# Can we finally stop with the relentless, pointless objectivity-bashing?



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

It seems every time we try to have some fun and stir some discussion with threads like 'greatest x', 'the best x', 'top 5 x' there are guaranteed to be at least 10 Ebeneezers who cannot resist reminding us: 'it's only opinions', 'there is no objective answer', 'these exercises are pointless', things which, by the way, most of us already know (what with being reminded of it every other post). Why can't we let each other just consciously feign a kind of objectivity and for the sake of vibrant discussion? It's all with a sense of irony and fun which I think is entirely harmless. 

When I say 'x is the greatest y', I think most of us recognise that implicit in that statement is that it is a statement of opinion. It seems obvious to me that it should be interpreted as equivalent to 'I personally think that x is the greatest y'. Why must we quiver at every statement of opinion that doesn't excessively state that it is precisely that, before offering its actual point? Every statement that does not do so seems to receive the same charge of 'aesthetic fascism', which is absurd and shuts down lively discussion about our individual tastes and why they might be different. Each charge like that seems to imply that there cannot be, and should not be, any productive and civil communication between two people about their differing preferences and insights that will end in both parties coming out more enlightened. If that's the case, then what are we doing here? 

It's time to move beyond this particularly boring period of our aesthetic and intellectual infancy, comrades. 

Just my thoughts.*




*(irony)


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2018)

I agree as long as we can also finally stop with the relentless, pointless subjectivity-bashing.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Why not just talk about "my favorite", "your favorite", etc.? That would be the greatest solution :lol:.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

dogen said:


> I agree as long as we can also finally stop with the relentless, pointless subjectivity-bashing.


I hope you read that my thread starter was actually a _defense of our natural mode of subjectivity_, which is to posit things subjectively but without excessive subjective provisos.

I have to say I don't see a lot of 'subjectivity-bashing'. I see opinions and positions being challenged and debated, but that isn't necessarily an 'aesthetically fascistic' activity. It's possible to engage in discussion for its own sake without the background of 'objective/subjective'.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> Why not just talk about "my favorite", "your favorite", etc.? That would be the greatest solution :lol:.


Why? Did you read the OP?


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Tallisman said:


> It seems every time we try to have some fun and stir some discussion with threads like 'greatest x', 'the best x', 'top 5 x' there are guaranteed to be at least 10 Ebeneezers who cannot resist reminding us: 'it's only opinions', 'there is no objective answer', 'these exercises are pointless', things which, by the way, most of us already know (what with being reminded of it every other post). Why can't we let each other just consciously feign a kind of objectivity and for the sake of vibrant discussion? It's all with a sense of irony and fun which I think is entirely harmless.
> 
> When I say 'x is the greatest y', I think most of us recognise that implicit in that statement is that it is a statement of opinion. It seems obvious to me that it should be interpreted as equivalent to 'I personally think that x is the greatest y'. Why must we quiver at every statement of opinion that doesn't excessively state that it is precisely that, before offering it's actual point? Every statement that does not do so seems to receive the same charge of 'aesthetic fascism', which is absurd and shuts down lively discussion about our individual tastes and why they might be different. Each charge like that seems to imply that there cannot be, and should not be, any productive and civil communication between two people about their differing preferences and insights that will end in both parties coming out more enlightened. If that's the case, then what are we doing here?
> 
> ...


Excellent post, Tallisman...thank you!


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2018)

Tallisman said:


> I hope you read that my thread starter was actually a _defense of our natural mode of subjectivity_, which is to posit things subjectively but without excessive subjective provisos.
> 
> I have to say I don't see a lot of 'subjectivity-bashing'. I see opinions and positions being challenged and debated, but that isn't necessarily an 'aesthetically fascistic' activity. It's possible to engage in discussion for its own sake without the background of 'objective/subjective'.


Yes I did read the OP.

I see both, definitely.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Tallisman said:


> It's time to move beyond this particularly boring period of our aesthetic and intellectual infancy, comrades.


Are you saying that moving into our "turbulent teens" period will be more enlightening and cordial? Oh goody, I can't wait for those posts.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I tend to agree with the OP. By going on certain presumptions and being able to prove otherwise may be the only way to deduce some things not true, rather than starting from ground 0, with little else to say.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

ArsMusica said:


> Excellent post, Tallisman...thank you!


In your opinion of course.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

No, I disagree with the OP. It's not that people can't allow others subjective opinions it's that calling a thread: 'Best' or 'Greatest' when you mean 'I like' just obfuscates the discussion. 

What is the proper reply to someone posting their favourite music under the guise of 'greatest'? To remain civil, assuming one disagrees, it would have to be: nothing or 'okay', or 'I don't agree and here's why'. With the latter it has already moved into objectivity.
So no, calling threads 'best' and 'greatest' is digging a hole.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Tallisman said:


> Why? Did you read the OP?


I actually did read the OP. It was........great!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

eugeneonagain said:


> In your opinion of course.


It's my opinion that it's your opinion that it's his opinion.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> So no, calling threads 'best' and 'greatest' is digging a hole.


In your opinion of course.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

It strikes me that's it's worthwhile to keep the objectivity/subjectivity discussion open--not just here, but also for example in education, where questions of canonicity in music and the other arts have significant practical implications.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

“Can we finally stop with the relentless, pointless objectivity-bashing?”

Sorry, that question can only be answered subjectively, and there is nothing to make one opinion better than another.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

As long as it does not lead to censorship.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> "Can we finally stop with the relentless, pointless objectivity-bashing?"
> 
> Sorry, that question can only be answered subjectively, and there is nothing to make one opinion better than another.


Says you. ..............


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

When I say something about the objective nature of someone's music, it isn't to say that my opinion is objectively right, just that there are objective reasons that I can point to as to why I like or dislike that music. Everyone has their own tastes, but we're still discussing objective things. The reasons I like something may be the same reasons that someone else dislikes it, and vice versa. Everywhere I go, modern music is treated less seriously than the most famous composers, and I think the societal reasons are obvious (not to say that I don't like them, because I like them as well), but I make an effort to explain my tastes because I want people to know that my love of modern composers is just as serious as others'/my love of pre-modern composers and not whimsical, fanciful, childish, angsty, etc.


----------



## Minor Sixthist (Apr 21, 2017)

KenOC said:


> "Can we finally stop with the relentless, pointless objectivity-bashing?"
> 
> Sorry, that question can only be answered subjectively, and* there is nothing to make one opinion better than another.*





Tallisman said:


> fascism


...Did you read the OP objectively Ken?


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

It's just that clearly anyone who doesn't agree with me that X is the greatest piece in genre Y is an ignoramus and I like to know exactly who it is I can feel superior to.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

I like the worse of, it get straight to the point much quicker


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2018)

DaveM said:


> It's my opinion that it's your opinion that it's his opinion.


To be fair, it is my opinion that all opinions are simply other people's opinions and in no way affect my own opinion that an opinion is by its very definition not an objectively verifiable fact. Bash that.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2018)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I like the worse of, it get straight to the point much quicker


That's the worst post I ever read. Fact. Oh yes, plain and simple too, I'd forgotten that master-stroke argument of the factually-based poll-controller.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Room2201974 said:


> Are you saying that moving into our "turbulent teens" period will be more enlightening and cordial? Oh goody, I can't wait for those posts.


Haha, no, I suppose I should have said 'It's time to move beyond our boring adolescence', which would be more accurate.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> When I say something about the objective nature of someone's music, it isn't to say that my opinion is objectively right, just that there are objective reasons that I can point to as to why I like or dislike that music. Everyone has their own tastes, but we're still discussing objective things.


Precisely. ..........


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

I feel some of you may have mis-interpreted the OP as an attack on claims of subjectivity altogether, as if I were positing that aesthetics is objective. That's precisely what I wasn't arguing.

I'm saying that isn't it _obvious _that we are dealing with subjective opinions, and so can we therefore stop saying it over and over again when someone doesn't make a claim or hold a position without excessively dampening it down with 'but that's just my opinion', 'I'm not saying you're objectively wrong', 'only a personal preference' etc.

The OP was also partly meant to be a bit of fun. It's not a matter of central importance to me, I was just responding to a trend I've observed for a long time that I think is repetitively clogging up threads and that tends to kill any vigorous discussion as soon as it gets interesting.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Tallisman said:


> I feel some of you may have mis-interpreted the OP as an attack on claims of subjectivity altogether, as if I were positing that aesthetics is objective. That's precisely what I wasn't arguing.
> 
> I'm saying that isn't it _obvious _that we are dealing with subjective opinions, and so can we therefore stop saying it over and over again when someone doesn't make a claim or hold a position without excessively dampening it down with 'but that's just my opinion', 'I'm not saying you're objectively wrong', 'only a personal preference' etc.
> 
> The OP was also partly meant to be a bit of fun. It's not a matter of central importance to me, I was just responding to a trend I've observed for a long time that I think is repetitively clogging up threads and that tends to kill any vigorous discussion as soon as it gets interesting.


Do we know definitively that _nobody_ thinks their view is objective and superior?


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

janxharris said:


> Do we know definitively that _nobody_ thinks their view is objective and superior?


No, and some people clearly state that they think that their opinion is 'superior', in which case it is appropriate to respond by pointing out the inherent subjectivity of their claim.

What I'm arguing against is the _constant _reminders that plague every single discussion that we all need to make sure we don't even _approach_ a position that isn't sufficiently watered down with subjective provisos. It has become so common, that I think we are probably ready to move beyond it. That was my point.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Tallisman said:


> No, and some people clearly state that they think that their opinion is 'superior', in which case it is appropriate to respond by pointing out the inherent subjectivity of their claim.
> 
> What I'm arguing against is the _constant _reminders that plague every single discussion that we all need to make sure we don't even _approach_ a position that isn't sufficiently watered down with subjective provisos. It has become so common, that I think we are probably ready to move beyond it. That was my point.


It's a fair point.

I am 'guilty' of constantly doing the 'imho' thing. Can't help it. Perhaps there is an awareness of the historical dangers of objectivism creep.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Tallisman said:


> Haha, no, I suppose I should have said 'It's time to move beyond our boring adolescence', which would be more accurate.


Your adolescence might be boring. Mine isn't.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Tallisman said:


> It seems every time we try to have some fun and stir some discussion with threads like 'greatest x', 'the best x', 'top 5 x' .........
> 
> When I say 'x is the greatest y', I think most of us recognise that implicit in that statement is that it is a statement of opinion. It seems obvious to me that it should be interpreted as equivalent to 'I personally think that x is the greatest y'.


I guess the only problem I have with opinions about "x being the best y" is when the y is so big it is hard to believe that the opinion holder knows enough of y to have formed an opinion on the subject. But this is just my pedantic concern about the use of superlatives. And, of course, if it clearly just a fun post or thread I turn my inner pedant off (I hope).


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The internet is such a "jungle" that, in order to survive, one has to make statements which appear to be objective fact. Otherwise, your weakness will be exploited, especially if you are proposing an unpopular or novel position.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> The internet is such a "jungle" that, in order to survive, one has to make statements which appear to be objective fact. Otherwise, your weakness will be exploited, especially if you are proposing an unpopular or novel position.


So the choice is between being exploited as a weakling and being laughed at for being a pompous a**?


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2018)

Tallisman said:


> It seems every time we try to have some fun and stir some discussion with threads like 'greatest x', 'the best x', 'top 5 x' there are guaranteed to be at least *10 Ebeneezers *


A post guaranteed to set off self-appointed Ebeneezers!

If you really want to stop something, you might post in a manner not calculated to achieve the opposite.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> So the choice is between being exploited as a weakling and being laughed at for being a pompous a**?


Choice? I do both.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2018)

Very little that can be said about music (or art in general) is entirely objective or subjective. Usually it is somewhere in between. I see no harm in acknowledging the influence of subjective reactions even when a statement has some significant objective content. Is there a situation when a point can't be made if a qualification "I think" is included? I think not.

On the other hand, upon joining this board I was immediately confronted by several posters who dismiss large swaths of music with categorical statements which they present as objective fact when they strike me as mostly subjective. Now I know that when certain screen names appear, I am to skip over to the next post.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

I remember a graduate advanced theory class in Social Anthropology broaching the concept of _intersubjectivity_. Perhaps this would be a constructive way of circumventing the objective/subjective dichotomy...?

Any takers?


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

Tallisman said:


> It seems every time we try to have some fun and stir some discussion with threads like 'greatest x', 'the best x', 'top 5 x' there are guaranteed to be at least 10 Ebeneezers who cannot resist reminding us: 'it's only opinions', 'there is no objective answer', 'these exercises are pointless', things which, by the way, most of us already know (what with being reminded of it every other post). Why can't we let each other just consciously feign a kind of objectivity and for the sake of vibrant discussion? It's all with a sense of irony and fun which I think is entirely harmless. ...
> 
> It's time to move beyond this particularly boring period of our aesthetic and intellectual infancy, comrades.


Not to try to make a lighter thread too serious, but perhaps we need a different frame of reference or metaphor for these discussions in order to move beyond?

It occurs to me that if this was vacation travel forum rather than music, we would all discuss experiences and differences without as much friction. Consider that some people like to explore new countries when they vacation, others like to go back to the same places while still others are happy just to stay close to home. Some travel for relaxation and enjoyment, others for exotic adventures or new cultures. Some like to visit historic sites and some would rather party. We seem to be OK with all that and accept our differences. What makes discussion of music different? Why do we dig in our heels and hold so strongly to our opinions both for an against the music we like or dislike? And it's not just about the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity - if we were talking about vacations, people would share the objective facts about where they went and what they saw, and also the subjective - what they liked or what they recommend - and I can't imagine that the topic would generate as many passionate feeling on both sides. I think it's safe to say that whether I said 'the beach is great' or 'Paris is great', that not many people would have an issue with that one way or the other even if they didn't agree.

What is it that is unique to music or ideas about it that makes us want to defend it as if it was our self or a member of our family we are trying to stand up for? If we could understand that, perhaps we could indeed move beyond our 'aesthetic and intellectual infancy'. Any thoughts?


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

KRoad said:


> I remember a graduate advanced theory class in Social Anthropology broaching the concept of _intersubjectivity_. Perhaps this would be a constructive way of circumventing the objective/subjective dichotomy...?
> 
> Any takers?


Yes, I'd love to hear more about it!


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2018)

Thomyum2 said:


> Not to try to make a lighter thread too serious, but perhaps we need a different frame of reference or metaphor for these discussions in order to move beyond?
> 
> It occurs to me that if this was vacation travel forum rather than music, we would all discuss experiences and differences without as much friction. Consider that some people like to explore new countries when they vacation, others like to go back to the same places while still others are happy just to stay close to home. Some travel for relaxation and enjoyment, others for exotic adventures or new cultures. Some like to visit historic sites and some would rather party. We seem to be OK with all that and accept our differences. What makes discussion of music different? Why do we dig in our heels and hold so strongly to our opinions both for an against the music we like or dislike? And it's not just about the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity - if we were talking about vacations, people would share the objective facts about where they went and what they saw, and also the subjective - what they liked or what they recommend - and I can't imagine that the topic would generate as many passionate feeling on both sides. I think it's safe to say that whether I said 'the beach is great' or 'Paris is great', that not many people would have an issue with that one way or the other even if they didn't agree.
> 
> What is it that is unique to music or ideas about it that makes us want to defend it as if it was our self or a member of our family we are trying to stand up for? If we could understand that, perhaps we could indeed move beyond our 'aesthetic and intellectual infancy'. Any thoughts?


That's what I try to do, share some objective observations about music I listen to with some comment about how I reacted to it. There are a lot of people here who do the same. Then there are the ideologues...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

How is this thread on the third page already without anyone having pointed out that my opinions are objective? Do I have to do everything myself?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

science said:


> How is this thread on the third page already without anyone having pointed out that my opinions are objective? Do I have to do everything myself?


That's what you get for being unique. :tiphat:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Just kidding of course.... 

This is a little parable - please regard it as a draft version - that I'm working on to illustrate the subjective/objective thing. 

Here I discuss six hypothetical individuals and their reactions to a work of art. 

First is Sophie Laud. She is a highly educated individual, familiar with the elements and structures of the work, the techniques used in its composition, with the works to which it alludes and responds, with the social and political context of the work, and with the histories of all these things. She has gone over the work several times (if it's a work of music, she listens to it several times) with careful attention, discovering as much as she can. She has discussed it with other knowledgeable people. Now she enthusiastically praises this work as a great work. She understands it objectively and appreciates it subjectively. 

Second is her brother, Imo Laud. He doesn't give a darn about any of that intellectual stuff, he just loves the work. It makes him feel good. He appreciates it subjectively without having much objective understanding. 

Third is their cousin, Concur Laud. She agrees with Sophie and Imo because she respects their knowledge and taste. She always tries to have the opinions she's supposed to have; she tries to allow herself exactly the amount of individuality that a person of good taste is supposed to have, and no more than that. She has little objective understanding and someday we can debate the status of her subjective response. 

There is another family, this one led by the redoubtable Gus Tibus, Sophie Laud's lover, best friend, and soulmate. Gus shares all of Sophie's knowledge and they have many interesting conversations about art. In the case of this work, although he understands why she likes it so much, he just doesn't like it very much. Equally, Sophie understands his reasons for not liking it, but naturally she stands by her opinion. After hours of happily discussing this work, they find that once again their clothes have essentially fallen off and they fall to--well, that's beyond the scope of this discussion. We will mind our own business, only noticing that he shares Sophie's objective knowledge but has a different subjective response. 

Gus's sister Emo Tibus gives no more darns than Imo about any of that intellectual stuff. But unlike Imo, she hates this work of art because it doesn't make her feel good. As you can imagine, Imo and Emo spend most of their time silently hating each other, and the rest of it screaming at each other... though they do get together occasionally to look down on their siblings for "over-intellectualizing" art. They can discuss how wrong that is for hour after hour, warmly agreeing, without experiencing any sense of irony. But should the conversation turn to a particular work of art, stand back! As you can imagine, whenever Imo and Emo show up, Sophie and Gus eventually leave. Emo, to be clear, has little objective knowledge, and we'll have to debate the validity of her subjective response another time. 

Gus and Emo also have a cousin, Concede Tibus, whose tastes work exactly like Concur's except that, alas, Concede follows her own family's example! For decades, Concur and Concede have both been in and out of prison for repeatedly assaulting each other, and have multiple restraining orders.... To be fair, they do get along swimmingly as long it is clear who they're supposed to agree with; sadly, that doesn't happen often enough. Even Imo and Emo leave when these guys come around!


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

---cancelled post---


----------



## EchoEcho (Jan 31, 2016)

Why not just post what and how you like, with a focus on sharing your enthusiasm for and knowledge about classical music, without worrying too much about how other people will react to your posts? If things get out of hand, a quick "IMHO" is painless. Where threads get into trouble is when people try to manage other people's thoughts / reactions / posting styles. 

Keep the focus on music, assume the best of others, and carry on!


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

EchoEcho said:


> Why not just post what and how you like, with a focus on sharing your enthusiasm for and knowledge about classical music, without worrying too much about how other people will react to your posts? If things get out of hand, a quick "IMHO" is painless. Where threads get into trouble is when people try to manage other people's thoughts / reactions / posting styles.
> 
> Keep the focus on music, assume the best of others, and carry on!


I couldn't have put it better myself :tiphat:


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

KRoad said:


> I remember a graduate advanced theory class in Social Anthropology broaching the concept of _intersubjectivity_. Perhaps this would be a constructive way of circumventing the objective/subjective dichotomy...?
> 
> Any takers?


Yup ................


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

This thread seems proof to me enough that every little perspective and opinion will have its dissenters. So seems the answer to the thread title is a clear "No"


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2018)

EchoEcho said:


> Why not just post what and how you like, with a focus on sharing your enthusiasm for and knowledge about classical music, without worrying too much about how other people will react to your posts? If things get out of hand, a quick "IMHO" is painless. Where threads get into trouble is when people try to manage other people's thoughts / reactions / posting styles.
> 
> Keep the focus on music, assume the best of others, and carry on!


I agree, except I would say it is not necessary to express only enthusiasm. We can't like everything and it is just as interesting when something is disappointing.


----------



## Martin D (Dec 13, 2016)

Tallisman said:


> ...When I say 'x is the greatest y', I think most of us recognise that implicit in that statement is that it is a statement of opinion. It seems obvious to me that it should be interpreted as equivalent to 'I personally think that x is the greatest y'.


If that is what you believe, then I can hardly believe that the point you appear to think you are making is all that important, since you accept that "greatest" is most often interpreted as being one's personal opinion only. End of story, I would have thought.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Baron Scarpia said:


> I agree, except I would say it is not necessary to express only enthusiasm. We can't like everything *and it is just as interesting when something is disappointing*.


Lotta disappointment in this vale of tears. This particular Man of Sorrows finds it ever so much more both useful and encouraging to learn what enthuses others in music and the arts. If I started on what disappoints me, I'd never stop.


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

EchoEcho said:


> Why not just post what and how you like, with a focus on sharing your enthusiasm for and knowledge about classical music, without worrying too much about how other people will react to your posts? If things get out of hand, a quick "IMHO" is painless. Where threads get into trouble is when people try to manage other people's thoughts / reactions / posting styles.
> 
> Keep the focus on music, assume the best of others, and carry on!


Well said and good advice for this or any other forum, I think. It's helpful to remember that here on the internet we operate in something of a 'tower of Babel' and different people may not mean or understand the same thing the same way.

And add to that the increasing possibility as we move into the future that the person you're reacting to, or who is reacting to you, could even be a bot and not a person at all. (Hopefully those vile creatures haven't set their sights on classical music discussions the way they have in political ones! )


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Tallisman said:


> It seems every time we try to have some fun and stir some discussion with threads like 'greatest x', 'the best x', 'top 5 x' there are guaranteed to be at least 10 Ebeneezers who cannot resist reminding us: 'it's only opinions', 'there is no objective answer', 'these exercises are pointless', things which, by the way, most of us already know (what with being reminded of it every other post). Why can't we let each other just consciously feign a kind of objectivity and for the sake of vibrant discussion? It's all with a sense of irony and fun which I think is entirely harmless.


Since it appears that I may be one of the Ebeneezers I thought I should to try to clarify Ebeneezerness. I am not against discussion of what is my favorite this or favorite that. I am not an expert on classical music. There are many, many great musicians and music scholars whose knowledge is much greater than mine.

Maybe, just maybe I could discuss the greatest band pieces. But again I do not have the expertise to proclaim which single work is the greatest.

As far as single favorite works, I can do that as well. But I do not understand, considering that I am not an expert, how that would contribute to expanding a persons understanding of classical music.

By the way my favorite works tend to be choral/orchestral ones. My all time favorite is Walton's _Belshazzar's Feast_. Why? I do not know. What does it prove? In the end probably nothing.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

In order to avoid engendering annoyance when affirming a given work of music with specious objectivity, I tend to denote its greatness using unserious words like "peachy," "dandy," or "hunky dory." I doubt anyone would be tempted to quibble with the diction used in a thread called "The 10 Hunky Doriest Symphonies Ever."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Blancrocher said:


> In order to avoid engendering annoyance when affirming a given work of music with specious objectivity, I tend to denote its greatness using unserious words like "peachy," "dandy," or "hunky dory." I doubt anyone would be tempted to quibble with the diction used in a thread called "The 10 Hunky Doriest Symphonies Ever."


I myself am partial to "the bee's knees" and "the cat's pajamas."


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

I like Bonza Rippa


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I like Bonza Rippa


Yes, especially her 3rd String Quartet.

For what it's worth, I'm siding with the opinion of EchoEcho: "Why not just post what and how you like, with a focus on sharing your enthusiasm for and knowledge about classical music, without worrying too much about how other people will react to your posts?".

Others will disagree.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I dont mind the bashing - continual reminders by a handful of spoilers (you know who you are) that there is no objectivity in statement X.

I enjoy the enthusiasm that people have for the music they love even if that means they start to argue that their likes are not a matter of pure taste - even at the expense of my own preferences - as I enjoy the rebuttals and counter arguments.

Sadly the kind of threads I enjoy where we engage in this have dried up - so I dont get involved in many threads now. 

if you want to see a classical music forum where there is virtually no discussion - merely information exchange, reminders of music festivals, new recordings etc but NO evaluation - try a Russian classical music board - its all pretty much objective there.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Martin D said:


> If that is what you believe, then I can hardly believe that the point you appear to think you are making is all that important, since you accept that "greatest" is most often interpreted as being one's personal opinion only. End of story, I would have thought.


Yes, that's my point precisely :lol: the point I'm making really isn't all that important. What I'm saying is that a great deal of people _don't_ seem to recognise that fact.


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> Lotta disappointment in this vale of tears. This particular Man of Sorrows finds it ever so much more both useful and encouraging to learn what enthuses others in music and the arts. If I started on what disappoints me, I'd never stop.


I don't mean it is useful to write diatribes against music I don't like. On this site I mainly just comment on music I listen to. When I listen to something, sometimes I enjoy it, sometimes I don't. I seem to run about 3:1. It seems just as useful to me to note when I'm disappointed and why, without trying to convince anyone else that the thing is without merit, or that they shouldn't enjoy it either.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Baron Scarpia said:


> It seems just as useful to me to note when I'm disappointed and why, without trying to convince anyone else that the thing is without merit, or that they shouldn't enjoy it either.


Are you saying that the reason you note (post) that something disappoints you is because posting that information is useful to you? Or are you saying that, to you, such posting is or may be useful to others? My own practice is to maintain a studied silence if I cannot recommend something--maybe I don't like it; maybe I haven't heard it. I thus put no obstacles in the path of anyone else seeking to experience whatever it is, and I don't needlessly annoy anyone who happens to love the work. I may just not be the audience for which the music is intended, or I may be otherwise unsuited to properly evaluate it. Just my approach, obviously a minority view, it seems.....


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> Are you saying that the reason you note (post) that something disappoints you is because posting that information is useful to you? Or are you saying that, to you, such posting is or may be useful to others? My own practice is to maintain a studied silence if I cannot recommend something--maybe I don't like it; maybe I haven't heard it. I thus put no obstacles in the path of anyone else seeking to experience whatever it is, and I don't needlessly annoy anyone who happens to love the work. I may just not be the audience for which the music is intended, or I may be otherwise unsuited to properly evaluate it. Just my approach, obviously a minority view, it seems.....


The information that I didn't like it is probably not, in itself, useful to anyone. But the description of why I didn't like it might be useful (i.e., tempo too slow, recording too reverberant, interpretation very straight-laced and not expressive enough, skipped the repeats). Someone can read why I didn't like it and decide they might like it.

But practically speaking, my posts on the listening thread more-or-less mirror the notes I keep in my listening log, so in some sense the comments are for me.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Baron Scarpia said:


> The information that I didn't like it is probably not, in itself, useful to anyone. But the description of why I didn't like it might be useful (i.e., tempo too slow, recording too reverberant, interpretation very straight-laced and not expressive enough, skipped the repeats). Someone can read why I didn't like it and decide they might like it.
> 
> But practically speaking, my posts on the listening thread more-or-less mirror the notes I keep in my listening log, so in some sense the comments are for me.


Thank you for clarifying. To speak of recording quality, slow tempos, funky reverb, and such is a somewhat different kettle of fish than whether a piece of music itself suits you or not. I would likely do the same .


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> I myself am partial to "the bee's knees" and "the cat's pajamas."


I like "swell".


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ArsMusica said:


> I like "swell".


I believe we're dating ourselves. My mother would approve of both your preference and mine.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> I guess the only problem I have with opinions about "x being the best y" is when the y is so big it is hard to believe that the opinion holder knows enough of y to have formed an opinion on the subject.


Right; this is the sort of thing that makes 95% of Amazon reviews utterly worthless - no frame of reference. And professional music criticism isn't much better. As you say, sometimes the sheer volume of recordings of a particular work is such that very, very few people have heard most of them. And on the other hand, even if you *have* heard most of them, if you've heard 70 recordings of, say, Mahler's 6th, how carefully did you really listen?


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

Why stop? It's more fun.


----------

