huge distraction/distortion of the OP), not about banging on locked doors (there are no doors; there are no locks), but about how we are oriented.

And it's clear that even the best of us (hi Elgarian!) have to remind ourselves (by rereading Lewis's book, perhaps) of how to reorient ourselves.

If we focus on the art work and what the art work is supposed to do and what it's supposed to look like or sound like, how it measures up on some sort of scale (who made the scale? were they competent to make said scale?), then we will constantly have trouble with works that don't match our expectations or our requirements. We will constantly be blind and deaf to large portions of the universe. The worst of us will constantly question the sanity (or security) of people who claim to be able to see and hear bits of those portions, will constantly question the validity, beauty, engagingness of those portions.

If we focus on our listening/observing and how we engage with whatever is out there, then we will almost immediately be able to enjoy more things. We will experience chimerical doors and locks vanishing like mist in the sun.

None of this means that everything is equal or everything is good or any such nonsense as that. It means that if we attend to our listening, if we make engagement something we actively do ourselves and not something we expect to receive from the music, then goodness and badness will no longer be seen as qualities of the work** but as indicators of how well we're listening. Will some things not reward our efforts? Of course. But we will be a little more hesitant to blame the music _alone_ for the failure!

*sarcasm

**qualities of the performance is different, I think. (In the Chopin example, I blame performer A alone for playing crappily.) Though I'm pretty sure that the role of harsh ******* will not lead one anywhere new. And there's another pattern we're all familiar with--old=good; new=bad.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

some guy said:


> If we focus on our listening/observing and how we engage with whatever is out there, then we will almost immediately be able to enjoy more things. We will experience chimerical doors and locks vanishing like mist in the sun.


I'm just going to quibble with this a little (I think I'm quibbling with the expression, not the substance). I don't think 'our listening' should be the object of our attention, but 'the work'. Not (as you rightly point out) what the work might be 'supposed to be', but, insofar as we're able to determine, what it really _is_. The more we lose sight of ourselves and 'what we think about this', and the more closely we attend to the work, the more likely we are to see the chimerical nature of those doors and locks as they dissolve. The aim is to become such good listeners as not to be thinking much about listening, at all.

I think that's actually what you're asserting (but correct me if I'm wrong). If we focus on _our listening_, we're focusing on the perceptual process, not on the thing perceived. That is, if we focus on the window, we'll become conscious mainly of the smears on the glass. The point is not to look at the window, but through it.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> So what do you think of professional art critiques? Folks who make a living by going to many art functions, maybe even all corners of the globe, attending exhibitions/concerts and writing reviews for a living? We have all read "nice" reviews and "not so nice" reviews.


haha. Yes I have read a lot of critiques and many are also just as bad as the works they reviewed. :lol:


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

some guy said:


> I'm pretty sure that the role of harsh ******* will not lead one anywhere new.


Forgot to highlight this in my previous post. It not only offers a penetrating insight, but also potentially has the single most important _practical_ implications of all the suggestions made so far in this thread.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

some guy said:


> It means that if we attend to our listening, if we make engagement something we actively do ourselves and not something we expect to receive from the music, then goodness and badness will no longer be seen as qualities of the work** but as indicators of how well we're listening.


I think this central point you make is something you haven't entirely thought through, but which is not necessarily entirely wrong.

First, as an example, I haven't always liked Brahms's Third Symphony. I absolutely adore every inch of it beyond all measure _now_, but - particularly with the second movement - I used to find it boring. Obviously, in the period between me finding it tedious and finding it astonishingly beautiful, the _music_ hasn't changed; _I_ have changed. As such, you are right to point out that our listening is an important factor, and is one that we should always be aware of, being careful not to blame the music alone. I would never say there was anything _wrong_ with the way I was listening - I was younger, I was in a different frame of mind, I had different tastes; the Brahms was unsuited to me, and I was unsuited to it.

_However_, going as far as you do relieves music of any responsibility at all. To say that it is the listener, the listener, the listener - you're not listening right; listen like this, listen like that, be open, lack prejudice - implies that _all_ music has an intrinsic goodness and it is up to the individual to find it. I don't think this is true. Music _does_ have responsibilities: to be comprehensible (albeit on different levels for different people, but certainly at least to _some_ people _most_ of the time); to be engaging; and to be anything else that generally makes it _listenable_.

If composers didn't recognise the various responsibilities of music, then they would have no structures, no foundations, no basis on which to make it. Noise becomes music, and music becomes noise. Sure, a conceptual piece exploring the mundane sounds that surround us _can_ have value, but as an overarching principle for the creation of music - a social art which has, since its beginning, been about _organised_ sound of rhythmic, melodic, and/or harmonic interest - it throws the listener into a No Man's Land without bearings.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Polednice said:


> First, as an example, I haven't always liked Brahms's Third Symphony. I absolutely adore every inch of it beyond all measure _now_, but - particularly with the second movement - I used to find it boring. Obviously, in the period between me finding it tedious and finding it astonishingly beautiful, the _music_ hasn't changed; _I_ have changed. As such, you are right to point out that our listening is an important factor, and is one that we should always be aware of, being careful not to blame the music alone. I would never say there was anything _wrong_ with the way I was listening - I was younger, I was in a different frame of mind, I had different tastes; the Brahms was unsuited to me, and I was unsuited to it.


At this point I'm cheering you on.



> _However_, going as far as you do relieves music of any responsibility at all. To say that it is the listener, the listener, the listener - you're not listening right; listen like this, listen like that, be open, lack prejudice - implies that _all_ music has an intrinsic goodness and it is up to the individual to find it.


This seems problematic, though. First, we need to read the next couple of sentences that *some guy* wrote:


> Will some things not reward our efforts? Of course. But we will be a little more hesitant to blame the music alone for the failure!


Now here, we see that in fact he acknowledges that we may not be rewarded. And the reason why this doesn't matter is because the aim of *some guy*'s exercise is not to make a judgement about the music, but _to enhance our chances of engaging with it in an enriching way_. The implication of his suggestion is not that all music is good; it's not a value judgement at all. Rather, he's suggesting the spirit in which the music should be approached initially. Give it the benefit of the doubt, he's saying. Assume it's good stuff, and approach it in that spirit. See what happens. The process is nothing to do with being fair or apportioning blame between music and listener. It's to do with maximising our chances of a positive experience.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> Now here, we see that in fact he acknowledges that we may not be rewarded. And the reason why this doesn't matter is because the aim of *some guy*'s exercise is not to make a judgement about the music, but _to enhance our chances of engaging with it in an enriching way_. The implication of his suggestion is not that all music is good; it's not a value judgement at all. Rather, he's suggesting the spirit in which the music should be approached initially. Give it the benefit of the doubt, he's saying. Assume it's good stuff, and approach it in that spirit. See what happens. The process is nothing to do with being fair or apportioning blame between music and listener. It's to do with maximising our chances of a positive experience.


OK, I understand your criticism. What I didn't make as clear as I should have is my reaction to his comment:

"But we will be a little more hesitant to blame the music alone for the failure!"

Yes, we should perhaps be more hesitant than we are. _But_ - and this is the crux - can we, under this approach, _ever_ blame the music? I think we can and we should.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> ...
> 
> I'd also disagree with you about the distinction here between life as it could be and life as it is. I've no idea what your personal experiences of art have been, but for me personally, the record of my adverse judgements about art, over time, has been poor. Through the years my prejudiced views, based on once-held adverse judgements on works of art, have often proved premature, unreliable, and arising from misunderstanding. I listen to a good deal of music today that 20 or 30 years ago I dismissed in my ignorance, for example. (Please don't take this to mean that I think_ all _adverse judgements are faulty. But enough have been faulty to make me mistrust them as a group.)
> ...


Very well put and I fully agree with this. I think that if "the passion" as chef Gordon Ramsey says isn't there (in his case for cooking, in our case for listening) then I may as well hang up my hat & give up the ghost with classical music. & part of that passion is indeed some flexibility and openess, befitting the needs and interests of the individual listener.



> ...
> And even as I write this, I realise I'm being diverted from my main aim, which is to observe that while art can be used in many ways by different people (one can collect it, decorate chocolate boxes with it, fill supermarkets with the sound of it, base a living as a music critic on it, enjoy contributing to internet forums with opinions on it, and vent one's bad temper writing caustic judgements on it), *the purpose above all others for which I value it is the enhancement of perception. Everything else is secondary to that. And for me, that's real life* - life as I live it - not some abstracted philosophical ideal.


Agreed fully with what you put in bold and also what you said before, music can serve different types of purposes. Eg. it's useless to expect from say Satie what we get from Wagner not only because they're totally different but esp. because Satie was trying to totally get away from what Wagner had been doing, he was the antithesis of fully blown late Romanticism. Satie would be proud that his music is being piped in shopping malls and hotel lobbies, he called it "armchair music," or what we call "muzak" or "elevator music." Wagner's music, eg. The_ Ride of the Valkyries_ can be appropriate in many contexts - eg. opera house, concert hall, or in movies or even TV ads - but not really as "elevator" or "lounge" music as Satie's is...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

some guy said:


> ...I'd like to point out that the OP was about perspective. Not about good and bad and just as good as (which is one huge distraction/distortion of the OP), not about banging on locked doors (there are no doors; there are no locks), but about how we are oriented...


Well you must admit that your language in the OP is quite convoluted and not in simple English in parts. If you would express yourself more simply and to the point, maybe people wouldn't have that much of a problem figuring out exactly what you're saying.



> ...
> And it's clear that even the best of us (hi Elgarian!) have to remind ourselves (by rereading Lewis's book, perhaps) of how to reorient ourselves...


Well I actually got the most out of Elgarian's posts here. Also Polednice's, he was largely speaking commonsense. If you're going to "take sides" like this, eg. some people agree with me so they're in my good books, others don't fully so they're not, well then why are you talking about not judging when you are judging as well?



> ...
> ...The worst of us will constantly question the sanity (or security) of people who claim to be able to see and hear bits of those portions, will constantly question the validity, beauty, engagingness of those portions...


Agreed, & to extend, I am okay with people saying they don't like a composer but I don't like it when they say his music is rubbish. Or that the people who like his music have something wrong with them, something deficient, their opinions on music are worthless. That's the worst of the worst of ideology over commonsense, imo.



> ...
> If we focus on our listening/observing and how we engage with whatever is out there, then we will almost immediately be able to enjoy more things...


I agree, it's good to just take something in, take it on it's own merits. The obsessions with comparing various things on these forums strike me as not always necessary. It's okay to compare but at least compare things worth comparing. & realise that some people simply don't care much about comparing things in the first place.



> ...
> And there's another pattern we're all familiar with--old=good; new=bad.


Not really, or depends how old or new. My anecdote of people walking out here during Mahler 9, as well as seeing things like fools leaving during interval when R. Strauss' _Metamorphosen for 23 solo strings_ is coming up in the second half of a concert. These aren't exactly hot off the press, brand spanking new pieces. The former is 100 years old, the latter over 60 years old.

I think it's not necessarily about new or old, it's about people's attitude, it's about their ideology/dogma/politics & prejudgements, as you say. I haven't been immune to these rubbish things, I'm constantly working on my own limitations. However, it's in the framework of what my individual preferences and interests/passions are. I never loved opera, even though my mother was quite a fan, it never rubbed off on me, probably never will. I'm not going to be a masochist and buy say _The Ring_ and force myself to listen to it. On the other hand, some stage music with vocals I do like, but what I do and don't like varies - eg. things from comic opera, to operetta to _Wozzeck_, _West Side Story_ & _Turandot_. But opera will never be my big passion, it's my least priority, I have other passions which I want to expand on, that's more realistic and worthwhile for me...


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Sid James said:


> But opera will never be my big passion, it's my least priority, I have other passions which I want to expand on, that's more realistic and worthwhile for me...


Ha! Never say never, Sid! I said something _very like that_ once, and ... well, you know, there came a day when the operatic flames really took hold, and threatened to become a conflagration.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

If something doesn't engage me, then I find that I tune in. What is it about how I'm listening that isn't engaging with this music? I've found that that simple shift in perspective, which I got from John Cage, just by the way, means that I end up enjoying quite a lot more music, and more different kinds of music...

That is well and fine. I would presume that a great majority of those passionate about music understand that the appreciation of art involves some effort on the part of the audience as well as the artist. The question we ultimately arrive it is just how much effort are we (as individuals) expected (or willing) to put forth in attempting to come to terms with a work that doesn't resonate with us? Cage's idea, as exemplified in the well-known quote, "If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still boring, then eight. Then sixteen. Then thirty-two. Eventually one discovers that it is not boring at all." is all well and fine... but does one ever reach the conclusion that some music might actually be boring... or bad. Of course these are value judgments, and if we would all just recognize that there is no "good" nor "bad" (but thinking makes it so...?) then we would all be better of, nicht war?

But then again, the damn Andre went and showed up the flaws in your philosophy as practiced by yourself:

_quote: some guy- I know, Polenice and HC took us immediately far far away with their ad hominem cleverly disguised* as an ad populum...
And it's clear that even the best of us (hi Elgarian!) have to remind ourselves (by rereading Lewis's book, perhaps) of how to reorient ourselves..._

Well I actually got the most out of Elgarian's posts here. Also Polednice's, he was largely speaking commonsense. If you're going to "take sides" like this, eg. *some people agree with me so they're in my good books, others don't fully so they're not*, well then why are you talking about not judging when you are judging as well?

Perhaps this is but another example of "Do as I say, not as I do?"

Elgarian-...the aim of some guy's exercise is not to make a judgement about the music, but to enhance our chances of engaging with it in an enriching way. The implication of his suggestion is not that all music is good; it's not a value judgement at all. Rather, he's suggesting the spirit in which the music should be approached initially. Give it the benefit of the doubt, he's saying. Assume it's good stuff, and approach it in that spirit. See what happens. The process is nothing to do with being fair or apportioning blame between music and listener. It's to do with maximising our chances of a positive experience.

This is well put... and I fully agree. Obviously, if you approach a work of music (or any art form) with the a bunch of preconceptions or thoughts to the effect that you are probably not going to like this music... you quite likely will find your preconceptions are fulfilled. Personally, if I make the effort and spend my hard-earned money (as well as time) upon a work of music, I try to approach it with a positive mindset... I try to assume that its going to be good... even if it is really different from other things I have heard and enjoyed. Of course none of us is a blank slate. None of us can possibly approach any work of art without bringing some "baggage"... some preconceptions... some personal standards and values. It is also possible that we might find that in spite of approaching a new work with the most positive of mindset, we may actually still come away not enjoying it. Surely, we have all had the experience of looking forward to a given work of art... thinking, "I'm gonna really enjoy this." Only to be disappointed. Perhaps our disappointment will change over time when we recognize that it was because the work in question did not live up to some wrong ideas or expectations about the work. Or perhaps it won't.

Well you must admit that your language in the OP is quite convoluted and not in simple English in parts. If you would express yourself more simply and to the point, maybe people wouldn't have that much of a problem figuring out exactly what you're saying.

I must agree with Andre, here. In spite of some guy's stated background in English/Literature his convoluted use of the language leaves something to be desired.

But that's just me being judgmental.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Polednice said:


> _But_ - and this is the crux - can we, under this approach, _ever_ blame the music? I think we can and we should.


Yes of course we can, if we want to (though I don't agree there's a moral imperative, implied by the word 'should'). The question is, though, when I've done the blaming, where will it get me? If it makes me feel better because I've vented my spleen (I do it myself sometimes), I suppose that's something, but it doesn't help me gain any new insights, any new perceptions. If I thought the purpose of art appreciation were to sort everything out into what's good and what's bad, then praise the good stuff and blame the bad, then I wouldn't be very interested in it, really. Some people are, I realise that - but it seems to me like a completely different kind of activity.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

I just want to add (replying to no one in particular, but just sayin') that *some guy*'s posts always make me re-examine my own position on these matters, and he knows how much I enjoy them. I don't, myself, find them unclear or convoluted. It's not at all easy to think clearly about what happens when we experience art, and even more difficult to express it, but since art is fundamentally important, it seems worth the effort of kicking the words around to try to get our meanings clear and understood, even if it takes two or three attempts.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Elgarian- I've no idea what your personal experiences of art have been, but for me personally, the record of my adverse judgements about art, over time, has been poor. Through the years my prejudiced views, based on once-held adverse judgements on works of art, have often proved premature, unreliable, and arising from misunderstanding. I listen to a good deal of music today that 20 or 30 years ago I dismissed in my ignorance, for example.

Surely, we have all experienced this. From my own experience, it involved making such judgments prematurely... before putting forth a degree of effort in exploring a work or body or work, the artist's intentions, etc... I still clearly remember as a second year art student proudly and arrogantly proclaiming, "Abstraction has absolutely no purpose for existence." Little did I know that some 3 or 4 years later I would be profoundly inspired by any number of abstract art works, or that but a couple years later I would be making abstract art of my own.

As such, I try to avoid making judgments employing objective terminology concerning music or art or literature that I am not fully familiar or experienced with. I can understand those who become miffed at the repeated jokes about John Cage and _4:33_ or Stockhausen's Helicopter Quartet by those who haven't ever bothered to listen to anything else by these composers. On the other hand, I find it perfectly valid for any listener to express his or her personal opinion about a given work ("I think..." In my opinion...") As Andre suggested in his above post, judgment runs both ways, and it seems to me that it is just as judgmental to dismiss or attack the opinions of those who dislike something any of us likes: "X is an idiot because he doesn't like the music by Q that I love; while Z is among the brightest posters here because he agrees with my opinions about Y".

As I have mentioned to Andre elsewhere, I have long admired the opera threads and opera fanatics here in general. I have participated in other forums where the opera fans gave new meaning to the term "fanatic". They would viciously berate each other's opinions and ruthlessly attack any singer's abilities ("Anna N. is a *****", Rene F. is a washed-up, talentless hag", Maria C was a screeching harpie...") in the misguided notion that this was the best way to promote their own favorite singer. (And quite often the singer in question had reached her prime in 1915 so that any real ability to judge her abilities was lost considering the quality of recording technology). Yet here the opera fans are not only comparatively amiable... but rather something of a model for the whole sight. Members all post favorite arias or singers or operas with rarely ever the negative comment. The few time a a dig at this or that singer/work/artist is posted in jest it largely rolls off everyone's back. Perhaps if someone enamored of Xenakis or Cage could ignore the little digs... laugh them off... and then offer perhaps an example of something by these composers that they find quite marvelous with perhaps some thoughts as to why they believe it so.

Again, as I have stated on more than one occasion, I think one of the most useful threads is that exploring Modern and Contemporary music. I am quite glad that it has remained active. members post music from today that they like and there is rarely any great dissent. Then again... it is perhaps far more entertaining to engage in these endless debates concerning broad and ill defined concepts: "modern music" "music today", etc... certainly more than a few members who bemoan the proliferation of such debates seem far more active in such threads than anywhere else less contentious. Or perhaps I am alone in seeing this.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2011)

Elgarian said:


> I don't think 'our listening' should be the object of our attention, but 'the work'. Not (as you rightly point out) what the work might be 'supposed to be', but, insofar as we're able to determine, what it really _is_. The more we lose sight of ourselves and 'what we think about this', and the more closely we attend to the work, the more likely we are to see the chimerical nature of those doors and locks as they dissolve. The aim is to become such good listeners as not to be thinking much about listening, at all.


Yes, I agree. But at first, and maybe periodically afterwards, I do think we need to attend to the listening itself, what it is, how we're doing it. That's not a goal, by any means, just a tactic to get to the goal.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Sadly, the older I get, the less frequent are those "wow" moments I once experienced as a listener. My answer to this is not to blame the music, but to lower my expectations. I enjoy _many different types of music _for _many different reasons_, and I don't ask for any of it to bring me an epiphany. If it does, that's a bonus and I can enjoy the moment with the wide-eyed wonder of a child.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Just going off what some people have said, incl. the OP. Is it okay to approach classical music as a smorgasbord? You try various things and pick and choose what you enjoy, what you like, what is the "right" fit/combination for you?

Here are some concrete hypothetical examples (not necessarily to do with my taste, just examples re more recent musics) -

- Is it okay to like some modern/contemporary composers rather than others? Isn't that flexible to a degree? Eg. liking composers whose music is considered across the board as being of a high standard but not necessarily cutting edge? Eg. favouring Hovhaness over Cage (they were friends, Cage influenced & praised Hovhaness' music as he did Lutoslawski, but all these guys music is different).

- Is it okay to like the more "conservative" music of some composers, not their more cutting edge things? Eg. if somebody likes Stravinsky's neo-classical works over his _Rite of Spring_ or serial works? Or Schoenberg's earlier works like _Transfigured Night_?

- Is it okay to seek out music that is similar to what you've established is your thing after tasting the various options? Eg. with Boulez, Stockhausen, Berio, Xenakis, Carter etc. I've connected more with their smaller scale and less hugely complex things. Am I being narrow minded or short sited to be happy to "access" certain things by them & keep exploring in those directions and not others?

Any thoughts on this would be welcome. I personally think _some_ flexibility, openess, etc. is okay, better than _none_ or _not much_. Most classical listeners are in the middle of the spectrum, not at either extreme end, eg. "hard" conservative or "hard" cutting edge. I think that's why at least some of us are members of this forum, or maybe even many of us are, to be exposed to music, ideas, histories of music, etc. that we maybe wouldn't be otherwise...


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Sid James said:


> - Is it okay to seek out music that is similar to what you've established is your thing after tasting the various options? Eg. with Boulez, Stockhausen, Berio, Xenakis, Carter etc. I've connected more with their smaller scale and less hugely complex things. Am I being narrow minded or short sited to be happy to "access" certain things by them & keep exploring in those directions and not others?


Of course. Archaeologists don't say "look! A piece of fossil! There's probably more around here. Hmm, but maybe we should walk backwards aimlessly for a few hundred miles for the sake of open-mindedness and being balanced..."


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> Yes of course we can, if we want to (though I don't agree there's a moral imperative, implied by the word 'should'). The question is, though, when I've done the blaming, where will it get me? If it makes me feel better because I've vented my spleen (I do it myself sometimes), I suppose that's something, but it doesn't help me gain any new insights, any new perceptions. If I thought the purpose of art appreciation were to sort everything out into what's good and what's bad, then praise the good stuff and blame the bad, then I wouldn't be very interested in it, really. Some people are, I realise that - but it seems to me like a completely different kind of activity.


This is, I think, just another stereotype of what people are doing when they judge a piece of music.

Very often, opinions can be poorly worded or poorly justified, but _having an opinion on artistic ideals_ is just as much a part of art appreciation, and is not at all about sorting things into 'good' and 'bad' (though it necessarily means you will label things as 'good' and 'bad' for entirely different reasons).

As a simple example, if a person believed that sonata form was a defunct method of musical communication in the 21st century, they might criticise a contemporary piece that used it (this is a _justified_ way of calling something 'bad').

If a person believed that programme music was a better, more intimate, more engaging method of musical communication than explorations of sound through absolute music, then they would be more likely to label a piece of absolute music as 'bad'.

If a person believed that our evolved neurology predisposes us to more easily comprehending and enjoying music with a tonal (not necessarily diatonic) centre, and with uncomplicated rhythms and structures, then they would use this ideal as a basis to call serialism bad.

_Yes, these are personal convictions_. As people have rightly said, an individual's opinion should _not_ be taken as a fact that can be generalised, and some opinions, depending on their basis, will be more valid than others. But having an opinion that leads you to call something either good or bad does not mean you are just shallowly labelling artworks because you've got nothing better to do. If you can call something good or bad _and then say why_, you are engaging with the music and exercising art appreciation more than someone who says that goodness can be found in anything so long as we have the right ears for it.

Unless, of course, every composer who has ever held a personal belief about what music _should_ be has been completely wasting their time. *Actually, this is a very central point here*: in order to have any kind of stylistic integrity and consistency, not to mention just a fundamental ability to write something, a composer _has_ to have some idea of what they think music should be (it's function, purpose, style _etc._). And yet this entire discussion implies that a listener is _not entitled_ to those same opinions. A listener must accept that music can be anything. This imbalance is fundamentally wrong. If a composer can deride another composer and say why, then a listener ought to be able to deride a composer and say why too.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> Then again... it is perhaps far more entertaining to engage in these endless debates concerning broad and ill defined concepts: "modern music" "music today", etc... certainly more than a few members who bemoan the proliferation of such debates seem far more active in such threads than anywhere else less contentious. Or perhaps I am alone in seeing this.


Well it is good to discuss music in general, with regards to 'handy hints' and 'attitudes' etc. that are useful for music appreciation. I like to read books like this as a matter of fact, and things like what Elgarian said above mirror the kind of views/info in some of those books.

But on the other hand, if the OP does not give us his points in clear simple English, it becomes bogged down in philosophising and (to me) theoretical point-scoring rather than practical issues that can be of use to listeners of classical music, whatever their level of experience. I'm okay with debate but not when it becomes kind of academic and basically irrelevant for the average listener of classical music, esp. new or newer music as is obviously some guy's focus.



Polednice said:


> ...
> Very often, opinions can be poorly worded or poorly justified, but _having an opinion on artistic ideals_ is just as much a part of art appreciation, and is not at all about sorting things into 'good' and 'bad' (though it necessarily means you will label things as 'good' and 'bad' for entirely different reasons)...


As for sonata form, program music, tonality/atonality, etc. I am worried much less about these things now, in relation to prejudging them. I think it's okay not to like some things in the same group, eg. I don't like certain sonatas/program pieces/atonal or tonal works. Sometimes I don't know the reason, sometimes I do, sometimes I'm in between. I personally don't have much artistic ideals because I'm just a listener, I'm not an artist or creator. Composers, musicians, etc. have strong views about others in the field & throughout history, but I don't have to "commit" to any side of these debates, I just go with what engages me to some degree.



> ...
> _Yes, these are personal convictions_. As people have rightly said, an individual's opinion should _not_ be taken as a fact that can be generalised, and some opinions, depending on their basis, will be more valid than others. But having an opinion that leads you to call something either good or bad does not mean you are just shallowly labelling artworks because you've got nothing better to do. If you can call something good or bad _and then say why_, you are engaging with the music and exercising art appreciation more than someone who says that goodness can be found in anything so long as we have the right ears for it...


I agree that there is a level of critical thinking involved, as is personal taste/preference, etc., in appreciating a piece of music. But what I tend to focus on now is just go with what I like, focus on what I think is good or at least middling. Something I can take at least a bit from and build up from there. It's important to rationalise sometimes why you don't like something, or why you do, or why you're in the middle. But lately I've just cut the rationalising beyond the basics. I started to really dig guitar music & I'm getting my hands on cd's of different types of that music, regardless of style, era, technique, etc. I've even got a cd of guitar music by J.S. Bach, & he's by no means my favourite composer, but I doubt I won't get something at least out of listening to that recording. As I said, it's all mainly about attitude, imo...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Sid, I think your position as a listener is perfectly reasonable. But, if there were another kind of listener (and I think this wouldn't be that uncommon) who did have particular artistic ideals but wasn't a composer him/herself, would you object to them criticising music on that basis?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> Sid, I think your position as a listener is perfectly reasonable. But, if there were another kind of listener (and I think this wouldn't be that uncommon) who did have particular artistic ideals but wasn't a composer him/herself, would you object to them criticising music on that basis?


No I wouldn't object to that.

I know some people who don't like some of the really "big" names in classical, eg. Mozart or Mahler or Wagner, the list goes on. Whatever you call these, eg. "artistic ideals" or just preferences or tastes, they are okay by me.

In terms of the technical things - eg. the "how to's" of composition - obviously composers know more than the rest of the population in terms of composition, it's their day-job. I mean I, you or anyone else can criticise the music of these or other composers, but if we say something like "his orchestration was lousy" we'd better have some very good reasons. But if it's like something I say often, eg. I tend not to like the orchestration on steroids of R. Strauss & others, then I think that type of opinion/preference is fine. I generally like smaller scale things, but I'm not rubbishing larger scale ones. It's wierd because R. Strauss' _Metamorphosen for 23 solo strings_ is one of my favourite chamber works of them all...


----------



## lou (Sep 7, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Even the most uneducated people can have a valid opinion


Thank you Polednice for defending my right to an opinion!


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

If a composer sets out to please *me*, and I'm *not* pleased, he's a failure.

If a composer sets out to *please* someone, and *someone* is pleased, but *I'm* not, my lack of pleasure is irrelevant. I have the freedom to say I'm not pleased, but, in the long run, who cares?

Unless he takes me prisoner and forces me to listen to his music against my will, I can't understand why I should complain.

When I decide to go to a concert, it's usually because there is something on the program I'm interested in hearing. Most often there are one or two other items on the program as well of somewhat lesser interest to me initially. If one of them is a new composition, or something by a modern composer with which I'm not familiar, it doesn't kill me to sit and listen to it with a measure of respect and a willingness to be pleased. If I am pleased, I've gained something. If I'm not, I haven't lost that much.

When I purchase a recording, I choose according to my own wishes.

So what's the problem? If I don't like a work of art, why should I care that it exists...unless it's truly harmful or destructive, and I haven't run across much of that (outside of hip-hop.....that's a joke...).


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^ In other words, live and let live.

Oh no, I feel a bit of a rant coming, but I'll try to curtail it...

On these forums, the issue is often if one has listened to say a few works by a composer and says something to the effect of his music not really engaging you, you'll inevitably get an avalanche of "suggestions" trying to convert you to that composer's music, whether you asked for it or not. Same with performers, eg. pianists, conductors, etc. If they'd try to "nut out" the problems you're having it would be fine, eg. explain Tchaikovsky's _Manfred Symphony_ if you're having problems with that. I don't really know how, for example, suggesting another recording of a work like this will "solve" such a listener's problems, etc.

Truth is, whatever these people say (eg. you haven't heard the "right" works, or the "right" recordings, etc.), it's YOU who has to convert YOURSELF, NOT OTHERS. A personal example recently has been three "misses" with various interpretations by pianist Martha Argerich and a recent "hit the bulls-eye" experience with the fourth recording of hers that I tried (& bought, the others were on radio or borrowed). In other words, I had to go through the process of trial and error to get what I wanted with this pianist, to listen to an interpretation by her which I thought was to my liking, and faithful to the music being played, etc.

So some proselytizers on these forums should maybe preach less and just be more accommodating, understanding & empathetic of this kind of trial and error process which many of us go through when we are new to a composer, piece, performer, style, era of music, whatever. They shouldn't be so quick to judge and start ramming their canons or whatever down our throats...


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2011)

I wasn't going to post because it has all been said before, *BUT*: in my music collection there may be 1% of music that I have been given or even in some mad, insane moment purchased, I may have tried to "engage" with it at some time but now it gathers dust for ever silent, am I alone? I think not. A true work of art will stand the test of time and some composers will fade into oblivion.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Sid James said:


> ^^ In other words, live and let live.


Yeah, I guess....

Believe me, though, I wasn't always this way. Many of the more passionate posts on this site remind me a lot of how I used to feel.

Age has done funny things to me, it seems. For one thing, I've seen so many things I've changed my mind about over the years (as Elgarian also pointed out, I believe), that I've developed a kind of caution as to 'proclamations' that I didn't use to possess.

Not saying that's good or bad...it's just the way it is.

*Truth is, whatever these people say (eg. you haven't heard the "right" works, or the "right" recordings, etc.), it's YOU who has to convert YOURSELF, NOT OTHERS. *

True enough, as far as it goes. Kind suggestions as to other things to try, however, I try not to take amiss. Nobody likes to be preached to, granted. But, an experienced guide, as long as she/he is polite about it, is never unwelcome to me.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Polednice said:


> This is, I think, just another stereotype of what people are doing when they judge a piece of music.


See how easily it is to misinterpret each other. My intention isn't to produce a stereotype and then knock it down (which would be pointless), but to clarify a division between two kinds of activity. Neither am I suggesting that one approach is 'correct' while another isn't. Rather, I'm saying that the two approaches produce different results.



> _having an opinion on artistic ideals_ is just as much a part of art appreciation,


Absolutely.



> and is not at all about sorting things into 'good' and 'bad'


You see how closely we agree?



> (though it necessarily means you will label things as 'good' and 'bad' for entirely different reasons).


But here I take my own different road. We may indeed do that (and we do), but the whole thrust of my posts (I won't repeat the arguments here) is to question the necessity.



> As a simple example, if a person believed that sonata form was a defunct method of musical communication in the 21st century, they might criticise a contemporary piece that used it (this is a _justified_ way of calling something 'bad'). ... etc


From here on, I think we're talking about different things. I'm talking mainly about the necessary self-preparation that's most likely to lead to a positive art-experience: a kind of internal adjustment. Critical analysis (I suppose engaged in afterwards) is a different matter, although even there it's true that I still question the value of 'bad' declarations, because it will _always be possible_ to find a standpoint from which any work of art can be declared 'bad'. Indeed, art history is full of examples of the folly of doing so.

So there are two issues here, I now see, which are being muddled together (for which lack of clarity I'm at least partly to blame). There's (1) the necessary self-preparation with which we approach a work of art; and (2) what we say or think about it after making the approach. We need to keep them separate I think, or we'll get in an even worse tangle.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I understand you more now, Elgarian, and I entirely agree with your number 1 about self-preparation.

With regards to number 2 about what we say and think _afterwards_, it seems that there are (at least) two kinds of listeners. Those who passively engage and consume (and I don't mean anything bad by use of the word 'passive'), and those who have a sense of what is Right and Wrong in music based on personal convictions.

Neither approach is better than the other, and the latter certainly shouldn't pretend to be anything more than right and wrong _for that individual alone_. It's obvious, though, how the second approach will rub the others up the wrong way. We engage in different ways, and I think we need to tolerate each other - stating either implicitly or explicitly that people in the second group are superficial and judgemental (cf. OP) is unfair, and is what I have tried to argue against.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

We make progress I think. Particularly with regard to number 1. (This could become 'conversation by numbers'.)



Polednice said:


> With regards to number 2 about what we say and think _afterwards_, it seems that there are (at least) two kinds of listeners. Those who passively engage and consume (and I don't mean anything bad by use of the word 'passive'), and those who have a sense of what is Right and Wrong in music based on personal convictions.


I'm concerned about these listeners who 'passively engage and consume', and don't understand where this polarisation has come from. Perhaps I don't understand your use of the word 'passive' here. That is, I don't see why a listener who has little sense of what's musically right and wrong is being passive. I have little sense of musical rightness or wrongness myself, for example, but I don't 'passively engage'. I try to listen attentively and openly; it feels very much like an active, vital activity, not a passive one.

*But wait*, I have to remind myself that we're dealing with number 2, don't I? OK, so having tried to engage, and (let's say) failed, that's where we enter no.2 territory. That's where we either say 
A: 'Not this time. Hated it, in fact. But maybe I'll try again next year'. (This is what I aspire to do.) 
Or we say, 
B: 'According to the rule book, this music is bad'. (The rule book may be a personal one, or one deriving from some 'authority'.)

Now, again - this isn't a moral crusade. It's a matter of trying to travel the most enriching road. And what troubles me about response B is first, its finality. The music failed the rulebook test and so is dismissed. Secondly ... what if the rulebook isn't up to the job? What if the rulemaker never foresaw the possibility of this new kind of music, or painting, or poetry? (Think of all the rules in painting that were broken by the Impressionists and Post Impressionists and Fauves and Cubists, and abstract painters ... again and again the cycle goes on, leaving rulebook after rulebook in tatters).

So at least in one specific sense, I don't agree that neither approach is 'better' than the other. I think one approach admits the possibility of perceptual advance, while the other has a tendency to obscure and stifle it.

Now you may say - and I would agree wholeheartedly - that there's nothing _wrong_ in a person saying "No! stop! I like Mozart and I want only Mozart, and anything that doesn't sound like Mozart I will rule out of court!" And he may spend his days endlessly enjoying his Mozart, and very nice too. I'd rejoice for him, and indeed welcome his advice about listening to Mozart. BUT ... if he wants to tell me that Wagner is long and turgid and rubbish, and fails the test of the Mozart rule book, then I wouldn't pay much attention to his opinion of Wagner. (I know I'm caricaturing this, but I'm doing so not to construct a straw man, but to try to be as clear as I can.) And my scepticism about his opinion in this respect seems to me to be fair enough. I don't _think_ I'm saying any more than that.

(But I might change my mind as I go on thinking about it.)


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Elgarian said:


> And what troubles me about response B is first, its finality. The music failed the rulebook test and so is dismissed.


Excellent point.

Here's a little something I'd like to add to this by an example:

One of the CDs I'm listening to repeatedly this week is a recording of Alwyn's Symphonies 1 & 3. After my first two listenings, if someone forced me to pass judgment, I'd probably say something like: "There are some very impressive moments and some decidedly beautiful passages, but it seems kind of disjointed to me."

Now, why would I say it seems disjointed? Because in my mind I'm comparing it to something like Brahm's 3rd, which is, to me, a model of cohesive argument in musical form. But, then I have to stop and ask myself, "Did I appreciate the cohesiveness of Brahm's 3rd the first time I heard it? The second time? The third? How many times have I listened to this symphony over the years?" (Probably at least forty times, maybe more.) And, how many times have I listened to Alwyn's Sym 1 & 3? Twice. Once in the car while driving, once at work while working. Have I gotten the score and followed along with it? So, how can I say it seems disjointed?

And, the reason I ask all these questions is that I distinctly get the impression that many people are willing to pass judgment on a work with no more attentive listening than what I just described. Now, can I listen to something in the car and decide I don't want to listen to it again? Absolutely. But, I don't think I have the right to pass judgment on it to other people unless I'm willing to give it a more dedicated and intensive hearing (with an open mind).

That's what bothers me most about the you-don't-have-to-be-a-musical-genius-to-pass-judgment argument.

No, you don't.

But, before we give someone else our "considered opinion", I think we have to be sure it *is* "considered".


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Sid James said:


> ^^ In other words, live and let live.


I've thought a bit more about this and feel the need to comment.

A person with a "live and let live" attitude is probably not what we would call "intolerant", but it is entirely possible that she/he may be dismissive. In other words - "Let me stay in my comfortable world while you stay in yours".

And, that's not at all what I was getting at. I believe in giving a piece of music a fair chance. If I'm at a concert and I know there's something coming up that I'm not familiar with, I don't just suffer through it, or grin and bear it. I try to listen appreciatively. (But, if I find it hard to appreciate, I don't feel the need to turn to the person beside me and tell her/him how bad it is.)


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2011)

Polednice said:


> We engage in different ways, and I think we need to tolerate each other - stating either implicitly or explicitly that people in the second group are superficial and judgemental (cf. OP) is unfair, and is what I have tried to argue against.


But your conclusion about the OP is not a description so much as it is an interpretation. So you're not arguing against what I said but against your interpretation of what I said. That's why I've had this sense all along that your responses seemed to be off-topic.

And we do seem to have wandered rather far from "the purpose above all others for which I value [art] is the enhancement of perception," which is quite different from the desire to categorize pieces into good and bad. And different from the desire to have opinions (that is, to have opinions that no one questions).

Well, of course, one is entitled to have opinions. No one has suggested otherwise. But if your opinion differs from mine, then we'll probably have something to say to each other. And none of that has to do with permission. It seems like there's a very strong sense that if someone disagrees with you then that is tantamount to forbidding you from having your opinion. Indeed, it gets so bad sometimes, that I feel like I'm hearing people say "Hold it!! I want to be able to disagree with you, but how _dare_ you disagree with me. I can be as intolerant as I like, but if you disagree with me, then I will castigate you for your intolerance."

But I digress.

I don't think it's even about giving the music a fair chance, as Vesteralen puts it, but about giving _ourselves_ a fair chance. I want to give myself every chance to experience as many different things as possible. That's why I don't ask, "why doesn't this music do what I want it to do?" but "what can I do to appreciate this music?" And I'll say it again, this does not mean I think that everything is equally good or that I like everything I hear indiscriminately. It means, simply, that I take some responsibility for engagement.

And even "responsibility" is probably the wrong word. It doesn't feel like responsibility, anyway. Maybe this will help, from another discussion on another board:

Poster A: "Serious music takes some effort to appreciate, yes, I agree.*

But if the principle you are articulating is taken to its logical conclusion we might spend most of our time listening to music we don't enjoy ("doesn't engage us"), waiting for an epiphany.

I probably do this more than most listeners, actually, but there is a limit! Some of it becomes enjoyable, and some of it doesn't.

And I move on."

Poster B (aka some guy): "For me it is not about effort. Listening to music is great good fun. Of course there's effort involved, sometime so much it becomes noticable, even to me. But only intermittently.

So I never think about limits, and am always perplexed that limits are the first thing everyone jumps to (even you, for crying out loud!). Yes, some of it becomes enjoyable, some not.

My only point is that more things will become enjoyable if we tune in than if we tune out whenever anything doesn't immediately grab us. (We need to do some of the grabbing, eh?)"

*I had not, just by the way, said or even suggested that serious (!) music takes effort to appreciate. But you'd probably already guessed that, hadn't you?


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Well, I'm trying to grasp what you're saying, but I'm afraid I might be missing some of it.

But, since the title of the thread is "Sitting in Judgment", all I can say is that, yes, whether we set out to do it or not, we probably all make some personal judgment every time we hear something new, even if it's on just the very basic level of "I like that" or "I don't like that" or "I'm not sure that I like that".

My point is, that the older I get, the more likely I am to take the third option rather than the second. And, rather than assuming that the music itself is at fault when I'm ambivalent about it, I'm much more likely to assume that my own mood was either receptive or not so receptive at the time I heard it.

I'd love to be "engaged" everytime I sit down to listen to something, but, unfortunately, life doesn't work that way for me.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> I'm concerned about these listeners who 'passively engage and consume', and don't understand where this polarisation has come from.


I think I used 'passive' a bit too loosely. I didn't mean passive in terms of the general consumption of music, but rather passive in terms of formulating ideas about what music should be.



Elgarian said:


> A: 'Not this time. Hated it, in fact. But maybe I'll try again next year'. (This is what I aspire to do.)
> Or we say,
> B: 'According to the rule book, this music is bad'. (The rule book may be a personal one, or one deriving from some 'authority'.)


I genuinely understand the point you're making, but, the more I think about it, the more I reckon that _both_ kinds of listeners _need_ to exist, and I also imagine that most composers would be type B, which you dislike so much. Again, it's not as simple as just finding different ways to call something 'bad', it's about having a conception of what you think the artistic ideal is; how we should communicate through music. It's not really about what is good and bad, it's about what is _better_ - unfortunately, by extension, it just means that some things have to be worse!

I also completely understand your point about rulebooks changing, never being steady, always being broken. That is right, _and that is as it should be_. But rulebooks necessarily must exist. Without rulebooks, there is no consistency within an artistic movement; no room for interesting manipulations and deviations; and no evolution towards new movements. The Romantics had their rulebooks. The Impressionists in turn supplanted it with theirs. They weren't revolutions into anarchy - they were new ideas about _what is good; what is better_.

All I'm trying to say is that listeners can have this sense too. Maybe it's misplaced - it would certainly be more useful if they created art themselves. Nevertheless, there is nothing wrong with this as an approach to music. Personally, I prefer it because I like to rationalise things; I like to consider _why_ something is good, rather than just accept and enjoy something. And, whether I like it or not, if I am ever going to consider why any individual piece of music is good, then that necessarily opens up the opportunity for comparison. Furthermore, though I entirely accept that, after 1 listen, 10 listens, or 1,000,000 listens, I might find myself liking a piece of music I once detested, I unfortunately have a finite life-span. As such, I like to explore music with a certain level of guidance so that I can find what I like, and knowledgeably challenge myself accordingly, rather than throwing myself into an abyss at every turn, wondering when I might hit some ground.



Elgarian said:


> Now you may say - and I would agree wholeheartedly - that there's nothing _wrong_ in a person saying "No! stop! I like Mozart and I want only Mozart, and anything that doesn't sound like Mozart I will rule out of court!" And he may spend his days endlessly enjoying his Mozart, and very nice too. I'd rejoice for him, and indeed welcome his advice about listening to Mozart. BUT ... if he wants to tell me that Wagner is long and turgid and rubbish, and fails the test of the Mozart rule book, then I wouldn't pay much attention to his opinion of Wagner. (I know I'm caricaturing this, but I'm doing so not to construct a straw man, but to try to be as clear as I can.) And my scepticism about his opinion in this respect seems to me to be fair enough. I don't _think_ I'm saying any more than that.


I agree that such a conversation would be useless. If such things were to arise, I would instead ignore _specific_ appraisals of given composers, and ask the person what artistic ideals Mozart lives up to which Wagner fails in, and why they believe that music is better off in that way.

P.S. The most annoying thing I find in these discussions is that there is this constant talk about giving pieces a fair chance. And yet, I get the endless, frustrating sense that no chance is big enough to be a fair chance. People talk about making sure our opinions and judgements are well-considered, not just kidding ourselves that they are well-considered when they're not. But not once have I actually seen anyone actually accept a critical opinion as well-considered. Perhaps no one here has genuinely come across a well-considered opinion - I find that hard to believe. As such, I find the conversation generally quite slippery. I'd think it was fraudulent if I wasn't speaking to people I know better than that.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Rightly or wrongly, "sitting in judgment" should be viewed favorably.


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2011)

Used cycle seats for sale!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

There is much philosophical discussion in this thread. Maybe too much but really clear it is drawn to "defend" avant-garde music's awareness at least. But i think it's really about how you perceive/react to another person's opinion, about your *reaction* more than the other person's opinion both good or negative ones. When somes says "piece A is very good" as simple as that, everyone seems happy. But if they say "piece A is a weak piece of music" then people get into disaapointed responses. So i think the individual's personality/reaction really has a lot more to do with it, just like when u read an opinion about a journalist writing a column in the news , or a movie review, or book review, whatever. When it comes to art the individual attaches special feelings of awarneness and maybe enjoyment so the individual is naturally more sensitive to any opinion, good or bad ones about the art itself.

edit: i have a friend who is an artiste (part time teacher too) but she never gets bothererd by negatiove or positive opiniosn on her worr. as an artiste" she says she values peoples' opinions but does not react positively or ngativelu to it, other than just be thankful for an opinion.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Rapide said:


> There is much philosophical discussion in this thread. Maybe too much but really clear it is drawn to "defend" avant-garde music's awareness at least. But i think it's really about how you perceive/react to another person's opinion, about your *reaction* more than the other person's opinion both good or negative ones. When somes says "piece A is very good" as simple as that, everyone seems happy. But if they say "piece A is a weak piece of music" then people get into disaapointed responses. So i think the individual's personality/reaction really has a lot more to do with it, just like when u read an opinion about a journalist writing a column in the news , or a movie review, or book review, whatever. When it comes to art the individual attaches special feelings of awarneness and maybe enjoyment so the individual is naturally more sensitive to any opinion, good or bad ones about the art itself.
> 
> edit: i have a friend who is an artiste (part time teacher too) but she never gets bothererd by negatiove or positive opiniosn on her worr. as an artiste" she says she values peoples' opinions but does not react positively or ngativelu to it, other than just be thankful for an opinion.


In this vein, I would like to see greater consistency in those who say that being negative about music is wrong or unhelpful. The next time someone tells them that a piece is good, tell them that that's not the point either...


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2011)

Polednice and I agree quite frequently, more than you would think.

But here are a few things about which we do very much disagree. So, just to keep things clear and all, you know:



Polednice said:


> _t's about having a conception of what you think the artistic ideal is; how we should communicate through music. It's not really about what is good and bad, it's about what is better - unfortunately, by extension, it just means that some things have to be worse!_


_I don't see any difference between good/bad and better/worse. I think the point of listening to music should be to take in the sounds you're hearing, to take pleasure in those sounds to the best of your ability. Not to be asking "Is this piece better or worse than Brahms' third?" but engaging with and enjoying what's there before you. That's what I find so frustrating about "What's your favorite..." threads. Not that I don't have favorites--of course I do--but my sense of things is that each piece is its own self and has to be taken on its own terms. What's my favorite Bruckner symphony? Well, they're all different from each other. They do different things and have different goals. They do have similiarities, too, qualities that allow us to say "That's by Bruckner," even if we haven't heard that piece before. But to say "the fifth is my favorite" is almost impossible for me to do. The eighth and the fourth and the ninth and the second are all different, and I like them each for what each of them does itself.



Polednice said:



But rulebooks necessarily must exist. Without rulebooks, there is no consistency within an artistic movement; no room for interesting manipulations and deviations; and no evolution towards new movements. The Romantics had their rulebooks. The Impressionists in turn supplanted it with theirs. They weren't revolutions into anarchy - they were new ideas about what is good; what is better.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Completely.



Polednice said:



I like to consider why something is good, rather than just accept and enjoy something.

Click to expand...

I think "just accept and enjoy" is a false category. That's certainly not what I propose. It's certainly not what I do. I like to consider what it is about how I'm listening that's preventing me from enjoying something. Sometimes I conclude that it's the music. But I always consider the role I'm playing as listener. I never put all or even the bulk of the onus on the music. We're talking about a relationship here, with energy flowing in several different directions at once. To focus on the music only and on its putative qualities (its ability to please "the audience" or not, its ability to "engage" us--without us lifting a finger, I suppose!) is to ignore the complex flows of energy that make up the true situation.



Polednice said:



And, whether I like it or not, if I am ever going to consider why any individual piece of music is good, then that necessarily opens up the opportunity for comparison.

Click to expand...

I don't get very much out of comparison, yours or mine.



Polednice said:



Furthermore, though I entirely accept that, after 1 listen, 10 listens, or 1,000,000 listens, I might find myself liking a piece of music I once detested, I unfortunately have a finite life-span. As such, I like to explore music with a certain level of guidance so that I can find what I like, and knowledgeably challenge myself accordingly, rather than throwing myself into an abyss at every turn, wondering when I might hit some ground.

Click to expand...

It's not as bad as this makes it sound. For one, if you're genuinely interested in engaging (rather, as so often, than in being engaged), then it's not going to take even ten listens, probably. And if you end up not liking something, then why does it seem so seductive to tell everyone about your failure? It's as if we're saying, "I didn't like this, and since I cannot be wrong, this thing that I like must be bad. I must warn everyone not to listen to this bad stuff." Silly.

Well, gotta go. I still have a few abysses to throw myself into. Oh, it's fun!_


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

some guy said:


> I don't see any difference between good/bad and better/worse. I think the point of listening to music should be to take in the sounds you're hearing, to take pleasure in those sounds to the best of your ability. Not to be asking "Is this piece better or worse than Brahms' third?" but engaging with and enjoying what's there before you. That's what I find so frustrating about "What's your favorite..." threads. Not that I don't have favorites--of course I do--but my sense of things is that each piece is its own self and has to be taken on its own terms. What's my favorite Bruckner symphony? Well, they're all different from each other. They do different things and have different goals. They do have similiarities, too, qualities that allow us to say "That's by Bruckner," even if we haven't heard that piece before. But to say "the fifth is my favorite" is almost impossible for me to do. The eighth and the fourth and the ninth and the second are all different, and I like them each for what each of them does itself.


I think you're probably right that we agree more than anyone might realise. For example, on a sentence by sentence basis, I have no problem with any of the above. I would point out, of course, that never in my life have I ever asked myself anything like: "Is this piece better or worse than X?" I couldn't give a damn about piece-by-piece comparison or composer-by-composer comparison. I think that's all as pointless as you think it is. I do, however, care about movement-by-movement comparison, or ideal-by-ideal comparison. As I've said, what I and others think music _should_ be. Naturally, it so happens that considering this will mean that certain composers and pieces will be mentioned, but that's not really what I'm interested in at all. They are just examples for a discussion of more generalised, overarching principles.



some guy said:


> I like to consider what it is about how I'm listening that's preventing me from enjoying something. Sometimes I conclude that it's the music.


I don't suppose you could give me an example where you have concluded it was the music, and why?



some guy said:


> But I always consider the role I'm playing as listener. I never put all or even the bulk of the onus on the music. We're talking about a relationship here, with energy flowing in several different directions at once. To focus on the music only and on its putative qualities (its ability to please "the audience" or not, its ability to "engage" us--without us lifting a finger, I suppose!) is to ignore the complex flows of energy that make up the true situation.


I agree that such a relationship exists. I'm not trying to suggest that music should take on the responsibility of trying to please the listener. I just also don't think it's right that this should be inverted so that the listener has to find enjoyment in the music. There is obviously a middle-ground to be sought.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Some interesting things here, but also a lot of philosophical waffle/jargon going above my head. Even some books by musicologists & composers on music tend to be a bit less abstruse than some posts here.

But I'll comment on this (whether it's on topic or not, you can't blame people for going "off topic" if you don't give what it is in clear simple English) -



Polednice said:


> ....
> P.S. The most annoying thing I find in these discussions is that there is this constant talk about giving pieces a fair chance. And yet, I get the endless, frustrating sense that no chance is big enough to be a fair chance...


I agree with the gist of this. & I'd add that I dislike it when people tell us what we SHOULD be doing (unless we ask). In "real life" 9 times out of 10, if I tell someone what they SHOULD do, or if I'm told by others what I SHOULD do, the reaction is exacly the opposite, the SHOULD becomes a source of irritation and maybe even conflict because it's a matter of one person forcing what they think is "right" on the other. A better way to go is to try and reach middle ground, which is the best way in life imo, & the best way with music. Funny how when I started quitting smoking a while back, the people most eager to give me advice about quitting were smokers and ex-smokers. The ex-smokers advice was usually helpful, but the smokers advice wasn't really. If they haven't tried to quit, or quitted for a long time, why are they giving me advice, telling me what I SHOULD do? I'll figure it out myself, and get help from sources when/as I need it. Which brings me to this -



> ...People talk about making sure our opinions and judgements are well-considered, not just kidding ourselves that they are well-considered when they're not. But not once have I actually seen anyone actually accept a critical opinion as well-considered. Perhaps no one here has genuinely come across a well-considered opinion - I find that hard to believe. As such, I find the conversation generally quite slippery. I'd think it was fraudulent if I wasn't speaking to people I know better than that.


That's related to my experience with pianist Martha Argerich that I detailed above in an earlier post. After three "misses" I hit the "jackpot" with a fourth recording by her that I really liked and thought was excellent. In other words, it's the individual listener that has to want to change, or learn, or be challenged in their thinking, opinions, whatever. It's not people telling them SHOULDS and SHOULD NOTS if they don't want it, it's the listener working through things as is good for their needs...


----------



## Stasou (Apr 23, 2011)

I think that as music becomes more "complex" in today's terms, it becomes more able to be judged; I am going to be more judgmental of John Cage than of Bach. You could even say that John Cage and other modern composers are asking for it by wavering from the traditional standards of the ideal composition. And the point about concert-goers critisizing the performance during intermission: I don't see that judging the performance itself is wrong. The listener can create an image in his mind of how the composer intended the piece to sound and judge the performance based off of this image without taking a place of superiority over the music itself.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^ Yep, it's a free world, but there's a difference between criticism based on some experience (eg. giving your opinion on something that you've actually heard) & no experience (eg. prejudging - which can by extension lead to a fair bit of all-out rubbishing)...


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2011)

Polednice said:


> I don't suppose you could give me an example where you have concluded it was the music, and why?


I don't usually talk about what I don't like. For one, everything I don't like is thoroughly enjoyed by someone, somewhere. Why sully their enjoyment with my idiosyncrasies? Plus, I think that saying "I dislike Bax" is to say nothing about Bax, only about me. And it's not saying anything very important about me.

I dislike most of the pop music I hear. The constant repetition. The simple tunes. But I thoroughly enjoy things like Rzewski and ten Holt, which also have a lot of repetition. The tunes aren't quite so simple, but still. I just don't find that pop repays any sort of listening. It seems like it's not even supposed to be listened to, simply reacted to, with a bobbing head or a tapping foot. And most of my friends who like pop tend to want me to listen to the lyrics, not the music. The music is only there to carry those dynamite lyrics that are so great. (I am indifferent to the lyrics.)

Closer to home, I found that after a few listens to Simpson, I didn't want to do that anymore. If I want to listen to the three or four Nielsen quotes he uses over and over again, then I'll listen to Nielsen. But I don't go around on Simpson threads bashing the guy or his music or his fans. I don't see the point in that. Some people do. Some people enjoy Simpson. Some people enjoy bashing. I enjoy neither. To each his own, I guess.

Otherwise, I must say I do not seek for the middle ground very often, in anything. Certainly not in the arts. I want to push and keep pushing to the extremes. Well, no, I don't _want_ to, I just do. In fact, I'm going to go do that now. AEMAE, _Maw._ If it's not extreme, I am going to be soooooo angry!

[Edit: _Maw_ seems fine on first hearing.]


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

It's kind of funny, in a way.

Other people here get quoted and specifically answered by others.

My comments are never quoted, only referred to, or even worse, come under the phrase ("some people say...")

Makes it a little hard to respond.

But, I also feel myself a bit misrepresented. My comments have been mostly phrased in terms of how I personally and specifically respond to the urge to sit in judgment. I don't recall doing a lot of finger-pointing about what others do, though it may be taken as such by implication by the specific reader.

For example, with regard to "considered" opinions, I gave a very specific example about my own feelings about an Alwyn CD. I was merely trying to be honest about my own reticence in passing judgment on a work I listened to a total of two (somewhat distracted) times. My reference to the Brahms 3rd was not meant to imply that I feel I must listen over 40 times to something before I say anything about it - it was just a contrast with the Alwyn example.

I have been blogging on Elgar compositions on this site recently. I don't listen to each piece forty times before I feel able to write about it. But, I find a score to listen along with where possible, and I make sure to give each piece _several_ attentive listens first. If you think I would prefer it if other people would do something like that before sitting in (negative) judgment, you're probably right. But, it's not my place to tell people what to do. I'm busy enough telling myself what to do. 

Sorry if my early remarks caused confusion on that.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

some guy said:


> ...
> Closer to home, I found that after a few listens to Simpson, I didn't want to do that anymore. If I want to listen to the three or four Nielsen quotes he uses over and over again, then I'll listen to Nielsen. But I don't go around on Simpson threads bashing the guy or his music or his fans. I don't see the point in that. Some people do. Some people enjoy Simpson. Some people enjoy bashing. I enjoy neither. To each his own, I guess...


Well yes, "to each his own," which is what you say, but you don't think that, do you? What you imply above is that you don't like rehash. Fair enough. But then you "sit in judgement" of people who correspondingly don't like some music you do like. It's the same old same old, eg. telling how people should change their attitude (other members on these forums sometimes tend to ram their canons down eachothers throats, which never ever works, it's a recipe for disaster). I don't know the music of Simpson, but if people listen to his music, at least they're listening to some post-1945 music, which is a start, it's better than nothing, and in some cases, it may well be their limit of endurance with these things. Why is this a problem? We're all different, aren't we?



> ...
> Otherwise, I must say I do not seek for the middle ground very often, in anything. Certainly not in the arts. I want to push and keep pushing to the extremes. Well, no, I don't _want_ to, I just do...


Well, if you don't want people to judge or prejudge, you have to have a level of impartiality yourself. Not total, just commonsense, not too extreme or ideological. You can promote or encourage appreciation of certain things, but not to the exclusion of other things which for example you don't find to be "legit" or "kosher" contemporary music (eg. rehash). Extremism speaks to me of ideology, not the value of the actual music at hand. As I said before, with many composers (incl. post-1945 ones) some of their things I like, some of it I don't. Everyone has their limitations, & I'm the first to admit mine. I don't bash things but I have a right to state my views, call a spade a spade, just like I did today on "current listening" thread giving my opinions on Boulez' _Sur Incises _which I listened to last night. I detest censorship of any kind, or self-censorship, on these forums. A forum is for open discussion, you can give your opinion as long as you don't break the rules (& I personally try to go for balance)...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Vesteralen said:


> ...
> That's what bothers me most about the you-don't-have-to-be-a-musical-genius-to-pass-judgment argument.
> 
> No, you don't.
> ...


I agree & I think what you said about comparing Brahms & Alwyn is apt. Before writing a "review" of anything I haven't heard before to post on this forum I often listen to a disc two or three times. I want the music to give a bigger payload than just one listen & I want to be able to write something of some value, be it of positive, negative or middling/unsure opinion. So yes, I agree it's better to have opinions which you can back up with at least _some actual experience_, not just ideology, or waffle or prejudgement, etc...


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Sid James said:


> I agree & I think what you said about comparing Brahms & Alwyn is apt. Before writing a "review" of anything I haven't heard before to post on this forum I often listen to a disc two or three times. I want the music to give a bigger payload than just one listen & I want to be able to write something of some value, be it of positive, negative or middling/unsure opinion. So yes, I agree it's better to have opinions which you can back up with at least _some actual experience_, not just ideology, or waffle or prejudgement, etc...


Hey..I've been quoted! Thanks, Sid.

And, I think I can agree with you. Two, or perhaps even better, three _attentive_ listenings will also give me a lot more confidence to write something than four, five or six listenings while doing something else (like driving, or working).

With a larger work, like the Alywn symphonies, for example, though, I don't know if I would_ ever _have the confidence to make certain judgments like "disjointed". That was my quick impression, but I wouldn't feel it fair to say that unless I could actually read a real expert's analysis of the work. I can read music, and I know a bit about music theory and forms, but I am no expert. Someone could easily come back at me and make me feel more foolish than I usually do by pointing out things like inversions, augmentations, yada..yada..yada that I might have totally missed.

I could always say I liked it or I didn't like it (in Alwyn's case, I did like it, by the way) based on other, simpler factors that I can understand. But, if I ever make a statement like that it is never with the purpose of telling other people how they should feel about it. I see nothing wrong with speaking up in recommendation of something I like, nor with letting people know I didn't like something. But, I usually don't feel right saying something about a piece I haven't really given any attentive listening to.

(That was why I ducked out of the Top *** Lists at TC. I don't object to people getting involved in it, but it made me too uncomfortable to be required to pass judgment on three works, when often it was only one that I really knew well and wanted to vote for.)


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Vesteralen said:


> Hey..I've been quoted! Thanks, Sid.
> 
> And, I think I can agree with you. Two, or perhaps even better, three _attentive_ listenings will also give me a lot more confidence to write something than four, five or six listenings while doing something else (like driving, or working)...


I agree, when I contribute here I want it to be of some substance & to add, this forum is like a diary for me, but one where others can read and comment on what I think about a piece of music.



> ...
> With a larger work, like the Alywn symphonies, for example, though, I don't know if I would_ ever _have the confidence to make certain judgments like "disjointed". That was my quick impression, but I wouldn't feel it fair to say that unless I could actually read a real expert's analysis of the work...


Well I think many post-1945 musics are "disjointed," though I usually use the word "fragmented" which means the same thing. There are often bits and pieces of melodies in these works, or note-rows, things like that, sometimes they kind of come together in my mind after knowing the works more, sometimes they don't, they're too complex for that, they just give me a certain vibe.



> ...
> I could always say I liked it or I didn't like it (in Alwyn's case, I did like it, by the way) based on other, simpler factors that I can understand. *But, if I ever make a statement like that it is never with the purpose of telling other people how they should feel about it.* I see nothing wrong with speaking up in recommendation of something I like, nor with letting people know I didn't like something. But, I usually don't feel right saying something about a piece I haven't really given any attentive listening to.
> ...


These are good points and quite clearly expressed. I esp. like the sentence I bolded, it rings true to me.



> ...
> (That was why I ducked out of the Top *** Lists at TC. I don't object to people getting involved in it, but it made me too uncomfortable to be required to pass judgment on three works, when often it was only one that I really knew well and wanted to vote for.)


I also avoid those lists as I'm not that systematic, I like to listen to what I want not what I have to to contribute to a list or vote, & I'm also more interested in ideas behind the music, the histories. I've created some of these threads myself, I think it's good that some guy has as well, but more clearer language from him in the OP would have been welcome, but no use crying over spilt milk...


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

some guy said:


> Otherwise, I must say I do not seek for the middle ground very often, in anything. Certainly not in the arts. I want to push and keep pushing to the extremes. Well, no, I don't _want_ to, I just do. In fact, I'm going to go do that now. AEMAE, _Maw._ If it's not extreme, I am going to be soooooo angry!
> 
> [Edit: _Maw_ seems fine on first hearing.]


Hmmm. Do u think pushing extremes in art/music does the music and their composers more appreciation from listenrs today? Or it doesnt matter so long as u can engage and enjoy it doesnt matter what actually happens to the development of the arts and so "failure" as u suggest is all on the listeners part despite pushing for extreme by u?

English is not my first language so maybe i misunderstand.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I have been thinking that I've kind of encouraged newer music in my own way with a friend of mine who lives overseas. I have sent this friend a number of discs over the years of old and new/newer music. Here are some that I have sent her, and she liked them one way or the other -

Kodaly - Hary Janos (on Naxos compilation of Hungarian music, incl. Liszt, Hubay, etc.)
Peter Sculthorpe - Sun Music I-IV, Piano Concerto, Irkanda IV, Small Town
Bartok - Miraculous Mandarin Suite, Concerto for Orchestra
Vaughan Williams - Symphonies Nos. 2 "A London Symphony," & 8
Hindemith - Violin Concerto, Symphonic Metamorphosis, Mathis der maler symphony

Older music -
Berlioz - Symphonie Fantastique
Haydn - compilation on Naxos
Schubert - Symphonies Nos. 5 & 8 "Unfinished"

This friend has little experience of classical music but is very open to it, to new things. She has attended a few concerts of classical music where she is living now.

It's people like this that make me think that most ordinary people are open and receptive to new experiences with classical music of many kinds. But the fact is that those of us who are encouraging them in their pursuits have a kind of responsiblity to do it with *commonsense*. Eg. there is no use in me sending something by a more "difficult" contemporary or modern composer. I was trying to tread the middle ground in choosing what new or newer music to send her. As a result, her responses tended to be positive. She really liked Sculthorpe, Vaughan Williams for the visual aspect of their music in particular, and she thought Hindemith was very emotional & expressive.

This is what I'm kind of saying about the* middle ground *in relation to encouraging people to listen to new or newer music. Having your own radical preferences is all well and good, but giving them music that sounds like a bump in the night or whatever isn't going to work or be useful for most people. There's no use in lecturing people in being balanced & non-judgemental about more recent music if we ourselves can't accept what is basically commonsense. Eg. I listened to Boulez's _Sur Incises _last night and I don't think that sending this friend this piece which even I find overly complex and intellectual is going to achieve anything in relation to what I'm talking about.

Of course, some people here will understand what I'm saying, others may shoot me down for *saying it like it is (within my own experience*, & this is just one, I can tell you more), & yet others will just ignore what I'm saying as it doesn't suit their idea of how we should promote/share/whatever our passion for the music we love...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

some guy said:


> I don't usually talk about what I don't like. For one, everything I don't like is thoroughly enjoyed by someone, somewhere. Why sully their enjoyment with my idiosyncrasies? Plus, I think that saying "I dislike Bax" is to say nothing about Bax, only about me. And it's not saying anything very important about me.


I accept your personal preferences in that regard, and do not think there's anything wrong with them, but they make me wonder why you're on TC! After all, this is a classical music forum, where people like to talk about their tastes, and what they like and don't like. Even in the 'real world', when people come together to talk about music, it is again about what they like and don't like (and hopefully, more interestingly, why). Because of that, you seem to be quite a rarity, and you shouldn't be surprised by what you find here.

If I have one more important point to make though, it would be that everyone should realise that - annoying exceptions aside - talking about tastes, likes, and dislikes is a _means to an end_, not an end in itself. It's both about starting conversations with the potential to lead somewhere more interesting, and about finding out about the person you're talking to; discovering your similarities and differences, and why they exist.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

My oh my, indeed. The business class lounge is such as dull and boring place compared with this thread. At least my time is paid. 

But as for this thread, it seems the real message that most sides (if not all) appear to be suggesting is what my mother used to tell me when I was a child: "be polite to people and speak politely to them". I guess I can pretend to be polite and use the right words to express dislike to a piece, as some might find that less resentful though it's not necessarily the truth. But as this is the virtual world and anonymity can be a choice, who really cares.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I just listened to a piece for guitar quintet by Australian composer* Matthew Hindson*. My thoughts on it, incl. youtube clip, HERE on current listening thread. The combination of instruments in this piece is the same as used by Boccherini, and it's also influenced by Mendelssohn. So, with his obvious ideology of progress and innovation at all costs, some guy would definitely see this piece as conservative, pastiche, old hat, having sounds of the past, the usual high Modernist cliches.

The fact is I enjoyed it, as I've recently been enjoying guitar music by Boccherini and others. I can enjoy this more commercial or accessible if you like contemporary music, with a strong hint to the past as well as taking in things like minimalism, pop culture, etc. I can also enjoy some more top-heavy newer things like Xenakis, Stockhausen, Boulez, Carter, etc. depending on what piece of theirs we're talking about.

But as Polednice says, nutting out what we like and don't like & are in-between with is part of the business of these online forums, as well as real life conversations about music. If I go with you into an Italian restaurant and I know you don't like pizza but you like lasagne or whatever, I'm not going to order a pizza, am I? This is commonsense. There are limits to openess and everyone has their limitations. Some guy's appears to be music which is in some way traditional or commercial, not about high-end innovation or progress. Well fair enough, everyone has an ideology, the problem is that some people around here won't admit theirs. That the first thing that is worth doing, telling people where you stand about certain important things. Without that, it is smoke and mirrors & chimeras or whatever they are...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Vesteralen said:


> (That was why I ducked out of the Top *** Lists at TC. I don't object to people getting involved in it, but it made me too uncomfortable to be required to pass judgment on three works, when often it was only one that I really knew well and wanted to vote for.)


I can see your reasoning. But in jovial defense of those Top XYZ threads, it's really and mainly done for some internet fun and many of us seriously doubt the statistical significance of it anyway as representing that of the real world of listeners. Maybe the top 10 or 20 of those list at best have anything purported to its apparent intentions. But it's all for fun. Just like labelling some music as fart.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I can see your reasoning. But in jovial defense of those Top XYZ threads, it's really and mainly done for some internet fun and many of us seriously doubt the statistical significance of it anyway as representing that of the real world of listeners. Maybe the top 10 or 20 of those list at best have anything purported to its apparent intentions. But it's all for fun. Just like labelling some music as fart.


Oh, yes. I understand what you're saying, and I have no problem with the idea of it (outside of my own participation). I will even look at it from time to time to check out what's happened.

My problem was having to always take one point away from somebody's favorite. And, I usually had to make my choice like this: 'I don't know this piece, but I've heard other stuff from this composer I didn't like (or, his name sounds like he must write this kind of music which I don't usually like), so if I have to pick one, this will have to be it'. Then, somebody else would get mad at me axing their favorite, and, to my mind, with good reason.

I'm afraid I'm a little too sensitive to just shrug that off. But, I'm fine that others can do so. (Or maybe they just have a more encyclopedic knowledge of the repertoire than I do.  )

And, yes, I do not particularly enjoy confrontational posting. I prefer people to have a certain level of respect for others when they contribute to a Forum. That makes me a dinosaur, I know. But, a dinosaur can't change his spots, can he.....???


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Polednice said:


> I accept your personal preferences in that regard, and do not think there's anything wrong with them, but they make me wonder why you're on TC! After all, this is a classical music forum, where people like to talk about their tastes, and what they like and don't like. Even in the 'real world', when people come together to talk about music, it is again about what they like and don't like (and hopefully, more interestingly, why). Because of that, you seem to be quite a rarity, and you shouldn't be surprised by what you find here.
> 
> If I have one more important point to make though, it would be that everyone should realise that - annoying exceptions aside - talking about tastes, likes, and dislikes is a _means to an end_, not an end in itself. It's both about starting conversations with the potential to lead somewhere more interesting, and about finding out about the person you're talking to; discovering your similarities and differences, and why they exist.


I have no real problem with other people expressing themselves about music they like and don't like, as long as they don't get too vicious or vulgar in doing it. In fact, some of those threads where people express their views on things are the most entertaining threads to read on the whole site.

Personally, I'm very cautious most of the time in what I say, mainly due to two things: 1) An honest recognition of how I've changed my mind in the past; and 2) Enough experience on the Web to know how easy it is to go into defensive mode when someone challenges me, and then finding I start taking stiff positions on things that, in reality, aren't that important (or even black-and-white) to me. So, I end up being dishonest to myself without even knowing exactly how it happened.

One of the hardest things to do on a Forum is to come out and say, "You know what? You have a point. I'm going to have to rethink my position." The most you ever usually see is "I agree with you in part, but..."


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Vesteralen said:


> One of the hardest things to do on a Forum is to come out and say, "You know what? You have a point. I'm going to have to rethink my position." The most you ever usually see is "I agree with you in part, but..."


I would _love_ it if that ever happened to me.

I was lamenting the fact that on a certain famous political panel programme here in the UK, the whole set-up is geared from the outset to be incessant repetition of ideological mantras. Even if there is an intricate issue at hand, and the evidence _can actually yield ONE definitive answer_, there is so much obfuscation, and so much ignoring of the facts, that no one has ever said: "actually, I think I might be wrong."

I think it would be wonderful if that happened. And if I genuinely thought that about one of my own thoughts, I'd say it straight away! Unfortunately, I'm always right.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Looking at where this thread started out and where it is now makes me think I've just assisted in a hijacking....:lol:


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Vesteralen said:


> Other people here get quoted and specifically answered by others.
> My comments are never quoted


Can't speak for anyone else of course, but since I nearly always agree with what you say, there's often not much to say in response except 'Yes. Just so.' The lack of response doesn't mean your posts are not read, or not appreciated. As a matter of fact, if I come across a post of yours while skimming through the new contributions, I invariably stop to read it. Good sense isn't such a common commodity in the world that one can afford to pass it by.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Vesteralen said:


> I do not particularly enjoy confrontational posting. I prefer people to have a certain level of respect for others when they contribute to a Forum. That makes me a dinosaur, I know.


On the contrary; it's a consequence of being educated. An important part of education ought to be to understand the difference between a disputation and a quarrel. Oddly enough just a short time ago I encountered something related to this - well, rather, related to something related to this! I was reading a collection of CS Lewis's letters while eating my lunch. I'll go and get it, to quote from.

_[Patter of feet going downstairs and back up again.]_

OK here goes. He's talking about the most common faults that he finds in the criticism written by undergraduates:

"In adverse criticism their tone is that of personal resentment. They are more anxious to wound the author than to inform the reader. Adverse criticism should diagnose and exhibit faults, not abuse them."

Wise words, those, and not completely inappropriate to the discussion we're having.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Polednice said:


> I also completely understand your point about rulebooks changing, never being steady, always being broken. That is right, _and that is as it should be_. But rulebooks necessarily must exist. Without rulebooks, there is no consistency within an artistic movement; no room for interesting manipulations and deviations; and no evolution towards new movements. The Romantics had their rulebooks. The Impressionists in turn supplanted it with theirs. They weren't revolutions into anarchy - they were new ideas about _what is good; what is better_.


I'm pressed for time, but just want to plant a flag here, perhaps to come back to later. Briefly, I think this statement about rulebooks is historically inaccurate. When new art forms are under development, no conceivable rulebook could keep up. To use the example I'm most familiar with - just consider the rapidity of change not just from year to year, but even from month to month, during the great decades of French painting from about 1860 onwards. They weren't establishing new rulebooks: they were exploring new modes of expression, and succeeding with such brilliance that their art was always out in front of critical reception. And the moment rulebooks _were_ established about (let's say, Impressionism) well enough for a large body of artists to try their hand, it became a relatively lifeless thing in their hands. Here we enter the world of the Academies, where usually (but not always) we tend to move further from the world of innovative new perceptual discovery.

So I think we have to differ here on the importance of the rulebook. And I'm in a rush so I have to stop.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Elgarian said:


> Can't speak for anyone else of course, but since I nearly always agree with what you say, there's often not much to say in response except 'Yes. Just so.' The lack of response doesn't mean your posts are not read, or not appreciated. As a matter of fact, if I come across a post of yours while skimming through the new contributions, I invariably stop to read it. Good sense isn't such a common commodity in the world that one can afford to pass it by.


Thank you so much. That means a lot coming from you, believe me.

And, my original thought you quoted here makes me feel a bit embarrassed now, because I've lately been in a flurry of quotes and responses....


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> Can't speak for anyone else of course, but since I nearly always agree with what you say, there's often not much to say in response except 'Yes. Just so.' The lack of response doesn't mean your posts are not read, or not appreciated. As a matter of fact, if I come across a post of yours while skimming through the new contributions, I invariably stop to read it. Good sense isn't such a common commodity in the world that one can afford to pass it by.


Well, Mr. Elgarian, you ought to be using the 'like' button to let Vesteralen know!


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Polednice said:


> Well, Mr. Elgarian, you ought to be using the 'like' button to let Vesteralen know!


Ah, the tyranny of the 'like' button! I'm never sure what level of 'liking' excellence the button is intended for, and wouldn't necessarily have thought it should be used just to indicate plain agreement or mild approval. (Sometimes I like posts that I disagree with.) Usually I use it when posts make me smile for some reason; sometimes I use it if I'm nodding and thinking 'yes, yes, the world needs to be told this!'; sometimes I just forget it's there; sometimes I'm in a hurry; and sometimes I use it to excess just because I've forgotten to use it for several days. I suppose I could get therapy for this somewhere?

But the reassuring thing is: he knows now.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Polednice said:


> But not once have I actually seen anyone actually accept a critical opinion as well-considered. Perhaps no one here has genuinely come across a well-considered opinion - I find that hard to believe. As such, I find the conversation generally quite slippery. I'd think it was fraudulent if I wasn't speaking to people I know better than that.


I need a bit of clarification - do you mean 'critical opinion' in the academic sense (that is a discussion of a work that may entail discussing where the work succeeds and where it fails), or in the popular sense (where 'critical' is regarded as essentially fault-finding)?

In the former sense, I find all sorts of valuable, well-considered critical opinion in this forum - most particularly about music that I know little about. If I were in need of advice on Brahms, for instance, I'd probably seek you out to ask, and would regard your opinion as well-considered. I can't possibly express how much benefit I've had from well-considered critical opinion on recorded performances of Sibelius, obtained both here and elsewhere.

But I suspect you're not talking about that sort of acceptance of 'critical opinion'. I think you're probably talking about reading a 'well-considered' opinion and changing one's own opinion as a result. Is that it? I think the person who has often come close to doing that for me is *some guy*. In the past I've had discussions with him which have forced me to look very closely at what I'm saying, and then, if not actually changing my opinion, at least retuning it somewhat.

Take the discussion we've been having in this thread - I mean, you and I specifically. Even though there are fundamental differences in our opinions, the effect of your posts on me is not to make me say, 'Rubbish - this must be refuted!', but rather, 'Is that right? And if it's not right, _why_ is it not?' That dialectic process forces me to try to understand and articulate my own position more clearly. The aim of the exercise is not for one side to 'win', but for both sides to understand more than they did at the start, not only about the 'other' opinion, but about their own. So that by the time the debate splutters away into silence, both parties' opinions are more 'well-considered' than they were at the outset. That's happened here already. Both of us have made some headway; we both see the problems more clearly, and our disagreement (where we do disagree) is more informed now than it was when we began.

(In Hegelian dialectics, the synthesis that emerges after the confrontation of thesis with antithesis is not victory for one or the other, nor is it some milk-and-watery compromise; it's a new level of understanding, fuelled by the confrontation.)


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I liked Elgarian's quote by C.S. Lewis & this one below by Vesteralen -



Vesteralen said:


> ...
> One of the hardest things to do on a Forum is to come out and say, "You know what? You have a point. I'm going to have to rethink my position." The most you ever usually see is "I agree with you in part, but..."


...both of which make me think that things that change my mind about certain composers isn't really talking to friends/colleagues who are music lovers, or talking about it online, it's books on music that tend to do that. & even liner notes of CD's if they're well written and incisive. & of course, just listening to as broadest range as possible of classical music.

But these online forums are useful in other ways, eg. I'm listening to some Hovhaness now on youtube, and I "discovered" him by reading about him on TC a couple of years back. So one does learn things, but as I said above, it's not through like the apparent point of the OP here, to tell us what we should do, how we should think, etc. Making it an "us" and "them" kind of debate, putting people in your good and bad books.

The fact is, that it is alright to have a preference for some things over others. If Polednice has principles allied to the Romantic movement, then naturally that's the music that he'll gravitate towards. If some guy has similar passion for experimental/innovative things or whatever, fine, go do it. As long as people don't ram things down my throat, tell me what to think, that is fine. Some guy denied that it's about keeping the door open but I think that's an important thing, actually. I have no time for inflexible people who leave before interval if something newer than from 1900 is about to be played in the second half (esp. if it's reasonably "Romantic" like Mahler or R. Strauss). If Polednice is not open to music that sounds like a bump in the night or creaky doors, then fine. If some guy doesn't like what he implies to be rehash or sounding too much of the past, etc. then fine for him. If I just go by what I like, don't like, or am middling about & then spend a bit of effort to work on that, then that's fine too. There's different ways of doing this, & we'll all keep our different ways, regardless of what some guy or anybody else tells us what we SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do...


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2011)

Elgarian said:


> Ah, the tyranny of the 'like' button! I'm never sure what level of 'liking' excellence the button is intended for, and wouldn't necessarily have thought it should be used just to indicate plain agreement or mild approval. (Sometimes I like posts that I disagree with.) Usually I use it when posts make me smile for some reason; sometimes I use it if I'm nodding and thinking 'yes, yes, the world needs to be told this!'; sometimes I just forget it's there; sometimes I'm in a hurry; and sometimes I use it to excess just because I've forgotten to use it for several days. I suppose I could get therapy for this somewhere?
> 
> But the reassuring thing is: he knows now.


Oh Elgar I do so agree with you.
Quite honestly I dislike this button intensely it can be taken to mean so many different things e.g Your right and he is wrong. Why not just post and say exactly what you do mean.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

Andante said:


> Oh Elgar I do so agree with you.
> Quite honestly I dislike this button intensely it can be taken to mean so many different things e.g Your right and he is wrong. Why not just post and say exactly what you do mean.


If one feels that strongly about a post, why not do both? I know that I have, and I am sure that many other members here have done the same as well. Using the "like" option in no way precludes anybody from going into something in more depth, if they feel that passionately about it.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> Take the discussion we've been having in this thread - I mean, you and I specifically. Even though there are fundamental differences in our opinions, the effect of your posts on me is not to make me say, 'Rubbish - this must be refuted!', but rather, 'Is that right? And if it's not right, _why_ is it not?' That dialectic process forces me to try to understand and articulate my own position more clearly. The aim of the exercise is not for one side to 'win', but for both sides to understand more than they did at the start, not only about the 'other' opinion, but about their own. So that by the time the debate splutters away into silence, both parties' opinions are more 'well-considered' than they were at the outset. That's happened here already. Both of us have made some headway; we both see the problems more clearly, and our disagreement (where we do disagree) is more informed now than it was when we began.


I'm glad we both have this sense. It is the definition of useful conversation. Something I have come to appreciate through my university's tutorial system! 



Elgarian said:


> I need a bit of clarification - do you mean 'critical opinion' in the academic sense (that is a discussion of a work that may entail discussing where the work succeeds and where it fails), or in the popular sense (where 'critical' is regarded as essentially fault-finding)?


I meant both really, in the sense of a well-considered, but negative opinion. I can think of plentiful examples where someone has expounded upon the intricacies and masteries of a particular composer or work, and everybody appreciates the acclaim and accepts how it shows that the piece is Good. However, if someone on this forum calls a work poor and then tries to explain why, the response is almost invariably: "you're listening wrong." Even a response like: "well, we all have different tastes", though less confrontational, would miss the opportunity of a discussion like ours - pushing and pulling to understand the others' perspective; not trying to win anyone over to your own side.

I must admit, of course, that well-_explained_ positive opinions are much more common on here than well-explained negative ones. The negative ones tend to be in the form of jibes or dismissals, which is entirely unhelpful. However, having said that, I think these often jarring criticisms are at least partly well-_considered_, even if not explained, because I don't think most people on this forum are the type to form immediate superficial judgements that they stick to unwaveringly. On both sides of the exchange, I think people need a little more why(?) and a little less point-scoring or retorts which boil down to: "you don't know how to listen to music."


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> ...On both sides of the exchange, I think people need a little more why(?) and a little less point-scoring or retorts which boil down to: *"you don't know how to listen to music*."


Oh man, that used to go on here all the time when I joined just over 2 years ago. Certain personalities with huge egos and spurious/extreme ideological positions were to blame. If I had a dollar for every time I read something to the effect of the part I bolded above, I'd have a fair few pennies in my pocket, I can tell you...


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2011)

samurai said:


> If one feels that strongly about a post, why not do both? I know that I have, and I am sure that many other members here have done the same as well. Using the "like" option in no way precludes anybody from going into something in more depth, if they feel that passionately about it.


Why should you need or even want to do both? The vast majority of "like" pushers leave it at that, just check it out. But I am going off topic so will leave it at that


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

All I can say to that is, when I feel motivated enough after reading what someone has written, I will respond in both modalities. If I'm too tired however, or if several other members have written what I would have anyway--and usually a lot better than I could have--I'll just utilize the "like" option. So, in the final analysis, I don't think that even if your observation is correct vis a vis our use of the likes as opposed to writing a more complete answer, that it really matters. IMHO, the like button is great, and I fervently hope that it is here to stay as a permanent feature of this wonderful Forum.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Polednice said:


> I can think of plentiful examples where someone has expounded upon the intricacies and masteries of a particular composer or work, and everybody appreciates the acclaim and accepts how it shows that the piece is Good. However, if someone on this forum calls a work poor and then tries to explain why, the response is almost invariably: "you're listening wrong."


I can guess at an explanation for that, I think, on the grounds that I proposed earlier in this thread: negative opinions are generally less reliable than positive ones. A positive response usually arises from a genuine perception of a quality that the music really does possess. So if someone has listened carefully, and explains clearly enough what it is about the music that he or she values, others can listen, perhaps with fresh ears, and perceive its value too. (This happens for me frequently.)

But negative opinions are usually based on a _failed_ attempt to perceive value, and are often expressed in terms that dismiss the music not on the grounds of what it _is_, but on the grounds of what it isn't. The fan of Romantic music who comes to Haydn, and dismisses him because he finds his music 'superficial' or 'sterile' or 'emotionless' (one could choose other words), is dismissing him because he isn't a Romantic. But that's not genuine criticism at all. It's like dismissing _Pride and Prejudice_ because there are no Klingons in it.

The other point I'd make is that almost all the music we discuss here has long since passed the test of whether it's 'good' or not. Those threads that try to declare that Mozart is rubbish (or Sibelius, or choose your own), are OK for those who enjoy them as a custard-pie-throwing party game, but their very intention shows them to be based on _ill_-considered opinion.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^ I agree with what you're saying re the added value of positive as against negative opinions, reactions, etc. to music. 

However, over the more than 2 years I've been here, I've seen some other longer term members attitudes change to certain composers, etc. Some people come on here rubbishing a certain composer or style, then the longer they stay here & read about these composers, & listen to their music, they begin to be less hostile to these things. They develop more reasonable attitudes.

2 years ago the least popular composers were the minimalists, about a year ago it was the atonalists, nowadays it seems to be John Cage, Xenakis, the non-minimalist post-1945 group, to give it a collective label. The vibe has changed here. Now, even if people express dislike for Schoenberg, etc. most of them say it in a clear and calm way, not just "it's rubbish" or "it's ****" or "cr*p." So defenders of the faith don't pounce on the individual for making his thoughts known, they put their views reasonably. I think the vibe is important & it is much better now than it was. The only thing I don't like is people making insinuations to the effect that people who like certain types of music are in some way abnormal or freaks. This is very low and primitive and it simply is not on, imo...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> I can guess at an explanation for that, I think, on the grounds that I proposed earlier in this thread: negative opinions are generally less reliable than positive ones. A positive response usually arises from a genuine perception of a quality that the music really does possess. So if someone has listened carefully, and explains clearly enough what it is about the music that he or she values, others can listen, perhaps with fresh ears, and perceive its value too. (This happens for me frequently.)
> 
> But negative opinions are usually based on a _failed_ attempt to perceive value, and are often expressed in terms that dismiss the music not on the grounds of what it _is_, but on the grounds of what it isn't. The fan of Romantic music who comes to Haydn, and dismisses him because he finds his music 'superficial' or 'sterile' or 'emotionless' (one could choose other words), is dismissing him because he isn't a Romantic. But that's not genuine criticism at all. It's like dismissing _Pride and Prejudice_ because there are no Klingons in it.
> 
> The other point I'd make is that almost all the music we discuss here has long since passed the test of whether it's 'good' or not. Those threads that try to declare that Mozart is rubbish (or Sibelius, or choose your own), are OK for those who enjoy them as a custard-pie-throwing party game, but their very intention shows them to be based on _ill_-considered opinion.


I accept this, but this still doesn't tackle the issue of nasty responses to _actually, properly well-considered_ negative opinions. See my thread about music we dislike and why - my reasoned discussion of Bach, which discusses what _is_ in the music at sufficient length - has already met with one: "Brahms sucks" and one "you fool, listen to this!"


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> I can guess at an explanation for that, I think, on the grounds that I proposed earlier in this thread: negative opinions are generally less reliable than positive ones. A positive response usually arises from a genuine perception of a quality that the music really does possess. So if someone has listened carefully, and explains clearly enough what it is about the music that he or she values, others can listen, perhaps with fresh ears, and perceive its value too. (This happens for me frequently.)
> 
> But negative opinions are usually based on a _failed_ attempt to perceive value, and are often expressed in terms that dismiss the music not on the grounds of what it _is_, but on the grounds of what it isn't. The fan of Romantic music who comes to Haydn, and dismisses him because he finds his music 'superficial' or 'sterile' or 'emotionless' (one could choose other words), is dismissing him because he isn't a Romantic. But that's not genuine criticism at all. It's like dismissing _Pride and Prejudice_ because there are no Klingons in it.
> 
> The other point I'd make is that almost all the music we discuss here has long since passed the test of whether it's 'good' or not. Those threads that try to declare that Mozart is rubbish (or Sibelius, or choose your own), are OK for those who enjoy them as a custard-pie-throwing party game, but their very intention shows them to be based on _ill_-considered opinion.


Those are my sentiments exactly when it comes to "is" and "isn't". Music does not exist in a vacuum, and not everyone is Chopin. Things as simple as dynamic markings had a different meaning from Baroque to Classical to Romantic. Different instruments, different performance practices, different conventions (like the history of opera _seria_), etc. We use anachronistic merit systems that leave the human element out of history, and decide for a composer how emotional or subtle or rapturous his music was, according to our completely off base terms.

@Sid: Not to get on you constantly, Sid, but to hear that Bach's music wasn't emotional seems like a repression of a lot of history and tradition. Bach's music was super emotional! He wrote Cantatas tailored to scripture readings, churning the phrases out like taffy and stretching at certain points in the scripture, and exhaling at other points. If you heard an HIP performance of his concerto BWV 1052, it's bombastic and modulates like a kaleidoscope once the harpsichord sets off on it's own after the finish of a tutti section.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Elgarian said:


> But that's not genuine criticism at all. It's like dismissing _Pride and Prejudice_ because there are no Klingons in it.


I love this. This may be my favorite TC quote ever.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> @Sid: Not to get on you constantly, Sid, but to hear that Bach's music wasn't emotional seems like a repression of a lot of history and tradition. Bach's music was super emotional! He wrote Cantatas tailored to scripture readings, churning the phrases out like taffy and stretching at certain points in the scripture, and exhaling at other points. If you heard an HIP performance of his concerto BWV 1052, it's bombastic and modulates like a kaleidoscope once the harpsichord sets off on it's own after the finish of a tutti section.


I think Sid would understand that. My guess is that, like me, Sid hasn't personally been moved emotionally by Bach's music. I'm in awe of it, I give him the respect he deserves, but, after years of listening to his music, some of which I love, I can honestly say his music has never stirred my emotions.

(I'm a bit hampered by the fact that I do not listen to classical religious music unless, like Brahms "A German Requiem", it's not filtered through church liturgy and dogma. So, I guess I'm probably missing some of Bach's more stirring material.)


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Polednice said:


> I accept this, but this still doesn't tackle the issue of nasty responses to _actually, properly well-considered_ negative opinions. See my thread about music we dislike and why - my reasoned discussion of Bach, which discusses what _is_ in the music at sufficient length - has already met with one: "Brahms sucks" and one "you fool, listen to this!"


The reason why you've had responses like that is at least partly because (as I said above) there are people who don't understand the difference between a disputation and a quarrel. Also, they haven't read your initial post carefully enough, which is a plain and honest personal statement in which you try to articulate why you can't make any progress with Bach. It's quite clear that you're not in any sense declaring Bach to be a loser, or some such. For what it's worth, I encounter very similar problems with Bach myself, and like you I'm puzzled about it. I suspect that you, like me, would very much like to make some sort of breakthrough into Bach, but find the music too unpleasant to be able to listen for long enough to achieve that.

I have to stop there - no time. But I will come back to this - perhaps more usefully in your other thread.


----------



## jdavid (Oct 4, 2011)

The art that I respond to most strongly gives me positive or puzzling intellectual stimulation, and brings joy or solace or introspection. I do judge, I suppose, as I search for those works that provide some or all of those qualities. I can’t help it. I do believe, however, that I am extremely open to new frontiers.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

It's like dismissing Pride and Prejudice because there are no Klingons in it.

There's no Klingons in Pride and Prejudice!!?? I have been mislead!!! I must take this book back to Barnes and Noble ASAP!!!

:lol:


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> There's no Klingons in Pride and Prejudice!!?? I have been mislead!!! I must take this book back to Barnes and Noble ASAP!!!


Wait! Don't do anything you might regret later. At least, not until you've read the bit where Lady Catherine de Bourgh says to the Bennets: 'I shall say what I have to say, and then I shall leave immediately. Resistance is futile.' That's the moment when we realise that she's actually the Borg Queen. It's a point not widely understood.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^ *Elgarian*, thanks for the derailment - NOT! :lol:

I think the spoof novel called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies & various sundry spin-offs of this "concept" (which is apparently raking in huge wads of cash for the publishers who took a risk to put this kind of stuff out, be it good or bad) have beaten you to doing that kind of thing.

But then again..._Pride and Prejudice and Klingons _may not be a bad idea after all......


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Vesteralen said:


> I think Sid would understand that. My guess is that, like me, Sid hasn't personally been moved emotionally by Bach's music...


Bach's _Double Violin Concerto _made me come to tears (the slow movement) at a concert earlier this year. But yes, this has not happened any other time with Bach. I like his violin concertos and solo instrumental things, but things like his _Brandenburg Concertos_ bore me greatly, not to speak of his other things.



> ...
> (I'm a bit hampered by the fact that I do not listen to classical religious music unless, like Brahms "A German Requiem", it's not filtered through church liturgy and dogma. So, I guess I'm probably missing some of Bach's more stirring material.)
> ...


I like choral music, incl. sacred music, but somehow I don't "click" with Bach's efforts in this area. I'm not going to try to explain it with reference to dogma or whatever. I mean Bruckner was as devout a Catholic as you'd get, but things like his _Mass in E minor_ grab me a lot, and funnily enough I hear quite a bit of doubt in it, much more doubt at least than in his symphonies, generally speaking. That mass takes me to a very deep space, so I don't listen to it often. But I've heard a number of Bach's cantatas on radio & they bore me the same as his _Brandenburgs_. It's mainly his VC's and solo instrumental things that engage me to a higher level (please people, don't post half a dozen youtube clips to convert me, I'm only talking to the issue of Bach as an example, my personal example, thank you)...

& two contrasting opinions of Bach here by two people who love his music -



Lukecash12 said:


> ...
> @Sid: Not to get on you constantly, Sid, but to hear that Bach's music wasn't emotional seems like a repression of a lot of history and tradition.* Bach's music was super emotional!*...


(by *Vesteralen*) -


> ...I'm in awe of it, I give him the respect he deserves, but, after years of listening to his music, some of which I love, *I can honestly say his music has never stirred my emotions*...


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Sid James said:


> I think the spoof novel called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies & various sundry spin-offs of this "concept" (which is apparently raking in huge wads of cash for the publishers who took a risk to put this kind of stuff out, be it good or bad) have beaten you to doing that kind of thing.


Ah _Pride and Prejudice and Zombies_! Yes. I poured my soul into writing that book.


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2011)

I like where this thread has gone, where no novelist has gone before, but I'm not so sure about some of the spin offs it has spawned. More excuses for haters to hate--excuses they really don't need, I say.

Anyway, it made me think of this lovely comment by Jacques Barzun that I ran across recently. That is I ran across the comment recently, not Barzun:

"True criticism, regardless of its conclusions, must spring from love--passion for the object presented or, in censure, passion for the object aimed at and missed. The critical relation does not obtain when the artist's very purpose seems to the critic futile, or remains a mystery...."


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

some guy said:


> "True criticism, regardless of its conclusions, must spring from love--passion for the object presented or, in censure, passion for the object aimed at and missed. The critical relation does not obtain when the artist's very purpose seems to the critic futile, or remains a mystery...."


I would say: how convenient for the artist!


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

some guy said:


> "True criticism, regardless of its conclusions, must spring from love--passion for the object presented or, in censure, passion for the object aimed at and missed. The critical relation does not obtain when the artist's very purpose seems to the critic futile, or remains a mystery...."


That's the kind of perceived truth that raises goosebumps. Thanks Michael. That's bloody marvellous.

[*@Polednice* - do please try reading it again, several times. It's not about convenience for anybody, and it's certainly not about giving the artist a free lunch. It expresses an understanding that goes right to the core of what true criticism is about, and it says in two sentences everything that (and more than) I've been trying (feebly) to say in a dozen posts.]


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Either it's as flimsy as I thought it was originally, or it is trying to say less than I thought it was trying to say. In whichever case, it's a useless quotation.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Polednice said:


> Either it's as flimsy as I thought it was originally, or it is trying to say less than I thought it was trying to say. In whichever case, it's a useless quotation.


Well, for the record, these are the kinds of ideas that I've been reading about, and contemplating, and writing about, for several decades. And this is one of the most significant and perceptive statements about criticism that I've ever encountered on this or any forum. *some guy* has done us a great service by alerting us to it.

There's no reason why you should trust any suggestion of mine, of course - but I would most earnestly recommend keeping the jury out on this, at least until you understand the full implications of what he's saying.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

An appraisal like that doesn't really leave much room for anyone to disagree. Is that not something to be wary of?


----------



## jdavid (Oct 4, 2011)

The highly chromatic nature of J.S.Bach's music, especially in slow tempos, and his sense of line can sound absolutely romantic to me - i.e. the sarabandes from the Suites for Solo Cello and the aforementioned 2nd movement of the Concerto for Two Violins to name just _some_ examples.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I like where this thread has gone, where no novelist has gone before, but I'm not so sure about some of the spin offs it has spawned. More excuses for haters to hate--excuses they really don't need, I say.

Surely, you're not sitting in judgment now, are you?


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Rapide said:


> Hmmm. Do u think pushing extremes in art/music does the music and their composers more appreciation from listenrs today? Or it doesnt matter so long as u can engage and enjoy it doesnt matter what actually happens to the development of the arts and so "failure" as u suggest is all on the listeners part despite pushing for extreme by u?
> 
> English is not my first language so maybe i misunderstand.


The OP has not answered my question yet. Maybe like many they choose to avoid judgment by doing so.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Well, I'm not going to comment on some guy's quotation from that theorist, whether it's relevant/useful/insightful or not, whatever. The fact is I think it's better to put things in your own words, in SIMPLE ENGLISH, address points that people have raised, have a proper "discussion." Conversation is a two-way street, & in the case of this forum it goes more than to ways, there are many people here with different opinions. I have been accused of being long-winded which is a fair point, however when I start a thread discussing these kinds of aesthetics/ideas behind music things, I make an effort to answer people either individually, or the gist or vibe of where the thread has gone. Sometimes I do put in a quote from a book I'm reading, but not to ram home some point/my own agenda, just more for the reason of opening up/stimulating further discussions. My aim is not to put out some fancy things but just get more discussion going, take it to other possible places/tangents.



Rapide said:


> The OP has not answered my question yet
> ...


You are new here, so you probably aren't aware of how these kinds of discussions seem to go around here. They do go off topic but it doesn't help if the opening post is not clear and in convoluted language.



> ...Maybe like many they choose to avoid judgment by doing so.


I like people to call a spade a spade, that is better than using high falutin' theorising language. It's okay to be direct and simple as long as you aren't breaking the rules and being primitive...



StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> Surely, you're not sitting in judgment now, are you?


We all judge and are judged. It's okay if it doesn't go out of hand. I don't like any ideology, really, esp. the extreme ones, be they too conservative or too progressive. The way I try to encourage friend's interest in the music I like is not through ramming things down their throat or pushing them into the deep end but going on the middle path (as in the example I gave with what music I sent to that friend living overseas). some guy didn't respond to this, to what I did, he just gave an easy blanket statement, which says everything and nothing. Which is maybe kind of why this thread has gone off topic, we're not talking about (eg. accepting) what some guy is saying or apparently saying, because without a backround in critical theory it is hard for me to nut out what he's saying. I think even reading some of what Boulez says about music is clearer, & English isn't even his first language...


----------



## Whipsnade (Mar 17, 2011)

Just out of curiosity, have you read much art criticism?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Yes... art criticism can be quite brutal. Robert Hughes, among others, is at his finest when he is at his most critical.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Polednice said:


> An appraisal like that doesn't really leave much room for anyone to disagree. Is that not something to be wary of?


It's a statement with which one may indeed disagree, but which if considered fairly, can be seen to express something of great value. In other words, even if you end up disagreeing with what Barzun is saying (after considering it _very_ carefully in order to be perfectly sure about what he's saying), it can still be admired. (To take a crude example - we all know Newton's theories on mechanics are fundamentally wrong - that is, we have cause to 'disagree' with them. But they're still of immense value - not only because of their practical value, but also as an elegant intellectual and imaginative construct which is beautiful to contemplate.) Now Barzun's statement is an example of that sort of thing. Even if you disagree with him, to describe his statement as 'flimsy' or 'useless' is worryingly similar to saying 'Brahms sucks'.

The statement is so beautifully expressed that it's pretty daunting for me to try to explain it, but I'll make the attempt, even though I may end up with egg all over my face. What follows is presented in hope rather than confidence. I'll take each part separately.



> True criticism, regardless of its conclusions, must spring from love--passion for the object presented or, in censure, passion for the object aimed at and missed.


Surely this is fairly clear. If this is a symphony or a painting under review (say), then the critic must have an innate deep sympathy for what has been attempted. Even if he feels the artist has failed, he must still care deeply about what he perceives the symphony or painting might have been, and be perceptive enough to identify its shortcomings. This is not a million miles from the quotation I gave from CS Lewis: "Adverse criticism should diagnose and exhibit faults, not abuse them" (assuming that the critic is capable of correctly identifying them in the first place). This is very demanding on the critic, of course. He has to be able to enter into the spirit of the work, and have enough understanding himself to be able to follow the internal logic or spirit of what the artist has been doing. It requires of him a level of expertise and sympathy that we don't often see. This is why the number of truly great critics that the world has produced is very small.

I'd suggest that this first sentence alone is sufficiently perceptive as to encourage us take what follows very seriously:



> The critical relation does not obtain when the artist's very purpose seems to the critic futile, or remains a mystery.


If the critic doesn't understand, or has no sympathy with what the artist is trying to achieve, then how can he assess whether the artist has achieved it? How could he recognise success, if he's succeeded, or failure, if he's failed? We're back in Klingon territory here: if the critic's concept of a good novel is one that has Klingons in it, then _Pride and Prejudice_ would be castigated as a bad novel. (I take this ludicrous example to demonstrate the absurdity more clearly. The fact is that a similar absurdity exists - albeit not so obviously - in most poor criticism, much of which is directed not at what the work _is_, but at what it is _not_.)

Barzun's statement is not the 'anything goes' statement that you took it to be. He's not saying _at all_ that the critic should refrain from adverse criticism; neither is he saying that you can't disagree with his findings. He's talking about the necessary qualities in a good critic. There's no point in asking an obsessive Klingon enthusiast to review _Pride and Prejudice_ fairly, just as there's no point in attempting to review the singing of Bob Dylan if your ideal of singing is represented by Pavarotti. The reviewer has to be able to climb into the box in which the artist is displaying his work. If he persists in staying outside the box, his review is worthless.

I'm aware that even after all this, I haven't done justice to Barzun's two sentences, because I can't express myself as lucidly and economically as he can. But I hope I've done enough to demonstrate that _even if you disagree with this ideal of criticism_, it's a very carefully constructed and thoughtful critical world view that deserves more than summary dismissal.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> ...
> Surely this is fairly clear. If this is a symphony or a painting under review (say), then the critic must have an innate deep sympathy for what has been attempted. Even if he feels the artist has failed, he must still care deeply about what he perceives the symphony or painting might have been, and be perceptive enough to identify its shortcomings...


Well, if I can give a practical example of the above, if I'm reading what you're saying correctly, I was just reading a book on various aspects of music by Aaron Copland. He devotes a chapter to Ives & Villa-Lobos. He says that structurally their works are not always watertight, they do tend to ramble, but in this they show an adventurous spirit, a kind of daring, and a sprawling epic quality, a vastness that perfectly imaged the landscape and cultures/traditions of their countries. Obviously, if we compare a symphony by these two guys to those of something more structured or coherently/traditionally argued, like say of Brahms or Dvorak, then Ives & Villa-Lobos will come off as second best, but if we look at their works with a deep understanding of their context, inspiration, artistic aims, convictions, lives, etc. then we will get a clearer picture. Eg. take them more on their own terms, not on Brahms terms or Dvorak's.



> ...This is not a million miles from the quotation I gave from CS Lewis: "Adverse criticism should diagnose and exhibit faults, not abuse them" (assuming that the critic is capable of correctly identifying them in the first place). This is very demanding on the critic, of course. He has to be able to enter into the spirit of the work, and have enough understanding himself to be able to follow the internal logic or spirit of what the artist has been doing. It requires of him a level of expertise and sympathy that we don't often see. This is why the number of truly great critics that the world has produced is very small...


I agree, I don't envy critics, they have a hard job. The best of the music critics I've read are wide ranging, not myopic, they aim to give their opinion, back it up with experience and insight based on the source, and also educate the reader about what they're criticising. They mix objectivity and subjectivity. You are right, to do this well is a talent.

But then again, this online forum is not a clique of critics or professional writers on music, it is not as formal as that. This is not Gramophone magazine or an academic journal on music. As I said, I listen to a wide range of music, as wide a range as I can, my aim is engagement. I do try to get something out of everything I listen to & gradually build upon that. I try to be open and flexible & read professional opinions, like those of Copland and others. I really try to get off my backside to understand music, esp. if it's new to me. If that isn't enough for some guy, well then I don't know what is. Even among some musicians I know, both current and mainly former/retired, even they aren't as hard core as I am in some ways about being determined to nut out the things in music that I see as a challenge. To face challenges, get something out of most things. Obviously, this involves forming opinions based on experience mainly. What more do you want, some guy???...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Rather than take on your interpretation, Elgarian, I'm just going to go back to the original quotation, which I think is mealy-mouthed and ill-expressed (it would be helpful if book/date citations were given for these things, but I realise - though Barzun is still alive - that this may come from a time of more antiquated language).



> True criticism, regardless of its conclusions, must spring from love--passion for the object presented or, in censure, passion for the object aimed at and missed.


True criticism must spring from love: this is something I can generally accept, so long as it hints (as I think it does) that, for a critic's opinion to be valid, he must be in love with the endeavour of music itself, not necessarily with the individual piece of music being critiqued, which he may dislike intensely (if Barzun were suggesting that the critic must be in love with piece, then I would take great issue with it).

The next part is either badly put, or I'm just unfamiliar with the archaic uses of 'object'. Of the two mentions of the word in that sentence, the first reads quite clearly at first glance as a concrete object, _i.e._ a piece of music. However, taking that meaning for the second 'object' is difficult to make sense of. If it does have the same meaning, then it would seem to be (unclearly) suggesting that the passion of the critic is what has missed if the critic is censuring the work. In other words, negative opinions are unfounded. This is (as I have said earlier in the thread) ridiculous. If, however, the second use of 'object' is supposed to be taken to mean 'object_ive_', then it makes more sense - that the critic has a passion for the _aim_ of the music, even if he feels that the aim is not achieved. Whether or not, on second reading, one should therefore read the first 'object' as 'objective' I don't know.

So, in this first part, the thought is either something I intensely disagree with, or it is poorly phrased.



> The critical relation does not obtain when the artist's very purpose seems to the critic futile, or remains a mystery.


This part is more obviously contentious, and I certainly don't agree with it. If the purpose of the artwork remains a mystery, then, yes, I think it is misplaced for someone to critique it because they would not have the necessary foundations to do so. However, I think it is _wholly_ justified for someone to critique a work even if they think the purpose of it is futile. This is precisely what I was talking about earlier in terms of engaging with the idea of what music _should_ be. Many people - most typically composers - will form ideas about the best methods of musical communication, or what music as an art form should be used to communicate. If you feel that a piece of music communicates through poor means or that it communicates a poor idea, then it's perfectly valid to assert that reaction as a demonstration of your artistic ideals.

This is why I said earlier that the quotation is very convenient for the artist, because it allows only critics who empathise and approve of the artist's purpose to have valid opinions. In fact, _anyone_ can have a valid opinion - whether they approve or disapprove - just so long as they _understand_ the work in question. And it is most certainly possible to understand something and to think it futile.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Polednice said:


> Rather than take on your interpretation, Elgarian, I'm just going to go back to the original quotation &c, &c ...


I think we've probably taken this as far as we can sensibly go, now. If you'd posted this earlier, I'd have said it was based on a misinterpretation of Barzun's statement, and would have gone on to explain what I believe he did actually mean. But I've already done that in my previous post, and I've nothing further to add in that respect. I do have three additional observations to make, however, based on what you say here. And then I think I'm done.

1. I don't understand the problem with his use of the word 'object'. If the object were (say) a painting, and if the artist has succeeded in what he has attempted, then the critic's observations should be illuminated by his admiration and understanding of the thing actually presented before him. If the painter _hasn't_ succeeded, the critic's observations should be illuminated by his admiration and understanding of the _attempted_ goal, even though it hasn't been achieved, in order to demonstrate the faults in the actual work presented. The point here is that the critic must clearly understand and care about the _aim_ of the artist's efforts, even if the artist failed to achieve it. I say again: how else can he comprehend or empathise with what the artist was attempting? This is related to my second point:

2.


> And it is most certainly possible to understand something and to think it futile.


Not in this context, it isn't. Rather than discuss this in general terms, let me try to apply what he's advocating to a specific instance, which might make it clearer. When the first abstract paintings were exhibited, many people, whose experience was essentially nineteenth-century-based (that is, based on the assumption that a painting would have a recognisable figurative subject), saw the whole idea of abstract painting as futile. Indeed, there are still many people today who regard abstract painting as futile (I've discussed the matter with many such folk). Now these people have every right to their personal view, but they cannot form a proper critical relation with abstract paintings. If I don't understand the aim of abstract painting (and if I think it's futile, then I _certainly_ don't understand it), how can I possibly know whether this one here in front of me is a good one or not? This is the kind of situation that provides the context in which Barzun's statement should be taken. If I want to know if a particular canvas by Ben Nicholson is a good abstract painting, I ask someone who loves abstract painting. (I'd surely be a fool to ask someone who _hates_ abstract painting.) Or (different context): if I want informed and helpful opinion on a Brahms symphony, whom should I ask? You? Or one of the 'Brahms sucks' gang?

3.


> mealy-mouthed and ill-expressed


'Ill-expressed' is a description with which I disagree, but I understand that's how you see it and accept that. But 'mealy-mouthed' seems an unfortunate choice of word, with its shadowy implications of deliberate obfuscation, hypocrisy, dishonesty or insincerity. This takes us close again to 'Brahms sucks' territory, and to the issue of abusing what's under discussion instead of merely pointing out its faults. It's particularly troubling to someone like myself who believes it (for carefully considered reasons, already given) to be an honest, truthful statement of considerable insight, and very elegantly expressed. We can agree to differ on his powers of expression; but I don't believe we have any grounds for suspecting him to be a charlatan.

And at that I think I'm done here. Thanks for the discussion, which has made me think more carefully, and indeed to rethink my position on these matters.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)




----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I understand that Elgarian won't want to engage me on this final point, but a final point I have to make! And this is the thing that riles me more than anything else.

Elgarian gave the example of a critic who doesn't understand or empathise with the goals of abstract art not being able to give a fully valid opinion on a piece of abstract art. I agree with this. The problem is that if a critic _does_ understand, empathise and fully admire the goals of abstract art, but reacts negatively to a painting, then people who like the painting or have some other vested interest will say (using either their own idiocy or Barzun's) that the critic doesn't understand abstract art and so should keep his mouth shut.

Insert any composer or type of music instead of abstract art. It is so intensely frustrating to talk to people who really are actually saying: "you cannot have a valid opinion unless it is positive." The closest we have come to reason is "it _might_ be valid if it's negative, but there's no way of proving it." Well screw that.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2011)

Polednice said:


> The problem is that if a critic _does_ understand, empathise and fully admire the goals of abstract art, but reacts negatively to a painting, then people who like the painting or have some other vested interest will say (using either their own idiocy or Barzun's) that the critic doesn't understand abstract art and so should keep his mouth shut.


Yes. You have misunderstood Barzun's comment, and you've expressed it the same way you expressed your misunderstanding of the OP, by restating a point and presenting it as a refutation of the point. Maybe some people would react as you have speculated. Not Barzun, though. He is saying that a negative comment about a particular object that comes out of understanding, empathising and fully admiring is valid. And don't you think that the understanding, empathising and full admiration will be obvious to any of the critic's readers, even the ones with vested interests? And don't you also think that lack of understanding, lack of empathy and full disgust will also be obvious to any reader? I wish you had included that aspect of things in your scenario.



Polednice said:


> Insert any composer or type of music instead of abstract art. It is so intensely frustrating to talk to people who really are actually saying: "you cannot have a valid opinion unless it is positive." The closest we have come to reason is "it _might_ be valid if it's negative, but there's no way of proving it." Well screw that.


One could almost say that it is intensely frustrating to talk to people? People are different from each other. They have different backgrounds, different ideologies, different opinions. So hey presto! we're going to disagree with each other. OK. Let's disagree with each other. No help for it; we might as well make the best of it. There's a system for doing that. It's called logic. One of things logic forbids in a civilized conversation (a disputation as opposed to a quarrel) is ad hominem attacks. That is, instead of addressing what someone says, one addresses the someone (or their mom). So the point of the disputation is lost, you see, and the conversation plunges into insult and calumny. And that certainly is frustrating.

But, "oh well." This is an online forum. Many people contribute. Some seem interested in ideas; some not. Can't be helped. Some seem interested in music; some in just being annoying. Again. Can't be helped. And while it is true that if we focussed on the things said rather than on the sayers we'd be better off, that's not likely to happen.

If you talk to people, you are bound to get frustrated. But not talking to people is probably not a good idea. So maybe it's figure out how to deal with frustration....


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Polednice said:


> The problem is that if a critic _does_ understand, empathise and fully admire the goals of abstract art, but reacts negatively to a painting, then people who like the painting or have some other vested interest will say (using either their own idiocy or Barzun's) that the critic doesn't understand abstract art and so should keep his mouth shut.


You're right, I don't want to continue with this because I've spent longer on it already than I can really afford (which is a compliment to you, and an indicator of the interest the discussion has aroused). But I think it's important to note that neither I, nor I think Barzun, would respond in the way you suggest. I'll speak for myself rather than Barzun - but if I read such a negative criticism of a work by a critic who, I had every reason to believe, did have an understanding and empathy for that kind of art, it would make me look carefully at the work in the light of the critic's comments, and try to decide for myself whether, or to what degree, he was right. Or, if I already had a close acquaintance with the work, and I thought the critic had overlooked something important, I'd try to explain what had been overlooked.

Of course I can't answer for those who might be so ill-mannered as to tell him to shut up because he didn't understand, for I wouldn't be among them - and neither, I think, would Barzun. The only sensible thing to do is ignore them, I suppose. The real point of the process is to extend our perceptions and enrich our lives through art as much as we can, by whatever means possible (including discussions like this); and I'd leave those who want to use art as a reason for engaging in bickering, to carry on with it among themselves.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> "True criticism, regardless of its conclusions, must spring from love--passion for the object presented or, in censure, passion for the object aimed at and missed. The critical relation does not obtain when the artist's very purpose seems to the critic futile, or remains a mystery...."


Perfect quote - the perfect shield especially for extreme cacophonic crap music. All it's saying is this: (first part) only criticise if you love the work or at the very least, think you understand the work, and then even so, negative crticisms are welcome; (second part) but if you don't understand the work, then better to keep your trap shut.

Well, guess what? It ain't gonna work for me. This is a free world.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

some guy, I don't deliberately argue against ideas that no one has stated; only against ideas that I think I have read. If I have misunderstood what has been said, multiple times even, then it is either because those ideas are not being put forward very intelligibly, or because I am just much dumber than I think. In either case, sorry for the inconvenience.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Polednice said:


> And this is the thing that riles me more than anything else.... etc


I'd intended, but forgot, to add one more observation. I sincerely don't understand the need to identify bad art and prove it to be bad. Insofar as I have any experience of bad art (or what I _think_ is bad art), it's very uninteresting and not worth the trouble of talking about. It'll be forgotten soon enough anyway, if it really is bad. So my inclination (if I were you, faced with some bad art), would be to ignore it and listen to some Brahms instead. It's the _good_ stuff that's of value to us.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Sid James said:


> Well, if I can give a practical example of the above, if I'm reading what you're saying correctly, I was just reading a book on various aspects of music by Aaron Copland. He devotes a chapter to Ives & Villa-Lobos. He says that structurally their works are not always watertight, they do tend to ramble, but in this they show an adventurous spirit, a kind of daring, and a sprawling epic quality, a vastness that perfectly imaged the landscape and cultures/traditions of their countries. Obviously, if we compare a symphony by these two guys to those of something more structured or coherently/traditionally argued, like say of Brahms or Dvorak, then Ives & Villa-Lobos will come off as second best, but if we look at their works with a deep understanding of their context, inspiration, artistic aims, convictions, lives, etc. then we will get a clearer picture. Eg. take them more on their own terms, not on Brahms terms or Dvorak's.


I completely agree. I think that's the spirit that we're talking about.



> I do try to get something out of everything I listen to & gradually build upon that. I try to be open and flexible & read professional opinions, like those of Copland and others. I really try to get off my backside to understand music, esp. if it's new to me.


I've always had the impression that you were a genuine seeker after the richest and widest possible musical experience you could find. I'm envious of the breadth of music you can enjoy. If this were a 'breadth of musical vision' contest (thank goodness it's not), the score would be something like Sid James 100, Elgarian 7. Seriously!

You'll forgive my lengthy posts on these theoretical issues, I know. I can appreciate they're not everyone's cup of tea, but I really do enjoy thinking about this sort of thing; and always I find a challenge, somewhere, to what I previously thought, which in turn makes me reconsider what I think. Yes, I know it might be more beneficial to pop a Haydn CD into the player instead, but we are who we are!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I have read this thread with some interest. My first reaction to the OP was a nagging sense that it was at least slightly mistaken. I think everyone contributing has helped me get a better appreciation of this issue. I have come to agree with the OP. That does not mean that I must like all music. It also does not mean that critics can never have strong negative reactions to music.

I think we have to start with the assumption that any human activity that involves many people investing significant time and energy over many years most likely has merit. We all love certain things and have no interest in others. Those who have not come to appreciate certain endeavors (say, classical music, avant-garde music, American football, violent video games, etc.) are not in a good position to critique those endeavors. I _think_ we may all agree on this point. Obviously, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the question becomes, "How valuable is that opinion to others who are genuinely interested?" I don't like avant-garde music and have not learned to appreciate any of it, therefore, those who are interested in understanding or investigating avant-garde music should probably be very wary of my opinions on the subject. It's not that I just don't get avant-garde music (although for me that is true). More importantly, those who are interested in exploring the subject probably want to hear what's _right/good/interesting_ about it first rather than what is _wrong/bad/uninteresting_.

Negative criticism is not useless. If a knowledgeable person (I know that's tough to accurately define), _who enjoys avnat-garde music_, expresses a negative view of an avant-garde work, it will likely be expressed in terms of why the work falls short of good avant-garde works. In other words, the critic is saying, "We all generally like this _stuff_, but unfortunately this particular work does not measure up, and here's why." Others who like avant-garde music can evaluate whether they agree. But I'm not sure how even an expert critic who does not like avant-garde music can give a very useful critique of an avant-garde work _to those who like avant-garde music_. The critic can express herself and may make interesting points, but in some sense _she does not share the same language as her readers_.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I agree with mmsbls & thank Elgarian's compliment. It's not that I don't like theorising but it's hard to understand for me. I have a friend who studied these things at uni, and often what he says is above my head - eg. structuralism, deconstructivism, existentialism, all this stuff. That's why I just use simple language & prefer the OP to do that, because it's my bias/preference, and I think most people on a kind of diverse forum here would benefit from that. I think you can clarify what you're saying in real life conversation easier than online, esp. with complex theoretical things.

But as I said, the book I read by Copland on music, even that was written in more clear language, aimed at an educated reader but not specialised in musicology, theory, semiotics, etc. It was just a book on various things current in music in the 1950's, it was taken from a series of lectures he did in a university in the USA. I think if Copland (or even Boulez, as I said even though English isn't his mother tongue, even he sometimes can come across as more lucid, esp. if it's about his own music, but it depends where you read his things). Basically if there's no need for composers to complicate things there's no need for us.

I even agreed with most of some guy's last post, except this -



some guy said:


> ...
> 
> But, "oh well." This is an online forum. Many people contribute. Some seem interested in ideas; some not. Can't be helped. Some seem interested in music; some in just being annoying. Again. Can't be helped. And while it is true that if we focussed on the things said rather than on the sayers we'd be better off, that's not likely to happen.
> 
> ...


This comes across as condescending to me. It is talking down. It is making value judgements (& I'm not being sarcastic, it has nothing to do with the title of this thread). It is silly to do this imo, esp. online but even in real life with people you hardly know. Basically, some guy is blaming people for misinterpreting what he was saying in the OP, but he doesn't admit that his language there was less than clear. Okay I might be bottomfeeder but I do read various books on music, I have a degree (but not in music), so if you can't get through to me, yes, the middle ground, how are you going to get through to others? This is not being balanced or reasonable, imo. Even most musician acquaintances/friends I know would read the OP and probably say/ask "what the hell is this about, what's his point, etc.?"

& re the part about people who "can't be helped" what immediately came to my mind was that this isn't a doctor's or dentist's surgery where you do need medical "help." People's opinions on music, whether you agree with them or not, are not like something you need medicine for or a procedure done on. It's not about "fixing" them, it's about saying clearly what you think and OPENING UP NOT CLOSING OFF a dialogue. Otherwise, you're no different from the authoritarians and hard-core conservatives which you obviously detest...


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

mmsbls said:


> I have read this thread with some interest. My first reaction to the OP was a nagging sense that it was at least slightly mistaken. I think everyone contributing has helped me get a better appreciation of this issue. I have come to agree with the OP. That does not mean that I must like all music. It also does not mean that critics can never have strong negative reactions to music.
> 
> I think we have to start with the assumption that any human activity that involves many people investing significant time and energy over many years most likely has merit. We all love certain things and have no interest in others. Those who have not come to appreciate certain endeavors (say, classical music, avant-garde music, American football, violent video games, etc.) are not in a good position to critique those endeavors. I think we may all agree on this point. Obviously, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the question becomes, "How valuable is that opinion to others who are genuinely interested?" I don't like avant-garde music and have not learned to appreciate any of it, therefore, those who are interested in understanding or investigating avant-garde music should probably be very wary of my opinions on the subject. It's not that I just don't get avant-garde music (although for me that is true). More importantly, those who are interested in exploring the subject probably want to hear what's _right/good/interesting_ about it first rather than what is _wrong/bad/uninteresting_.
> 
> Negative criticism is not useless. If a knowledgeable person (I know that's tough to accurately define), _who enjoys avnat-garde music_, expresses a negative view of an avant-garde work, it will likely be expressed in terms of why the work falls short of good avant-garde works. In other words, the critic is saying, "We all generally like this _stuff_, but unfortunately this particular work does not measure up, and here's why." Others who like avant-garde music can evaluate whether they agree. But I'm not sure how even an expert critic who does not like avant-garde music can give a very useful critique of an avant-garde work _to those who like avant-garde music_. The critic can express herself and may make interesting points, but in some sense _she does not share the same language as her readers_.


This strikes me as a carefully thought-out, well-balanced, and very clearly expressed response to the discussion. Thank you.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Sid James said:


> This comes across as condescending to me. It is talking down.


Just for the record, out of a sense of fairness, I feel I should say that I don't myself find anything condescending in *some guy*'s post. His description of what tends to happen in a forum discussion is tongue-in-cheek, but is pretty accurate in my experience. Considering the amount of flak he's taken in the past, merely for defending his taste in music, I'm amazed by how reasonable and polite he remains. His original post (which I still think is perfectly clear and presents a truly valuable idea) has led to a really interesting discussion, with the expression of a wide variety of views; please, let's not spoil it by letting it turn from a discussion into a quarrel.

*Footnote*


> the part about people who "can't be helped"


Sid, he's not saying _the people_ can't be helped. He's using an expression that means the same as a shrug, as in : 'I may not like this, and I may not like that, but it _can't be helped_'.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> I'd intended, but forgot, to add one more observation. I sincerely don't understand the need to identify bad art and prove it to be bad. Insofar as I have any experience of bad art (or what I _think_ is bad art), it's very uninteresting and not worth the trouble of talking about. It'll be forgotten soon enough anyway, if it really is bad. So my inclination (if I were you, faced with some bad art), would be to ignore it and listen to some Brahms instead. It's the _good_ stuff that's of value to us.












I don't disagree with any of this. I have obviously not made my point at all well. Oh well.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Polednice said:


> I don't disagree with any of this.


If we agree on that much, then I'd say the remaining _dis_agreements aren't really all that important.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Perfect quote - the perfect shield especially for extreme cacophonic crap music. All it's saying is this: (first part) only criticise if you love the work or at the very least, think you understand the work, and then even so, negative crticisms are welcome; (second part) but if you don't understand the work, then better to keep your trap shut.
> 
> Well, guess what? It ain't gonna work for me. This is a free world.


I understand the frustration of feeling that your opinions aren't welcome unless they share certain things in common with another's.

I really doubt that the majority of posters on this site would really want to put a "gag order" on someone so that they couldn't say what they think. But, to be realistic, once a person who has no sympathy for a certain type of music (to the point that they refuse to 'waste their time' listening to it) has made their opinion known publicly, what more can they add to the discussion that anyone else would benefit from hearing?

It just ends up being endless reiterations of the same POV. Such activity never converts anyone else, and all it does is irritate.
I think that's where the frustration level in _other _people starts to come out, and it's hard to blame them.

Personally, I think it's all kind of amusing, but I can see why some don't.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

My bad - wrong thread!


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

I love sitting in judgement almost as much as I do sitting in limbo.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

kv466 said:


> I love sitting in judgement almost as much as I do sitting in limbo.


What are you talking about?! Of course, limbo is no fun at all, but sitting in judgement?! What juicier, more self-fulfilling activity is there than sitting all-mighty and powerful, condemning things at your whim. _Especially_ if you're judging people! "No, I don't like the look of you. You're going to hell! Now go and see Minos. The infernal creature will wrap his scaly tail around him the number of circles down into the depths of torment you will be flung. Here's a hint: you're going far."


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Polednice said:


> What are you talking about?! Of course, limbo is no fun at all, but sitting in judgement?! What juicier, more self-fulfilling activity is there than sitting all-mighty and powerful, condemning things at your whim. _Especially_ if you're judging people! "No, I don't like the look of you. You're going to hell! Now go and see Minos. The infernal creature will wrap his scaly tail around him the number of circles down into the depths of torment you will be flung. Here's a hint: you're going far."


Oh, no, my friend! I like sitting in iimbo, too!...but being judged is a lot more fun.

Hey!!! Speaking of which,...I'm gonna judge you...what's up with you not posting on the Top 150 Keyboard List, eh?? You dirty, little pig!


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

kv466 said:


> Oh, no, my friend! I like sitting in iimbo, too!...but being judged is a lot more fun.
> 
> Hey!!! Speaking of which,...I'm gonna judge you...what's up with you not posting on the Top 150 Keyboard List, eh?? You dirty, little pig!


Hahahaha, you're the second person to mention that! I was bribed into contributing a little while ago. Fine, just for you, I'll make a guest appearance...


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

science said:


> My bad - wrong thread!


This _could_ be the wisest post in the whole discussion.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> Just for the record, out of a sense of fairness, I feel I should say that I don't myself find anything condescending in *some guy*'s post. His description of what tends to happen in a forum discussion is tongue-in-cheek, but is pretty accurate in my experience...


Well I found it condescending but opinions differ. I agree that some guy is often tongue-in-cheek, ruffling a few feathers here where most people (probably incl. myself) are conservative compared to him in terms of what they mostly listen to (philosophy, etc. is another matter entirely, so is attitude, these are harder to judge than what you listen to, to find that out I just go to the "current listening thread.") I have started a few threads like this myself on ideology, the canon, etc. but my aim was to just talk straight most of the time (of course I like to joke around just like the next guy, but some things just have to be said straight to make things clear, not put up quotes by theoreticians instead with little or no explanation).

The thing is that some guy is more radical in his tastes than most or all of us, but he kind of implies (perhaps not strictly on this thread, but in others he started in the past) that if people are not of that radical persuasion, that they are closing themselves off or inflexible. As I said heaps of times before, I don't particularly like this kind of approach, nor to I like the approach of ultra-conservatives ridiculing anything that doesn't sound traditional/conventional or whatever. I, like most classical listeners, am firmly in the middle part of the spectrum in terms of attitude and listening, etc.

In short, it is good to open up these discussions, but I don't think it's good to kind of act as an arbiter yourself over us unwashed masses who don't regularly listen to Bokanowski or Zeena Parkins or whatever...


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Sid James said:


> .listen to Bokanowski or Zeena Parkins or whatever...


i think it was mentioned Bokanowsky's music on recording disappear out of print too quickly by some guy. So friends it makes it also difficult.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

some guy said:


> Metaphors can reveal a lot about how we think and behave, especially the unconscious ones. Two common ones in classical music discussions seem particularly revealing. One is judicial, one is academic. The judicial one (which could also be called the contest one) is more overt, often using the words "judge" and "judgment." The academic one is the one invoked with expressions like "test of time" or "what piece/performer/composer passes X or Y test?"
> 
> In the one, the music or musician is in the dock, awaiting the pronouncement of the judge. In the other, the music or musician is a student, awaiting the grade of the teacher. In both, the music has to prove itself, has to plead its case, has to demonstrate somehow to a skeptical audience that it's worthy of said audience's attention. And in both, the listener is in a rather peculiar position of superiority over the music, either professor or judge.
> 
> ...


A quite fascinating view here. Challenging us to arise to the work designed to be examined more closely.


----------

