# Is it okay to generalise?



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

When I create a thread here, I inevitably get some people criticising me for making a generalisation of some sort. Its just a minority of people, but still, it can peeve me off to no end.

*But I think if they are common sense, generalisations are okay. & necessary to make some sort of coherent point in a post. They're better than some sort of ideological stance that hardens into inflexible dogma.

What do you think?*

*Regarding some recent/recurring controversies on this forum*
In books about classical music, writers will often make a generalisation and then go into detail. I thought of quoting from something, but again, I see that as pandering to people whose kind of approach to this forum as a court of law (with their rules of 'evidence') & I honestly think that shouldn't be necessary here.

*Generalisations about the Classical Era*
So most music of the classical era does sound light, or bright, or graceful. For one thing, 90 per cent of music then was written in a major key. Dynamic contrast was also much less compared to that coming after. I mean there was a move in new directions by late Mozart and Haydn, and of course Beethoven. The first two also became freelancers late in their careers, and Beethoven was never a 'servant' of any court. So that is an issue, the role of the composer in society was changing.

*Generalisations about Modern music*
Another generalisation which I think does hold some water is that music after 1900 became increasingly experimental. Modernism is about pushing boundaries, and compared to previous eras, the rate of change was very high. Also of 'exchange' between various countries and continents, with technological progress. So the startling sounds you hear in Schoenberg, or Stravinsky, Bartok, Varese, Prokofiev and so on, there was no equivalent of them before. So what's the big deal with people who do say they don't like this music as it is maybe too dissonant or loud or something?

*Generalisations about post-1945 music*
The other thing is that after 1945, composers had to reassess the nature of music. Composers like Xenakis, Penderecki, Ligeti and so on mirrored the turbulent times in their music. In other words, it was not a walk in the park. It could be brutal, psychopathic, confusing, as where events of the Second World War and since. Xenakis fought and got badly injured during the Greek civil war, Penderecki as a child saw the Jews being taken away, and Ligeti was as a Jew imprisoned in labour camps during the war. So with this context, their music generally is not (and not meant to be) beautiful, like ear candy, nor by the same token is it just a technical exercise.

*Just seeking an open discussion of this. Feel free to give your own examples, from these and other eras in music.*


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Sid James said:


> *But I think if they are common sense, generalisations are okay. & necessary to make some sort of coherent point in a post. They're better than some sort of ideological stance that hardens into inflexible dogma.
> 
> What do you think?*


That's a generalisation, Sid.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Sid James said:


> ... I inevitably get some people criticising me for making a generalisation of some sort. Its just a minority of people, but still, it can peeve me off to no end.
> 
> *But I think if they are common sense, generalisations are okay. & necessary to make some sort of coherent point in a post. They're better than some sort of ideological stance that hardens into inflexible dogma.
> 
> What do you think?*


You are essentially saying it is OK if you agree with the generalisations made by others ("common sense") but if other folks disagree with yours, then you get peeved "off to no end".

What's new?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Generalizations are inevitable. We cannot - in any sense of the word "cannot" - go through life experiencing each little thing as a totally new phenomenon, totally dissimilar to any others. We haven't the time, we haven't the mental capacity, it's just not how the human brain works. We are pattern seekers.

The question is not whether something is a generalization or not, but how good of a generalization it is. The best generalizations, the ones with no exceptions, are hard to come by. The interesting phenomena of the world are a little like this, a little like that, some exceptions of one sort and some of another sort, and it's always a question of where to draw the line! That's why it's good to question the generalizations, to look for the exceptions. Inevitably, in the best case, we just end up with somewhat more precise generalizations. And then we start over.

I think there is a certain sort of person - I will try not to get into anything descriptive that might enable anyone to recognize themselves! - that is uncomfortable with ambiguity or uncertainty, and therefore embraces some generalizations a bit too quickly and then clings to them much too desperately. For almost any area of life, I would advocate more openness, more curiosity. It's impossible for us not to be biased in favor of our prior beliefs, but we really ought to try. It's something like a spiritual discipline for a secular age - we're all wrong about something, the _only_ ethical approach to thought is for each individual to try to find out what she is wrong about. Not in order to shore up the defenses for debate, but in order to be a little less wrong. It is not human nature to act this way, but then, I'd argue human nature isn't necessarily ethical.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I use the term 'in general' quite frequently, assuming that there are exemptions, and that those exemptions do not invalidate whatever comes after the 'in general'. If I'm wrong, feel free to point that out; the mods won't allow me to label you a damnfool and get away with it. _@Chi__ in fact prides himself for being able to negotiate circumlocutions.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

No. If we can't make false dichotomies, then you certainly cannot generalize things.


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2012)

Both specifics and generalizations are better when paired. Specifics validate generalizations. Generalizations give specifics context.

Perhaps the generalizations you're getting slammed for are the ones that have no accompanying specifics to back them up.

Perhaps it's assertions that you're getting slammed for. Assertions are similar to generalizations in needing specifics for validation, but they tend to be more provocative. An assertion without specifics is usually referred to as empty.

Perhaps, as has already been pointed out, you're just getting disagreement. Someone disagrees with a generalization, so they slam you for generalizing. Really, they're slamming you for having drawn a different conclusion than they would have drawn.

Perhaps, and this is the most important one, you're giving us all way too much power over you. You cannot control us. Give over trying. You can, however, control yourself. You can take our power to **** you off completely away by simply not being pissed off by anything any of us says. Our power over you, in other words, is entirely under your control.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> Perhaps, and this is the most important one, you're giving us all way too much power over you. You cannot control us. Give over trying. You can, however, control yourself. You can take our power to **** you off completely away by simply not being pissed off by anything any of us says. Our power over you, in other words, is entirely under your control.


I don't agree with this line of argument.

If we didn't actually care what each other thinks, we wouldn't communicate. But we care, and that's ok/good. People affect each other. We're a social species. We converse in order to affect each other.

So the idea that "hey he shouldn't let it bother him" doesn't give any of us carte blanche. I could understand saying someone ought to have thicker skin, but not that someone should have such thick skin that nothing bothers him.

Charitable interpretation is something like a duty; but so is charitable expression.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Generalisations are good things. The important thing is not to let a generalisation develop into a false dichotomy.

Am I being sarcastic, aren't I being sarcastic? Probably I am being mildly ironic. I have nothing against either as methods of understanding as long as they can be unravelled.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

It is okay to generalize ?

No, it is not. It's okay to be opened to things and see them the way they are. If you generalize, you just create a pattern which has nothing to do with reality. The reality must be 'seen', not transposed into dogmas based on limited criteria. This is what I think about generalizations.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 3, 2012)

It is generally OK to generalise, except when it's not.


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2012)

science said:


> I don't agree with this line of argument.


It's not a line of argument. It's an observation. (It's a psychological truism.) You only have control over yourself.

Otherwise, of course we care about what others think. Of course that's why we converse.

I'm only pointing out that if you come across something you _cannot_ do, you should turn your energies towards things that you _can._

[I used to work as a substitute teacher from time to time. Kids were always complaining about someone or other chasing them and wanted me, as the authority, to "make them stop."

If you stop running, no one can chase you.]


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

No, it's not OK to generalize about generalizations.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

This thread is hilarious! Likes all around...


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 3, 2012)

some guy said:


> It's not a line of argument. It's an observation. (It's a psychological truism.) You only have control over yourself.
> 
> Otherwise, of course we care about what others think. Of course that's why we converse.
> 
> ...


With all due respect, however much or little that is, I would have thoroughly disliked having you for a school teacher.


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2012)

science said:


> I think there is a certain sort of person - I will try not to get into anything descriptive that might enable anyone to recognize themselves! - that is uncomfortable with ambiguity or uncertainty, and therefore embraces some generalizations a bit too quickly and then clings to them much too desperately. For almost any area of life, I would advocate more openness, more curiosity.


Personally, I thrive on ambiguity and uncertainty. I couldn't do my job without it, or enjoy political debate (or discussions about music) if I was wedded to the need for certainties.



some guy said:


> Both specifics and generalizations are better when paired. Specifics validate generalizations. Generalizations give specifics context.


Absolutely agree! (Did I just commit to a certainty?)



Renaissance said:


> It is okay to generalize ?
> 
> No, it is not. It's okay to be opened to things and see them the way they are. If you generalize, you just create a pattern which has nothing to do with reality. The reality must be 'seen', not transposed into dogmas based on limited criteria. This is what I think about generalizations.


If you generalise, you offer your version of reality which may or may not tally with someone else's version. Generalisations that help towards understanding, even when they don't entirely hold, can be a valid tool of debate, provided that some kind of specific is offered in support. Seeing things the way they are is not possible. The way I see (sorry, that should be hear) classical music is real for me, but I doubt it matches what everyone else hears as their reality.

May I quote Brian Eno?



> *The Real*​The flourish
> Seeing the real in things
> Really seeing the real
> Describing the exact actuality
> ...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> It's not a line of argument. It's an observation. (It's a psychological truism.) You only have control over yourself.
> 
> Otherwise, of course we care about what others think. Of course that's why we converse.
> 
> ...


It seems to go, "If you're offended by what I say, that's your own fault. You should not let yourself be offended; therefore I should let myself be as callous as I please. The fault is always yours."

Things are more complicated than that. If the speaker is being a jerk, the listener is right to be angry.

You imply that anyone offended by anything is childish. Well, it's like this. I'm putting you on my ignore list. Chase all you want. I cannot communicate further within the limits of the terms of service.


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2012)

Mephistopheles said:


> With all due respect, however much or little that is, I would have thoroughly disliked having you for a school teacher.


And I, for my part, probably would have thoroughly disliked having you for a student.

Fair's fair!:lol:


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

tdc said:


> This thread is hilarious!


Is that a generalisation or opinion?  I am totally lost. But not based on common sense. I am going to get peeved off. :lol:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Thanks to all.

I agreed with science's and hilltroll's lines of argument, esp. these quotes:



science said:


> Generalizations are inevitable. We cannot - in any sense of the word "cannot" - go through life experiencing each little thing as a totally new phenomenon, totally dissimilar to any others. We haven't the time, we haven't the mental capacity, it's just not how the human brain works. We are pattern seekers. ...





Hilltroll72 said:


> I use the term 'in general' quite frequently, assuming that there are exemptions, and that those exemptions do not invalidate whatever comes after the 'in general'. If I'm wrong, feel free to point that out; ...


Re this -



some guy said:


> Both specifics and generalizations are better when paired. Specifics validate generalizations. Generalizations give specifics context.


I think that's what I was trying to get at in my opening post. I make a generalisation, then give examples. Or I can give examples, and boil it down to some generalisations. That's fine. But sometimes I cannot put everything in one post. Then I get shot down for not doing that. People assume things, judge things, maybe read things into what I'm saying that aren't there. Then there are the 'jokers,' sometimes whose jokes are another way of putting people down (maybe they should consider a career as a comedian).



> ...
> Perhaps, and this is the most important one, you're giving us all way too much power over you. You cannot control us. Give over trying. You can, however, control yourself. You can take our power to **** you off completely away by simply not being pissed off by anything any of us says. Our power over you, in other words, is entirely under your control.


Well I don't think its about control, its about people giving others the benefit of the doubt a bit, maybe. Not acting adversarially as in a court of law. Taking sides then there is the inevitable bunfight.

In my OP of this thread, I made some comments about music of the Classical Era. I just checked a book on music I have, and it makes some similar generalisations about the era. So would you write to that writer and say something putting him down or deliberately contradicting him?

Here's the quote, the writer is Michael Kennedy (from a dictionary of music, publ. 1980) -

"...music composed roughly between between 1750 and 1830 (i.e. post-Baroque and pre-Romantic) which covers the development of the classical sym. and concerto...Music of an orderly nature, with qualities of clarity and balance, and emphasising formal beauty rather than emotional expression (which is not to say that emotional expression is lacking)..."

He said that, he's a musicologist, so all is fine and dandy. Yet if I say something like that, make what I think are common sense and well informed generalisations about something on this forum, we get the 'jokes' and other kind of things deliberately undermining the poster.

Great ain't it? Sometimes I don't know why I bother. I always have to cover my backside making virtually any statment. Its very sad.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Is that a generalisation or opinion?  I am totally lost. But not based on common sense. I am going to get peeved off. :lol:


It was a generalized opinion, not based on common sense, but on the fact I was laughing my a** off at the time and wanted to spread around the good vibes to all. Though I see now this thread has gotten a little more heated... I'll just slowly back away...:tiphat:


----------



## drpraetorus (Aug 9, 2012)

yes, no, maybe sometimes


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Personally, I thrive on ambiguity and uncertainty. I couldn't do my job without it, or enjoy political debate (or discussions about music) if I was wedded to the need for certainties.
> 
> Absolutely agree! (Did I just commit to a certainty?)
> 
> ...


This is a thread where you thrive - the meta-talk. Talk about talk.


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2012)

stomanek said:


> This is a thread where you thrive - the meta-talk. Talk about talk.


Why thank you stomanek, I'll take that as a compliment! I notice you've joined the talk about the talk about the talk, since you've not actually contributed a view on Sid's OP on the issue of generalisations. If you want to know whether I can post about music and not about talk, try Beethoven's guestbook, where I offer a specific to a generalisation.


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2012)

Sid James said:


> In my OP of this thread, I made some comments about music of the Classical Era. I just checked a book on music I have, and it makes some similar generalisations about the era. So would you write to that writer and say something putting him down or deliberately contradicting him?
> 
> Here's the quote, the writer is Michael Kennedy (from a dictionary of music, publ. 1980) -
> 
> ...


Well "jokes" notwithstanding, I suppose it is also OK to disagree? To present other opinions?

One of which would be that the period we now refer to as the classical era (whose inhabitants, if they said anything at all, called themselves "romantic") did not seem quite so orderly or clear or balanced as it does to us. Times change. Music changes. Tastes change. A critic comparing Boccherini and Mozart in 1787 says that Mozart "leads us over rugged rocks on to a waste sparsely strewn with flowers...." (And he did not mean that as a compliment, just by the way. Tastes change.) By 1811, it was Beethoven who was relegated to the "steep and rocky paths," since Haydn and Mozart had "long since occupied the main avenues." (You recall Beethoven, right? He's the guy who was "often bizarre and baroque.")

So yeah. There are other ideas, other interpretations, other possibilities besides the ones "Sid James" expresses. And expressing those should be just as acceptable, even to Sid, as Michael Kennedy's generalizations are.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

As a strategy for opening up polemic, generalisation is a useful means of stimulating debate. Why not? However, I have noticed that at least one (perhaps paranoid) member of this forum perceived this as a form of "trolling".


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Nothing wrong with generalizing. What I don't like is when people try to banalize things (if that is right word).


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I hate it when people are so ****-retentive that everything must be said said so specifically and no generalisations are allowed whatsoever. But then again, I am known for my hypocrisy.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I hate it when people are so ****-retentive that everything must be said said so specifically and no generalisations are allowed whatsoever. But then again, I am known for my hypocrisy.


OH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!! I did not mean **** in relation to one's rear end so please uncensor it somehow to relieve me from my embarrassment.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> OH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!! I did not mean **** in relation to one's rear end so please uncensor it somehow to relieve me from my embarrassment.


**** fixation is nothing to be embarrassed about - though the act of censorship can indeed be a pain in the a$$!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

some guy said:


> Well "jokes" notwithstanding, I suppose it is also OK to disagree? To present other opinions?
> ...


Yes it is.



> ...
> So yeah. There are other ideas, other interpretations, other possibilities besides the ones "Sid James" expresses. And expressing those should be just as acceptable, even to Sid, as Michael Kennedy's generalizations are.


It is acceptable to voice any opinion on this forum as long as the rules are observed. But I am being blunt here in that it has been either a focus on semantics or some people's problems with generalizations that do indeed make me paranoid when setting up a thread. Its like I have to worry about not being shot down by someone. Its as democratic as Nazism or Stalinism, basically. In other words, not democratic at all.

So if I say for example Steve Reich and Philip Glass are Minimalist composers I should be able to say that without needing to argue for several posts about it (even this kind of reasonable conclusion you have queried in the past, and I was stupid enough to think solidarity exists on this forum, I went to support the other members reasonable assertion). But if I say Beethoven is a Minimalist, well yeah people can query that, no musicologist would say that.

So its about consensus and things like intersubjectivity. A fancy po-mo word for some sort of consensus of subjective opinions from different viewpoints.

As I said, benefit of the doubt, no harm in giving it and not trivialising (yes, this is **** retentive as Coag says - and that's censored here, jeez!). Let's get on with the 'guts' of these debates, not with the miniscule details.

& yeah stomanek, this is talk about talk, navel gazing bullsh*t, but basically I am talking about this because its been coming up VERY OFTEN lately. Whenever I do a thread, one or two people will query why I'm making the thread in the first place. Well, cos I can. Cos I want to. Cos I have a right to. Cos I researched it and am interested in it. I want to discuss it, I want to know what people think. & then some.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 3, 2012)

But then how are you supposed to distinguish which consensuses are to be questioned and which aren't? Certainly not all consensuses are valid, so we shouldn't take any for granted, and if someone wants to argue why a consensus is unfounded, you should give them the opportunity so long as they are not overly confrontational.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I hate it when people are so ****-retentive that everything must be said said so specifically and no generalisations are allowed whatsoever. But then again, I am known for my hypocrisy.


You are known for your irreverence, sometimes-clever irrelevant rejoinders, and as a _noisy_ whippersnapper. Hypocrisy, not so much.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Mephistopheles said:


> [...]so long as they are not overly confrontational.


There's the rub. The mods _in general_ have a rather strict yet somehow mysterious interpretation of 'confrontational', one which doesn't much resemble _@sid_'s, and sometimes even startles me. Many of _@sid_'s generalizations rely on _his_ understanding of significant relationships; that is hardly unusual. I'm guessing that posts questioning his understanding, and presenting another one for consideration, will not excessively annoy either _@sid_ or the mods. (I am more confident about _@sid_ than the mods.)


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

I am distrustful of solidarity on the internet as I find easily slips into a distasteful gang mentality. The modernists against the traditionalists, Beethoven fans against Mozart fans, HIP against unHIP. Each side supporting their most vocal and aggressive challenger in an argument. Certainly picking apart every detail of the opposing group's generalisations but at the same time ignoring the sweeping, insulting dismissals from their own side.

Generalisations may be how most people think, the only way to make manageable the mass of facts in the world, but they don't work well on the internet. Write in a book or say on TV that WWII started in 1939 and all you get is furious scribbles in the margin or people yelling at he TV. Say it on the internet and people from all over the world can come and dispute it. Added to that, the huge resource if the internet means almost any simple statement can be shown to be only half right with an obscure counter example googled up.

Terms such as minimalism or classical help frame the debate, trap complex nuanced people and art into little boxes of fact with which you can build a fort of you prejudices. It is difficult to discuss broad changes in art without them but you have to be ready to admit them for the smoke and mirrors they are.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Sid James said:


> *Generalisations about the Classical Era*
> So most music of the classical era does sound light, or bright, or graceful. For one thing, 90 per cent of music then was written in a major key. Dynamic contrast was also much less compared to that coming after. I mean there was a move in new directions by late Mozart and Haydn, and of course Beethoven. The first two also became freelancers late in their careers, and Beethoven was never a 'servant' of any court. So that is an issue, the role of the composer in society was changing.


I agree with this, and add that keyboard instrument building also had evolved, to where more dynamic and expressive playing could flourish, after the relatively "objective" Baroque.



Sid James said:


> *Generalisations about Modern music*
> Another generalisation which I think does hold some water is that music after 1900 became increasingly experimental. Modernism is about pushing boundaries, and compared to previous eras, the rate of change was very high. Also of 'exchange' between various countries and continents, with technological progress. So the startling sounds you hear in Schoenberg, or Stravinsky, Bartok, Varese, Prokofiev and so on, there was no equivalent of them before. So what's the big deal with people who do say they don't like this music as it is maybe too dissonant or loud or something?


I agree with this; the 'deal' with conservative listeners is that they are in a perspective of "history," where distance gives credence, in exaggerated proportion to the sound of the music itself. They are equally interested in a heroic "attitude" of historical pedigree. The "heroic" cannot exist except at a distance. (see James Joyce's "hero" in Ulysses as he ruminates on the toilet)



Sid James said:


> *Generalisations about post-1945 music*
> The other thing is that after 1945, composers had to reassess the nature of music. Composers like Xenakis, Penderecki, Ligeti and so on mirrored the turbulent times in their music. In other words, it was not a walk in the park. It could be brutal, psychopathic, confusing, as where events of the Second World War and since. Xenakis fought and got badly injured during the Greek civil war, Penderecki as a child saw the Jews being taken away, and Ligeti was as a Jew imprisoned in labour camps during the war. So with this context, their music generally is not (and not meant to be) beautiful, like ear candy, nor by the same token is it just a technical exercise.


This is so true, that WWII (and the atomic bomb) affected everything which came after. But rather than focussing only on the traumas and horrors, I see these events as the catalyst which caused a "lack of faith in Humanity," and a desire on Boulez and post-war composers to seek a new "objectivity" which rejected Nationalism and Romanticism, and took music back to the attitude of the pre-Renaissance, where composing was shrouded in anonymity, in deference to "God" or his modern replacement "Art." *Art in its pure form is closely tied to religion, in its purity of purpose and "spiritual" or non-utilitarian aims.*


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think generalizations should be well-informed, and capable of going into specifics. Generalizations are best-used as a convenience, in order to get to more important issues which are related to the generalized idea. 

Trouble begins when generalizations are used to cover a lack of engagement, or to cover-up a lack of specific information and apathy, or animosity, due to this "lack of engagement" or "refusal to engage."

This negative type of generalization is based on a privation, lack, or deficiency, and reflects an alienation or even aggression, and results in stereotyping the subject as "the other." This negative type of generalization also "projects" its own insecurity onto other "healthy" generalizations, and tries to "infect" the healthy generalizing organism.

Healthy generalization is based on love, has good intent, and encourages dialog and interaction; unhealthy generalization is based on rejection, aggression, and hate, and seeks conflict.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I hate it when people are so ****-retentive that everything must be said said so specifically and no generalisations are allowed whatsoever. But then again, I am known for my hypocrisy.


Someone isn't going to be an academic


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

What is truly excellent will survive libelous generalizations. 

You never see my panties up in a bunch when haters malign Bach or Wagner or, more rarely, Haydn or Stravinsky. 

Don't be so insecure guys.


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2012)

Sid James said:


> I want to know what people think.


The extent to which this is true is the extent to which you have absolutely no gripe at all.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> This is so true, that WWII (and the atomic bomb) affected everything which came after. But rather than focussing only on the traumas and horrors, I see these events as the catalyst which caused a "lack of faith in Humanity," and a desire on Boulez and post-war composers to seek a new "objectivity" which rejected Nationalism and Romanticism, and took music back to the attitude of the pre-Renaissance, where composing was shrouded in anonymity, in deference to "God" or his modern replacement "Art." *Art in its pure form is closely tied to religion, in its purity of purpose and "spiritual" or non-utilitarian aims.*


One thing I don't like about some of the avant-garde. I love art and despise religion, personally, and it sickens me when art is treated with the worst aspects of religions (dogma, exclusiveness, holier-than-thou views). I prefer to hear the artist in their art. Their personality, their hopes and dreams. Their inner beauty and ugliness. Their ideas and emotions. Art is something that comes from people, not some magical realm outside us, or some divine nonsense. It is an expression of the inner.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> You are known for your irreverence, sometimes-clever irrelevant rejoinders, and as a _noisy_ whippersnapper. Hypocrisy, not so much.


Thanks I feel slightly better knowing that.


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2012)

One thing I would very much like to see go away is the idea that WWII had some sort of general effect on composers--that the horrors and trauma of that war caused composers to write ugly and twisted music.

I'm not going to hold my breath, so don't worry. (Or don't get your hopes up. Whichever....:lol

But really. Of course world events and politics and personal emotions and culture and so forth effect how any artist works. But it's not a simple one to one kind of thing. And the supposed traumas of modern life--industrialisation, crowded cities, war, revolution, famine, disease--are all very much features of the 18th and 19th centuries as well, which uniformly produced beautiful music.

Or did they? Contemporary reports suggest that music is perceived as beautiful or ugly by how familiar it is, not by how proximate it is to war or to peace. All the music we now perceive as beautiful from the 18th and 19th centuries was written in times of great social and cultural upheaval.

Both ugly and beautiful are perceptions by listeners, not responses by composers to contemporary events.

Even the relatively nuanced "the catalyst which caused a 'lack of faith in Humanity,' and a desire on Boulez and post-war composers to seek a new 'objectivity' which rejected Nationalism and Romanticism" is too simple and leaves too much out. All of these things--nationalism, romanticism, and loss of faith in humanity--were very much active and very much debated ideas in the 19th century. You might as well blame Napoleon as WWII for _that_ kind of thing.

Otherwise, it would be as well to think of all the musics that appeared after WWII, not just the "new objectivity" supposedly espoused by Boulez and crew. If WWII were a catalyst, it set going quite a variety of different and incompatible things. Quite a remarkable range of different effects of one cause!!


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 3, 2012)

some guy said:


> Both ugly and beautiful are perceptions by listeners, not responses by composers to contemporary events.


I think you've fallen into the ironic trap: the above is almost certainly a generalisation with exceptions. Although a listener must be willing to see the ugliness for it to be there, some composers may absolutely have intended to create ugliness in response to contemporary events. With musical fashions and varied exposure, the ugliness may become beautiful beyond the composer's control, but just as it is too simplistic to sense deliberate ugliness in a composition because of composers and their politics, it's also too simplistic to postulate that all perceptions of ugliness are either wilful or accidental on the part of the listener alone.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> One thing I don't like about some of the avant-garde. I love art and despise religion, personally, and it sickens me when art is treated with the worst aspects of religions (dogma, exclusiveness, holier-than-thou views). I prefer to hear the artist in their art. Their personality, their hopes and dreams. Their inner beauty and ugliness. Their ideas and emotions. Art is something that comes from people, not some magical realm outside us, or some divine nonsense. It is an expression of the inner.


I agree wholeheartedly, but when I say "religion," I mean it in its best sense: as an expression of Humanity's innate spirituality. If I'd said "Art is closely tied to spirituality," it wouldn't have had the same 'flavor' of being a bonafide institution.

In fact, there are are people who would disagree that innate "spirituality" should be (ideally) _served_ by religion, which ideally should only be the 'tool' to guide, channel, and enhance this spirituality; in fact, religion itself is flawed if it does not serve Man's spiritual needs, and this is due to the focus 'outward' on a "God" or to scriptural forms. Eastern religion looks inward, but the notion that "God is within us" is heresy to most deistic, monotheistic religions, which includes most Western religions.

"Art" still puts Man at the center, so in this sense, it is more on-track than most religions. However, I wanted to make the point that Art is the institution which has supplanted the purpose which Western religion seems to have abandoned or distorted. So you can see my dilemma, and hopefully, my point.


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2012)

Sorry Meph, I put things poorly. I only meant to say the concepts like ugliness and beauty are matters of perception.

Of course composers can intend to make something ugly or beautiful. They're listeners, too. And have perceptions.

I intended nothing of willfulness or accident (and thus of blame or praise) in my postulate.


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Well, cos I can. Cos I want to. Cos I have a right to. Cos I researched it and am interested in it. I want to discuss it, I want to know what people think. & then some.


Quite right. If a forum member doesn't want to know what you think about generalisations; doesn't want to discuss it with you; or even entertain the idea that such a meta-discussion is a worthy topic - let them stick to the threads which they are happy with. I know I've not been here long, Sid, but it's evident that you are almost as interested in the behaviour of people in the forum as the nominal subject matter itself. There is nothing wrong in that. I like it.

However, I also recognise that since we all have a stake in the way the forum operates, if we think that the forum is filling with threads of a particular variety, and the same debates keep cropping up, we may feel that the forum loses the attraction that brought us here in the first place. I came here looking for answers about a particular composer (not for the opportunity to declare my allegiance to the One True God That Is Beethoven And To Discuss Him And No Other) but have stuck around because there are "people" here with a range of opinions and ideas that I find engaging, and infuriating, amusing and provocative. I've not stuck to discussing Beethoven, but strayed onto discussing discussions about him, and others too.

It seems not everyone gets it.



Mephistopheles said:


> But then how are you supposed to distinguish which consensuses are to be questioned and which aren't? Certainly not all consensuses are valid, so we shouldn't take any for granted, and if someone wants to argue why a consensus is unfounded, you should give them the opportunity so long as they are not overly confrontational.


Mephistopheles is right on two counts. Not all consensuses are valid. And there is a balance to be struck in the way people question both the consensuses' content and the style of others' posting.



Hilltroll72 said:


> There's the rub. The mods _in general_ have a rather strict yet somehow mysterious interpretation of 'confrontational', one which doesn't much resemble _@sid_'s, and sometimes even startles me. Many of _@sid_'s generalizations rely on _his_ understanding of significant relationships; that is hardly unusual. I'm guessing that posts questioning his understanding, and presenting another one for consideration, will not excessively annoy either _@sid_ or the mods. (I am more confident about _@sid_ than the mods.)


I've seen so little of the mods' operations here - either I'm reading the wrong threads, or they work more behind the scenes than I'm aware of. They don't seem strict to me.



quack said:


> trap complex nuanced people and art into little boxes of fact with which you can build a fort of you prejudices. It is difficult to discuss broad changes in art without them but you have to be ready to admit them for the smoke and mirrors they are.


I like this!



BurningDesire said:


> Art is something that comes from people, not some magical realm outside us, or some divine nonsense. It is an expression of the inner.


Whilst I'd generally agree, the trouble with the inner is its deceptive nature. Not all that I might be able to produce from my 'inner' is 'Art' (with a Capital 'C'), though I might be justified in saying that if something comes from my inner and I _say _it's 'art' (small 'c'), then it _is_!



some guy said:


> One thing I would very much like to see go away is the idea that WWII had some sort of general effect on composers--that the horrors and trauma of that war caused composers to write ugly and twisted music.


Alas, without distance, it's difficult to make such generalisations stick, but once they have, you're too far away from the time to see what else was going on that was not ugly and twisted. To use an analogy with art, once Picasso painted Guernica, All Artists Must Have Been Doing The Same Thing And Thinking The Same Thing. I'm sure his next door-neighbour still painting photorealistic pictures of bowls of fruit was extremely talented, but the Art World had moved on, and he was overloooked: who wants pretty pictures anymore?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I'm not fond of when people generalise. Some cases are worse than others though.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> ... I know I've not been here long, Sid, but it's evident that you are almost as interested in the behaviour of people in the forum as the nominal subject matter itself...


Well yes I am interested. As far as my maybe deluded belief that on this forum we can communicate similar to how we do in real life. Not only to do with accepting reasonable generalisations, but also other things.

btw, the reflections on the questions I raised in my OP that people gave since my last post here, its been great reading them. & they point to how one can maintain a flexible and open attitude whilst making a generalisation. Not extreme generalisations of course, but ones that would be readily/generally acceptable to most people on the forum.



> ...
> However, I also recognise that since we all have a stake in the way the forum operates, if we think that the forum is filling with threads of a particular variety, and the same debates keep cropping up, we may feel that the forum loses the attraction that brought us here in the first place. I came here looking for answers about a particular composer...but have stuck around because there are "people" here with a range of opinions and ideas that I find engaging, and infuriating, amusing and provocative. I've not stuck to discussing Beethoven, but strayed onto discussing discussions about him, and others too....


Yes I think we do have a "stake" as you say. I did not mean solidarity to mean the pack mentality. I meant it (as others have said) in a positive sense. Not be afraid to speak your mind and defend another person.

& I think that (as I pointed out before) I cannot put everything a single post or a single thread. That's what sources of information, eg. published sources on music, are basically better at doing. If people want to find out more about things that I or others have generalised about, go to online sources, listen to the music being discussed, consult different books about these issues. No one is preventing you from doing that. But don't expect people to put 'everything except the kitchen sink' into one post. & then blame them for omitting something - I mean there's a hell of a lot of things out there about (say) the Classical Era, or Beethoven, or Boulez.

Just because its not in my post doesn't mean:
- I think it doesn't exist
- I am against it
- I am leaving it out because I'm denying its importance

...and so on...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I'm glad I don't dream often. Thinking plagues two thirds of life, and that's more than enough!


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Maybe the OP should write a guideline for TC as to what is appropriate generalisation and what is not ... 

Generalisations are open to debate, with or without supporting evdience/whatever to back it up. Life is more interesting. If the person is "weepy" because of being "attacked", then (s)he should avoid making generalisations. Don't complain.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

It is _not_ okay to generalize, and all people who do that are quite silly!


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

"I know I've not been here long, Sid, but it's evident that you are almost as interested in the behaviour of people in the forum as the nominal subject matter itself. There is nothing wrong in that. *I like it*.
" (McCleod)

No - we never would have guessed.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> It is _not_ okay to generalize, and all people who do that are quite silly!


Provisionally true. If one's knowledge 'universe' is small enough, generalizations are unnecessary.

:devil:


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

The main problem with generalisations - usually not supported by more than hunches and suppositions. Second and more important - you leave yourself open to critcism for generalising and also have your status as a rational person capable of reaching informed conclusions diminished. You can avoid this by qualifying your generalisations with words like "some", "many" etc etc.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Provisionally true. If one's knowledge 'universe' is small enough, generalizations are unnecessary.
> 
> :devil:


Generally speaking, generalizations are silly.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I can't stand any more of these short, pithy answers, generally speaking. They are easy, though, aren't they?


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> It is _not_ okay to generalize, and all people who do that are quite silly!


You have just generalised and contradicted yourself.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

People with a burning desire to generalise can be silly.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Rapide said:


> ...
> Generalisations are open to debate, with or without supporting evdience/whatever to back it up. Life is more interesting.
> ...


Yep, anything is up for debate. However, the people who don't like me (or others) to generalise, often end up:
- Attacking others and/or being rude to them (okay to do humour, but not do it with venom and spite - to those people I say dump your garbage somewhere else).
- Claiming the person making the generalisation is biased (but not accounting for their own obvious bias)
- & thus, claiming some moral high ground, some 'holier than thou' attitude against the 'moron' who makes the generalisation.



> ...
> If the person is "weepy" because of being "attacked", then (s)he should avoid making generalisations. Don't complain.


Yep, just shut us all up. Reminds me of the line said by Stalinists, but its a variation on the adage of many dictatorships the world over through history:

'Those who are not with us are against us.'

In other words, making a conclusion about other people's position that aint necessarily the case. But forget it, my days of active participation on this forum are over. I'm sick of speaking out about things that are obvious in the 'real world.' Even a kid can understand these things at a basic level, one does not have to be a PHD. But shroud something with some sort of dogma, jargon, psychobabble or philosophy and you get an instant 'hit' online. That's what I have to accept. Well I don't, but it doesn't really matter, does it?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

SOME (!!!) People nit pick over generalisations when the generalisation in question rubs them the wrong way - otherwise they let it go.

If you are going to nit pick over somebody's generalisation - then you should do it every time you see one - not just when you don't like it.

As for me - I always let them go.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Negative generalization has a long history, as this "review" in the _Neue Wiener Abendblatt_ of the premier in 1908 of Schoenberg's second quartet, typfies:

"...the composition is not an aesthetic but a pathological case. Out of respect for the composer we will assume that he is tone-deaf and thus musically _non compos..._otherwise the Quartet would have to be declared a public nuisance, and its author brought to trial by the Department of Health. We cannot imagine in what way the subscribers of the Rosé Quartet concerts had sinned, to cause the leader of that group to programme such a worthless assault on the ears..."

This sort of overworked abuse tells us nothing about the music. But this raises the question: are people who object to Sid's more benign generalizations actually seeing his "positive" generalizations as being "spin" of a political nature, which threatens their aesthetic views?

Is Sid's generalization taken by some as actually the "converse" of the negative review above, benignly disguised?

Does "positive ebullience" of what one loves "threaten" their paradigm of what music _should_ be? Probably.

This is called "turning nectar into poison." It's a way of life.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Rapide said:


> Generalisations are open to debate, with or without supporting evdience/whatever to back it up....If the person is "weepy" because of being "attacked", then (s)he should avoid making generalisations. Don't complain.


I think it's all politics, a battle of ideas and philosophies.

If the person is "weepy" because of being "attacked" (for generalizing positively about what they love), then, conversely, the "attacker" should not be reactively insecure and attack in the first place. "Don't attack," then there is no need for "Don't complain."

The overall idea is "Don't create conflict." If you are conflicted and insecure because somebody likes Babbitt and you don't, then it is your responsibility as an adult to deal with your own insecurity, and not attack others.

But the "attackers" have a tendency to see positive ebullience as a form of "negation" of their opposing view, so they attack. In this sense, the attackers are out-of-line, and not justified. What they are doing is creating conflict.

If you attack a person, don't expect them to "not complain."

Self-sustained positivity is encouraged; reactive negativity is discouraged.

Self-sustained positivity is in many instances like stirring a glass of dirty water. At first, the water appears to be clean and clear, but when someone "stirs it up" by saying how much they love something, the dirty sediment at the bottom of the glass rises, and fouls the water.

I would expect agreement from the moderators on this general view, as they seem to likewise discourage negative statements about my experiences on "that other thread." ...Unless I'm missing some sort of underlying principle which makes the one OK, and the other _verboten._


----------

